This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/20/manchester-historic-buildings-skyscrapers-ryan-giggs-gary-neville

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Don’t trash Manchester’s history to make way for skyscrapers Don’t trash Manchester’s history to make way for skyscrapers
(about 1 hour later)
Ryan Giggs and Gary Neville’s St Michael’s skyscrapers are two of many such towers currently proposed for Manchester’s city centre. The former footballers’ buildings will sit on the site currently occupied by the Ralph Abercromby pub, the only building remaining from the site of the 1819 Peterloo Massacre, St Peter’s Field. Also threatened by the development are the Manchester Reform synagogue, and the 1930s-built Bootle Street police station, both of which are of huge historical significance to the city.Ryan Giggs and Gary Neville’s St Michael’s skyscrapers are two of many such towers currently proposed for Manchester’s city centre. The former footballers’ buildings will sit on the site currently occupied by the Ralph Abercromby pub, the only building remaining from the site of the 1819 Peterloo Massacre, St Peter’s Field. Also threatened by the development are the Manchester Reform synagogue, and the 1930s-built Bootle Street police station, both of which are of huge historical significance to the city.
As a consequence proposals have come under fierce attack by local campaigners – more than 70% of the public who attended the consultation opposed the scheme – and Historic England have deemed it irreparably damaging to the historical fabric of the conservation area which surrounds it. By and large the dismay boils down to the unsympathetic manner in which the skyscrapers will dominate the townscape around St Peter’s and Albert Square, with considerable negative impact on the built environment. Planning permission is yet to be approved but an apparent disregard for the results of the consultation process by the developers has left an all too familiar bad taste in the mouths of local people who feel that the process was nothing more than lip service.As a consequence proposals have come under fierce attack by local campaigners – more than 70% of the public who attended the consultation opposed the scheme – and Historic England have deemed it irreparably damaging to the historical fabric of the conservation area which surrounds it. By and large the dismay boils down to the unsympathetic manner in which the skyscrapers will dominate the townscape around St Peter’s and Albert Square, with considerable negative impact on the built environment. Planning permission is yet to be approved but an apparent disregard for the results of the consultation process by the developers has left an all too familiar bad taste in the mouths of local people who feel that the process was nothing more than lip service.
There’s good reason that the existing Beetham Tower, City Tower and the CIS Building are so prominent on the current skyline and that’s the scarcity of competition. Not so long ago planners tried to prevent high-rise buildings in a bid to highlight the squat Victorian warehousing of industrial Manchester. They saw fit to deem the prostrate skyline a heritage asset and, while I’m not a believer in setting a place in aspic like this, the U-turn the city has since pulled is at the cost of far too many of our historic treasures.There’s good reason that the existing Beetham Tower, City Tower and the CIS Building are so prominent on the current skyline and that’s the scarcity of competition. Not so long ago planners tried to prevent high-rise buildings in a bid to highlight the squat Victorian warehousing of industrial Manchester. They saw fit to deem the prostrate skyline a heritage asset and, while I’m not a believer in setting a place in aspic like this, the U-turn the city has since pulled is at the cost of far too many of our historic treasures.
While the Neville and Giggs project consists of a five-star hotel and restaurants, it also offers much needed residential units. But where are the facilities for communities – the doctors surgeries, the primary schools, the cultural facilities? St Michael’s will provide some space for public use, which is not to be confused with public space.While the Neville and Giggs project consists of a five-star hotel and restaurants, it also offers much needed residential units. But where are the facilities for communities – the doctors surgeries, the primary schools, the cultural facilities? St Michael’s will provide some space for public use, which is not to be confused with public space.
Developments such as St Michael’s are designed instead with the transient in mind: the buy-to-let landlords; the high-earning long-distance commuters who need a Monday to Thursday crash pad; and presumably other footballers and their entourages. Prices haven’t been discussed but are rumoured to be “very high-end”.Developments such as St Michael’s are designed instead with the transient in mind: the buy-to-let landlords; the high-earning long-distance commuters who need a Monday to Thursday crash pad; and presumably other footballers and their entourages. Prices haven’t been discussed but are rumoured to be “very high-end”.
Not long after Bootle Street police station closed down, I was lucky enough to take a tour of the site. The endless corridors and myriad small rooms and strange subterranean spaces may have been a difficult canvas to redevelop but the former cells, the courtyard, and the proud-looking facade were worthy of some effort at least. Much like the demolition of the nearby Coronation Street set, the potential for a tourist attraction within the new proposal is perhaps something of a missed opportunity. Sure the holding cells are no Alcatraz but prison tourism is a burgeoning industry.Not long after Bootle Street police station closed down, I was lucky enough to take a tour of the site. The endless corridors and myriad small rooms and strange subterranean spaces may have been a difficult canvas to redevelop but the former cells, the courtyard, and the proud-looking facade were worthy of some effort at least. Much like the demolition of the nearby Coronation Street set, the potential for a tourist attraction within the new proposal is perhaps something of a missed opportunity. Sure the holding cells are no Alcatraz but prison tourism is a burgeoning industry.
In Lynn Beedle’s book The Skyscraper and the City: Design, Technology, and Innovation, she argues: “A tall building has to come to terms with the city that is already there … Most importantly it must resolve how it relates to the street’s edge, the pedestrian scale, the existing land use, and the character of the block where it is located.” Are these issues addressed by St Michael’s simply demolishing its surroundings? This certainly seems to be the approach. The texture of the city, its warp and its weft, appear to be of no importance to the footballers nor their international backers. In Lynn Beedle’s book The Skyscraper and the City: Design, Technology, and Innovation, he argues: “A tall building has to come to terms with the city that is already there … Most importantly it must resolve how it relates to the street’s edge, the pedestrian scale, the existing land use, and the character of the block where it is located.” Are these issues addressed by St Michael’s simply demolishing its surroundings? This certainly seems to be the approach. The texture of the city, its warp and its weft, appear to be of no importance to the footballers nor their international backers.
One fine example of bold modernity that St Michael’s could take inspiration from is the 2002 neo-modern Urbis building (now home to the National Football Museum), which nestles sympathetically within a conservation area alongside the cathedral, the Corn Exchange and the 15th-century Chetham’s Library. Elsewhere the St Michael’s developers talk about the importance of connecting the city to the Great Northern Warehouse entertainment complex (recently acquired by Hong Kong’s Peterson Group) but I fail to see why one major development should join another other than to create some kind of consumerist metropolis.One fine example of bold modernity that St Michael’s could take inspiration from is the 2002 neo-modern Urbis building (now home to the National Football Museum), which nestles sympathetically within a conservation area alongside the cathedral, the Corn Exchange and the 15th-century Chetham’s Library. Elsewhere the St Michael’s developers talk about the importance of connecting the city to the Great Northern Warehouse entertainment complex (recently acquired by Hong Kong’s Peterson Group) but I fail to see why one major development should join another other than to create some kind of consumerist metropolis.
On the developers’ Twitter feed, they state: “St Michael’s will breathe new life into underused streets linking Albert Square to Deansgate.” But what is so bad about underused streets anyway? And what exactly defines them as such? I for one revel in snaking around that curve in the road beyond Albert Square, past the stone facade of Bootle Street, and enjoying 30 whole seconds of peace before rejoining the traffic. The development seems to shame the backstreet; the cut-through; the quiet smoke behind the office; the ability (if you take a surreptitious shortcut through the Nags Head) to walk from Peter Street all the way to Cathedral Gardens using only alleyways and side streets. And therein lies the rub; you cannot dictate how a city is used by its citizens.On the developers’ Twitter feed, they state: “St Michael’s will breathe new life into underused streets linking Albert Square to Deansgate.” But what is so bad about underused streets anyway? And what exactly defines them as such? I for one revel in snaking around that curve in the road beyond Albert Square, past the stone facade of Bootle Street, and enjoying 30 whole seconds of peace before rejoining the traffic. The development seems to shame the backstreet; the cut-through; the quiet smoke behind the office; the ability (if you take a surreptitious shortcut through the Nags Head) to walk from Peter Street all the way to Cathedral Gardens using only alleyways and side streets. And therein lies the rub; you cannot dictate how a city is used by its citizens.
St Michael’s is not the only development in the footballers’ portfolio of property (Hotel Football at Old Trafford, and a planned hotel in the former Stock Exchange are others), but the towers are set to be the largest. Why are footballers suddenly so keen to make their mark? The development is in fact a joint venture with Manchester city council, and has financial backing from China and Singapore, with whom Manchester is keen to make close bedfellows. As such St Michael’s feels very much like the first move in a frenetic race to globalise the city. I wonder whether Giggs and Neville are simply the much-needed local faces of an outlying investor – the (albeit very wealthy) everyman with whom we Mancunians can connect. Although not all of us are fans of footballers with an apparent disregard for the city’s heritage.St Michael’s is not the only development in the footballers’ portfolio of property (Hotel Football at Old Trafford, and a planned hotel in the former Stock Exchange are others), but the towers are set to be the largest. Why are footballers suddenly so keen to make their mark? The development is in fact a joint venture with Manchester city council, and has financial backing from China and Singapore, with whom Manchester is keen to make close bedfellows. As such St Michael’s feels very much like the first move in a frenetic race to globalise the city. I wonder whether Giggs and Neville are simply the much-needed local faces of an outlying investor – the (albeit very wealthy) everyman with whom we Mancunians can connect. Although not all of us are fans of footballers with an apparent disregard for the city’s heritage.