You may have seen on the news recently Gary Neville and Ryan Giggs's £200m plans to redevelop part of central Manchester. Their scheme, which includes two skyscrapers, a five-star hotel, flats and restaurants is in the Bootle Street area between Albert Square and Deansgate.
This is development is a good thing you may think, regenerating an area of the city that badly needs it. Everybody doesn’t agree though. Opinion among Mancunians is split. Some have described the towers as “two massive turds pointing to the sky.” yet those in favour simply say the critics “just don’t like change”.
The Scheme
The scheme itself is known as the St Michael's development and is close to the historic Manchester Town Hall. Two tall buildings dominate the development, one being 31 Storey, the other 21. They contain a 200-bed five-star hotel, 153 apartments, 135,000 sq ft of Grade A offices, retail and leisure space oh, and a synagogue.
To allow the development to happen Bootle Street's former 1930s police station goes as does the historic Sir Ralph Abercromby pub which dates back to the Peterloo Massacre. So you can see the argument already developing – heritage versus modern.
Historic England have said they’re "deeply concerned" about the project, and that "It would have an impact on people's appreciation and experience of the stunning town hall and library but it would also erase different layers of this area's history, irreparably damaging the special character of the surrounding conservation area," they reckon "A dynamic city like ours needs to fully embrace development but this scheme is not good enough to justify the damage it would cause to the streets around the site and to the setting of the city's most important buildings and spaces." They also added it "threatened Manchester" with the loss of buildings "that have soul and tell important stories about our city's past".
Hmmm, fairly damning comments there, but do they have a point? – Possibly!!
Pro’s
Manchester is and always has been a progressive city with an increasing population and it needs to cater for all needs, I'm sure if it was on offer there would be plenty of other cities which would jump at this sort of investment.
There is a view amongst many that all this heritage stuff is nonsense. The area has been largely forgotten and this development will breathe new life into it. The pub is very quiet and rarely visited these days. The police station was closed a number of years ago and the current synagogue is in serious disrepair, so the time is right to get rid and replace the whole area with a fit for purpose, modern facility akin to that in Spinningfields.
Con’s
Just because it is big doesn’t mean it’s good. The buildings proposed are an appalling eyesore. Many think the location is not appropriate for towers of this size. The spoiled views across the city skyline are also cited as an issue.
The towers proposed have zero architectural merit, they're just the usual metal/glass box with no particular merit much like a lot of the crap that's been thrown up in the City of London. If they had the architectural merit of say the Shard there might be an argument to be made but they don't.
There are also fears the design, height and awful colour of the 31 and 21-storey towers will dominate the Deansgate/Peter Street conservation area and dwarf the nationally important Grade II listed Central Library and Grade I-listed Town Hall. There is also the loss of the 18th century pub which is believed to be the only nearby building with a direct link to the 1819 Peterloo Massacre.
There’s also an argument, not strictly relevant, that neither Giggs or Neville need to make any more money, if they want to build, then why not build affordable homes? That way they’re giving something back to the city that enabled them to become millionaires.
So where do I stand?
I'm all in favour of regeneration but come on, this development looks awful. Albert Square is one is the very few places in Manchester with pretty clear views due to the relatively low level of buildings surrounding it. Those two towers would just dominate and overpower the area.
I don’t think anyone is against developing this area of the city, however, for me, the proposal is wrong for this location. The problem with developments in historic areas of most major cities is one of scale. Why does it have to dwarf the surrounding buildings? A development smaller in size and appropriate to the area wouldn't be a problem (if these towers were half or a third of the height it would be acceptable) but they totally overwhelm that part of the city centre.
Its surprising that there aren’t more development options to the site put forward for consideration. These could have explored what key heritage buildings could have been utilised. Could the stone-fronted front section of the former police station, the pub and the former synagogue be integrated somehow? Surely there must be ways of inserting a reasonably large development between these buildings. Incorporating and giving the heritage buildings new uses would still revitalise the area.
Another thought. Can the pub be moved to another location as happened with Sinclairs and The Old Wellington when the area they sat in was redeveloped? There again Tommy Ducks was pulled down overnight by Greenalls the day before the council was to award it listed status, history could repeat itself here I fear.
What I’m saying can be done. On the other side of the Town Hall, in St Peter's Square there is not one but three buildings which reflect the Town Hall and Central library. One built in the 60's and two just built. All respect the historic context of the site they're in. This development doesn’t.
It certainly seems to me that this is an ‘all or nothing’ comprehensive redevelopment similar in nature to that of the 50s and 60s where it is all cleared and then started again.
Spinningfields was a major success but even there incorporation of heritage buildings isn’t good, the density of glass and steel around Rylands Library (possibly the grandest building in the city) are hardly complimentary to it! Also, directly opposite the Town Hall in Albert square we've got some (albeit low rise) unappealing 70s buildings - but that shouldn’t mean to say there's crap there so let's build some more crap!
So for me, drop the towers to a more palatable height and incorporate the historic buildings (even if it’s just the pub and frontage of the Police Station) into the scheme and bingo, we have a scheme I’d wholeheartedly back. I’m not naive though, I know this won’t happen because Neville and Giggs (and their backers) won’t get the return they need from their investment on a reduced scheme so like I said above, it’s all or nothing!
Game-Changer
The project is a game-changer for Manchester, it’s exactly the sort of project that will force other areas of the city to up their game (such as Piccadilly), however it’s got to be done right! What Manchester needs is the right investment in the right project, not trashing a load of excellent older buildings in a vanity project.
I know from experience, Heritage England can be difficult at the best of times but if they describe an application which could "erase" the area's history then the Planning Officer has a serious problem. There is a section in the National Planning Policy Framework that can override the decision based on heritage impact alone and disregard the positive benefits such as economics from the application so getting it right is essential.
As a city, Manchester must grow and it must evolve. This is the price of progress, however the best cities value progress, and think properly about their growth. Building anything, anywhere isn't progress. Neither is building nothing!
Unlikely I know, but I just hope that the developers look at it again and do right by Manchester. I want the city to get a development which will truly benefit its city centre, its residents and it’s visitors.
Glad to see ur back blogging Mark.
ReplyDeleteAlways and amusing read.