Gay Village glass tower plan falls flat

Jill Burdett

October 12, 2006

| Submit Comments | Comments (26) | Previous | Next

THIS is the controversial building being planned for Manchester's Canal Street. The image shows the building snaking along the edge of the canal bank with a hotel in the foreground and office space bordering the main Princess Street.

The all-glass building will include apartments but has faced opposition, with some local people claiming it is too obtrusive in a key conservation area.

Plans for a 24- storey tower have been reduced to 15 storeys.

Developers West Properties also say 70 per cent of the 1.12-acre car park site will be open space with a new route running from Whitworth Street to the canal.

Chris Speck lives close to the site in Bombay House and agrees the land should be developed, but said: "This is a conservation area with some of the finest examples of Manchester's textile legacy and they are landmark enough.

"We do not want a new `statement' building here. We already have them."

He is one of the organisers behind the Save Our Village Campaign and said he was amazed and heartened by the strength of feeling and support.

A recent "design morning" where alternative suggestions were drawn up attracted more than 100 people.

Atmosphere

Mr Speck said: "We worked with architects, using scale models of the surrounding buildings, to produce our own ideas. They were all different but the running consensus was that none of them was over six storeys. "We want to protect the canalside, to preserve the atmosphere of the village.

"We sincerely hope the politicians and the planners listen to public opinion and re-think the future for this very important site."

But local businesses support the idea and say the area is in need of good new investment.

The proposals will be submitted for planning permission at the end of this month and have already had the once over from English Heritage and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, local residents, businesses and other Village stakeholders.

West Properties' Francis Hilton says: "There has been an extensive and inclusive consultation and we have designed a scheme that addresses as many of the issues and concerns raised by the consultees.

"Our focus has been to create a development which contributes positively to this unique site. High quality independent businesses have been key to the success of this area, and on the ground floor we will be seeking similar independent owners passionate about their businesses."

The Princess Street car park site is a strategic development site in the city centre.

* More images and a model of the proposed design will be on show today, tomorrow and Saturday in the Manchester Room, Institute of Directors, Peter House, St Peter's Square.

WHAT'S your opinion of the Gay Village development ideas? Have your say.

Articles

Gay village plans divide community

| Submit Comments | Comments (26) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

Richard Everard, Hale Barns, Cheshire (12/10/2006 at 17:38)

It would be more beneficial to the general public and business sector of Manchester to raze this so called "village" to the ground instead of letting this prime city centre location develop further into a ghetto full of drinking dens for the homosexual element of society. What could be more beneficial for Manchester's reputation as business and retail capital of the north than to see happy families and well dressed business professionals walking the streets of a fine new modern development in the heart of the city instead of the gaudily dressed individuals who now parade this area with bottle of lager and wine glasses stuck to their lips and taking part in their rowdy behaviour in perpetuity.This opportunity for Manchester's future development as a first class city should not be abandoned for the sake of keeping a scruffy ghetto area for the minority community which now inhabit it.Their integration into normal society would be more beneficial for all concerned then maybe I could take my family to visit an area which I could freely walk with my parents when I was a young child.

commonsense, manchester (13/10/2006 at 11:02)

How much more office space does the city need?

Why the mad urgency to demolish and build hideous builidngs?!!

JacRye, Manchester (13/10/2006 at 14:57)

I fail to see how these glass and steel structures contribute to the general surroundings. I would wonder who the consultees were that Mr Hilton refers too. He is absolutely correct in his statement that this is a "unique site", in that case why isn't he trying to preserve it. I am all for progress but the propossed plans for development will destroy this landmark area.

Chris Speck, Velvet House (13/10/2006 at 16:03)

70% open space includes the 'internal' public areas apparently.....so the inside of restaurants and retail units is included. Only 35% will be actual open space - but most of this is the minimum you would need to access and service the buildings and bring some light into the inward facing windows of the apartments and hotel bedrooms. Also this narrow open space is sandwiched between the 14 storey hotel and 15 storey apt block so not a very people friendly public space......Save Our Village Campaign are pushing for all new buildings on the site to be no more than 6 storeys high. This is in keeping with the heights of surrounding buildings. West Properties think this is an appropriate height for their proposed office block on Princess Street so why not Canal Street and Whitworth Street?

Michael, Manchester (14/10/2006 at 16:28)

Richard Everard. Your vision of a 'normal society' sounds terrifying. And you must be very old indeed if you walked down Canal Street as a child before it was a gay area, as it's been such now for most of the last century. Obviously you're as clueless about Mancunian history as you seem to be about most other things.

jim holloway, longsight manchester (15/10/2006 at 10:25)

I would wish that all new developments would be in keeping with the existing great architecture of the city centre. I most cases, this means going up to about six floors.

Rupert Thomkinson-Palmer., Nether Alderley (15/10/2006 at 19:52)

What a ridiculous comment by Michael that Canal Street has been a homosexual area for most of the last century when one of the bastions of heterosexual males, "The Playboy Club" was situated at 10, Canal Street as recently as the 1970's & 80's. I can assure you Michael by my personal experiences in this fine establishment that you wouldn't find any men masquerading as Bunny Girls in their wonderful revealing costumes working there. The nearest public house with any reputation regarding homosexual activity being The Union situated on Princess Street at the junction of Canal Street. Homosexuality wasn't made legal until 1967 for consenting adults of over 21 years of age so if Richard was born for example in 1960 he could have well walked down Canal Street holding hands with his parents whilst witnessing homosexuals being thrown into the back of police Black Maria's to probably receive a sound birching for their behaviour.

Loves 2B Gay, Greater Manchester (15/10/2006 at 22:17)

Sad to read between the lines from the hate the homo mod. I am astounded to read that alternative cleansing of the area comment and the come back bunny girls admirer. It goes to show why community groups in the gay and lesbian villages of Greater Manchester need to support the idea and the vision of the village on canal street. If the developer is not in bed with the anti gay bad citizens of Manchester why not build the futuristic tower and give the ground floor to the gay community to use as their own space in perpituity. Sport Zone, Wellbeing Clinic, Massage Parlor, Bring and Buy, Art, Heritage, Leisure, Library, and more to give a message to the world that says the TRUTH about Manchester is it is the best safe space for diversity. And to show Manchester is a place of the future why not a Village Mayor election at each Pride Festival for the Lesbain and Gay Community to have a seat on our Council in showing zero tollerance of homophobia by giving a voice to The GAY Village. Your nomination for The Village Mayor, please to The Gay Bunny Club - Canal Street - Equality City - UK.

Emma, Manchester (16/10/2006 at 23:25)

Richard Rupert, do chose one personality to go with, as this is just plain embarassing for yourself, in spite of the hiding behind fictional names.

Alex, Hulme (18/10/2006 at 00:16)

I attended the exhibition and when I explained that I was not against developement, but against yet another bland and boring Ian Simpson building being erected was met with sneers and derision from the "welcome comittee".

I explained that the sheer scale of the previous tower had been a major concern, but that in this revised plan the buildings not only overshadow beautiful architecture - the current proposal cannot be called architecture, it is engineering pure and simple - but also did nothing to add to the area.

I am not against modern architecture, I love the Bullring in Birmingham, the Lowry Theatre and The Imperial War Museum, all of which have concepts that are plain to see unlike the monstrosity that is the Beetham Tower. (Iactually overheard University students debating the point of the fin on top of the building - they decided it was going to be an advertising hoarding!)

Give our village something that reflects its character - bohemian, feisty, quirky and not another bland and unimaginative glass box.

Eryl, Manchester (18/10/2006 at 08:28)

It is to be expected that you would see obvious attempts at homophobia surrounding an article of this nature, and I can understand some of the commentors wishing the area was "as they remember" but they cannot seem to remember it that well seeing as the Union was not the only place where we "dirty homo's" went for a drink, Napoleon's bar was the 1st, followed by the Rembrandt then the union, so simply walking through the village even 30 years ago there would have been a lot of police action back then and therefor would not have been the pleasant place some people seem to remember.
Also if the superb playboy club was such a great place to visit why isn't it still there along with a whole host of other lapdancing strip bars instead of the village???
The village has been a safe place for ALL visitors for well over 3 decades at the very least, also we do not hurl abuse at straight couples being amorous in the palces we drink, would we get the same leniency in any bar outside of the village? I think not.
But back to the subject of the gay village as it is and the planned development at the bottom of Canal street, in keeping with the local style of buildings if they absolutely must develop that area then they should take into account the effect it will have on visitors old and new, as it is now the village is a vibrant and thriving community, to place huge buildings there would alienate a lot of the people I know that go there, me included, and when that many people are alienated all that is left is for the area to fall into disarray. Now this forum is not for people to hurl abuse against anyone so I would suggest that any further posts be about the development and the impact rather than a walk down memory lane and how good it was when it was "straight"!

Linda Macaulay, Venice Court, Granby Village (18/10/2006 at 08:40)

The revised plans are an improvement, 14 storeys rather than 25. However I still think the buildings should be lower, 6 storeys or 8 at most. There are plently of opportunities fo high rise buildings in the city centre without spoiling the overall appearance and 'feel' of the canal street area.

Alex, Hulme (18/10/2006 at 09:10)

Richard/Rupert... oh dear oh dear oh dear.

West Properties have pounced(and allegedly paid over the odds) for this site BECAUSE the Village you suggest should be razed is such a commercial success.

Unfortunately, they wish to sanitize the area - reports of wanting to buy the Union and bulldoze it and also use Manto as a marketing suite - thereby destroyin the very essence of the area they wish to capitalize on.

I would hardly call the Village a ghetto... How many "ghetto's" attract millionsof visitors every year, generating yet more millions not only for businesses in the Village but also for the city as a whole?

Maybe the ghetto of Hale Barnes should be used to teach everyone in receipt of an ASBO how to behave properly?

Canal Street and it's surrounding areas, while expanded in recent years, have been the centre of gay society in Manchester over the last century. Your ignorance of gay history does not negate it's existence, nor will it stop the flow of support not only for the Village, but for producing a plan for developing the site that also respects and reflects the buildings around it.

Your comments re homosexuals can only be compared to the attitude that the bride wears white because the dish-washer should match the fridge and cooker. I pity your wife, should you have one.

Richard Everard, Hale Barns, Cheshire (18/10/2006 at 11:01)

Its time citizens complaining about this proposed development realised that this concept of there being any kind of so called "gay village" in Manchester city centre is just a figment of their imagination. Look at any map of the area and nowhere will you find any kind of "village" and it's well time people realised the fact that a few drinking dens does not constitute any kind of village. Manchester is Britain's second city due to its heritage of business, industry, wholesaling, retailing and innovated architecture so wake up to the facts and lets move on with its further development as such. Real villages are made up of little ancient chapels, thatched cottages, brass adorned inns, well versed craftsmen, local craft shops, happy families, pony riders cantering around merrily and gaggles of geese waddling up the high street and not gregariously dressed drunks waddling from one drinking den to another bringing Manchester's reputation into disrepute with any visitors to the city.

Michael C, City Centre (19/10/2006 at 21:42)

Keep glass towers for modern city landscapes. This is a red sandstone conservation area with buildings up to max 6 stories high.

Please don't ruin the village. Take your tower elsewhere West Properties

Alex, Hulme (22/10/2006 at 08:25)

By your comments, Didsbury Village, the Student Village, Prestwich Village and indeed any Olympic Village cannot therefore exist.

I think one particular Village might just be missing it's fool.

vicky wright, city centre (22/10/2006 at 14:21)

This is no ordinary 'Village' and that is why we live or socilaise here and not in Hale Barns. Stay there and leave us to our area. I'm sure you'd be hopping mad if outsiders planned a huge building in Hale Barns that would destroy your area. We expect and deserve better than second rate squashed Beetham Towers.

Ben Whiteley, Didsbury (23/10/2006 at 02:09)

Why oh why hasnt this Richard/Rupert guy been blocked from commenting? Im not against freedom of speach, but please, obvious homophobia in 2006? Its just a shame Hale Barns hasn't got a wall around it to keep him in side and away from those who like freedom. As for raising the village to the ground and erasing us homosexuals from history - I'm sure your children/future children will be raised open minded and accepting, if only there was a story about deportation of anyone who isnt white and of british origin, I'd love to see your comments. Back to the actual point of the story, personally I would love to see a building that mixes both traditional and contemporary architecture. More traditional on the canal side, with open seating areas, possibly for a new bar(s), of reclaimed brick construction, and about 5-6 storys, and more contemporary towards withworth st. To be 100% honest, why not just turn it into a nice, green haven in the city, where people of open minds can relax, think and escape the city? Yes I know there is Sackville park, but you cant have too much of a good thing, can we? Oh, yes, sorry, according to Richard/Rupert, whatever, we already have too much freedom and should be locked up or worse, just incase he, his wife/children are alarmed by the "gaudily dressed individuals who now parade this area with bottle of lager and wine glasses stuck to their lips and taking part in their rowdy behaviour in perpetuity".

Alex, Hulme (23/10/2006 at 18:56)

Rupert/Richard stated "Manchester is Britain's second city due to its heritage of business, industry, wholesaling, retailing and innovated architecture ".

Exactly! We should celebrate the innovative architecture that has stood the test of time and still shows us it's beauty over 100 years on, it should not be dwarfed by a looming and boring and totally bland glass box.

Chris, Hulme (25/10/2006 at 10:25)

It's a shame a discussion about this development has become a political debate about Homosexuality but i understand the need to comment on the views posed by our friend Rupert!

Fundamentally this isn't a gay issue, the area is the birthplace of the industrial revolution and is currently being considered as a world heritage site.

Thankfully the gay community have developed the area from what i understand used to be pretty much the red light district (interesting our friend used to walk around there with his parents) into a thriving and welcoming area with a community who want the best for the area.

This isn't a gay or straight issue (as both gay and straight people use the village) it is merely about developing the area in a manner which is sensitive to the historic nature of the area.

From what i understand West Properties are being quite cagey about their plans and are yet to issue anything to formally demonstrate their proposals to the public which may indicate that they are more interested in a development to make the most of their profits, rather than making the most of the area.

Steve Allen, Bloom st. The village, Manchester. (27/10/2006 at 11:33)

When you consider the purchase price of this site together with the prime location it occupies it should not be difficult for the developers West Properties to profit from this site. If West Properties can produce a building that fits in with its surroundings and community we will be very pleased. They should be able to do this profitably otherwise they will have failed in their speculative purchase of the car park site. It is not the responsibility the council or the local community to make sure that West Properties turn in a profit.
The onus should be on the developers to produce something that fits in with scale of the surrounding buildings and does not spoil the world famous warehouse heritage of the district.
There is a community (also world famous) to consider. In respect of our community I can't see that the office development brings anything but bring a large volume of unlike minded people to the area.
In the sixties we made many bad planning decisions that later made us regret our choices. I don't want my grandchildren to drive by a domineering building and say "What an eyesore in such in such a beautiful location" what were they thinking of?
Steve Allen, resident.

We require from buildings two kinds of goodness: first, the doing practical duty well: then that they be graceful and pleasing in doing it.
John Ruskin, 1880

Stuart, Hulme (28/10/2006 at 16:27)

I agree completely with all the respondents who feel like I do that these proposals are completely inappropriate. They show a total disregard for the existing architecture and feel of the Village. These kind of buildings may be fine for Spinningfields or Salford Quays but to build sub-Beetham Tower bland glass boxes here would be a mistake. Ian Simpson has designed some good buildings but these look second rate. West Properties really ought to reconsider and use an architect with a little more imagination.

As another person commented a park, in an otherwise dense and un-green city, would be great for residents and visitors. A tiny bit of public space crammed between two 14 storey buildings is just poor. How mediocre this whole project is and what a shame that in city with some excellent new buildings we will most likely end up with rubbish.

Tara Barton, Chorlton (31/10/2006 at 11:17)

My main concern is that this land is a conservation area.What is the point of having conservation areas if 15 storey glass towers can be built on them?
Secondly the land should be developed in a way that reflects and enhances the local communities.[I don't feel West Properties have consulted local communities except those that will make financial gain from their plans.]

Chris, The village (31/10/2006 at 13:29)

As someone who is both proud to be gay and proud of living in Manchester in general and the gay village in particular, i am absolutely horrified at the prospect of our safe, airy area being dominated and over-shadowed by the proposed glass and steel mini beetham towers.
That monstosity on Deansgate is bad enough, but to build several similar mini versions of that tower right in the middle of a conservation area surrounded by stunning examples of Victorian and Edwardian architecture is almost beyond belief.
Wake up Manchester, before it's too late and we end up with another example of ill conceived design being forced upon us, only to be pulled down again in 30 or 40 years like most of the 60's and 70's horrors are now.
The beautiful brick and sandstone buildings that grace Manchester have stood proudly for 100-150 years and have been immune (thank God) to the fads and fashions of design that have blighted so many city centres.
Not this city centre, PLEASE,PLEASE,PLEASE!
Chris.

Richard Everard, Hale Barns, Cheshire (31/10/2006 at 16:08)

The architectural plans for this rundown area would be a perfect compliment to the big wheel now sited temporarily in Exchange Square to give it a permanent home and would help bring happy family groups to enhance the atmosphere which is now based predominately on an alcohol culture. It could be Manchester's answer to the Golden Mile in Blackpool with even a Laughing Policeman situated in the area to welcome family groups and help make them feel secure.

()

Report

News