2-4 Chester Road | 55m | 17 floors [Archive]

SleepyOne

August 9th, 2005, 11:21 PM

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y88/faggotbrain/24chesterroad.jpg

Once again, a mightily impressive looking development which will be a great asset to Castlefield. People should close their eyes and try to envisage seeing these 'gems' as a passenger on a tram or train trundling over the viaduct into central Manchester. There is such a great quality of light in this part of the city centre - I can really see what massive presence these buildings will have.

My only regret is that whilst Ian Simpson always produces special buildings, as we are now seeing, they are creating special buildings all over the place. People will start to talk about The Ubiquitous Ian Simpson Architects which will inevitably start to take the shine and prestige out of their projects.

If they want to keep having the same impact they really need to start pushing their creativity and diversity to another level to keep people interested and as appreciative of each new project as they have been in the past.

2-4 Chester Road is a great looking set of buildings in their own right, perfectly suited to their location. Its only a shame that people are already casting envious glances across the pennines to the Venture Towers and making the inevitable comparison. You don't, afterall, see Carey Jones creating stunning buildings in Manchester although this is probably a mark of the gulf in class between the two practices.

I would like to see Ian Simpson, as a home grown practice become synonymous with Manchester yet there is a danger they will be better known for what they build elsewhere! Maybe their expansion will spur on the other well known, high quality Manchester practices to make that leap and become the architect of choice within Manchester and beyond? Roll on Southern Gateway and lets look forward to seeing what they come up with for this new, emerging district.

Still, all this hand-wringing really should not detract from what is a great pair of buildings. One question though - is there any steel cladding remaining on these buildings as was present on the earlier design?

frozenmusic

August 9th, 2005, 11:35 PM

I look at the ISA expansion plans from the other perspective. Imagine if they do get the London tower and Criterian or Venture built and get a larger national and then international profile. Then Manchester becomes more famous for being the home of Ian Simpson buildings - we have one on every corner, we even have an Ian Simpson car park!
keep them coming!

P.S. can someone please explain to me how that damn roof on the lower building works. Every side seems to slope downwards from the next, is it just me?
http://www.selleri.org/Blender/images/Stairs2.jpg

gothicform

August 9th, 2005, 11:42 PM

not sure you can take that approach frozen, afterall richard siefert managed to get 600 highrise buildings built around the world - some of them like tower 42 and drapers gardens are even quite nice, centrepoint is too.
its all very well being prolific but its not so good being overexposed. my problem with ISAL isnt that they dont design good buildings, but that there's so much repetition in their design. perhaps if they werent so prolific we wouldnt notice this.
subtract, as far as the west central renders go, ive seen two in a magazine one is one youre complaining of.

SleepyOne

August 9th, 2005, 11:52 PM

its all very well being prolific but its not so good being overexposed. my problem with ISAL isnt that they dont design good buildings, but that there's so much repetition in their design. perhaps if they werent so prolific we wouldnt notice this.
subtract, as far as the west central renders go, ive seen two in a magazine.

I can see where you are coming from but this debate has been had before. Taken as a whole their portfolio demonstrates remarkable variety although as I say above they will have to push the envelope out even further in the coming years. I think your main problem with ISAL in reality seems to be that they don't play ball with SN.com like other practices do, leaving poor old Gothic out in the cold with the rest of us.

I think its more a case of how quickly ISA have expanded recently, the types of project they seem to be involved in (many large, publicity hungy skyscrspers so it seems) and the fact that they seem to be damn well everywhere at the moment.

gothicform

August 9th, 2005, 11:58 PM

SleepyOne

August 10th, 2005, 02:21 AM

P.S. can someone please explain to me how that damn roof on the lower building works. Every side seems to slope downwards from the next, is it just me? - because its not the roof! Its the side wall angled away from the standpoint of the viewer.

Jerv

August 10th, 2005, 10:06 AM

- because its not the roof! Its the side wall angled away from the standpoint of the viewer.

No. It's a trick of the eye based on this, my favorite peice by MC Escher called "Ascending and Descending". Interestingly, It was reproduced in a photograph by the Lego company....i'll leave you to ponder how they did it.

http://www.mcescher.com/Gallery/recogn-bmp/LW435.jpg

Subtract

August 10th, 2005, 02:34 PM

oh lots of practises dont play ball, i know though a lot of people who work on the simpson projects disagree with their p.r approach too. i have no trouble getting people to talk about them, just hard to get my hands on the damn renders unless its from the developer.

ISA are restructuring their pr and image as youve seen in the last 10 months with a new website and new litrature and branding thats been printed.

The thing is with all due respect why should you have access to the latest renders or news on work in progress? Only the people who need to know, get to know about what ISA are up to which mainly resides on a client allowing information to be released which can be difficult as 2-4 shows.

ISA are expanding at a massive rate but projects like 2-4 were on the drawing board about 2 years ago so newer projects that are in progress use different techniques/forms not seen in past ISA projects so its hard to be critical of any style as some people have no idea what will come next.

Remember ISA make commercial buildings, there not like Future Systems or Alsops and dont make out to be anything else than a practice that delivers high quality designed architecture across a variety of sectors. Manchester has a lot and will get more ISA buildings and are extermely proud to be involved in landmark buildings in the city and across the uk

Blackfriars shows the aim of the practice and the stage their at, it makes me laugh as some people on here were critising ISA's 'box' like architecture and lack of curves on buildings, when infact that couldnt be further from the the facts!

These are exciting times and there is variety

gothicform

August 10th, 2005, 03:41 PM

The thing is with all due respect why should you have access to the latest renders or news on work in progress? Only the people who need to know, get to know about what ISA are up to which mainly resides on a client allowing information to be released which can be difficult as 2-4 shows.
then dont complain when people run images you dont want released :)
you can hardly try and have people remove things from their sites if you dont scratch their backs. i suspect its a p.r approach that one day will go very wrong.

you're right the p.r approach has been improved amazingly in the last ten months, but pissing off editors gets you nowhere because the moment you make a mistake no one cuts you any slack as you saw with foster - and it wasnt even their fault - but projects foster had been attached to made mistakes, people remembered their rather snobby p.r and the next thing they knew channel 4 news was running ten min long segments on why foster and partners sucked. as i say, the sad thing is it doesnt even have to be your fault but it works in the same way that people will blame a rock group for the record companies mistakes on an album as you guys are the people in the public view.

on the otherhand, you can pop over to the liverpool forum and see what an effect the opposite approach from a developer/architect gets you - all that lobbying and pressurising on your behalf by hundreds of people who actually care and believe in what you believe, this is the approach you should be advising.

from the other point of view, great strides have been made in places like london into bringing more transparency into the planning process on landmark buildings - beetham london however failed miserably. i think its the right of the public to know, particularly if youre gonna stick a 220m tall tower anywhere. in this case the consultation was handled very badly. why shouldnt things be released? well in this case because the architects and developers actually sat down with the public and then claimed they hadnt even designed a tower yet and proceded to tell the public things that weren't very true. im pretty sure you dont agree with the beetham london approach though, who would really... the only reason why it hasnt become a story is because the e/s havent picked it up yet.

Remember ISA make commercial buildings, there not like Future Systems or Alsops and dont make out to be anything else than a practice that delivers high quality designed architecture across a variety of sectors.
totally agreed. you're a business providing what the clients want, id compare ISA to tescos and future systems to fortnum and mason. i really dont like alsop, a blob here, a motorway there, another blob here is his idea of architecture but everyone shops at ISA because ISA can do those cantilevers so much cheaper than most people.
im sure if someone is willing to pay for it ISA will easily be able to move outside the envelope but then you have developers who come along and say "no we want a tower like brunswick quay" and partly because for developers its an 'in' look - beetham tower in blackfriars IS a move in the right direction.

it is probably unfair to blame ISA for all the repetitive features in their designs, its the best the client can afford for the budget and what the client wants. infact its just like siefert, i cant help but wonder which ISA buildigns will actually be loved in the future and which will be hated or simply forgotten. always interesting to play with any architect.

Subtract

August 10th, 2005, 04:00 PM

then dont complain when people run images you dont want released :) you can hardly try and have people remove things from their site if you dont scratch their backs.

What Editors have ISA pissed off? they have a great working relationship with BD & AJ who are important to them.

Why should ISA scratch the backs of some fan website, or other sites that dont have the same stature as BD/AJ? Its in ISA's interest to only deal with publications/sites that will benifit ISA and fit into the image they want to portray, They have had a 24 page feature in a Korean Architecture Magazine and theres more in the pipeline, these are important and strategic publications and you have to be careful who you give information and the effect it can have on the practice.

If someone in the press wants info on any ISA development they can email press@iansimpsonarchitects.com and will be dealt with no problem

gothicform

August 10th, 2005, 04:04 PM

im not talking about this place subtract, ive never asked for anything on simpson from anyone working for simpson... (gah!) am talking about newspaper / magazine editors here!!!

Subtract

August 10th, 2005, 04:12 PM

im not talking about me subtract... (gah!) am talking about newspaper editors here!!!

Yes but what Newspaper Editors? no information has been witheld from ISA and I know that they have recently been working with the Liverpool Echo and Evening Standard with no problems, Ians also had a centre spread peice in the Guardian recently and there is a great working relationship with the Men

I dont understand your comment about ISA 'pissing' editors off, how & who?

gothicform

August 10th, 2005, 04:17 PM

you know i cant name names. ISA have been getting some good press lately... would you say perhaps that its the approach of the developers that is being mistaken for ISA approach?

Subtract

August 10th, 2005, 04:20 PM

you know i cant name names.

Well to my knowledge ISA have a great working relationship with the press and people who ISA need to work with, press coverage has been excellent recently including the BBC's interest in the practice has been great and they work with the right people, if Editors get pissed off because they cant talk about a certain project or get info e.g Blackfriars then that is a client issue not an ISA one

gothicform

August 10th, 2005, 04:24 PM

Subtract

August 10th, 2005, 04:30 PM

yes, the bbc interest ;) i wonder where that came from... lol. great thing about the interweb is you never know who youre talking to online.
blackfriars is exactly the sort of thing im on about btw. part of the prob is ISA handle the p.r so the two are linked in a way that many architects arent as they have outside agencies working between them and the developer.

Dont you think its frustrating for ISA too? Blackfriars is a different ball game to anything ISA have played before and is controlled by the client and to be honest i can completely see why. Again if people want information then they can ask and then decisions get made, i wouldnt say or do anything to risk confidentiality as i know that it can not only affect the practice but the schemes aswell

As for pr again that is being developed, ISA have had a different set up in the past and that has recently changed and definately for the better. The first thing being the website as a backbone for information for everyone and soon client and press areas for upto date info.

ISA tried outside pr and it didnt workout, personally ive worked with some great agencys but time is the main factor for having internal pr and of coursee faster control.

All i can say is the press nomatter who would be dealt fairly and withing the wishes of the client, some things are out of ISAs hands

gothicform

August 10th, 2005, 04:49 PM

now that, earns you a round of applause from me. its good to see youre improving your p.r because it used to be one of the worst around for a practise of your potential, as you say diplomatically it didnt work out. moving into new media is a major improvement too, for a start you can reach a much wider audience and have your own editorial control.

i remember a few years back trying to get things from ISA for very respectable publications and unless you had the editor or someone call up personally it was extremely difficult, the only company tighter with info than canary wharf (and their architects constantly leak). in the end people just started going around ISA because it was much easier to call up someone else you knew working on the project to get things. this will be why, given what ISA are building, the likes of the bbc have only recently started to pick up on you guys properly, because youre giving your side more.

because of what youve said i imagine youre screaming inside - "you bastards, youve hidden our masterpiece!!!" given all the wonderful things people who have worked on it have told me (and what youve said here) i was dead surprised they didnt release more images as it sounded very impressive, instead they released one which was just a "so what" image. as you say though, its unfair to blame that on ISA but you can hardly criticise people for not loving something if they dont actually see the things youve seen, just pull your hair in frustration.

im quite surprised about the beetham approach though, they were very open about the brighton tower, it was rejected though so perhaps thats why although being public really helped them with the west tower in liverpool... hmm actually i dont think that stuff came from beetham for liverpool, i should check.

now, if only you can talk your clients into wanting a bit more variety in their designs... we need some new cliches :)

Subtract

August 10th, 2005, 04:58 PM

There is a plan in place now with pr and basically dragging the practice into line with all the other big players, i completely understand what your saying about the difficulty with getting info in the past but i can assure you that has been sorted and a new team is in place. As the practice grows it only makes sence to have a more professional approach to working with the press rather than holding your cards to your chest. We now have ftp servers working and lots more multimedia content that is crying to be added to the site when theres time to add to it.

With the blackfrairs project it has been comletely taken out of ISAs hands and is being dealt with by Beetham. I cant critise anyone for their views on Beetham regarding the one image because it doesnt show the full extend of the architecture or innovation whithin the scheme but again thats a client decision, i can understand the approach from what ive been told and respect it but i guess people will have to wait until planning to see the full extent of it.

Again if any editor or anyone interested wanted to get intouch with ISA its pretty easy and will get dealt with quickly and fairly, this also goes for students even though ive actually seen requests for Urbis Cad files which made me laugh!

jrb

August 10th, 2005, 07:16 PM

Don't you just love it when two heavyweights slug it out! :lol:

Compelling viewing! :applause:

gothicform

August 10th, 2005, 07:36 PM

lol... seems subtract and me are both reading from the same page though :)

people wanting cad files for urbis. lol. lazy bums should get the plans from the planning dept and make their own. its easy if you have the plans. i get stupid requests all the time from people... the odd really bizarre one too. there was this psychic who wanted to get into one canada square to use the pyramid top as a channel so he could analyse the feeling of london better. i cant even get into canary wharf with a film crew in tow...

dgnr8

August 10th, 2005, 08:30 PM

The only problem I do have with ISA is this secretive approach to buildings. Granted, the secrecy gets their projects built but it's pretty disgusting that they (and every other practice around might I add) keep everything quiet until it's practically too late to voice an opinion. At the end of the day, it's our city being shaped and not Ian Simpson's. If (and it's a very doubtable if) they ever designed something sub-par and was erected without the public having the proper opportunity to say they don't like it, then personally I think it'd ruin any reputation ISA have.

Like I say, I understand and respect the reasons for keeping things quiet - nimbys. But considering the feedback on the MEN comments whenever a new building is proposed, I find it amazing that this level of secrecy still exists. Mancs want to see massive towers. I just don't appreciate having a tower thrust infront of me when I haven't had any chance to say anything about it.

gothicform

August 10th, 2005, 08:33 PM

dgen, i think what subtract is saying is that ISA are contractually required to keep it quiet. although we cant really blame ISA for this given what hes said they obviously will be if something subpar ends up being built just as it was foster and partners blamed for the millenium bridge in london even though the mistake was made by arup.

dgnr8

August 10th, 2005, 08:44 PM

Simpson's been slagged off before, most notably for the Manchester Art Gallery extension. Channel 4 once had this program on about the rebuilding of Manchester (few years back) and whilst Simpson was praised for Urbis and 1 Deansgate, he was right royally verbally twatted for the Art Gallery extension.

But that's besides the point, and I see what you/Subtract means now with the whole contractually obliged bumf. But I still don't go with that. Por ejemplé, 2-4 apparently had a render released yonks ago but Subs was saying they're not allowed to release anything to us personally do to contractual obligations. Now that may be, but I can't for one minute fathom out how this works. If you release anything (be it a picture, music, whatever) in the public realm, it's therefore publically available to view. So why with the coyness about showing us pics?

If there really was a contractual issue, then like any normal picture publisher, they'd place a media embargo upon said item thus the render wouldn't be seen. So what bloody sense does it make to release something publically but refuse to show the public (who can't get say Property Week) what's already in this realm?

The whole thing stinks. Developers and ISA, whoever, it needs sorting. Releasing 1 render of a building on the basis that the rest may lead people to have second thoughts on a render from a different angle is to be quite frank, shit. It's like saying that the Husseins in Basra are absolutely having a delightful time, and that being the 1 and only report to come from Iraq.

SleepyOne

August 10th, 2005, 09:43 PM

The art gallery extension was not ISA, it was Michael Hopkins and Partners and won a RIBA award. I personally dislike it for being utterly timid and far too reverential in the face of the other two buildings that make up the art gallery.

Regarding releasing rederings, if ISA are contractually unable to release further renders then thats the top and bottom of it. Finished. Unless of course they want to piss off their fee paying clients for the sake of some (journalistically dubious) skyscraper website.

gothicform

August 10th, 2005, 10:36 PM

sleepyone, you are aware arent you that many architects break client embargo including some of the top firms in the uk? im not going to name names but it happens a lot because they care more about their future reputation than the project in hand.

that journalistically dubious site just happens to share writers with aj and bd magazine and is frequently "inspires" them when the articles arent done by shared writers, and has people writing the articles who get taken out to dinner regularly by the beeb and reuters so they can stay fully briefed!

recent triumphs include our difa stuff (the architects liked it so much they agreed to an interview with us the ONLY press interview with them), broadgate tower (which we beat the press by by weeks), the richardson tower in brum (we beat the building press by a month), liverpool lime street (another nice interview even if the developer was playing the cards close to his chest)... unlike property week who were briefed by ISA we even got the height right for their blackfriars tower. hoho.

coming attractions include architect interviews with regards to elphinstone place in glasgow, interview on globe road in leeds, interview with terrance conran architects on their sheffield designs... and so on. i like to think we're no worse than anyone else and often beat them.

the site is VERY different from a year ago and once we've finished adding everything we'll be rebranding to lose the "fan site" image. maybe they talk to us because as a "fan site" we already get more visitors than egi and ajplus and our readership is larger than those magazine circulations (approaching three times aj).

the only thing i regret is that we have so many sources who dont want to be publically quoted, it can be a real pain in stressing authenticity to the public without images but 90% of the time we're right and the other 10% they are half right. we invite people to actually write in so we can correct any accuracies, they never do. youre welcome to if you can find any. we even publish the corrections at the bottom of the articles.

anyhow, back to this.

jrb

August 11th, 2005, 10:19 AM

Careful Gothic!

Don't cut your nose off to spite your face!

we'll be rebranding to lose the "fan site" image.

The fans are the site! Lose the fans and you lose the site!

maybe they talk to us because as a "fan site"

Exactly Gothic!

Architects, PR People and Planning Officers talk to you, me, and others becuase they know SSC is a fan based site! Its not tied to any company, be it architectual, developer, investor, etc! Once you change the image and format of the site, SSC will be no different to many of the other sites! People will think twice about talking to us?!

You've got somthing good here Gothic! A site for the fans, by the fans! Hopefully it will stay like that? :)

Ps. Maybe a pinned thread explaining the changes would be useful?

Farsight

August 11th, 2005, 10:51 AM

All very interesting. Contractual confidentiality totally understood Subtract. Great website Gothic. I didn't know it had a "fan site" image. The word "fan" suggests an unthinking adulation, and this website is all about planning and thinking and discussing and working out what makes a building desirable and beautiful. It's the spectrum of contributors that gives it a richness. You've got bar room opinion, Joe Public, Emperors and Little Boys - and architecture needs them all to build a better world.

Farsight

August 11th, 2005, 11:55 AM

Subtract, I wanted to mention that there's something in particular that I like about this 2-4 Chester Road development. It's the way the two buildings add up to something greater than the sum of their parts. They almost look like one building. The overall effect is pleasing, though I struggle to explain exactly why.

Here's something WeasteDevil knocked up re GN tower, and I think it's got a real wow factor. It would be interesting if ISA tried this sort of thing on one of their two-building projects.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/potman/gntwin.jpg

And of course, this "mega structure" effect could apply to more than two buildings. It could be really something in a big city which is divided up into blocks.

skit_uk

August 11th, 2005, 03:09 PM

Great photo/rendering

That sort of building wouldn't look out of place in Vegas. Very imposing.

Another point about the website. Who is the site aimed at? Isn't it there for the fans as a way to understand more about our built environment and the developements. This site should be for the fans 1st and the developers/media second. Although a big fat melting pot would be best :)

Farsight

August 11th, 2005, 03:12 PM

The Public, skit, not fans. The Public who actually live in the built environment.

skit_uk

August 11th, 2005, 03:17 PM

Yeah, that's what i mean.
Jo public like me

Subtract

August 11th, 2005, 05:52 PM

Loads of interesting points made and glad a good open debate can be found on this site.

I can understand as a consumer and resident of Manchester the frustration about lack of information released and the timing of the release. Its a complicated process as other pr agencys can get invloved or marketing advisors and sometimes your hands are really tied up. When something is leaked more often than not it is incorrect which can be damaging to the practice/scheme but ultimately the (paying) client comes first not the public.

The website was a big step forward for ISA as an output to deliver new information, this is only the backbone and v.2 is being worked on that will show what not only inspires the work but also more multimedia work and more detail on certain projects.

A big thing designing that site is who do you aim it at? is your target market the press? prospective clients? fans, students? its a broad range of people and has to appease those people in some ways but not all. A fan will want lots of renders/info, the press will want more refined information and soundbites so its a hard balance to achieve.

@Gothicform Property Week were not briefed exclusively by ISA, again this was a client instruction undertaken by their pr company.

@Farsight, id personally ship over a bazooka and blow that apart if that ever got built!!;) I really do not like that tower

highriser

August 11th, 2005, 06:08 PM

Cheers for all the info you can provide Subs its well appriciated,,,

The tower that you would bazooka,,do you GN tower? its half built matey , obviiously not the mirrored version though,,,

Subtract

August 11th, 2005, 06:20 PM

Cheers for all the info you can provide Subs its well appriciated,,,

The tower that you would bazooka,,do you GN tower? its half built matey , obviiously not the mirrored version though,,,

I do try, its frustrating as i can see there is a demand for info but i cant risk my job.

And yeah GN, i meant if the planning office took loads of acid and granted a mirrored version id blow it apart! really dont like it, dont like the edge either, infact theres lots i dont like that could be designed better

gothicform

August 11th, 2005, 07:28 PM

subtract has just said why people speak to me "off the record". they dont want to be quoted a lot of the time because of their jobs but are happy to speak as long as there is no come back to them. its caused some amusing searches in the past by companies looking for someone who leaked (and they always look in completely the wrong place).
as individuals most people do want the public to know about things, its just they have jobs and the point of their company is to make money, which at times can work in the complete opposite of what youd call the public interest. this could bring us on to an interesting topic of "are companies psychotic" but thats another thing entirely in a way.
subs comments on the website are pretty much spot on. when making a website who do you aim at??? you cant possibly aim at everyone because of all the competing interests, everyone wants different information. the developer wants pr friendly statements put out, people in the industry want details, fans want renders and then if you get it wrong people complain - eg break news on a new tower and say its 165m instead of 164.3m! the irony comes from the developer refusing to speak to you then complaining about the incorrect information when really incorrect info exists for a reason.
i think the bane of the problem, if you can call it that, is developers, architects, prs and so on havent quite grasped how media is changing now. they dont really have solutions to tackle this change, as subtract shows its very slow. they realise there is a problem but tackling it is another thing entirely. you will have people like subtract, and i knwo from experience they exist in every company and are gradually becoming louder voices, saying "look guys, media is changing, a simple press release just isnt going to cut it anymore".
nowhere is this more apparent than websites like skyscrapercity or slashdot for technology. these are more "fan" sites, but with a massive readership which takes up a whole cross section that completely dominates their "professional" rivals.

Farsight

August 11th, 2005, 08:08 PM

Thank you Gothic.

But yeuuw, I don't like that word "fan". It's so kinda derogatory. Like nobody here has any planning or architectural experience, and there's nothing to be learned from the public.

Subtract, that thing about the bazooka and the mirrored GN tower. Show it to some of the guys at ISA. Then live and learn!

gothicform

August 11th, 2005, 10:37 PM

the perception is that ssc is a 'fan' site, i dont really like that either. do people think emporis is a fan site? most of the emporis editors post here. the reason i think the perception exists is because emporis looks 'professional', that is its catered to making money whilst ssc isnt. the reality is that ssc is an advert free zone because we actually have enough company backing in the background to not even have to have adverts and so on despite actually getting more traffic than emporis does. ssc isnt a fan site, rather its a site that allows fans to speak, unlike emporis which shut down its boards after people started to complain on them. fan sites dont have major corporate backing, publish books yearly, multi cpu servers, big budgets and so on... i like though how we give so many fans a real say in things.
that said, perhaps sub should head over to the glasgow forum and see the famous scottish architects posting there as themselves quite openly. im not going to name drop people who post on ssc unless theyve registered openly but ken yeang is one who has registered openly. we set up ssc so that the people could have a proper discourse about these issues, i find it a big shame that some people are so guarded about projects - there's this concept of corporate confidentiality but does it really affect things seeing how buildings have taken shape over time, all the design and planning issues that go with it?
some developers and architects have grasped this an actively use these forums as a way of actually promoting their own work. to me though it seems more like an issue of control, i remember an architect complaining about something i wrote saying it was inaccurate even though id pulled it straight out of the planning report. they believed it was inaccurate because they thought the report was wrong, but the council agreed with everything i wrote. thats a classic example of a practise trying to exercise control over the p.r of their project.
the most bonkers approach is trying to exercise press control over something when the planning application is actually in. at that point the information is publically available so why should they care? it makes about as much sense as the official secrets act banning information which we can get freely available in other countries or openly on the internet and shows a complete lack of understanding at how the modern media works. i suspect that as more and more councils follow through plans of making applications fully available online as tower hamlets have done developers will have to reconsider their positions.
i think too what we're seeing is a gradual drip drip, its the smaller ambitious practises who are using more viral methods of publicity. that said, once you get one big person to talk to you (from experience with sn.com) then the other ones start coming forwards simply because someone has done it first. it reminds me of hearing a tale of live aid. bob geldof wanted the who, queen and elton john all to play so he lied and told each on th ephone the other had agreed to do it. they all did it because they didnt want to be the odd one out, all youve got to do is that initial break through and youre home free. sub posting here openly as an ISA employee should hopefully encourage more people working for manchester architects to also post here - i know they do as they lurk and email me!
im a strong believer if the project is good you will get nothing but good press as youve seen from the reception that the difa tower got in london. people need to have more faith in their work, and also realise that nimbies are organised in powerful groups and if we so choose ssc can be used very easily as a counter for those groups. its gotten liverpool council so worked up theyve been complaining to the press there about the lobbying theyve been getting on behalf of developers in liverpool.
everything sub has said indicates that people are very slowly realising. i can think of multiple occasions of architects actually sacking pr firms because they are failing to handle development promotion on the net properly. they are still a minority but i think in five years time the way everything is launched will be radically different to now - people are only just starting to tune into the idea of online news being written by anyone. according to yesterdays indy it was THE trend of 2004 for the web, which for someone who'd been doing it for five years previously was funny but it shows that finally the revolution is here!
we just have to remember that in the corporate world the speed of change can be very very slow. no one likes taking a risk and thats how it can be percieved.

Northbeach

August 12th, 2005, 12:50 AM

Although a big fat melting pot would be best

Careful Bacon.

Subtract

August 12th, 2005, 10:51 AM

I agree about the slow technological advances towards media in architecture. Viral marketing has become common place for so many different products and has shown to be very affective but you have to be careful what message you want to convey and how you excute it. The only way for people like myself to make a change is to listen, hence im on here. I joined purely to correct some info on here so people had accurate information but over time ive learnt a lot about peoples views not only on ISA but on their feelings towards Manchester, the expansion and the history.

Architecture is a slow process therfore its sometimes hard to deliver fast information to a demanding public, the webiste will be the backbone of the practice and i envisage mini-sites being created eventually for projects like BTM and Blackfriars given fans/press/students more insight into the project.

Again being a consumer myself when I look at objects such as Stealth Bomber I want to know how it works, some things maybe Top Secret but I want to get an idea of the functionality and basis of design

Farsight

August 12th, 2005, 01:44 PM

Thanks for all the info, guys. Really interesting.

SleepyOne

September 21st, 2005, 10:37 PM

Planning application in Tuesday's MEN for the revised 2-4 Chester Road. (16 and 11 storeys plus A3 use I think).

A reminder of this little beauty:

http://tinypic.com/dws31v.jpg

http://tinypic.com/dws38l.jpg

Accura4Matalan

September 22nd, 2005, 07:07 PM

Gorgeous design :drool:

dgnr8

September 23rd, 2005, 02:26 PM

City Centre Ward 076561/FO/2005/C3 09/09/2005 Land At 2 To 4 Chester Road Castlefield City Erection of part 16/ part 11 storey development comprising 121 flats (C3) and basement car parking

Manuel

September 23rd, 2005, 03:29 PM

mistake....deleted

jrb

April 29th, 2006, 11:14 PM

Another fantastic building/design that hasn't seen the light of day yet. Eight months after planing permission was granted and still nothing. Hopefully it will get built?

The Longford

April 30th, 2006, 01:06 AM

Another fantastic building/design that hasn't seen the light of day yet. Eight months after planing permission was granted and still nothing. Hopefully it will get built?

There are complex legal issues that need to be resolved which i am not privvy to. I'll ask my ISA contact next time i see her for an update.

dirtyred619

May 19th, 2006, 08:59 PM

Heard any more about this one anybody? Thought it should have started by now. Not the tallest building/proposal but should be one of the better looking ones, hope we hear something soon.

The Longford

May 19th, 2006, 09:08 PM

I asked my Simpson contact the other day and she seems to think it is still going ahead. All the costings and detailing has been done (the final stage before building) PP has been granted and it has been put out to tender. Simpson's work has all been done so i suppose it is in the hands of the developer to get moving.
Is that any help?

jrb

June 2nd, 2006, 04:01 PM

In todays MEN page 52.

Tom Garner(Peugeot) relocation add.(relocating clearance) New showroom currently being constructed.

Hopefully won't be long before we see some work beginning on site?

jrb

June 2nd, 2006, 04:37 PM

In todays MEN page 52.

Tom Garner(Peugeot) relocation add.(relocating clearance) New showroom currently being constructed.

Hopefully won't be long before we see some work beginning on site?

Whoops, wrong thread. It's across the road. :)

caw123

June 2nd, 2006, 04:42 PM

2-4 Chester site is still a car park. Got my hopes up when the car park closed last year, but it is now open again. Boo!

jrb

June 2nd, 2006, 04:45 PM

2-4 Chester site is still a car park. Got my hopes up when the car park closed last year, but it is now open again. Boo!

Sure someone posted reasons for the delay a while back. Legal issues?

The Longford

June 2nd, 2006, 08:26 PM

Sure someone posted reasons for the delay a while back. Legal issues?

That goes back to when there was a 'fire' and the listed Georgian building was 'blown up' by 'exploding gas canisters'.

No criminal conviction could be sought (even though everyone knew who did it and why they did it!) but i think the city took out an injuction or put a block on granting any planning permission on the site to stop the owners profitting from an illegal act (allegedly).
The ownership was passed on and there was some ambiguity on who was affected by the action mentioned above.
As it was i think the city couldnt afford a long drawn out court case and had to grant permission regardless.

jrb

July 16th, 2006, 12:56 AM

Don't know how up to date this piece is? Hopefully it's only recent news?

Design and Technology combine to win Landmark Project
Creative engineering and applied technology have helped Faber Maunsell’s Advanced Design Group win a significant appointment for Manchester’s latest iconic buildings.

The 17-storey, two-tower residential development at 2-4 Chester Road occupies an important site in the city at the end of Deansgate. The Faber Maunsell team has been appointed as Façade, Environmental and M&E Engineers, with several other specialist duties.

This development is the latest from Ian Simpson Architects, who have designed some of our landmark buildings over the last few years and are increasingly active in North American and European competitions. Simpson’s architects develop complex geometries and façade solutions, usually with a highly transparent skin, creating a very distinctive aesthetic and a technical challenge to the engineering team.

From the outset, we have approached the buildings holistically, particularly due to our aim for new Part L compliance, even though construction starts well before it comes into effect. Faber Maunsell’s success on this project relies on our ability to combine creative design engineering with a highly technical approach, something that both the developer and architects fundamentally need.

Successful completion of this building, while maintaining the architectural aspirations and getting compliance will be a significant achievement. Progress to date, however, has been good, and has led to several invitations on other interesting projects in Leeds, Leicester and Manchester. We are looking forward to further strengthening our relationship with various architects through this approach.

http://www.fabermaunsell.com/NewsMedia/43/21/index.jsp

caw123

July 16th, 2006, 10:56 PM

Construction must be getting close then if contracts are being signed. Good news.

tonino

July 17th, 2006, 08:28 AM

good design/wrong location.

http://tinypic.com/dws31v.jpg

http://tinypic.com/dws38l.jpg[/QUOTE]

skymann

July 17th, 2006, 08:38 AM

good design/wrong location.

http://tinypic.com/dws31v.jpg

http://tinypic.com/dws38l.jpg[/QUOTE]

It is a good design and you're probably right that Castlefield is maybe not the right location. But then when I look at the design for the Peugot garage opposite I'm really glad that they are building the Simpson effort at 2/4 Chester Road. people will be drawn to this and hopefully not concentrate on the hideous 60s crap that is gonna be dragged up across the road.

tonino

July 18th, 2006, 11:48 AM

the peugeoy garage what are they going to build there?

It is a good design and you're probably right that Castlefield is maybe not the right location. But then when I look at the design for the Peugot garage opposite I'm really glad that they are building the Simpson effort at 2/4 Chester Road. people will be drawn to this and hopefully not concentrate on the hideous 60s crap that is gonna be dragged up across the road.[/QUOTE]

skymann

July 18th, 2006, 02:23 PM

tonino

July 19th, 2006, 08:41 AM

Oh my god!!!
what is the criteria they have to allow buiding such a monster?
who's behind all these "great ideas" in manchester?

Last image I think :http://www.property-week.co.uk/Pictures/web/y/s/b/45_p81_central_station.jpg[/QUOTE]

jrb

September 6th, 2006, 11:43 PM

Thought I'd post this here seeing as there's no Castlefield thread.

Jackson's Wharf Development Castlefield.

Peel & Simpson to meet local residents at the Y Hotel tomorrow night.

If you would like to attend the meeting the relevant information is below.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/cas.jpg

Farsight

September 7th, 2006, 01:46 AM

Blah bah. Low rise and brick built. Blah blah. Conservation area. Blah. English Heritage. Listed. Blah.

Yeah yeah. Fucking nimbies.

The Longford

September 7th, 2006, 11:09 AM

Blah blah . Conservation area. Blah blah. World Heritage site. Blah blah. the character one of the most important areas in modern industrial history fucked up by crappy greedy developments.
Yeah yeah. Fucking build something inappropiate in your front yard Farbanks and see if the nimby in you rises to surface.

GShutty

September 7th, 2006, 12:28 PM

It's a double edged sword. I think something needs doing with the site, but to say low-rise red-brick.....well you've seen the previous proposals. I really hope that the 'consultation' that is supposed to be taking place will produce a better building and isn't just a case of the developer saying "well we did consult the residents- aren't we good. Now we'll build what we were going to build all along".

A bit cynical i know, but the location of this site within Castlefield is prominent and is well worth a high quality and fitting proposal.

Cherguevara

September 7th, 2006, 12:51 PM

Presumably this is for the development on the other side of the viaduct? In which case I think residential demands low rise brick is ridiculous. They don't want anything getting in the way of their view of nothing, which is just nonesense. Saying that, anything large in that location would be very prominent, and it does make sense that both it should not damage the area and that residents views should be taken into account in some way.

Glad to see that Farsight again takes the easiest route of confusing two seperate issues (nimbyism and heritage) to support his own warped world view. Bravo.

Farsight

September 7th, 2006, 01:14 PM

Oh come on. It is an island site... It would be wonderful for the city as a whole if the area became an urban park... but if it does have to be developed..." They don't want any development, and they're just larding on all this gracious "wonderful for the city" stuff. What they actually want is something wonderful for them.

Cherguevara

September 7th, 2006, 01:35 PM

To be fair it would be nice to have the whole sight developed as an urban park, and for someone who lives on Poole harbour to begrudge an apartment dweller some open space (of which there is precious little in central Manchester) is a bit rich. However this is probably not the best place for it.

And I never said that they weren't nimbies. I was merely pointing out your need to bring heritage into the issue so you can condemn it, when as you have so clearly pointed out, that isn't something that concerns anyone but Longford, myself and apparently Ian Simpson, but certainly not the residents.

You don't perhaps have political experience do you, as you seem adept at confusing the issue to support your own prejudices?

Farsight

September 7th, 2006, 02:51 PM

No, no political experience Che. And actually I thought I was clarifying matters.

Read the article again. I don't begrudge an apartment dweller some open space, and I think they're within their rights to oppose some glass tower. But that's not what it's about. Ed Burrows of Peel says they had some designs but the locals weren't happy so they had a rethink, and Ian Simpson doesn't think a tall glass tower would be appropriate anyhow. So what all the fuss about with all the talk of heritage and conservation? Answer: I'm all right jack, now let's turn somebody else's building into a park.

skit_uk

September 7th, 2006, 03:18 PM

Ian Simpsons architects do more than glass towers as well. Green room springs to mind. So maybe this new proposal would be sensitive to the area

Architecty

September 7th, 2006, 03:47 PM

what you mean skit is that Simpson’s used to do more than just glass; his main pitch in any interview is banging on about using glass all over everything because of the amazing fact that glass lets in light like he invented the stuff or no one else had ever built with it.

His warehouse conversion directly opposite this site is a good example of his non glass (but many years back) work; but it was a conversion, as was the green room. It has become pretty clear over the years that Simpson’s means glass, and their work is poorer for rarely flinching from this dogmatic approach.

The Longford

September 7th, 2006, 04:17 PM

Do you not think Simpson's glass dumplings are just a part of the stew of manchester architects and as long as what he does with his dumplings is good then we are all the better for it?
What firms like Howard and Seddon contribute to the stew i cant say but i think saying offal is being generous.

macc

September 7th, 2006, 05:13 PM

We hear a lot about Simpson's glass buildings and from what I can gather most of them don't even exist yet and I'm sure many will never come to fruition. At the end of the day glass buildings are hardly taking over the city centre and we can handle a few more. I agree that the middle of castlefield is not the place though

I do get that Freud effect feeling from Simpson: Freuds answer to every problem seemed to revolve around wanting to shag your mum and Simpson’s inevitably seems to be a momentarily resisted knee-jerk reaction of ‘hmmm….a glass box!’ Its like that Blackadder episode where the doctor prescribes leeches as the cure to any illness he is asked to help with.

Still, its early days for me in terms of glass boxes from Simpson, though I’d prefer it if he were more exclusive to Manchester. However, inner Castlefield and the Northern quarter are the two places from which he should be he should not be allowed to set foot in.

Architecty

September 7th, 2006, 06:31 PM

He is quite clearly a great architect who employs talented people and produces good quality buildings regardless of arguments on aesthetics. I like the main grand simpsonian structures around the city, the glassy look adds greatly to the city and provides us with a ceratin style of contemporary architecture that we were devoid of previously.

However the leeches analogy sums it up perfectly; to my mind there is nothing worse than having an utterly unwavering obsession when designing buildings. Have a certain style yes, tend to use your preferred materials fine, close to obsessive quirks can work out amazing. However to believe that every situation demands the same material treatment is quite plainly misguided at best, and arrogant at worst.

On another point, I really think I’ll jump off a building the next time someone suggests that any old chunk of land “would be better off as a park”. People make their living out of construction, but very rarely out of philanthropic generosity; the best thing that can happen to crappy abandoned sites is for them to have a good quality development placed on them; that’s what will improve an area and that is the best in most situations you can hope for. Good public realm generally comes from landscaping around good buildings, almost never from nothing being built at all with a bit of tarting up.

The Longford

September 7th, 2006, 06:47 PM

I think people's frustrations at the lack of urban parks is a valid one though.
Its not always appropiate but even New York and London can find space for little pockets of calm. I agree that good landscaping is sometimes better than just a 'park' but there are some places that are crying out for it. IMO the car park next to Afflecks is the perfect candidate as is Chancery Place (for very different reasons - NQ needs somewhere for Emos to hang out in and CBD needs somewhere for office workers to eat their expensive butties).
Jacksons Wharf doesnt need a park - it needs a blocky, understated, dare i say it brick building, no more than 4 storeys high. Something quite brutal and rectalinear.
Alberts Shed is a lesson in how do it right in this part of town.

Farsight

September 8th, 2006, 10:47 AM

Stone would be nice.

Isaac Newell

September 8th, 2006, 10:53 AM

jrb

November 22nd, 2007, 10:25 PM

Looks like it's back on again in some shape or form. :banana: (could be wrong and overly excitied as usual) Can't access the AJ article from September. (anyone got access to it?)

Article already posted by Longy.

http://tinypic.com/dws31v.jpg

http://tinypic.com/dws38l.jpg

Manchester's Quay Bar falls from Stirling glory to demolition

Stephenson Bell's Quay Bar in Castlefield, Manchester, has been demolished, less than nine years after being shortlisted for the Stirling Prize.
In September the AJ revealed that the bar had been earmarked for demolition to make way for a 15-storey residential project by Ian Simpson (AJ 06.09.07).

Roger Stephenson said: 'It was a sometimes heart-wrenching up-hill struggle to convince the client (a pub-owning brewer from the Midlands) to allow us to take the design intentions through to completion.

'It was a radical contemporary proposition in the middle of a very significant conservation area.

'The battle to deliver the building took a few years off my life, and it was the only bar to ever reach the Stirling Prize shortlist, so it's doubly upsetting to see it ripped apart.'

Completed in 1998, the bar won a hatful of awards, but closed in 2005.

http://www.howardpropertyplc.com/hh/index.htm

b4mmy

November 26th, 2007, 02:01 PM

Never was keen on Quay Bar, either in it or outside it...

Comdot

April 3rd, 2008, 04:28 AM

a little update
rubble (most of it) from demolished building now gone. perhaps this could be piled immenently, any thoughts?
tuesday
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/17802-4ChesterRoad_pic4.jpg

other pics/ renders- http://www.skyscrapernews.com/gallery.php?id=1780&idi=2-4+Chester+Road&images=all

Chogmook

April 3rd, 2008, 10:31 AM

A garden. :)

roobarb!

April 4th, 2008, 03:08 PM

A garden. :)

A what now? ;)

andysimo123

April 4th, 2008, 09:54 PM

Comdot

April 4th, 2008, 10:38 PM

here's a pictue of quay bar from *************************

http://*************************/manchester/jpgs/manchester_building_aw120806_225.jpg

i do remember it now. it's remeniscent of that place on the corner of medlock street, whose name i forget.

Comdot

May 13th, 2008, 05:35 PM

site today (1 photo)
http://www.nickgrayson.net/ssc/2-4%20chester%20road%20site%20manchester%20photos%2013052008/SP_A0017%20copy.jpg

flange

October 12th, 2008, 12:58 AM

Inacity seeks life of luxury in Manchester

10.10.08

By David Doyle

Developer enters joint venture with Howard Eurocape for £80m scheme

Wayne Mellor’s Inacity is teaming up with Irish-based property company Howard Eurocape to develop a £80m mixed-use scheme on the edge of the Castlefield area of Manchester.

Manchester-based Inacity is understood to have paid between £6m and £7m for a 50% stake in Chester Road Properties, the holding company for a development site at 2-4 Chester Road.

The 50:50 joint venture plans a mixture of luxury flats, a four- or five-star hotel and around 60,000 sq ft of offices designed by Ian Simpson Architects, which could be worth £80m when completed. The site is on one of the main arterial routes into Manchester.

Howard Eurocape is headed by Irish developer and investor Frank Gormley, and is carrying out developments in the UK, Ireland, South Africa, Poland and Sardinia.

The joint venture intends to submit a planning application after Christmas and will look for development financing once planning consent is secured.

Grainne Hollywood, managing director of Howard Eurocape, told Property Week: ‘There is certainly demand for good-quality hotels in Manchester’, and that this could lead to the replacement of the residential element with a second hotel or apart-hotel.

The joint venture is thought to be in discussions with several hotel operators. Securing an operator and tenants for the office space are vital to secure funding for the scheme.

‘Without an end user committed to the hotel, the scheme will not get developed,’ said an industry insider.

Part of the site already has planning permission for 90 flats, secured by the site’s former owner, Stirling Capital, in 2004. However, since then Manchester has been one of the worst-hit cities in the country from the fall in demand for city flats.

The scheme could also face a planning headache from the residents of Castlefield, among them celebrities such as Jason Orange of pop group Take That, who have been instrumental in defeating other schemes for the prospective UNESCO world heritage site at the planning stage.

Peel Holdings’ plans for 118 flats at the nearby Jackson’s Wharf were rejected by the council last January, following pressure from local residents, despite being recommended for approval by planning officers. Peel is lodging an appeal against the decision.

http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=36&storycode=3124559

heatonparkincakes

October 12th, 2008, 02:15 AM

"Grainne Hollywood" Thats real isnt it now. Hasnt been made up for one of my many as yet written plays (more of that self promotion thing later this year kids.)

When ever anything comes about Castlefields I think of that bit in his book called Manchester by Dave Haslam.

I think that back in 1992, we would have glowed like the startled eyes of an ordsall hoodie caught in the glare of a security camera at the thought of this being built on what was then wasteland.

15 or so years later and we have at last started thinking aloud, what our continental cousins have been saying and doing since the 60's.

I might be the first to scotch the complaints of the celeb riche of castlefields and such, but on this matter they have a good case. Its not really necessary.

Given the amount of energy wasted on such a small piece of land. Its remarkably sad, given so much of inner central Manchester would be transformed with such developments. Me thinks Ardwick Strangeways, gorton, Longsight.

But thats capitalism for you.......

And yeah I think I might have said it first but yeah Afflecks car aprk as the NQ park for yer emos is the best suggestion.

SleepyOne

October 12th, 2008, 02:34 AM

Shame the Duke of Bridgewater's decendents didn't stick around these parts. There's a Titian-sized philanthropic gesture owed to the city that could transform these modern day development opportunities into something much more worthwhile.

Chorley Boi

October 12th, 2008, 08:45 PM

inacity lol where have i heard that before lol

CDX

January 14th, 2010, 12:17 AM

Ok, so no big news, just a few comments the current owners of the site, Chester Road Properties Ltd, have made on the Core Strategy document:
CRP welcome the support for the City Centre emphasis for tall building development. However CRP wish to register its comment that conservation area locations may prove as suitable for development of tall buildings as non-conservation area locations.

English Heritage and CABE’s Guidance on Tall Buildings (July 2007) does not preclude or discourage the development of tall buildings in conservation areas, however impacts on the historic environment including conservation areas is clearly an important consideration in the determination of applications for tall buildings.

This reference in Policy En18 should therefore be removed so as to be consistent with national guidance on the matter.

* Comment ID: 519
* Response Date: 05/01/10 13:35

CRP register its in-principle support for the aspirations of Policy EC4, but stress the importance that other employment generating activity can have in the City Centre beyond B1 office jobs.

Service uses, including hotel use, can be a major employment generator, providing jobs for a range of skill levels which are also of significant importance to the City’s sustained growth, particularly in the current economic climate.

* Comment ID: 510
* Response Date: 05/01/10 13:13

http://manchester-consult.limehouse.co.uk/common/search/advanced_search.jsp?id=379091&sortMode=response_date&lookingFor=representations&tab=list
http://manchester-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cspo/core_strategy_proposed_option?pointId=805857