A common complaint is the lack of high quality open space, particularly green open space in Manchester City Centre. Whilst the city does boast many well designed spaces there appears to be a general feeling that there is not nearly enough - especially given the dense and intensive way the city is developing.

The problem is exacerbated by the characteristically narrower streets in Manchester and the tightly packed central core. Added to this the extremely poor design solution afforded to Piccadilly Gardens and planning blunders such as the Arndale Centre extension which has grossly extended a much loathed shopping centre rather than persuing a streets-and-squares strategy.

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/opservices/images/contracts/cathgard/15.jpg





Here is the council's response to the problem, prompted by a question posed by a member of the public on their website.......

I think we all agree that open space in a city is very important. The problem is that the tight grain of the City's historic street and development pattern coupled with high land values makes it impossible for the City Council to create new areas of open space in isolation.

However, particularly through our regeneration initiatives, we take every opportunity to add to open space provision in the City Centre and this has made a huge contribution to Manchester's renaissance.. The works in the City Centre Renewal Area, particularly Exchange Square and Cathedral Gardens, the Piccadilly Regeneration Initiative, Spinningfields, Great Northern and Castlefield have added considerably to open space provision in the City Centre. We will aim to ensure that future regeneration strategies at Southern Gateway and within the 'Arc of Opportunity' as part of Manchester: Knowledge Capital, make similar contributions.

In addition to this we have upgraded existing schemes and, through pedestrianisation, created areas such as St.Ann's Square, Albert Square, the Peace Gardens, Market St, King St, and Brazennose St. We also have a programme to upgrade existing green areas of the City Centre at Parsonage Gardens, Sackville Park and St. Johns Gardens. We take every opportunity to plant new street trees in the City Centre and attempt to accommodate them in new developments and to create walkways along our rivers and canals.

There are a number of large parks which are within easy walking/ travelling distance of the City Centre such as Hulme Park, Phillips Park, Alexandra Park, and Heaton Park, all of which provide quality resources for City Centre residents.

I think that the way we use the available space in our city is very important. We are attempting to reduce the amount of vehicles in the City Centre by encouraging modal shift to other forms of transport such as buses, walking, cycling and of course, Metrolink. If we are successful in these initiatives we should have a win/win outcome - a thriving, vibrant city but with more of our street space available for use as social space.

27 January 2005




What are people's ideas and aspirations in relation to this problem? Personally I would have liked the council, for once to take an intelligent, long term and strategic view and create a large edge-of-city-centre park like they have at Eastside in Birmingham. Unfortunately with projects like Eastgate set to send land values in Picc Basin skyrocketing and the failure of the council to undertake any kind of long term planning for the area, this opportunity may have passed us by forever. It would also be nice if they took more care with planning decisions which has meant our largest and most important piece of open space - Piccadilly Gardens is aflicted by the worst design solution in the city. Ill conceived and poorly excecuted. Clearly there is plenty of hard, careful work to be done.


So! Thoughts, ideas, opportunities please! We all want an uplifting, liveable city to be proud of. Urban design considerations and particularly the issue of quality open spaces urgently needs to be addressed if Manchester is to continue to attract people and prosper.

I think St Peter's Square could be done better. When Elisabeth House is demolished -- a building that so obviously degrades the rest of the square -- perhaps they should incorporate that space into a wider plan. And if the bus stops were eliminated in front of the library, it would reduce pollution in the area and mean that Central Library, the Town Hall and Town Hall extension wouldn't need to be cleaned so often.

The only major problem with a major revelopment of St Peter's Square, though, is how it would fit round the Metrolink. In hindsight, maybe the Metrolink should originally have somehow been routed down Portland Street on its way to Piccadilly, rather than cutting St Peter's Square in two, but I guess that would be too much of a job to put right.

My view is this: hang on to every scrap of open space you can. Do not sell it off for building on. Not unless somebody's going to pay you a fortune because they're going to build high rise so you can buy more and better land elsewhere. If you don't own the land but an application comes in that covers every inch of ground, turn it down. It's more likely to be low rise, and they'll tell you it's world class, but don't be taken in, just refuse it. Once it's gone you'll never get it back.

I think the point about St Peter's square is a good one. Actually it is a really sizeable space. I like the gardens there even if they are under used but the area is not really seen as anywhere to linger probably because there is no substantial unbroken open space, and its seen more as a through route to Piccadilly Gardens. Its a nice space and it works well but I'd hesitate to call it a "square". It could definitely be enhanced and particularly if they encouraged restaurant / bar use on ground floor units there.

Here are a couple of other, recent contributions on other threads......

GAVIN:

I have posted on this issue a couple of times. I say we need to develop several new public squares/piazza's/green spaces.

I would suggest the following:

1. Corporation st from Market Street to Urbis
2. China town car park
3. Canal St to be properly pedestrainised
4. Northern 1/4 NCP to be flattened and new development/ open sapce to replace that car park and the opposing ground level car park.
5. Improvements to the riverside along the Irwell so its possible to walk its entire city centre length
6. Stevenson Square Northern 1/4 to be remodelled.
I'm sure there are others too. Maybe it could have its own thread???

I do like the pedestrainised aspects of Spinningfields though and the footplate of Beetham is actually smaller than the old building. If that were the case for all new builds, we would gradually have a nicer, open yet denser city centre.



ROLYBLING
I totally agree, there is a lack of green spaces in the centre of the city but....don't forget, the Greengate plans include a "Central Park" which apparently will be quite a size.Hopefully it will reddress the balance as there is little green open spaces in Central Manchester

To continue my point.....

I think that a lot of small changes could make a big difference. How many tiny alleyways are there in town? How many dont go anywhere and are little used by vehicles??
The answer is lots.
Look at what has been done elsewhere, especially regeneration schemes in Spain, Girona is a fantastic example.
Pedestrainise these alleyways. If a car/van desperately needs to go down it then they can just like the 'road' infront of the triangle which is used occasionally but is 'invisible' other than the bollards that mark it out.
This would have little impact at each place but would overall make big improvements to the feel of the city.
When your walking around in manchester there are just too many unnecessary junctions. Remove them and you have more time to enjoy your walk and admire the buildings.
Walk up Princess st from Whitworth st to Deansgate on the canal st side. Count how many times you cross tiny roads and think about how many of those roads perform no function whatsoever because they are all parallel to the next one 10m up the road. Ok so the odd van may need to park there to deliver something but removing nearly all of those junctions would make such a differene to the urban environment.
It would be a start. And then we should pedestrainise China Town sqaure and Corporation st but there we are...

And again...

I think the council should start with their own backyard. What is the point of that road inbetween town hall and town hall extension. You cant use it because its got a barrier at one end taking up a lot of space that could be pedestrainised and, bizarrely there is a signalised junction at the other end. What a waste. Delaying traffic flow for no reason. Obviously the pedestrain crossing should be there but the junction is pointless.
We need commitment to pedestrian priority to improve the urban environment in central manchester and soon...

And finally,

heres a good example. Think how dangerous it is to cross from Mosely st to Piccadilly Bus station, infact that whole area is dangerous.
The council is redesigning the road but surely it would have been better to pedestrainise the end of mosley st and send busses down york st and along portland st (where there is already a bus lane). Council would say, cant delay busses as public transport is a priority etc etc... bollocks.
I say, you remove 2 junctions which wil speed up busses and have a time neutral overall effect whilst improving the urban environment and pedestrian saftey, but thats just me.

Mistakes and blunders get made by people who can't see, won't see what they're doing wrong, because they're people who think they know better. The arrogance and stupidity that built 1 Piccadilly will be repeated. That's how architecture is.


Students are fighting proposals to build the five-storey development on one of the largest green spaces on the campus. They held a protest on the site, off Oxford Road, near the junction with Booth Street, where they say an area the size of a football pitch will be lost if the development goes ahead. University bosses say it is part of a £300m plan to redevelop the campus and alternative areas of green land will be provided to compensate for the loss. Irony: The students were also objecting to plans to build a six-floor car park on top of an existing one. The university's Islamic society joined the protest, claiming that their prayer room will be demolished. Student Kate Kirkpatrick said: "I don't think anyone can fail to see the irony of building the environment department on green land. There's a consultation meeting next week in the student reading week when hardly any students will be here."

pedestrainising as much as possible in the city centre would make it more plesent and inviting for us all. Little parks and squares would be great. I wish the city center had more examples of St Anne’s square. I always show off that area to people visiting me from abroad.

http://tinypic.com/2luuci

There are two things here. 1. The principle of building on a valued open space such as Piccadilly Gardnes and 2. The design of the building that we ended up with (and its relationship to the space and other buildings i.e. urban design).

I myself am not 100% sure I am supportive of the principle of building anything on our biggest and most important open space (Piccadilly Gardens) however if it was a clever design, in terms of its form, materials, massing and so on it could have actually enhanced the space which I would have been all in favour of. As it was, what we ended up with was so hideously out of context we ended up in a lose-lose situation. A poor building on a precious piece of green space. Project Unity is a different kettle of fish as it has been carefully masterplanned and the council are encouraging a pedestrian strategy surrounding enhanced open spaces rather than bits and pieces of unused, poorly defined bits of spare land as we tend to see on campus at present.

Oh I see. This time it's different. It always is. That's architecture for you. It has always had an arrogance, evidenced by meaningless phrases like "out of context" and "poorly defined", and the willingness to flick between "open space" and "spare land" at a whim. It's not different SleepyOne, it's the same. It's why yesterday's buildings are "hideous", and tomorrow's will be too.

I'm suprised the river isn't used as much as it could be, maybe they will capatilse on this more.. but water is always such a strong component to cities, Manchester kind of never really taken that advantage.

Albert Sq, St Annes Sq, Exchange Sq and Cathedral Gardens are all fine public spaces. The city needs far more though. I would love to see the car park in the northern quarter turned into some kind of urban oasis. I also liked Manfans idea of pedestrianising Canal Street. It should be done like has been done with the Cavern Quarter in Liverpool, so you have quality ground but the atmosphere of the place will not be lost. Another good location for a public square would be the ground level car park on Portland Street, next to Chorlton St coach station.
A very hidden public sqaure that I would like to see revitalised is Centenary Sqaure, just behind the buildings opposite town hall. If they demolished just a couple of the buildings opposite the town hall and open it up (plus widening the entrances on the Deansgate side), and lose the car parking element, a nice new pedestrian link would be created to take people from Albert Sq to the new Spinningfields Sq.

That's a relatively recent building opposite the Town Hall, Accura. I seem to recall the site was empty for some years, and it was something of an embarrassment. How times change.

I think that's Lincoln Square Accura. Its a great space however could do with some quality landscaping (rather than the concrete flags it has at present) and because of the importance of the built environment to the success of an open space, certainly some of the buildings surrounding it could definitiely be improved.


On of my favourite hidden spaces / gardens is St John's Gardens near Granada Studios. Few people seem to know about it, its well looked after and is always so peaceful - and just a short walk from Deansgate too.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record... unfortunately Picc Gardens being one of our biggest spaces is also one of the worst. Politically it might be embarrassing for the council who have spent so much money on it in recent years but I think simply because of the amount of people that pass through the area it is absolutely vital that they continue to invest and improve the space as well as engaging building and land owners to radically re/develop sites that form a backdrop to the square. Such a shame the most prominent backdrops in the Plaza and 1 Picc Gardens are ALSO two of the very worst buildings in the city.

I find Lincoln Square to be drab, dark and depressing. It's flanked by crap buildings. Though it's nice to have a place to sit away from the constant bumper to bumper choas of Deansgate.

It's hard problem to create green areas due to lack of space but I still think Manchester CC has not taken advantage of or thought properly about planting more trees. Two examples are Spinningfields Square outside the MEN - before it was redeveloped there used to be quite few trees there but none ever got re-planted, so now its just grey and bland. Also there is quite a large space outside the GMEX, plent of space to plant trees and even a fountain or a sculpture of somekind.
I think a perfect place for a little park would be the car park opposite Spirit on Canal Street, but I think it's owned by NCP.

When your walking around in manchester there are just too many unnecessary junctions. Remove them and you have more time to enjoy your walk and admire the buildings.
Walk up Princess st from Whitworth st to Deansgate on the canal st side. Count how many times you cross tiny roads and think about how many of those roads perform no function whatsoever because they are all parallel to the next one 10m up the road. Ok so the odd van may need to park there to deliver something but removing nearly all of those junctions would make such a differene to the urban environment.
It would be a start. And then we should pedestrainise China Town sqaure and Corporation st but there we are...

That's a really good point. If you notice, that's exactly what they've done on London Road. Not only have they got rid of the central reservation to vastly widen the pavement on the right hand side, heading into town there but they've also brought the road junctions up to pavement level (all be it differentiated it with dark brick) but it makes one hell of a difference to the walk up to Picc Gardens.

I think we all agree that open space in a city is very important. The problem is that the tight grain of the City's historic street and development pattern coupled with high land values makes it impossible for the City Council to create new areas of open space in isolation.

I think that a lot of small changes could make a big difference. How many tiny alleyways are there in town? How many dont go anywhere and are little used by vehicles??
The answer is lots.
Look at what has been done elsewhere, especially regeneration schemes in Spain, Girona is a fantastic example.

To illustrate the point:
Look at the quality of paving, the distinct lack of bollards and barriers, the fact the pavement and road are the same and the height difference is minimal

http://p.vtourist.com/1210912-Sant_Feliu-Girona.jpg
http://p.vtourist.com/1324440-Shop_window_Historic_center-Girona.jpg
http://p.vtourist.com/1682587-Things_To_Do-Girona.jpg
http://www.lodgephoto.com/galleries/spain/catalonia/girona/images/ES-E-0203.jpg
http://www.lodgephoto.com/galleries/spain/catalonia/girona/images/ES-E-0204.jpg
http://www.lodgephoto.com/galleries/spain/catalonia/girona/images/ES-E-0200.jpg

compare that to the crap we have. Take infront of GMex for example. Although its pedestrain friendly in design theres loads of bollards for no reason./ The road and paved area are different heights and the road is a different coloured brick. Its just over designed as so much of what we have is. theres loads of double yellow lines too in paint that is coming of. I;ve seen double yellow lines done in brick before. That was smart.

Do we really need all the roadsigns in central Manchester ?

This morning i found another potential square which should be made into a green oasis,,,its the paved area facing Manchester House, all thats there now is 2 concrete benches,what a bloody waste,,,it would'nt cost the council that much to make this into a small garden area, and the trees would take the harshness off the surrounding buildings,,,,,Fuck it ,im getting on the phone to Charlie Dimmock,and GroundForce :)

Gavin - good point well made and illustrated. What you are essentially proposing is some form of 'shared surface' (see www.shared-space.org if you're as sad as me and are really into alternative forms of traffic management). You'll be pleased you know that Ancoats Urban Village is to become the UK's first area which introduces shared surface. It will use high quality materials (granite, yorkstone) and do away with all the usual street clutter. There will be no priority at junctions the pavements will be only slightly higher than the road and on the narrower streets the pavement will effectively be down the middle. All roads will be made narrow to slow traffic right down while at the same time all the confusing one-ways will be made two-ways. If you wander down Ancoats you will see the work on-site. A lot of time effort and persuasion went into to getting the City Council traffic engineers to agree to this (although they are still trying to water down aspects of it). It will be completed by 2008 and is another first for Manchester. It is pleasing see people on this forum effectively supporting thgis kind of approach to our streets.

I discovered a wonderful little park, I never knew existed, on saturday I was avin a mooch at Beetham and a gander round castlefield. I a spotted a little square place with a statue/plague. says that there was once a church here and 10,000 bodies lay around these parts.

its down one of the streets between that Auzie pub and castlefield. some nice Georgian Houses around there too.
and some quite nice probably 80s development, lined with lovely trees in blosom.
me bird loved it.

I was feeling great, ..........then found a parking ticket on me feckin car...bastards.

This morning i found another potential square which should be made into a green oasis,,,its the paved area facing Manchester House, all thats there now is 2 concrete benches,what a bloody waste,,,it would'nt cost the council that much to make this into a small garden area, and the trees would take the harshness off the surrounding buildings,,,,,Fuck it ,im getting on the phone to Charlie Dimmock,and GroundForce :)
You mean this?? :) If so I totally agree.

http://img15.echo.cx/img15/5239/mancpublicsquare9ym.jpg

That space could be used better, I agree.
Highriser, you need some counting lessons mate, I can spot at leat 12 of the buggers!

Thats the one Accy,,,you know what i mean?
It would make area miles better , landscaped , with more trees,,,
And frozen you cheeky runt, i meant to put 12 (oops missed the 1 out) :)
but i'll do the lessons anyway 1 2 3 4 er 5 6 7 :)

yeah something green and pleasent would be nice there

chasedwar - the little park you discovered is St Johns Gardens and I work in one of those Georgian Town Houses - they are HUGE inside.

This sqaure isnt too bad. Its not that it needs grass IMO, more that it needs to be linked in better with the surrounding pavements. ITs basically a traffic island on three sides.
What annoys me most about this area is not the sqaure being 'isolated' as such but the link between the excellent Caltrava bridge and the manchester side.
On the Salford side its wide and opens out to form a nice public area. On the Manchester side its a nice wide path and then it almost apologetically narrows and shifts to the left to make way for a couple of parking spaces.
Compulsary purchase comes to mind.
This is what i've been saying for a while. The Council needs a strong commitment to qaulity public space with the cash to back it up.

http://img15.echo.cx/img15/5239/mancpublicsquare9ym.jpg

yeah walk past this Monster on a rainy day and boy.... it really get's you down :( ...

The slab's when wet turn a distastefull, 60's manchester shade.... :(

went into town for the 1st time in ages today, and couldnt help feeling it is very claustrophobic, and that there is a total lack of open space in the centre. I know that if i had bought a swish city centre apartment that i would want there to be a park or some sort of reasonable opne space within a short walk of my residence. I think manc needs a city park (i'm not talking huge here, just the size of 1 or 2 football pitches). it doesnt even need to be slap bang in the centre, it could be on the city centre edge.

The wonderful bridge to a half arsed footpath is a wonderful point Gavin.
This Motor St square, Lincoln Sq, Stevenson Sq, St Peters Sq - all 4 of them get 4/10 could do a lot better.

I think manc needs a city park (i'm not talking huge here, just the size of 1 or 2 football pitches). it doesnt even need to be slap bang in the centre, it could be on the city centre edge.

i suppose we sort of have hulme park

I suppose that's no more a city centre park than Platt Fields is though to be fair.

Middlewood locks would've been perfect for such a scheme. Ah well, cest la vie and all that shit.

You could have the best designed space in the world here but it still wouldn't be totally successful or particular popular if the surrounding buildings are of poor quality.

Just look at it. The definition of the space is not reinforced by the surrounding buildings and what buildings do overlook the space are, in the main, of poor quality - in particular Bruntwood's Alberton House and Manchester House. You also have Albert Bridge House aligned at a pecular side-on angle to the space. All this, combined with the poor landscaping treatment and the poor linkages with Calatrava's bridge make for a very poor urban space..... an urban space which shares many of the same flaws with Piccadilly Gardens.

In exactly the same way that buildings are enhanced by their landscaping; open spaces are enhanced by the quality of the built environment that form the backdrop. This is why this particular space and Piccadilly Gardens will NEVER be successful unless there is some radical remodelling of certain buildings in the area - and of course much better landscaping.

I think the right thing to do here is to try and de-urbanise it, and inject some rurality. With grass, shrubs, and maybe some stone walling or wooden posts and cobble or hoggin paths, and especially water, this could be a delight. The costs are relatively low, and some of the surrounding buildings might then escape attention. And owners and investors might feel more inclined to make improvements, ranging from cleaning and renovation to full-scale redevelopment. I can't remember what all the buildings are like, the only one in shot that's an eyesore is the pale brick one with the roof looming behind it. The others look OK, and the older one to the right looks interesting.

http://img15.echo.cx/img15/5239/mancpublicsquare9ym.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/ANTEATPETE/park.jpg

This will please SleepyOne,,i've found this newly landscaped area just after the carpark infront of the CIS, just before you get to the Green Quarter,,its called Angel Meadow :)

Cheers for the pic highriser. Yes its a nicely landscaped piece of open land but again, as were talking about a space in a very urban setting it is imperative that the built environment that frames it is of high quality - complementing and enhancing the space.

Unfortunately this space is bordered on one side by one of the most cheapest and ugliest looking apartment blocks I've ever seen. I believe its called Angel Meadows. Truly a symphony of ugliness and the thing unfortunatley only serves to compromise the experience of what is otherwise a nice and very welcome urban park.

Right, time to bring this thread back to life. Since Manchester is probably undergoing an unprecedented amount of development it is vitally important that the spaces and streets we act out our every day lives are positive, attractive and uplifting places to be.


In that respect I thought id like to draw attention to an example from across the Pennines in Sheffield which to my eyes is the perfect example of how to create a major new public space. Its the perfect marriage of excellent landscaping and well considered new buildings that manage to enclose and define the space properly. Compare and contrast with Piccadilly Gardens.


I dont know who designed the Sheffield gardens but I do know that the office buildings in the background were designed by the same firm of architects who failed so badly with an equivalent building in Manchester - 1 Piccadilly Gardens. Cladding aside, the Sheffield buildings are vastly superior in respect to their relationship with the space they help define. It actually looks like architect and landscape architect worked together rather than on different planets here in Manchester



http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/331SheffieldsHeartoftheCity_pic1.jpg



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/atc367squadron/P6260061.jpg



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/atc367squadron/P6260058.jpg



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/atc367squadron/P6260065.jpg







Look at the solid and substantial appearance of the stonework within the gardens.
Look at the clever use of water throughout the gardens.
Look at how the areas of grass are used by people to sit on rather than to walk over and churned up.
Look at the well defined pedestrian routes.
Look at the central water feature and how it acts as a focal point rather than some kind of after thought.
Look at the lush planting
Look at surrounding buildings and how they help define and enhance the space and contrast with Piccadilly Gardens where they only serve to confuse - relating poorly to both the space they border and to each other.







It has to be said though that a new space that is every bit as good as Sheffields Peace Gardens is our very own Cathedral Gardens as it succeeds in the very ways that I've listed above. This state of affairs begs 2 questions....

1. How did we therefore manage to fuck Piccadilly Gardens - own most important, well known and most visted space so badly
2. How can it be improved?

The answer to 1 is can only be answered by the council officials.
I have a few suggestions for 2:


If it is possible - fill in and pedestrianise the section of roadway that leads off Portland St to serve Oldham St and Lever St (pedestrianising the section of the roads up to Dale St).
Following said pedestrianisation, extend the gardens closer to the building line
Raise the lawns and emulate the substantial style of stonework and soft planting as per Peace Gardens
Create more intelligent pedestrian routeways through the gardens
Bring forward the development of better considered new buildings (or improvments to existing buildings) in the gardens to better define the space, giving it a better sense of enclosure and a better sense of place. In other words improve the urban design.
Restrict ground floor use to pavement cafes and food or lesiure outlets only to give the gardens a better defined purpose and profile.
Provide more articulation of the landscape i.e. different levels and gradients
Given the characteristics of the area as a major transport interchange, perhaps the best and most radical solution would be to remove the lawns all together and put some high quality paving down and resolve to create a proper, quality new green urban oasis somewhere else in the city centre.

tis true.

I look forward to Hardman Square either way, I think the public area will have to be of high quality considering Foster's designing the surrounding buildings. Spinningfields Square looks nice too (where the MEN currently are and the triangle hotel was/is meant to be). Coupled with the double height shopfronts, everywhere should look really nice and open.

We need some proper greenery somewhere near the Town Hall though. The current bit at St Peter's Square doesn't work that well. Hopefully a redevelopment of the whole square will happen some day. I'm sure the cenotaph and tramlines can be incorporated quite nicely into a plan. The buses can fuck off and find a different way to Piccadilly, maybe up Portland Street. Then that could possibly lead to a pedestrianisation of Mosley Street. I don't know about anybody else but I feel the road destroys the street and ruins a possible nice entrance to Piccadilly Gardens.

Meh, I'm drunk.

Given the characteristics of the area as a major transport interchange, perhaps the best and most radical solution would be to remove the lawns all together and put some high quality paving down and resolve to create a proper, quality new green urban oasis somewhere else in the city centre. Whoa. No.

The simple answer is that the Sheffield gardens had a gardener involved. A beautiful garden has a 3D substance with height variations and varied and lush planting to give a feeling of enclosure/rooms/comfort. It's a jungle thing, buried deep in our reptile hindbrain. Like you said, oasis. A flat garden is one up from a wasteland, it doesn't cut the mustard. I don't know who's idea Piccadilly Gardens were, but the whole thing was all wrong. You don't sell part of your garden to flatten it. Anyhow: get the garden right and whether the surrounding buildings "relate" becomes academic. Those Sheffield buildings are not in harmony with each other, and whilst there's harmony between stone buildings and stone walling & steps, it isn't crucial. The first step is to fix that Berlin Wall, and make it like the walls in the Sheffield picture. And give somebody a damn good kicking.

the cenotaph is looking greener right now, not a radical step but they've planted a couple of shrubs or something.

Anyhow: get the garden right and whether the surrounding building "relate" becomes academic. Those Sheffield buildings are not in harmony with each other, and whilst there's harmony between stone buildings and stone walling & steps, it isn't crucial.

I fundamentally disagree. Im not really talking about cladding when I talk about the surrounding buildings, Im talking about form, massing and proportion and how well they enclose and help define the space. A space is defined by the structures that surround it. You can have the best designed garden in the world but if the buildings that form the backdrop to the space are inappropriate the space simply will not be as successful. Replace those office blocks in the background of those pics with Piccadilly Plaza and immediately the Peace Gardens would be a much, much less successful space.

I beg to differ. IMHO the buildings aren't what you see. What you see is the gardens. The buildings become mere wallpaper. But what's really important is having buildings abutting the lush interesting gardens to enclose them. Roads between gardens and buildings is what really screws up your relating.

Replace those office blocks in the background of those pics with Piccadilly Plaza and immediately the Peace Gardens would be a much, much less successful space

I realise this might have been a (deliberately) provocative comment for you Farsight.

I must also add that if you replace those nicely proportioned office blocks in the Sheffield pics with that messy jumble of narrow buildings directly opposite Piccadilly Plaza - all different heights and widths and all too lowrise for the sheer size of Piccadilly Gardens - you would similarly compromise the Peace Gardens.

I beg to differ. IMHO the buildings aren't what you see. What you see is the gardens.

I disagree. Sat in the gardens your peripheral vision and what you know to be there through experience would comprise what buildings surround and define the space. As you say...
It's a jungle thing, buried deep in our reptile hindbrain
We like to feel safe in public spaces. People need clearly defined spaces and routeways. Its about proportion, legibility and context. Its psychology. Its urban design.




But what's really important is having buildings abutting the lush interesting gardens to enclose them. Roads between gardens and buildings is what really screws up your relating.

Agreed. But you cannot properly enclose and define a space with, say a 30 storey needle like tower, a big gap then a big slab of a building suspended 20 metres above the ground (something akin to, say, Picc Plaza). Neither can you enclose and define a large space by building a row of 3 storey cottages. Its about proportion and whats appropriate for the space. Buildings matter and are as important when designing successful spaces, as the design of the space itself.

Of course buildings matter. But "defining a space" is much less important than the design of the gardens themselves. What really matters is the topography, the features of interest such as stone and water, the lush planting, and the way the surrounding buildings are brought into the garden. Consider your back garden at home - there will be a planted border between patio and house, not some urban conjunction of brick and concrete. In this respect the most important factor for a succesful PIccadilly Gardens is the surrounding roads. I'd like to see the buses removed from in front of the Plaza, the tramline put in part into bridged cuts or tunnel mounds, palm trees, cafes, cobbles. Let's see how the space is then defined before giving up and concreting over the whole damn lot.

I've got a meeting now. But I would like to talk about something easier and cheaper, for experimentation, such as this from earlier in the thread:

http://img15.echo.cx/img15/5239/mancpublicsquare9ym.jpg

Of course buildings matter. But "defining a space" is much less important than the design of the gardens themselves.

But don't you see? The space that you create - green or otherwise - is literally defined by the gap between the buildings. The space and the built environment are mutually dependent and, in my opinion, equally as important.

Think of your favourite public square or public garden. What characteristics mark it out from any other space? The chances are that what is generally accepted to be the most popular and successful public space will be a perfect marriage of landscaping and building.

The picture you're posted above is a case in point. You could have the best landscaping treatment in the world but unless it is surrounded by well proportioned, attractive buildings that lend the space that all important sense of place and definition it will simply not be as successful as it could be.

Yes, I agree the landscaping and design of the space is important but equally as important are the buildings that surround it because as I say the two things are mutually dependent.

Albert Square?

Picadilly gardens seem to be blatantly designed to look good from above with little thought about what the square is like at ground level:
http://www.betterpublicbuildings.gov.uk/assets/images/finalists_2003/manchester_piccadilly/manchester_piccadilly_large_1.gif

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/001ewm/lg/ManCCPiccGdnsHiVw2605.jpg

Yeah, looks great from the top of Sunley but I don't think the space works at ground level. Seems like it doesn't have the correct proportions or the vitality to be an urban square but with that much concrete it cannot be a park either:
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/001ewm/lg/ManCCPiccGdnsLawnPan.jpg

Couldn't agree more Andrew. Far too bleak and concrete. And that berlin wall. Awful. Whoever thought that up should be stood in front of it and... No, put his poster up on the berlin wall so everybody knows his name and face.

I'll second that, it looks hideous Andrew, I don't know one person in Manchester that actually likes it...a missed opportunity :bash:

I like it! :)

I like how this excellent image shows exactly how Beetham (even though it is a good distance from Hulme) still manages to enhance the space by providing a better sense of 'enclosure' to it. As the Southern Gateway is developed, Beetham will be largely obscured from view but the effect will be the same. Better definition and enclosure of this space will enhance its sense of place, enhance its feeling of security and enhance its profile as a significant and attractive urban green space.

Can you imagine NY's central park without the skyscraper backdrop? It would feel like a completely different place. On a smaller scale, this is the effect Beetham and eventually the Southern Gateway / Central Spine developments will have on Hulme Park.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y139/rolybling/Beeth1.jpg

Sleepy One

A class photo and a point well made

Nice picture SleepyOne. I agree with what you're saying about "Better definition and enclosure of this space will enhance its sense of place..."

But what's the difference between the above and Piccadilly Gardens? Is it irredeemable buildings? Or is it contour and grass and screening trees versus a flat excess of concrete?



http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/001ewm/lg/ManCCPiccGdnsLawnPan.jpg

Read my posts above and the point I have made to you many times over now. Its a combination of the two - landscaping and the built environment combine to determine the success of an open space.

Get them both right and you have an uplifting place to be; Get them both wrong and you get Piccadilly Gardens.

Let me rephrase the point I've been making in case you missed it:

The council don't own the buildings and they don't have the money to do anything about them. So they can't get them right. Whilst they might encourage change, this would take time, so in the meantime should they plant screening trees? Like on your Hulme Park picture? Should they try to do what they can with the landscaping? Should they try to get it right? Or should they do nothing to the flat bleak concrete wasteland they created out of Piccadilly Gardens because surrounding buildings don't "properly define the space" ?

The problem I have with Piccadilly Gardens, and it's a point I remember raising before, is that it's too messy. The roads around the gardens are chaotic, there are the bus and tram stations on one side which the "pavilion" doesn't completely mask and then you've got the overhead tram wires. While Hulme Park is in a busy, built up area, it's large enough and has enough mature trees for this not to encroach too seriously on the park space.

The only way Piccadilly Gardens could become a pleasant public space (imo) is for the roads, buses and tramlines to be rerouted. While that *is* in the realm of the council, it would also be prohibitively expensive and a logistical nightmare. It's a pity that Piccadilly Gardens is the square most people see when in Manchester while St Ann's Square, Parsonage Gardens, St John's Gardens and the like often go unnoticed to visitors.

That sounds good Griff. It doesn't sound prohibitively expensive to me. OK I don't know all the details and maybe they couldn't do everything, but they could do something.

Let me rephrase the point I've been making in case you missed it:

The council don't own the buildings and they don't have the money to do anything about them. So they can't get them right. Whilst they might encourage change, this would take time, so in the meantime should they plant screening trees? Like on your Hulme Park picture? Should they try to do what they can with the landscaping? Should they try to get it right? Or should they do nothing to the flat bleak concrete wasteland they created out of Piccadilly Gardens because surrounding buildings don't "properly define the space" ?

No I totally agree - the council should do what they feasibly can to improve it, although it might raise a few issues.

They would need to overcome the political embarrassment of changing something they spend 12 million quid getting so badly wrong. I agree that they should nevertheless swallow their pride and do it - should funds be identified that can in some significant way enhance the landscaping treatment.

Regarding the built environment they can put into effect a long term strategy to deal with this. They have power and influence over strategic issues - including design. There is nothing stopping them putting into place, alongside the private sector and the general public a long term aspirational vision for the gardens and the wider Piccadilly area - what they should be aesthetically, economically and functionally. With this in place they are in a position to steer development along these lines. But first they need to actually have a vision - something to aim for and focus minds otherwise we will continue to see peacemeal, poor quality, unco-ordinated development. Im not sure the Piccadilly Partnership has such a long term strategic vision - particularly for the gardens themselves.

Sounds good. Thank you for that response SleepyOne.

If only they moved all the Oxford Road buses down Yourk Street or somewhere else similar instead.

This was is in the Citylife magazine today. Citylife is going to stop being printed next week on 7/12/05 because lack of sales. Anyway

Look around you. Construction of identi-kit apartments in the city shows no sign of overheating and the prices are falling. So who exactly are they building for, ask Phil Hamer.

No one seems to better express the pros and cons of living at the moment in the city centre Manchester than hotel workers Joao and Naomi. They both bought apartments a year ago in the Northern Quarter. For Joao, who is Portugesse, has had all his expectations fulfilled:
"For a while, i lived in Ardwick and i was burgled a lot so i didn't feel safe. I do now and i'm also within easy walking distance of my work. I also believe that the area where i live around Oldham Street is on the way up and it helps the city if people make thier homes in it. This apartment living is happening all over Europe and i've visited friends in Porto and Barcelona who have flats as i do. At my age," Joao is 23, "living like this suits me perfectly."
Naomi admits that she wished she'd been more careful shelling out her £125,000: "i did't realise how stifling it was going to be inside my flat in the summer we've just had. Friends envy me because i'm so close to clubs and bars and they say how convenient it is for my work, but in a way it's too easy because I opt to work longer or more shifts. I feel like a guinea pig and may flat's my treadmill. I get off it and go to work. I want to seel it now. One of my friends bought a decodent terraced house near Bury for the same amount I paid for for my place and she's really happy. She can relax in her garden on a nice day. Manchester has too few convenient green spaces."
She is also convinced that 40 is probably the cut-off age for city living. She says that she doesn't see families wanting these flats because at the moment there are hardly any doctors surgeries and schools and creches in the city centre.
Manchester is currently infatuated with apartment construction. The population of the city centre is set to expand from the current 15,000 to 45,000 in the next 10 years and the relevant local authorities in Manchester, Trafford and Salford are proud of this proposed expansion. it's when you realise that the city centre lacks a mature, well-established social infrastructure that misgivings arise. One experienced property developer said he feared a national economic downturn in a few years time could usher in a public spending slashing Tory government that would plunge city centre expansion of any type into chaos.
"For many, city centre apartments offer a major share in a lifestyle dream," says 70s folk singing icon, writer and actor, Mike Harding, who currently hosts a successful Radio 2 folk music programme. "I bought into that vision myself, if you like, 11 years ago when I was impressed by the way bookmaker Jim Ramsbottom developed the old warehouses near Dukes Quay much along the lines of the brilliant saltaire development near Bradford.
Harding bought a flat in the attractive and well planned Catle Quays complex.
"I wouldn't choose to by now", he says as he fires himself up to totally condemn the city counsil's fostering of apartment building. "Money dominates and every patch of green is developed. Flats mean revenue from people.
Never mind that there are no schools or health facilities -that's the council's attitude. We have the least amount of green spaces than any European city. Did you know that a third of Berlin is parks? I've found this out because I travel to many of these other cities.
I'm afraid this is all i can fit on the thread sorry!!!

I totally agree about the lack of green space in Manchester.

Aside from Piccadilly Gardens, I think St Peter's Square could do with a complete rethink. St Peter's Square could be awesome. On the west side, you've got four of the best buildings in the whole of the city (Midland Hotel, Central Library, Town Hall and Town Hall Extension) and it's crying out for a nice wide expanse of park with a couple of open air cafes so that people can properly appreciate these architectural gems. Instead, it's another open space that's flooded with buses, trams and other traffic.

Sorting out this and Piccadilly Gardens would knock the "lack of green space" argument completely on the head.

I've got it. Get rid of the buses, trams and roads from Piccadilly Gardens, then swap en masse the buildings in Piccadilly Gardens for those in St Peter's Square (like a larger scale version of the moving of Sinclair's and the Wellington). Bingo. A fabulous public space that would be one of the first things visitors would see upon entering the city! And you'd have the Britannia Hotel to throw into the mix.

I'm in the wrong job.

Spot on with St Peters Sq Cantagriph.
It's a tram stop and a walk through tis all. And such views like you pointed out.

High time this thread was resurrected.

From the Metrolink thread, Liam's post.....

I think the quality of tarmac/paving on roads and pavements is vitally important to the appearance of a city. Let's be honest, the road surfaces in Manchester City Centre are mostly appalling. The rough, patched up roads look very bad in the rain.


I couldn't agree more. This is an extension of previous points made about the complete obsolecense of those tiny roads you see where you have 1m of useless and poorly surfaced raised pavement area, double yellow lines either side and little more than a car's width of roadway.

Why not extend the shared roadway / pavement homezone concept...? Why do we put up with those awful tarmaced pavements? Why not follow the continental model of paving which utilitses attractive quasi-ceramic or coloured concrete tiles which have the advantage of being easily pulled up and repositioned for the inevitable sub-surface utility works and are which are one hell of a lot more attractive solution than relaid tarmac.

Small details such as these make such big difference and in turn make the city a more liveable place.

Absolutely. It improves the quality of driving apparently too.

I agree too. Though, to be fair, the quality of a lot of the paving in the city centre is pretty good.

Last time I was in Liverpool I really noticed the difference. All the great buildings in Liverpool city centre are let down by the pavements and pedestrianised areas being surfaced with tarmac and/or cheap looking flags.

You should be aware that all the pavements in Liverpool are being resurfaced at the moment. Until it's finished they're a horrible mishmash of bricks, broken flags and tarmac.

You should be aware that all the pavements in Liverpool are being resurfaced at the moment. Until it's finished they're a horrible mishmash of bricks, broken flags and tarmac.

Fair enough! I heard something on the news about a massive overhaul of the city centre, so that would explain it.

The point remains, though, that I'd never really thought about something as trivial seeming as what the pavement is made of, but it really makes a big difference.

I couldn't agree more. This is an extension of previous points made about the complete obsolecense of those tiny roads you see where you have 1m of useless and poorly surfaced raised pavement area, double yellow lines either side and little more than a car's width of roadway.

Why not extend the shared roadway / pavement homezone concept...? Why do we put up with those awful tarmaced pavements? Why not follow the continental model of paving which utilitses attractive quasi-ceramic or coloured concrete tiles which have the advantage of being easily pulled up and repositioned for the inevitable sub-surface utility works and are which are one hell of a lot more attractive solution than relaid tarmac.

Small details such as these make such big difference and in turn make the city a more liveable place.

Definitely, I think this is one of the areas that Manchester City Council need to improve dramatically. It's all well and good allowing numerous high rise projects but it's important to look after the city at street level as well, as I think this is where Manchester is at its best. The council needs to be far more imaginative when it comes to paving. We want to be a world class city, we want to attract tourists from across the globe, and not just visitors to Old Trafford. This is all part of it. Like you say, the use of coloured tiles would be far more practical as well as more presentable. The amount of patching up of roads and pavements around the centre is a disgrace. As was mentioned previously, Mosley Street is a prime example- the road surface is shocking, and they haven't even bothered to re-paint the white and yellow lines which are fading and give a appearance of decay and neglect. If they're going to continue using so much tarmac, they should regularly resurface rather than constantly patching up.

We can learn a lot from our Brummy friends.
Their public realm is excellent and very high quality.
There seems to be a more than one nano second of thought put into it (unlike in Manchester) and it has paid dividends.
That city was improved 10 fold just by improving the public realm even before they did up the old buildings and started building decent new ones.
You get back soooooo much more than you invest if you get the public realm right.
Bristol aint bad either!
http://www.nexusjournal.com/images_number1/Jaray04.jpg

This is one I took when I was in Houston - it looks like one of b4mmy's artistic impressions but it's for real...

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e321/carlf/Misc/2004_0619Image0043.jpg

I can't help thinking that too much emphasis is being put on the quality of paving and roads here.......you have to ask the question - how much does it really matter? Of course, it matters a great deal to a load of aesthetes, planners and SSC contributors, but in the general scheme of things, Manchester's surfaces ain't that bad.

Take Piccadilly for an example. Yesterday afternoon it was full of life and buzzing with the market, hoards of people and buskers, fountains working as planned and a lot more people sitting down and using the space that you ever saw in the old sunken gardens. It's become a real usable space and the quality of the road and pedestrian areas are fine, considering the constant hammering they're getting.

Compare and contrast with Leicester Sq. Now that it a disgusting rank public space.

Houston. I've always been under the impression that there are practically no pedestrians in downtown Houston or Dallas, partly because of the humidity and also because walking isn't the done thing in much of the US.

The quality of Manchesters paving in the main public areas such as exchange sq, annes sq etc is actually quite good with limestone effect slabs. What I hate is the overuse of that herringbone pattern reb brick paving that you see in almost every town/city centre in the uk and the inevitable accompanying black and gold street furniture WHY? At least the red herringbone brick isn't overdone in Manc.

^^ Glad to see the back of that brickwork on Market street...the cobbles were a massive improvement. I'd like to see more cobbling in fact - it's fits in perfectly with Manchester City Cente, though I'm sure this is very expensive.

PORTLAND STREET
http://i7.tinypic.com/255hp95.jpg


At present one of the poorer quality streets in the city centre but what a lot of wasted space! Two lanes either side with a central reservation. Madness. Is there a sound reason why it cannot be reduced to one lane in each direction like Deansgate with an expanded tree-lined pavement area on each side?

There is also a rather nasty kink in the road outside the Portland Tower. I would like to see Portland Tower and the CIS building built out to re-establish the building line in line with the Brittania Hotel and the Princess Hotel. There are some brilliant buildings on Portland Street (and some terrible ones) but the street has plenty of potential and could be improved wholesale by sorting out the messy public realm.

I may be repeating myself here sleepy but Portland Tower and the other one (CIS - dont know its name nowadays), as well of the Bank of England and Picc Plaza across the road, were placed where they are in anticipation of Portland Street becoming a six lane highway, hence the 'set back'.
You think its bad now...........!
I agree with you - it would be a bold but wise move to reduce the road size for the benefit of pedestrians.

Further to Potato Man's post.

Project inches closer to unlocking Irwell City Park

Major plans to unlock the Irwell have reached an exciting phase as The Big Lottery Fund has granted funding for Salford in partnership with Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company, Manchester City Council and Trafford MBC £250,000 to develop a business plan in the second phase of the process.

The announcement follows an assessment from the Big Lottery Fund officers who visited the site in May and agreed that the project captured their imagination, with the potential to transform the waterway and its surroundings into a vibrant and attractive area.

Having submitted a joint bid for £25 million, the local authorities see the vision as an opportunity to restore the Irwell to the heart of the community by rejuvenating this major urban waterway and creating a continuous, walkable river frontage, with pleasant public spaces and a new landmark bridge.

The project is one of 23 UK initiatives that have been shortlisted. A committee of experts in the field of architecture, regeneration and the environment will make a decision on grants to be awarded in September 2007.

Councillor Jim Battle, Deputy Leader of Manchester City Council, said: "This is a great example of co-operation between Manchester, Salford and Trafford. We are delighted that this exciting project to unlock the potential of the Irwell riverside has been shortlisted. Its regeneration will complement the internationally-significant development of Spinningfields and benefit residents of both cities."

Commenting on the announcement, Leader of Salford City Council, Cllr John Merry said: "The plans for Irwell City Park have immense cultural and historical value as well as massive economic potential. This is an extremely important project and a means of bringing the river back to the heart of the community."

Executive Councillor for Planning Property and Prosperity at Trafford MBC, Cllr Stephanie Poole added: "I'm delighted funding has been granted to develop the business plan for this exciting project. The Irwell City Park Project will create a fantastic Landmark for Greater Manchester that will encourage investment and add real value to our plans to continue to transform our waterfront and Trafford Park. It will allow businesses, residents and visitors alike to enjoy the waterway and its surrounding areas.

Chris Farrow, Chief Executive, Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company said: "The River Irwell is one of Central Salford’s most significant assets and its revitalisation is key to our regeneration framework for the area. For too long we have turned our back on the river and ignored its potential. This project is part of our vision to celebrate and enhance the city’s natural assets to bring economic prosperity and an improved environment for local communities."

Commenting on the shortlist process, George Fergusson PPRIBA, Living Landmarks committee member said: "It is a real challenge having to choose between so many varied and imaginative applications. It often felt like trying to judge between drums and violins, but there was an impressive level of agreement amongst a well-spread committee informed by a thorough assessment process."

Media contact
Roger Williams, tel: 0161 234 3275