Alternatives, retaining some houses.
The proposed plan, exhibited to residents in February 2006, shows a design which has already evolved since March 2004.  The design has merit and, whether intended or not, one merit is that its modular structure means that further adaptation would be less difficult.

The new plan has aligned itself with the existing grid of streets and some of these streets are being retained, including many street trees.  Nine new blocks are planned which straddle, and would obliterate, alternate streets.

Removing just Block 5 and Block 6 from the design would allow the whole of Madryn Street to be retained, flanked by one side of each of Kinmel and Powis Streets.  (The "pocket park" would need to be relocated, perhaps to Voelas Street.)

Approximately 90 traditional terraced houses would then be retained in place of about 60 new dwellings.  However, there could be some two-into-one conversions and/or some loft style refurbishments, particularly where the state of the building is bad.

If the central "spine", the extended Pengwern Street, is thought essential there could even be a breach in the middle of Madryn Street - although that would diminish the retained character of the traditional street to some extent.

The frontage on High Park Street, between Kinmel and Powis Streets could be newbuild so that the character of the settlement would appear more or less intact and allay anxieties that "critical mass" or "momentum" is being lost.

To retain houses in Kelvin Grove, the 3-sided design of Block 9 could be applied to Block 1 and Block 2.  (Again a breach is possible to connect Kelvin Grove to the extended Pengwern Street.)

The potential ugliness of rear-of-terrace aspects of Kelvin Grove could be mitigated by a unified colour paint or rendering and there might be opportunities for creative public art.  Over time, mature trees could replace quick growing climbing plants to effect some screening.

A further alternative would be to incorporate existing Kelvin Grove houses as one edge of the 4-sided block design, offering existing residents the advantages of the new shared courtyards.  

Retention of the large 5-bedroomed terraces would add to the diversity and favour extended families.
This is not a design proposal. It is just an exploration of one possibility to see whether there could be alternatives that leave more people better off.

Nobody likes to see people forcibly removed from their homes, but in March 2004 the door was closed to residents who wished to negotiate on the possibility of saving their houses.

Yet the design has changed and evolved since then.

Could it now be adapted further by blending in some of the existing houses?