Someone e-mailed me to say he would object to the proposal to either demolish the Kings Arms or erect a building rising as high as depicted but that he doubts that is what the developer intends.


Ahem, my mistake for not including a link to the developers own public-relations web-site. It is: www.sci-kingsarms.info at which you can see the truth of what I report in their summary of what they propose and their own “artists impression”.


To confirm, the proposal is for a building of FIVE STOREYS (which is one more than the Kings Arms itself) excluding service superstructures, either covering the entire site (with the pub completely removed), covering the entire site behind the retained façade of the pub or incorporating the pub with AN EXTRA STOREY EXTENDING OVER IT FROM THE MAIN BUILDING BEHIND.


No specific design is shown, so the developers own “artists impression” is, like mine, of a “generic” nature. Or I should hope so, as it looks obscene, especially being in that it is the colour of the projectile vomit ejaculated by Linda Blair in “The Exorcist”.


However, their “artists impression” demonstrably employs “artistic licence”, or as someone once said, economy with the truth. A building of that bulk will of necessity require internal services being at the very least a stairwell, a fire-escape and in all likelihood ventilation and lift shaft. Look at any such building and you will notice that such basic provisions are usually reflected in super-structures on top of the occupied levels. Although in some cases these are disguised as an extra floor, to create the impression of an uncluttered roof, we can be sure the developers intend to cram every last hapless inmate into every available metre of the building, therefore forcing such services to the roof. Hence, in my “artists impression”, the generic circular plan structure atop the main five storeys. Notice also that I have kept the depicted building in scale with the rest of the image. Moreover, it is a paste-up of part of a real building in Bristol as is the service structure on the roof.


As regards occupancy, the developers do not say. Itself a bad sign. But on general form you could safely assume that they would get at least ten, perhaps more occupants onto each of the five floors. Hence my estimate of between fifty and a hundred. By the way, even if this were not appalling in itself, don’t forget that nobody can in truth ban a student from owning a car (whatever fairy-tale agreement you might get them to sign). So that’s maybe fifty plus cars as well. Where the hell…and I DO MEAN HELL (before such an invasion known as High Kingsdown) …would they go?