Talk:Cabot Circus

NPOV
There is currently a lot of coverage in the article of how people responded negatively to the development, but absolutely none about how people responded positively. From the news on TV it sounded like it was almost universally liked. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

However coverage on the TV does not equate to reality - there were protests against the development at it's inception and on the day of launch, which has been added and referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.26.136 (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Local media (BBC and Archant for sure) seemed to spent a lot of resources doing Cabot Circus special features. They're not likely to come out and say "oh, we've been wasting your/our money for months because this is a white elephant" were they? 86.53.37.59 (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that it'll be hard to find a neutral point of view until the novelty has worn off and people's opinions settle from either neophilia or inertia and come into line with the real facts (whatever they are). I don't think the negative comments about community impact can be justified or discredited until we've had time to see what the community impact actually is. Napalm Llama (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been a concerted attempt by "anti-capitalists" in Bristol to stir up opposition to the redevelopment of Broadmead. There are also now messages in "blogsphere" encoraging editing of this article to reflect that, e.g.. Of the current article, over 50% of the words are currently in the "Criticisms" section, which is utterly absurd, and clearly a result of local activists' POV edits to the article. Since the references to "criticism" are just local blog entries, a sensible suggestion is to bring the "criticism" section here to the talk page until something even vaguely NPOV and not just a reflection of anti-capitalist blog writers can be constructed. Fig (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea. I have just gone and removed stuff referenced to blogs, which violates WP:RS. I'm unsure if indymedia meets RS. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's better, although I'm not sure that Indymedia does meet RS. Fig (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Blogs can be a primary source, so using them to justify individual claims (because they contain photos showing a situation, for example) doesn't necessarily violate WP:RS, does it? I'd also call Indymedia newswire a primary source, subject to the same limits, while Indymedia features and Bristle are published media, also available in print. 86.53.37.59 (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No. The point is that anyone can set up a blog and post anything to it. That doesnt then make it material sound for a wiki reference. Likewise with Indymedia, anyone can post a news-story, without any factual basis if they want. That doesnt make it news, or reference-worthy. There is already a trend in Bristol of activists (often from political parties) posting stories to Indymedia (under pseudonym) and then referencing their own story in other places. Wikipedia rises above this kind of nonsense. Likewise the flikr photo - anyone could have taken that after setting it up themselves (I'm not suggesting they did, or that there arent enough cycle places). I could go down with a mate, throw tomato ketchup over him, take a photo, and then post it to a blog saying that he was assaulted by a crazed La Senza employee wielding a very sharp G-string. Doesnt make it worthy of Wiki. Fig (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll leave the all-flickr-photographers-are-liars point, but how can anyone ever substantiate that there are only 8 bike racks to your satisfaction? It's not something the site owners are going to admit in their publications and apparently a Bristol Cycling Campaign publication isn't reputable enough for you solely because it's hosted on blogspot?  (By the way, there was a bogus claim of 2600 car spaces (adding a hundred to the official figure) and an unsubstantiated claim of free park-and-ride; and I agree that Indymedia articles are equivalent to blogs, but Indymedia features are approved by BIMC.) 86.53.37.59 (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If the mainstream media had adequately reported these criticisms in the first place, then alternative media and other outlets would not be so necessary. If this can't be logically seen to be the case, then it would appear that the agenda is to squeeze out all dissent, both in mainstream and via alternative outlets, or to label them as 'militant liberals' if the above can't be disingenuously achieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.137.35 (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to this, so not sure if this is the correct way to enter things. I generally agree with the criticisms, but find the use of italics and CAPITALS to be very 'shouty'. I would prefer all the criticisms to be in plain text, with only the 'BIG BUSINESS DEVELOPERS' in italics in plain text too. Visually speaking that would improve the NPOV as readers would not be intentionally drawn directly to the criticisms. Can someone do this for me. Not sure how to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.137.35 (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone in my house edited it for me. They left the banner drop in italics too, because it seemed suitable because it was a banner, and not just italicised because it was quoted comment. Hope this is ok with everyone. Seems reasonable to me to more or less standardise the text in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.137.35 (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Adding an extra note about grammar. As it was the Bristolian which initally capitalised 'BIG BUSINESS DEVELOPERS'. Then an interesting point of discussion in itself is whether this kind of capitalisation should be removed to visually help NPOV an article. Substituting most of the capitals for italics is a compromise, which helps prevent visual cues drawing people immediately to a particular point in the article, if it is disputed.

Adding 'from the Militant Liberals' to the Controversy section hardly NPOV's the article. It is a completely made up term, and non-existent label which nobody uses or subscribes to. Such additions indicate that those opposing these criticisms are hardly seeking balance, but have a rather crude desire to unbalance the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.137.35 (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I will also note that considering the racial controversy over 'Merchants Quarter' labelling all those members of the black community as 'Militant Liberals' also, who attended meetings prior to it's building, sails dangerously close to the wind of racism, if not already blowing up a gale which could easily spill over from this talk section and become a newsitem in it's own terms! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.137.35 (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Transport
As one of the authors of the Bristol Traffic blog; the Bristol Cycling Campaign's photo essay on the transportation, can I say that no, a blog does not constitute an authenticated source of information. Would an explicit press release by the Bristol Cycling Campaign be suitable? What about the radio interview which took place on Radio Bristol this morning? Or would you prefer a formal statement from the council cycling officers? All of these can be arranged. Alternatively, I could do a video walk round of the area and you can see for yourself that there are about 8 sheffield racks in the quakers bit of the development, and nothing in the core []. There is also no coverage in cabot circus's own web site [], in their walk or bike setion.

Also, can we separate transport issues from other aspects of the criticism. I propose three sections I don't know what the economics of the place are; I think they've been very unlucky with their timing of opening. But there's no explanation why there is no parking for bikes in the main part of the compound, and what little there is does not comply with the regional planning requirements (which we have to hand). SteveL, Bristol Cycling Campaign. SteveLoughran (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Naming: the name debacle
 * Economics: one to watch. Its fairly opionated, but will become clearer over time.
 * Transport: tangible, testable, easily verified.

I've updated the transport section with current links to park and ride and parking; included a ref to the parking in the covered area (none) separately from the Quaker's Friars corner (8 racks, we think). We in the Bristol Cycling Campaign are prepared to license our photographs in a wikipedia compatible license if that will aid the reporting. Also, here are the relevant notes from the september 25 Bristol Cycle Forum; the intermittent meeting between cycling groups and the council. These are not the official minutes, they are my notes, so their accuracy may be disputed: Cabot Circus. No bike parking yet. Bristol Alliance. Will be included (but not in the pedestrian area?) Penn, merchant and fairfax. explore access routes to N and east. Meeting on Monday with city design team, #1 agenda item is bike parking. Add a request for cycle lockers/bike boxes. Why is this late? Political: Cabot Circus was pushed as the counterpoint to Cribbs Causeway. Gave the green light to the circus 5 years ago, at a time in which cycling it wasn't a requirement. EP had a map of parking in Cabot Circus. (maybe it was made up) A cyclehub proposed opposite Castle Mead which will have offices for bike orgs, retail element, parking. Had intended to have shopmobility there but cycle hub on corner of lower castle street and Broadweir. Discussed goals: covered, secure, accessible. Signage. Terry: No signage away from Cabot Circus. SteveL Road from temple meads: junction for cars is aligned so that bikes running the light are in the blind spot of cars pulling out. No safety audit yet. Flag all of these up on the Bristol Streets .co.uk site. Make the suggestions on their and it will get picked up by the council. The conclusion here is that it was just neglected, the cyclists not viewed as important. However, in the last year we have discovered political activism is needed to defend our existing routes and rights, and this, combined with the cycling city win, means that the lack of bike parking facilities could look bad. SteveLoughran (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I add there seems to be bugger all facilities for motorbikes too. SteveLoughran (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Can the lack of bike racks be taken off the discussion, we are now one month after opening and there are more bike racks than shops in cabot circus, they were just installed after the center opened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.192.231 (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I will go and check. What we can say is that they did it late, and so it is correct to say "there was controversy at opening". Motorbike parking is still is an issue. Here's the content from a mail from Customer services on 2008-10-20

Due to the need to get the centre open we had a few items which we hadn’t had time to install – motorcycle parking is one of them. We will be installing bays for this soon but in the meantime the car parking bays are available.

Sorry for the inconvenience but this will be rectified soon.
 * and a followup on the same day from the Car Parks manager.

Whilst we are waiting for the permanent bike bays, can I suggest that you use the ground floor underneath the central stairs.


 * There you have it. SteveLoughran (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone able to open http://www.cabotcircus.com/Comgenic.Manager.Images/Bike%20Racks.pdf and cite it for the number of bike spaces? It kills my PDF viewer every time. It seems like vandalism just to delete all mention of non-car parking spaces from this article, rather than correct it. 86.53.37.59 (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * opens in the Linux Gnome PDF viewer; shows a ring of bike parks round the covered area. Direct emails to our "bristol traffic" project imply they are there. The new Ashton-Vale to Temple Meads BRT proposal may include running Bendy-Buses Bus Rapid Transit past the development, improving access to trains and parts of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLoughran (talk • contribs) 22:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Facts Section
All these have simply been copied straight from the official website (http://www.cabotcircus.com/website/AboutUs.aspx under 'Interesting Facts'), I don't think this qualifies as 'fair use', should it be removed?--137.222.91.92 (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I have removed it entirely. --TimTay (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

M32
The M32 is about a kilometre away, so can whoever keeps re-adding a claim that the car park is accessible from the M32 please go look at a map? Thanks. 86.53.37.59 (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

On checking, the "end of the M32" lie seems to have come from the CabotCircus.com website, which calls the accuracy of that site (and so references 7 and 8 for this article) into question, doesn't it? 86.53.37.59 (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As you drive off the end of the M32, it continues onto a short section of dual carriageway off which the Cabot Circus car park is located. I don't need to look at a map as I have lived in the area since 1980. --TimTay (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it couldn't be much closer to the end of the M32 without actually being on it. By far the easiest way of getting to Cabot Circus from out of town.  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 09:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically, the M32 ends at the St Paul's Roundabout. The road from there to Cabot Circus is an urban dual-carriageway with lower speed limits and a set of lights. That's theory. In practise, everyone drives like it is the M32, with the appropriate rules about speed and traffic lights (hence the red-light cameras on the lights). Similarly, when leaving the car park, you turn right to get to the M32, you are then straight in to the motorway system. The A-road is essentially cars only (as a motorway is), though that is because it is so dangerous compared to cycling on the alternate routes on either side of it. Therefore to all intents and purposes, Cabot Circus is at the end of the M32. SteveLoughran (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Considerate Constructors Scheme
In this article it states that Cabot Circus was denied a certificate of compliance from Considerate Constructors Scheme, but in reference 1 in BREEAM's fact file for Cabot Circus it states that it received an average of 33 out of 40, which suggests otherwise. It would be useful to back up the claim that air pollution from dust etc caused the denial of a certificate of compliance three times over, otherwise it looks unlikely in light of the BREEAM pdf file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.135.143 (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

List of stores
I have removed the speculative line "HSBC Bank will open its largest UK branch with over 60 customer-facing staff. " as I could find no evidence to support the claim, and believe the branch to have opened already. Bristol locals are welcome to put it back, I've unfortunately recently left the city. I'm not certain there's much value in this section, but have spruced up the language slightly anyway. Match (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)