Marvin Rees’ pledge to build 2,000 new homes a year by 2020 undoubtedly helped secure his victory in the 2016 mayoral elections.

But the mayor’s aspirations for Bristol’s skyline to grow “to reflect that of a bold, ambitious city” has set alarm bells ringing in some quarters that this will lead to an influx of imposing tower blocks, which will only serve to isolate residents and “uglify” the landscape.

“This is the end of Bristol as we know it,” argues Matthew Montague-Pollock, who has launched a campaign against tower blocks and is calling for a city referendum on the matter.

Support

independent journalism Bristol24/7 relies on your support to remain independent. If you like what we do and you want us to keep reporting, become a member for just £45 for the year Join now

The snappily-titled Urban Living Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) lies at the heart of fierce debate over how the city should progress.

Commissioned by the city council, it makes the case for how “well-located, well-designed tall buildings” can be desirable and states that such developments will be encouraged in areas where they are “likely to have a positive impact on the socio-economic health of a neighbourhood”.

“Tall buildings can provide memorable landmarks which help people navigate their way around the city,” states the document, which is designed to add further guidance to the policies in the Bristol Local Plan, which in turn acts as a planning blueprint.

The SPD also recognises that “a poorly located, poorly designed” tall building can have a detrimental impact and lead to residents feeling isolated.

Plans for Bristol’s tallest tower have been given the go-ahead on the former ambulance station site on the edge of Castle Park – rising up to 26 storeys over the park and Old Market the other side of Temple Way.

Work is also underway on the Redcliff Quarter regeneration project, in which developers responded to the Rees’ call to “build high” with the inclusion of a 22-storey tower. To put size into context, Castlemead on Lower Castle Street is currently Bristol’s tallest at 19 storeys high, and the Colston Tower on Colston Street sits at 18 storeys.

The SPD document recognises this can be a “highly emotive and subjective issue”, and that public debate should be expected and encouraged. Good job – because a debate is what it has sparked. But it is not entirely one-sided.

The challenge of needing to deliver 33,500 new homes in Bristol to meet the needs of a growing population by 2036 is a significant one. Add to that the constraints of a city surrounded by green belt and conservation sites, limited space to build, an unprecedented influx of people and a serious housing crisis.

That is not an excuse for scaling upwards, argues Nick Townsend, chair of Windmill Hill and Malago Community Planning Group (WHaM), who has played a key role in mobilising public response to the SPD consultation and is a fierce opponent of the council’s directive.

Referring to the recent consultation, which saw some 85 per cent of respondents reject the call for tall buildings, he says: “I am extremely concerned that the consultation has been ignored. This policy will fundamentally change the skyline of Bristol, to the detriment of our communities.

“The SPD encourages very high buildings. They will increase anonymity and social isolation. They’ll reduce wellbeing and they will not create the kind of housing we so badly need for Bristol. People in Bristol do not want high buildings, disconnected from the surrounding areas they overshadow.”

Nicola Beech, Labour’s cabinet member for spatial planning and city design, argues that the SPD document is not a “manifesto to fill the city with height”, but a set of quality-assurance guidelines to safeguard Bristol and its communities.

“I’m not building towers anywhere, I’m trying to make sure we get the best deal for the city,” she tells Bristol24/7.

“Height is one thing and I’m glad that debate is there, because it’s important for us to respond, but this document is an attempt to front up to developers and make clear our expectations – not a manifesto of height and a vision for Bristol.”

Beech – whose Twitter bio calls her a “property bod by day, Faux Bristolian by night” – says she understands the concerns, but argues that not to discuss density and height in 2018 would be remiss.

“We cannot stand still if we are going to create good places for everyone to live in, establishing a Bristol where no one gets left behind,” Beech says.

Addressing the fears about changes to Bristol’s skyline, she adds: “It’s not a museum, it’s a living thing. 33,500 residents need to be housed in this city by 2036 – we have huge housing need.”

Pippa Goldfinger, head of programme at The Architecture Centre, warns that in the rush to provide much-needed housing, we must ensure that we don’t replace one problem with another.

“The density of a city can be increased in a variety of ways: building on empty plots and brownfield sites, using ‘space left over after planning’ and using existing building stock efficiently,” she says.

“We can also build tall. Building tall is expensive, it requires more sophisticated construction techniques, additional features such as lifts and plant. With a weak planning system, there is a danger that affordability targets will not be met as developers wrangle with the local authorities over ‘viability’.”

Goldfinger adds that recent regeneration projects such as Wapping Wharf and the latest development of the Paintworks on Bath Road are examples of “relatively high density” housing done well, and in a way that benefits both residents and the wider public, with their attractive communal offerings.

Yuli Cadney-Toh, an architect director at multi-disciplinary firm BDP’s Bristol studio and advocate for building high, believes that we are at risk of getting distracted by the skyline debate.

“As a city, we need to define with clarity and vision the positive contribution we want these developments to make to their surrounding streets, city quarter, the environment and beyond – with that vision, the built environment will follow,” she says.

“The true value to a city of tall buildings, or indeed any buildings, is not in ‘how high’ but in how we want them to contribute to the public realm, businesses, employment, sustainability and quality of life on the ground.

“This is a city with huge potential and there is no reason why it cannot meet the needs of its communities. We believe taller buildings of high design quality are an important ingredient in the creation of sustainable cities that work for the people who live in them.”

Tom Brigden, an architect who works for conservation specialist Purcell, has just published a book on the topic entitled Value in the View: Conserving Historic Urban Views, says he is unsurprised by the controversy surrounding the topic – with talk of height conjuring up images of “impermeable walls of slab” – but points out that well-designed landmark buildings can add to the character and identity of a city.

“I don’t see any reason why the city shouldn’t choose to grow and develop taller buildings, so long as development proposals are of high quality, respond to their contexts and mitigate their impacts upon views of heritage buildings and/or conservation areas. It comes down to the quality of the architecture, and appropriate mitigation.”

The case for building high:

“I want Bristol’s skyline to grow. Years of low-level buildings and a reluctance to build up in an already congested city is something I am keen to change,” said Marvin Rees in his 2016 State of the City address.

Upon the launch of the draft SPD, he said: “We have the opportunity to be more ambitious in order to meet our growth requirements, while at the same time protecting the unique character of Bristol.

“We need to take bold and innovative steps to make Bristol a joined up city, linking up people with jobs and with each other.

“Most areas of Bristol do have the potential to accommodate more growth and regeneration, which would see an increase in housing densities.

“This is about creating good places to live for everyone and, importantly, establishing new neighbourhoods which everyone has a stake in, and importantly, where noone gets left behind.”

The case against building high:

“I know from my own experience that there’s no way that towers provide an equivalent quality of life to a house or a mid-rise flat with a communal garden,” said Matthew Montagu-Pollock, an entrepreneur who launched the Bristol Campaign Against Tower Blocks.

“Our mayor came from a poor background and looked up and saw the high rises of London and Manchester and thought: “That is the answer – aspirational cities build high.” But it is an uneducated answer.

“The richest cities of Europe are determined to preserve their historic mid-rise profiles, because it makes for happier, greener, more liveable cities, which will attract talent and give them the economic power to grow and prosper.

“Bristol is so beautiful, and it is a tragedy to uglify it on the basis of a mistaken diagnoses of the solution to the housing crisis. High rises are more expensive to build – they won’t solve your housing crisis.”

Read more: ‘Another city signing up for middling towers speaks of a lack of imagination