Jump to content

Talk:Cardiff Bay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Commentary

[edit]

I'm reverting the sports village section - we need to keep it balanced. Someone (probably a devil's fan) keeps changing it to a 'moan' about lack of progress. It needs to be balanced, and that means pointing it reasons for and against whats occured three, pointing out the official position and possible doubts. Its not the place for unsubstantiated opinions.

I'm changing the section on the sports village - is is very POV. This is not the place for a moan - stick to facts only.

This is an article about the physical environment of Cardiff Bay, its successes and failures. It should reflect the 'common view' and be neither a hyped up marketing brochure, nor an overly negative and political attack on the city and its authorities. I've tidied up some things which were overly 'biased' towards negativity and comments regarding such things as the Leckwith stadium (this is not the place for a moan). Always qualify anything you say which is an opinion as "some feel" or "it is possible" or "arguably, etc". Don't use such terms as "point out" or others that convey an authority that you don't have. Only facts should be done in such a manner. - unsigned comment from various IP editors

I don't know the area except through the media, so I'm not the person to fix it: but I agree with the above. I've added an unreferenced tag to the Cardiff Bay Today and Looking Ahead section, as it's a completely unsourced essay introduced in a single anonymous edit [1]. . Arguably, Cardiff Bay has become ... (who argues that?) and so on. I think it should be removed and that section rewritten from scratch from proper sources. Tearlach 20:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it will show my IP or something, but I'm the anonymous editor that added teh 'unsourced essay'. I changed previous POV points that made statements to add "some people argue" "arguably" "potentially" etc to ensure opinions regarding the bay were not stated as fact. I'm aware of wikipedia's rather staid rules on referencing, but feel in an article on a topic such as Cardiff Bay where there are not really any standard main sources, per se, more a myriad collection of news stories, articles online, physical observations etc, that such a rigid article form is unnecessary, constraining and potentially counteractive. I could look for links to a few sources that could corroborate some of the things I say (e.g. to office developers, or to a few critical articles in the guardian, or to housing developers), but this would be an incredibly time consuming job (and one I dont think anyone here relishes) and would leave much of the piece still unreferenced, but nonetheless containing important facts (obtained from various local newspaper articles, random leaflets, actual observations), and a few different opinions clearly labelled as such. So I'm going to put it back in for now. I think the 'old hands' on wikipedia need to move away from their bureaucratic rules on the more minor and less technical and controversial articles - to allow the 'online community' to actually work and not be stullified by onerous rules, regulations, precendent and box-ticking. - unsigned edit by User:82.13.91.181

Umm ... I know it's a PITA with some topics, but it still needs sourcing. It can be OK to leave generally-agreed and self-evident stuff in, and let others find sources. But this is a big chunk of text making a lot of non-obvious assertions that you need to show aren't just some agenda-driven personal take on the subject. To be honest, I think it looks a pretty fair assessment. But it needs to be demonstrably so. Changing POV statements to "some people argue", "arguably", "potentially" doesn't make them NPOV; it just takes them into the scope of WP:Weasel. 86.141.147.92 02:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


That is simply another problem for 'small pages' like this - wikipedia was designed as a rather bureaucratic encyclopedia for referencing major topics where sources are readily available, citeable etc. However, the scope of wikipedia has now expanded to include a vast array of much more 'minor' topics, including descriptions of new buildings, small sports teams, local housing estates, annual village fetes etc. And on many of these, 'weasel words' are the only way in which points of view can be put across in a way that makes it evident that they are opinions not facts. Often the people holding and expressing such opinions are simply local residents, or interested citizens who do not write it in an article, or are not important enough to have a webpage detailing their views - they might talk about it in person, or write to the local parish council newsletter, or post it on a message board online. And in compiling my contribution to this article these are the kinds of sources I use.

One of the founders of wikipedia has recently left the organisation citing it is "broken and unreliable" because of the unverifiable nature of much of the work. I disagree - the science, key historical, biographical etc pages are well monitored and well sourced. I just get the impression a lot of the original wikipedians were obsessive archivists hell-bent on following the letter of the rulebook even where that is counterproductive. On smaller pages such as Cardiff Bay, such an approach is heavy-handed as I argue above. Simply listing what Cardiff Bay contains is hardly as informative or interesting as detailing some of the debates as to what future developmetns are likely and informed local opinion on the success/failure of the project. I'm going to look more closely at what can be 'partly' backed up with links to relevent newspaper articles, forums and other sources - but I think it will be a shame if the page has 40 references at the bottom linking to every single newspaper article in the guardian or western mail detailing the Bay. Plus not to mention a nightmare to do.. and a nightmare not worth for minor pages such as this one.

Essay for sourcing

[edit]

Moved from article as unsourced. Tearlach 02:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The waterfront, its restaurants and twinkling waters are an undoubted draw for visitors with figures from the turn of the century indicating roughly 2 million visitors per year. Since then, this has likely risen considerably following the completion of many new attractions. Since its redevelopment, Cardiff Bay has also become a fashionable venue for media-hungry events and exhibitions. The Bay has hosted the start of several boating and yachting events, and has acquired a cachet for international events. The area thrives by day, but also comes alive at night with its maze of clubs and up-market restaurants.

Arguably, Cardiff Bay has become a tour de force of post-modern civic design, and it is well known not only throughout the UK as an interesting destination, but also internationally for its regeneration and important new architecture. Together with the London Docklands it is recognised as one of the UK's main urban regeneration 'success stories'. Many Heritage buildings have also been retained, particuarly around Mount Stuart Square, and the Bay area possesses a distinctive character reminiscent of both old and new Cardiff. However praise is not universal and some developments are criticised for being under-ambitious and suburban, in particular Lloyd George Avenue, Mermaid Quay and the Red Dragon Centre. At the time these developments took place though, it is difficult to ascertain whether higher density / more ambitious proposals were feasible, and the critical mass these early developments provided was a crucial factor enabling the later developments that make the older ones appear out-dated.

Whilst known as a leisure and entertainment district, the single largest source of investment has been residential and the housing constructed is of generally high density, in keeping with the government's plans for brownfield development. Some have misgivings about this arguing that it is preventing the development of a true community, including young families in the bay area. House prices are high by local, although not national standards, and with many of the properties snapped up by 'buy to let' speculators, first time buyers are not as common as they young age profile would suggest. Some have argued that some of the housing developments, particularly in the early Atlantic Wharf projects are of low quality, and worry that these districts may enter a period of slow decline. Later residential developments on the bay itself are generally seen to be of higher quality. To date, some 8000 housing units have been constructed and there are a further 3000 units (approx) either under construction or proposed through to 2013 across the former Cardiff Bay Development Corporation district with most to be constructed on the Ferry Road Peninsula (Bay Pointe), to the north of Century Wharf and south of Roath Basin.

Cardiff Bay's profile as an office location has long been disappointing given initial job creation targets. Current office space across the former CBDC is approximately 170,000 square metres, with about 75,000 in the 'bay proper'. New proposals for development at both Capital Waterside and Roath Basin Southside will together provide over 160,000 square metres of class A office space and facilities targeted at the biosciences and the media and creative industries. It should be noted that this is scheduled to take place over several years with the first phase at Capital Waterside likely to be 6,000 square metres. Smaller developments include Merchant Place (10,000 square metres), the Coal Exchange (3,000 square metres) and new constructions in Ocean Park totalling 12,000 square metres. Callaghan Square, closer to the city centre, has a total of 16,000 square metres under construction with another 18,000 proposed.

The proposed International Sports Village (ISV) on the Ferry Road peninsula has progressed less quickly than originally hoped, and completion in time to be used as a 2012 Olympic training venue is now in doubt given Cardiff's failure in its bid for the "Super Casino" licence. The density of housing and retail elements has been scaled up, reflecting commercial necessities, ensuring a mix-used scheme that makes best use of the minimal available space left to develop in the bay area; however, these have entailed a scaling-back of some aspects of the proposed development (such as an athletics stadium). At present the only buildings completed or under construction include a Morrisons superstore, the largest Toys-r-Us in Europe, and temporary timber framed ice rink that replaces the one demolished as part of the St Davids II development in the city centre. Construction of a 50m pool and leisure water complex is well under way; completion of this, together with the proposed "Welsh National Canoe and Rafting Centre" is scheduled to take place in 2007, at which time the main residential element will commence over a 6 year time-frame.

merger with Tiger Bay?

[edit]

Considering the geographical association, why isn't this page merged with Tiger Bay? It's a defining part of its history.

An alternative is to make a clear link back to Tiger Bay and develop the article as the 'history' section - and do the same with CBDC as the 'development' section, leaving space for a good overview of the bay as it is today? Tony (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St David's Hotel

[edit]

I have had a look on the website of the Leading Hotels of the World, but St David's is not listed there. In fact, there is no Welsh hotel at all, so this cannot be right! Unless someone else finds a prove for that, I would suggest to have this comment removed. Andiloew (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

[edit]

The coordiantes are wrong. I folled the link to google and ended up in the Mouth of the Severn, close to Burnham-on-sea! Andiloew (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed the coordinates. Andiloew (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there any protest?

[edit]

Didn't anyone protest turning a tidal bay into a 'redevelopment?' Weren't there any creatures that depended on the tides going out for their survival? Wasn't any ecosystem consigned to the bottom of the bay here? If not, fine.... Createangelos (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was sustained protest (and a couple of demonstrations) for the reasons you suggest, as well as the risk of rising water levels to local communities. The existing residents of Butetown also felt they were being by-passed, rather than benefitting from the development. I agree, the article is somewhat pro-CBDC, but the news sources about the protests are probably offline somewhere. Sionk (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cardiff Bay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cardiff Bay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cardiff Bay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cardiff_Bay&oldid=1205025620"