St Georges Island today

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/ANTEATPETE/mancpicaug007.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/ANTEATPETE/mancpicaug006.jpg

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/nutscape/bygeorge.jpg

I've got a few more of the site rising tucked away somewhere which i can dig out, HR if you stick this in your first post i'll remove this so that theres an chronological order to the thread,

Damn hackers!

Without doubt the new buildings in this area are the best in Manchester! Come to think of it, I don't think theres been a poor design yet! Lets see if New Islington can top erm......? What the fuck is the part of the City Centre called! It needs a name!

Ps! Apparently its Hulme/Castlefield/Salford?

It is Castlefield. Though these two projects are a bit cut off from the main Barca-Bridge-Key103 area of Castlefield due to that bloody big main road near there.

My past photos of these two:

St Georges
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/imagesall.php?ref=238&idi=St.+Georges+Tower+1&self=nse&selfidi=238St.GeorgesTower1_pic2.jpg&no=2
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images.php?se=nse&ref=3011&idi=St+Georges+Tower+2

Vie
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/imagesall.php?idi=Vie&ref=367&selfidi=367Vie_pic10.jpg&self=nse&no=10&x=42&y=88

CAW, you need to embed the photos rather than linking. Gothic's site is slow as hell half the time...

Technically, Castlefield ends at the Mancunian Way, it's Cornbrook on the other side.

Did'nt think it was really Castlefield! More Salford/Hulme?

Salford is the other side of the Irwell/Ship Canal. I always knew round there as Cornbrook/Hulme, with Castlefield being on the otherside of the Mancunian Way.

The area is called St. Georges or Cornbrook (well that's what it says in the Manchester a-z and on ordanance survey maps). It's referred to as Castlefield by the developers as Castlefield is considered a desirable area to live in. In terms of voting it's in the Hulme ward (local) and Manchester central (MP).

I think the Dandara devlopments (Base and St. Georges Island) are both very poor designs. Base is as dull as you can get and St. Georges Island are a cross between 60's council flats and the Arndale centre (see the tiling on the sides!) - IMO of course.

Interesting development proposed just off Chester Road, not far from
St Georges/Cornbrook!

Hulme Ward 076336/FO/2005/C3 05/08/2005 Land Bounded By Bentinck Street/ Ellesmere Street/ Arundel Street City Mixed use development of 4 blocks comprising shop (A1), financial and professional services (A2), business (B1), creche, gallery, museum, library (D1) and/or sports and fitness centre (D2) at ground floor, 217 apartments (C3) above, basement parking for 187 cars and associated landscape works

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

Plus another two major developments!

City Centre Ward 068445/FO/2003/C3 03/08/2005 121 Princess Street City Change of use of building to comprise Class A1 (shops) Class A2 (financial professional services) Class B1 (offices) on ground floor, 54 residential units on upper floor and retained basement nightclub use

City Centre Ward 075688/FO/2005/C3 02/08/2005 Jacksons Wharf Blantyre Street Castlefield City Mixed Use Development comprising 118 residential units with basement car parking, a shop unit with (A1) at ground floor, 37 No. car parking spaces for use by the commercial occupiers of Middle Warehouse and associated landscape works

Don't tell us Caw! You already know about them? Yawn! :wink2:

i wish mcc's websites had the pdf function sccs has.

oops. just realised this was the urban splash thread!

Some shots from today
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/238St.GeorgesTower1_pic22.jpg
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/238St.GeorgesTower1_pic23.jpg

4 towers now rising. My mate reckons that St Georges ''Looks cardboard, and is shit''

Vie
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/367Vie_pic12.jpg

St Georges and Moho the other day!

Note how small the apartments/Balconies are on the St Georges apartments!
(Benidorm style! No hanging your towels over the balconies! :) )

The cladding on the side looks quite good!

Moho looks another quality development!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0499.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0500.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0511.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0522.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0533.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0544.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0844.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0866.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0877.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0888.jpg

..edited

Thanks a lot for those great pics jrb. The first few really show off the genius of Urban Splash (and their architects). Before Moho and Burton Place were built you had what I presume was wasteland and poor quality derelict buildings. What they've done with the enew build is to really very strongly reintroduce a street patteren such that this area feels very urban and very much part of the city. It seems to have a real sense of place.

The ground floor units even though they are empty at the present time enhance the street no end.

St George's Island looking good up close. Not sure about the effect of the cladding from a distance though as the detail is lost. The originally proposed bronzey looking cladding would have been much better IMO.

Cheers jrb great pics , Moho looks class , that street looks miles better now its been cleaned up ,last time i went around there it looked like Beirut.

That Moho and St Georges look really good. Clean lines, nice colour. What are those browns anybody? Wood brick bronze? I'm not usually a fan of brown, but I like it. And the spanning wide balconies look integral, contributing to the building shape rather than being tack-ons like on The Edge. Good stuff. It shows how attention to detail can make all the difference to what are fairly simple rectangles underneath.

The side cladding on the St Georges look really strange.
Yes kinda like cardboard...but then wood or stone...weird!

Somebody's going to have to explain something to me because since George's were announced, I've failed to grasp why others like them. They're.....they're nothing but sodding BEnchill tower blocks, albeit with a glass fronted balcony.

I'm firmly in the unconvinced camp on this one too. I love the urban splash stuff, Timber Wharf is one of Manchester's best, but I worry that these 5 towers are not quite of the same class.

I think the right hand side of Urban Splash's Moho on this picture is quite close to the St Georges sleek glass balcony look. The left hand side has the interrupted balcony screen across the entire face of the building, which looks real good with the wood or whatever it is.

http://www.yorkon.co.uk/managed/housing/header/moho_artist_impres_court.jpg

I'm quite dissapointed with St Georges so far. It really does look a bit cheap.

I think the right hand side of Urban Splash's Moho on this picture is quite close to the St Georges sleek glass balcony look. The left hand side has the interrupted balcony screen across the entire face of the building, which looks real good with the wood or whatever it is.

http://www.yorkon.co.uk/managed/housing/header/moho_artist_impres_court.jpg

That's on the inner courtyard part of the building and is just the corridor to the flats on each floor (i.e. not balcony's for the flats). The part on the left of the picture is the same as what is visable to everyone from the outside.

St. George's is (imo) a cross between 60's councils flats and the arndale centre (those tiles on the side ffs). Having said that it's ten times better than Base.

I live in Moho and have to say that it's one of Urban Splash's best developments to date. Burton Place (the brown one with the sliding blinds) is good to look at on the exterior but is pretty much run of the mill inside. There really isn't anything like MOHO anywhere in Manchester, and I would be hard pressed to find something similar elsewhere in the UK.

St George's Island looks pretty average to me, however, there's still some sort of plastic on the balcony walls. Hope they remove them soon! BTW, I really think it's about time the council (which is Manchester btw) built a pedistrian bridge of some sort connecting the Urban Splash campus with the rest of Castlefield.

The area is not Hulme, but is considered to be part of Castlefield.

Up until last week I lived in Timber Wharf. Had done since it was built. US have continued to build some excellent developments in the area (MoHo, Burton Place, with more to come I believe). Shame about Dandara's lack of vision.

Anyway, I understand that the developers in the area have lobbied the council to officially extend the Castlefield boundary to include Ellesmere Street / Worsley St. area.

Put the post code in a search and I believe it comes back as Hulme. Look on the A-Z and it's St. George's (although I don't know anybody who has ever called the area that).

This lot the other day
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/367Vie_pic13.jpg

Same shot 6? months ago.
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/367Vie_pic2.jpg


http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/367Vie_pic14.jpg

That seems to be progressing very quickly, lovely day for the photos aswell.

BTW, I really think it's about time the council (which is Manchester btw) built a pedistrian bridge of some sort connecting the Urban Splash campus with the rest of Castlefield.



Me and the misses are thinking of shipping out to St Georges (as it should be known) and we said exactly the same thing, it seems really cut off there with the Mancunian Way, though there is the canal path that goes under it but I wunt bother after 6 :runaway: .

wunt
wtf...

wtf...


Oh Im sorry you dont like my Salford twist on words :sleepy:

Word of the day grand.
Beats virtual abbreviations anyday.
Good point about the bridge mind. The horseshoe bridge connecting Hulme to, um, last legs mechanical sheds would be a good pace setter.

Me and the misses are thinking of shipping out to St Georges (as it should be known) and we said exactly the same thing, it seems really cut off there with the Mancunian Way, though there is the canal path that goes under it but I wunt bother after 6

Yes, if Cornbrook, Pomona, Ordsall and beyond is to thrive as an integrated part of the city centre then there need to be better pedestrian linkages. Good point.

Urban Splash are to be applauded for creating a proper urban street network there rather than silly, overly attention-seeking, slap dash buildings that need to be enclosed behind a fence. To ensure the area thrives they do now need to look at properly linking it to Castlefield and Hulme.

Hopefully St Georges Island will be connected to Timber Wharf with a bridge too.

How long do we reckon those industrial buildings fronting on to Chester Rd before the church have got left? I think theres a tyre place there and various others making the place look all together tatty. Anyone heard anything about this strip of land? Bags of potential there I reckon for really stretching out the city centre.

Check out the crowngate thread, Dandara have a tower planned there, while theres another tower planned for the garage. Hope they do something around the 3m Factory/Offices though, my mrs walks over that bridge back from work at 3am

:eek2:

Check out the crowngate thread, Dandara have a tower planned there, while theres another tower planned for the garage. Hope they do something around the 3m Factory/Offices though, my mrs walks over that bridge back from work at 3am

:eek2:

I don't think he means the Dandara site but the land between St Georges and Chester Road, Dandara is the other side of the roundabout.

The pedestrian linkage really does need sorting, took me about 5 minutes to cross over where Trinity Way meets Regents Road, made me crave the Ramsdens brewed tates a tad more though mind.

Ah yeah always thought that when coming into tram on the town. How on earth do people get to St.Georges at the moment over the motorway?

I mean the stretch from the old Bulls Head pub( I think thats what its called) near the BMW Bike place and St Georges church, theres a tyre fixing place, an old pub set back and some factory type units set back along Chester Rd

I mean the stretch from the old Bulls Head pub( I think thats what its called) near the BMW Bike place and St Georges church, theres a tyre fixing place, an old pub set back and some factory type units set back along Chester Rd


I was driving around there last week and it does still looks a bit tatty due to some of the buildings fronting Chester Rd. I Can't believe they will be there for that much longer though in view of the scale of developments going on in this area. The old pub set back is the Manchester Regiment. The good news is urban splash are planning something here, got their hoardings plastered alll over it. Also they are developing the Albert Mill which is set back next to Britannia Mill.

http://www.homedesignawards.com/homebuilder/homebuilder_2005/Category6/castlefield/castlefield.htm

Crappy to cross this lot
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/367Vie_pic15.jpg

I cross that lot every day on my way o work. On my bike as well but they do have a seperate bike crossing lane. :)

The towpath under the bridge next to St Georges/Timber Warf is actually alright, i use it all the time coming back from the pub and never seen anything dodgy, just couples and stuff, in fact it's quite romantic with all the lights reflecting off the canal.

I'll lob this one in here!

A bit more info! The architects are Hattrell and Partners. The developemt will be 14 storeys high! Not very exciting to look at! Another good midrise though!

Hulme Ward 076565/FO/2005/C3 27/10/2005 Site Off Harry Ramsdens, 1 Water Street City Erection of mixed use development comprising three office units (use class B1), one shop unit (use class A1) and 160 residential apartments (use class C3) with 197 car parking spaces, following demolition of the existing building

Bring on the extra density :)

St G & V from the ring road!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture079don.jpg

St George's Island is not part of Castlefield. The area where Urban Splash and Dandara are developing forms part of a triangle of land bordered by the railway/tram, Chester Road and Egerton Street, and historically known as "Brittania Basin". The first development in this area was Brittania Mills- work by Urban Splash with substantial funding from English Partnerships.

The mills themselves and some other Urban Splash developments look good but they have not worn well. I believe US have picked up a number of awards for their buildings but residents will very often tell you a different story. Ironically for a company named "Urban Splash" their buildings are renowned for letting in water - Smithfield in N4 , Timber Wharf/ Box Works and parts of Brittania Mills - to name a few.

Whilst the developers have sought to sell the area as part of Castlefield this is really marketing hype. As previous posts have pointed out, the area has no distinctive character and is geographically isolated from other parts of the city- notably adjacent Castlefield, because of the lack of pedestrian access.


I was interested to read the post about US restoring the street by building to the perimiter of available sites. Unfortunately this does nothing for local amenity. Instead its left a lot of empty commercial units (available at city centre rents/prices and ridiculous rateable values for a redevelopment area), and enclosed private gardens. The area looks like a dumping ground for "statement architecture" with little thought for how people will live and work there in practice.

^^ Maybe its my suspicious mind but this post has the whiff of a rival developer or a spurned architect. You make some interesting points though 'urban manifesto'. (Welcome by the way).

Firstly regarding the marketing angle. In general Im against losing historic place names but Castlefield has such a profile now, is such a strong brandname that would appear to add that much more value to a given development, that an expanded "Castlefield" was an inevitability. Urban Splash have in my view done such a great job of urbanising a potentially very difficult and remote site that they can call it what the hell they like as far as Im concerned.

Your point about empty commercial units demonstrates the need for better pedestrian links and is not an argument for a different urban design approach. These units will fill with time, as is gradually happening across the city in similarly less well established locations. This is more likely to happen with a strong urban street network as has been laid down than a whole series of unrelated "landmark" buildings. Better to have the long term potential to provide such amenity rather than removing that potential by not installing them in the first place. Perhaps they could have incorporated more public open space though? Was it EDAW that masterplanned this district?

As for your final point about it being a "dumping ground for statement architectre with little though for how people will live and work there in practice" - well I am utterly confounded by this statement. Every single development there although thorougly modern is nevertheless attractive, unfussy and restrained in the extreme - and all set within the context of a robust masterplan. Your point would be an extremely valid critisism applied to districts such as Salford Quays but from where I sit it seems to have no basis when applied to this part of Castlefield. Finally, you only have to look at the shameful dross that Bellway have flung up accross the road in Castlefield proper (their 'Citygate' development) to see the gulf in class between these two developers and the end result.

Hi Sleepy One, and thanks for the welcome note :) ! Just to be clear I moved in to the area about six months ago, wowed by the look of the new buildings and seeing the potential of this place as somewhere to live. You flatter me with the incorrect connection to the developers and architectural community. My life is much more modest than that :bash:

"Statement architecture" seems to me to be stuff that architects dream up and persuade developers to build. In the case of these residential developments I wonder if you have talked to anyone who lives in them? The choice of materials will not be long lasting. Communal areas are expensive to maintain and unpleasant to use, water literally pours into some of these buildings because they have not been finished by the developers ! Many of these buildings are built for several hundred people to occupy - they are not well insulated from the surrounding environment -noise is a constant problem, and to my knowledge there is only one lift in Timber Wharf (itself a 7 storey building with around 180 apartments !) which breaks down every other week The car park there is frequently under water. These are the realities of the much vaunted urban design you praise. These buildings fail their occupants because they do not work in the way they are perceived by outsiders to work.

The streetscape you refer to reflects the same lack of intellectual rigour in considering use and occupancy. Most streets that work well encompass variety, amenity and scope for diverse public use. Simply building to the perimiter of every site to form dense urban street scapes and eliminating green space is misguided. There are now around 1000 residential units in this area. But then there is not a single public open space, spare piece of land for visitors to park or a bus stop. It is all very well to say these things will come or refer to a blueprint for the area, but the bare boned reality is this so called "regeneration" is succeding at looking good to outsiders but failing to deliver for inhabitants.

You say that a bridge linking this area with Castlefield would improve occupancy of the commercial units. I am not sure this would help. There is no eveidence that the mancunian way footbridge between Hulme and the city centre had any similar effect. What this area needs is distinctive identity. A reason to come here other than to be at home. It seems to me that calling it Castlefield dilutes that objective, but whatever the area is called it currently lacks identity as a destination.

You say that a bridge linking this area with Castlefield would improve occupancy of the commercial units. I am not sure this would help. There is no eveidence that the mancunian way footbridge between Hulme and the city centre had any similar effect.

Though in all fairness, that bridge links a council estate to some industrial sheds.

Though in all fairness, that bridge links a council estate to some industrial sheds.

And it is the longest bridge you could ever imagine just to cover 10m of road.

Your initial post did not read like that of a resident, urban manifesto. You have now said you are resident in the district and I have no reason to doubt your word but a few things you say are pretty curious.

Im still unsure as to what you mean by "statement architecture" in this context. Your complaints seem to surround apparent flaws in build quality rather than the stylistic and aesthetic qualities of the blocks themselves. From what I can make out externally the choice of materials would appear to be standard, high quality, durable materials such as glass, steel, concrete, timber and stone. What materials are you referring to?

Maintenance of the communal areas would surely be accounted for by your service charge and Im struggling to understand how anybody could agree to let or buy a flat in a partially completed development. It sounds like you have a number of issues you would need to take up with Urban Splash in terms of maintenance.

In terms of urban design perhaps the district could do with more public open space - this seems to be your gripe but surely you were aware of this characteristic before you moved in? Certainly they have cleverly incorporated an attractive (private) green space to the front of Timber Wharf (I believe this forms the roof of the car park) but whether there is any significant public open space incorporated into the larger area within the emerging masterplan remains to be seen.

A strong, dense urban street network of the type that, as in the city centre, can support the variety, amenety and scope for public use you are looking for - is clearly a must. These do, I agree also need to be supported by public open spaces but a strong street network with provision for street level activity is the essential starting point. As the area becomes more established, as more people move in and as the pedestrian links are improved to the rest of the city centre you will find more of these units filling up - as they are doing elsewhere in the city. Urban design is about streets, spaces, economy and people - all together. Urban Splash have made a great start in urbanising a very difficuly and isolated part of the city. Like yourself I would like to see greater, meaningful open space now being incorporated as the area is building up a critical mass now.

It sounds like people who have been used to living in conventional housing moving into flats and realising that it is not all as it appears in the brochures. They have been sold a glamorous lifestyle and the reality is never as good. High density living will always have flaws (i.e noise, communal areas damage, blocked foul drainage etc)

This is turning in to an interesting debate. Thank you for your contributions. We will all have divergent views on what is our favourite streetscape and what levels of convenience and amenity we want from the buildings we occupy. I accept that.

I think I am making a more radical point. What I am driving at is that one can look at these buildings as an outside observer and admire the facades, the materials and the striking designs. But if you scratch beneath the surface a bit- and very often its only possible to do that when you talk to people who live in a building or you occupy it yourself- you come away with a completely different vision.This leads one to question what is actually going on here: Urban Splash are to be admired for their ability to attract newcomers to derilict urban fringes by putting up striking buildings which appear superficially attractive. Other developers have moved in on their patch when they see the opportunity to make a many and built far less impressive blocks.

But we must not get carried away with the idea that this is "regeneration" of any sort. This is very much "look at me!" architecture which lacks choherence with the practicalities of how people actually live. Surely urban regeneration must be an argument for sustainable communities? We need to question our assumption that because a building looks good externally it will be durable and practical. I do not believe the two things are necessarily linked. And I think the evidence supports that conclusion.

As to issues of whether or not some of these buildings are not finished off properly or adequate maintenance is being carried out, then yes, perhaps the owners have cause for complaint. I rent and would not buy. The quality is simply not there. Perhaps it has all been spent on creating the right initial impression?

Surely we can't make any real judgement on any new development until it is finished and has had time to bed down. Communities are not created in the current building sites around St.Georges but will be developed over time.

The way I see it these new developments will be succesful if they attract and keep professional tenants. Whether the massive building boom at the moment is just creating massive overcapacity in the future is not something I would know.

Saying that, the house in Hulme I am in right now was finished last autumn and suffers from truly awful build quality. Lots of leaks, damp, shitty finish all over. We move out in 2 weeks for the less threatening 'burb of Chorlton! I guess that says something about new development in Hulme.

I walk across the Hulme bridge all the time. It is stupidly too long though, the slats wobble and the access of the city side is not very safe to walk through at night. Things might improve when theres better development on the city side though.

I've got to say, Urban M., that i really disagree with you here (sorry!). I think that Urban Splash are doing a fantastic job, in creating an attractive and sustainable community.

Whilst you argue that they are making statement architecture, I say good! Where we differ is that I believe that you feel that they are doing it for the sake of it, or for some sort of ego trip. I actually think that it is well planned and that whilst they are not without fault, these are the same problems that beset most/all other similar developments accross the City Centre but with benefits.

To elaborate and make my point a bit more clearly, I would like to compare this area of the city, to Ludgate Hill (or Upper Shudehill, between Rochdale Rd. & the CIS Tower/ above Angel Meadows). Urban Splash are creating designs, which I think everybody would agree are at the opposite end of the spectrum to the red brick/breeze block model that the 'designers' seem to be getting away with in Ludgate Hill. Whilst I will grant you the difference at present could be simply said to be creating 'prettier' apartment schemes, I believe that the Urban Splash designs will stand the test of time, whereas the Ludgate Hill Schemes, built by the likes of David McClan and Dylan Harvey, will be lucky not to look dated and worn in 10yrs.

The crucial difference to me though is the fact that all of the Urban Splash schemes comprise of Ground Floor retail units. Many of the initial ones are small and have succeeded to some degree in attracting small independant businesses and now on the newer schemes eg MoHo, we are starting to see larger units that will eventually attract a community supermarket, bars etc. Also at City Gate, (slightly seperate I grant) you will see another small no. of units, in which a community Dr.s is proposed. Go to Ludgate Hill and there isn't even provision for a single shop.

As far as present amenities go U/S are at least as close to a 'real' supermarket, that being Sainsbury's on Regent's Rd., as Ludgate Hill are to the basic Tesco Metro on Market St.. I don't think you can realistically expect, form a commercial point of view, any business to come into an area, 'before' the residents arrive.

The present problems of build quality, and I think that we agree on this, is due to finishing and management co.s. This to my knowledge, both personal and form talking to other City Centre dwellers, runs accross the board and whilst needs addressing is a seperate issue.

To Summise, I believe that the U/S area will become an asset to the City, whereas Ludgate Hill, will simply be an area of apartments.

This is interesting. I was talking about something related on the Ancoats thread.

I think architects and planners are usually a bit quick to think they have all the answers, when in reality they don't. There's some kind of institutionalised conceit wherein they convince themselves of perfection with their own flowery phrases, and rather than admitting problems and refining the next project to move in the right direction, the corrections tend to be drastic. Tower blocks anybody? Low rise mazes? Or do we know better now? IMHO planning and architecture would be better served with a little humility that said we strive for perfection, but we're not there yet.

What are the fundamental differences between the St.Georges/Vie/surrounding developments and the 60's council towers immediately adjacent?

I am interested in how the massive difference in rental value is reached?

Hype and your neighbours probably make a massive difference to be honest.

thecityofgold: the people in them, and their responsibilities and accountabilities.

Cheers GShutty - I was wondering where exactly Ludgate Hill was (directly sandwiched between Skyline Central and Angel Meadows). There are a lot of creative industries cracking on there at the moment, but the apartments (new build) are very bland indeed.

In most regions, British real-estate is about 30% overpriced. If I was shelling out the big asking prices for these 'apartments', I would be holding back at least 10%. I would ensure this contingency is written into the contract of purchase and sale. The final payment would be conditional on all promised fixtures and utilities to be complete and in sound working order.
With a holdback you just watch how quickly the builders scurry around kissing arse (and kicking the sub-contractors arses) to make everything good. If you are carrying a mortgage, the mortgagor (usually the bank or building society) would be very happy to see such a clause because they are absorbing most of the risk.

Its interesting to note the emphasis placed on the ground floor commercial space. You might want to take a closer look at the occupancy, as I did before replying to this thread. For example Box Works currently has two empty units - two businesses came here and moved out, and the other units are an estate agents and a cafe (open 9am to 3pm) who's customers seem to be contractors working on adjacent developments. The ground floor units in Timber Wharf: 5 occupied by Urban Splash, two by a furniture store, one wedding gift shop and a couple of non retail businesses. The remainder empty some three to four years after the building was contsructed.

I understand all the units in Burton Place are unlet (but hardly surprising since its very new), whereas in MOHO , Urban Splash and another developer are about to take a large chunk of the space for property sales. Presumably these are short term lettings. However all this begs the question is this any better than living in an area where there are no commercial units on the ground floor?

As to over-valuations and the potential for a house price slump, I wonder if buildings built by any single developer will fare better than any other? The main issue would seem to be over supply of a particular type of housing: city centre apartments. We can all agree some buildings are more distinctive than others, but developers seem to be brushing construction issues under the carpet and leaving purchasers to pick up the cost in escalating service charges. In MOHO and Burton Place the service charge is £1.50 per sq foot and I have heard that its around £2000k per year in Granby House. When you deduct the cost of buildings insurance from these figures people are clearly paying through the nose.

A more sustainable approach would be to bench mark new buildings not by how they look but by overall cost of ownership/occupancy, use of low carbon footprint techniques to develop and by resource planning that identifies city wide the need for a mix of housing and development that enhances or contributes to the development of this place. The planning process does not function in this way. We may have building control standards but their relevance relates to the core things we expect from buildings- durability and safety- much less thought is given to the impact of building on the community as a whole.

.....and the other units are an estate agents and a cafe (open 9am to 3pm) who's customers seem to be contractors working on adjacent developments. The ground floor units in Timber Wharf: 5 occupied by Urban Splash, two by a furniture store, one wedding gift shop and a couple of non retail businesses. The remainder empty some three to four years after the building was contsructed.

Further to that, the cafe DOES pretty much serve the contractors - can't see it being there after the buildings are complete. Also the furniture shop (Mooch) is there as part of the deal they had to furnish the MoHo apartments - otherwise that wouldn't be there and I don't believe it's there for the long haul.

Some photos
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/3011StGeorgesTower2_pic2.jpg

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/238St.GeorgesTower1_pic24.jpg

From the Mancunian Way Bridge
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/1710St.GeorgesChurch_pic5.jpg

Same view in August 2004 by Aidan
http://www.aidan.co.uk/lg/MancWayStGeoCch4816.jpg

Vie
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/367Vie_pic16.jpg

Plus Mobo
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/caw123/PB290043copy.jpg

Hmmm, I'm not too sure about that building. Its a bit of a blast from the past for me I'm afraid.

nice find jrb.

http://www.circalife.com/

This development (architects, Stephenson-Bell) is surely the next development within this expanding part of Castlefield. More back-of-pavement, grid based blocks with plenty of ground floor retail and lesiure opportunities by the looks of things - so it probably won't please Urban Manifesto. Interesting to see the mid height penthouses perhaps hinting at greater number of larger apartments?

When all these blocks are completed and occupied I would have thought you have sufficient density to sustain some groundfloor units although the area does also need to have a distinctive profile, better pedestrian links and quality open space to help it draw in people from outside and function as an integrated part of the wider city.

Sleepy!

Thats two compliments in one day! :)

I think I'll pour myself a glass of wine that man! :cheers:

Suppose they've added some bulk to that area, nonetheless I'm no fan n have rarely taken notice of their development and construction to be honest..

Interesting, GShutty.

Circa

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I spoke to somebody who lives in that area. He advised me that the picture as given on the website, is a little misleading, as the apartments will not front onto Chester Rd. as it appears. On a plus note, that leaves more room for additional blocks.

Apparently the residents have recieved the proposals warmly "even the ones that normally complain at everything". The Dandara development (Base 360) in that area being one that has been poorly received.

Taken Friday, Next to the city centre ring road Salford.

Note the isolated cluster starting to form in this area of the city centre.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture268.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture275.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture269.jpg

Towards sunset tonight

http://freake.demon.co.uk/sscpics/man084.jpg

From Castlefield....

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c119/Latic12/P1010058.jpg

St Georges and Vie Skyline + Close ups!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture047.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture043.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture056.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture058.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture057.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture055.jpg

Like em' :) thumbs up!

Restrained, classy and modern. Like it. These buildings will serve as a useful pointer for how the new Student and Nursing Centre at Manchester University might turn out - particularly the student accom portion - both developments being by McAslan.

I find the timber cladding they decided to use on St George's looks much better up close. Unfortunately from afar you can't really make out the pattern.

had to dig deep to find this thread :)

today:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y139/rolybling/dan1.jpg

Nice and dense development there. :)

Battery hens and poor natural light spring to mind.

I wouldn't buy an apartment there.

Battery hens and poor natural light spring to mind.

I wouldn't buy an apartment there.

neither would I, those balconies look cheap up close

You should have seen the original scheme (maybe you did)! No word of a lie but the flats on salford precinct were a more attractive prospect than the horrific thing they proposed first. These are no better and a stain on the good name of McAslan. They look like cheap local authority housing from the 60's but with some fancy cladding and i would say there was 10 times more open space around local authority housing than this rabid over-development.
This is cynical profiteering - trying to squeeze far too much money out of a tiny site.
If i lived in any of the decent stuff on t'other side of the canal i would sue dandara!
If this was public housing i would be ashamed of it in my city - as it is the idiots who buy one of these attrocities deserve everything they get!
Apart from that i quite like them!

in short: its piss poor.

I think dgnr8 put it best when he said these were Benchill council blocks.

Vie from GMEX tram stop
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b292/caw1234/P3030001copy.jpg

Cardboard Ville
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/3011StGeorgesTower2_pic3.jpg

Same view in July 2005

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/3011StGeorgesTower2_pic1.jpg

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/3011StGeorgesTower2_pic4.jpg

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/3011StGeorgesTower2_pic5.jpg

Who wouldve bought one of these? madness.

Let's see what they look like when they're finished.

I notice dan dara is edited out by SSC so I can't post the link to their site.

No wonder, because some people seem to have it in for them.

I would buy one purely on location. Other than that, they are crap.

Sorry, I got sidetracked, post above edited.

Let's see what they look like when they're finished.



One of them is externally complete. Looks drab.

Anyone know how much these are going for?

Looks like our very own version of the toytown known as Dubai! ;)

I like them.

McAslan designed these didn't they? They should never have been approved.

I dont think they're too bad. Itgs just a crying shame that Dandara apparently decided to cheapen the cladding, substituting the nice vertically oriented bronzey-looking material for ubiquitous horizontal timber panels.

The colour of the timber panels is very flat and lacking in animation thereby giving these buildings a flimsy look about them.

McAslan are quality architects; Im having my doubts about Dandara though. They talk the talk but at the end of the day appear to behave like any other developer in terms of cutting corners and compromising the end result. Im still optimistic this development will be redeemed when it is entirely finished.

I dont think they're too bad. Itgs just a crying shame that Dandara apparently decided to cheapen the cladding, substituting the nice vertically oriented bronzey-looking material for ubiquitous horizontal timber panels.

The colour of the timber panels is very flat and lacking in animation thereby giving these buildings a flimsy look about them.

McAslan are quality architects; Im having my doubts about Dandara though. They talk the talk but at the end of the day appear to behave like any other developer in terms of cutting corners and compromising the end result. Im still optimistic this development will be redeemed when it is entirely finished.

Hey Sleepy- just so you know, they aren't actually timber panels, they're some sort of ceramic. Doesn't look amazing, but I do think that the area will look a lot better when the landscaping is done and importantly will (hopefully) encourage development on the arches between there and Vie. There could make a really quirky retail/ bar zone....we'll see

McAslan designed these didn't they? They should never have been approved.

If its any consolation what we have now was a big improvement on the original scheme but never the less you are right - they should have never been approved and for what its worth i am on record as saying so.
Absolute bobbins!
McAslans should be ashamed of themselves.

And so should the planners...

Ceramic eh, GShutty? Interesting. Still looks like timber and doesn't look the best either. I still maintain if the developers had stuck with what appears to have been the originally intended cladding these would have looked great. The design seems to be typical McAslan in that it is restrained, simple and (supposedly) elegant although some of the proportions seem to give the lie to that last adjective, I have to concede!

Here is what they should have looked like....

http://www.mcaslan.co.uk/upload/ST-George-2.gif42c261a37e0de.gif

... that cladding seems to make all the difference. Look at how much interest and depth it seems to give the facade. Shame. Also the very first renders indicated a projecting glass fin, above the roofline a la Beetham. Another sad omission for which these buildings are much the poorer. :(

Personally, for what they are, I can't see too much of a problem with them. The comparision to 60s blocks is a bit daft really as these are not streets in the sky, but from what I can see small semi-embedded terraces, far better than the balconies say on the GNT which are effing useless.

They are not ugly to look at either, but they are not beautiful, and if that cladding is ceramic, it'll last and last and last.

I think they look pretty damn good. I live across from them in Moho and it's just something you have to see up close. It gives Castlefield some added variety in height, colour and design. Once the area is properly landscaped, it'll be amazing.

Seems as if the complaints revolve around the balcony detail. Again, little things make all the difference. I like balconies that look like an inset part of a building rather than something tacked on. And if they are tacked on, I like them to look like an integrated whole rather than individual balconies. I wonder if this vertical steel rail on the right is for something that will improve the overall effect?

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/3011StGeorgesTower2_pic4.jpg

Someone should get a look around the inside. These buildings look very cheaply built and a quick poke around inside would be able to confirm it. Vitalspace?! I've lived in a couple of flats in Hulme and they were full of structural faults. Like they've been put up as quick and cheaply as possible to tale advantage of a house price boom? Having watched these go up they look to be a similar construction to the LIFE buildings in Hulme.

Effect on Castlefield Basin; look cheap.
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j270/caw12345/P3290018copy.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j270/caw12345/P3290019copy.jpg

I think they look ok , there nothing speical just ok .


If the small carpark in the basin was grassed over, then that first pic of CAW's would look fanstastic

They look cheap but they shouldnt be, they have used steel frames so you would have expected them to have a good finish but its poor. Its another one to add to the list of buildings that will be replaced in 20-30 years time.

I think they look ok , there nothing speical just ok .


If the small carpark in the basin was grassed over, then that first pic of CAW's would look fanstastic

Grass over a carpark!! Heaven forbid, that carpark has fantastic revenue-earning potential for somebody! ;) That's never going to happen.

I agree that they look ok. That's about all I can say.......better than the urban bight that was there before.

i think they look awful :(

another area that could have been amazing but has been let down by lazy designs

Yep, grass on that carpark would look really nice. Sigh.

How much better does it look on the render below too? Demonstrates how issues such as cladding and detailing really can make or break a given design.

http://i2.tinypic.com/smq5gm.jpg

^^ I can't believe Dandara are still using this image to market this development. Its bordering on the criminal. :mad2:

are they not puting that shizzle on top, that woould sort it out... or set it on its way

I hope they do. It'll make all the difference.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j270/caw12345/P3310058copy.jpg

St George's Island strikes an unattractively blocky and overly severe form from afar. These blocks really dont sit well on the Castlefield skyline at all. However up close they are typical McAslan - neat, modern and immaculately well detailed.

Ive still not got over the substitution of that attractive vertical bronze-metallic cladding in the initial renders for the (undoubtedly cheaper) horizontal ceramic stuff they've put on instead - see post #108. Nevertheless these blocks work well within their immediate context although Dandara's cost cutting has probably compromised the end result.

Updated images from architects' McAslan and Partners' website.


http://www.mcaslan.co.uk/upload/StGeorge_s623_Copy.gif44a532ae4272e.gifhttp://www.mcaslan.co.uk/upload/StGeorge_s589.gif44a537772c1f9.gif


http://www.mcaslan.co.uk/upload/StGeorge_s537.gif44a536429b349.gif

Why haven't they put the little glass 'fins' on top? Or have they but you can't make them out? It would make them far less council estate in shape if you could see them, which seems the main problem. Its the view from distance that is a bit dissapointing.

On a sunny day they reflect light well and close up I think they are fine so long as they stay clean and 'new looking' over time. The fact that buildings are progressively shorter saves it for me, as thankfully you can't see them all from a distance, but scooting past on the tram on a sunny day you still get the very noticeable complex reflections, layered in steps from each building.

Yes the extended glass fins (along with the cladding) are one of the crucial details that were on the initial renders that Dandara used to sell the apartments and which have been omitted (value engineered?) from the final product. A small detail maybe but a crucial one IMO.

I agree up close they look much better than they do from afar.

Dust the cobwebs off.

New pedestrian bridge.

Clarksdale Ltd (c/o Dandara Ltd)

080141/FO/2006/C3

St Georges Island
Off Hulme Hall Road
Hulme

Proposed erection of footbridge (with associated stepped access) over Bridgewater Canal from the canal towing path adjacent to Timber Wharf, Worsley Street to the St Georges Island development, Hulme Hall Road

http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/publicaccess/dc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=J2PDIJBCA0000&searchtype=WEEKLY

Surely this isn't the finished result???!!! :evil:

Thanks for surfacing this one.

Here's the Vie development on Water Street, taken on Saturday:

http://www.pichotel.com/pic/4750g5mlQ/81212.jpg

:)

I prefer balconies recessed into the substance of the building rather than "stuck-on" metal with thin struts. For example, if the side of the building came a few feet forward here:

http://www.mcaslan.co.uk/upload/StGeorge_s589.gif44a537772c1f9.gif

..I reckon the final result would look a whole lot better. Ditto up top.

Both I & a mate were sat in McDonald's (Regent Rd) on Sunday afternoon, stuffing stodgy shite down our necks, recovering from the night/s before & we were graced with an excellent view of St Goerges & Vie...
They're like something from the Eastern Block in MHO. They both look abolsutely awful. As someone's already put on here, they'll be ready for pulling down in 20/30 years time. One of my mates lives in Timber Wharf and those monstrosities back onto him. It really bugs the hell out of me when Developers can describe something as 'Luxury Living' because they've been fitted with a half decent bathroom & kitchen.. Luxury my arse. 'Luxury' is a beautiful four storey victorian townhouse in a leafy suburb and certainly not St Georges Island that resembles an effing 60's tower block... What an ugly blot on the landscape.

Both I & a mate were sat in McDonald's (Regent Rd) on Sunday afternoon, stuffing stodgy shite down our necks, recovering from the night/s before & we were graced with an excellent view of St Goerges & Vie...
They're like something from the Eastern Block in MHO. They both look abolsutely awful. As someone's already put on here, they'll be ready for pulling down in 20/30 years time. One of my mates lives in Timber Wharf and those monstrosities back onto him. It really bugs the hell out of me when Developers can describe something as 'Luxury Living' because they've been fitted with a half decent bathroom & kitchen.. Luxury my arse. 'Luxury' is a beautiful four storey victorian townhouse in a leafy suburb and certainly not St Georges Island that resembles an effing 60's tower block... What an ugly blot on the landscape.

wordup my internet companion that is spot on

Is there any render of Vie knocking about? There's none in this thread anymore.

I can't remember what it was meant to look like but I know I much prefered it how it to is looking on the photo. There is going to be some colour on it isn't there? I'm fast getting tired of grey, white and glass.

Are the St Georges' Island Towers really that bad?

Okay this development is next door to the good work that Urban Splash appear to have undertaken, but it's also on the binge of what is frankly wasteland- albeit wasteland with lots of potential: Canal and Riverside setting.

But walking along the canal, or passing on the train, it's definitley an improvement on the void that it replaced. The land has been landscaped, the towers respond to each other and angle responsively and interestingly enough to one another, there is a new canal bridge linking the island to the towpath and it looks as though the arches are being converted to complement the scheme.

Farsight will make the valid point that the developers have done a reasonble amount, Longford will have something to say:wave: and Bammy is bored, so will surely make a valid contribution.....

I think both viewpoints are valid. On the one hand these developments aren't going to win any archictectural awards (I hope). On the other hand they are perfectly decent buildings constructed in an area of town that for 30 years has been urban wasteland.

I think we are being overly hopeful if we expect every development, particularly those on the periphery of the City centre, to be groundbreaking. That doesn't excuse some of the utter shite we have seen, but I don't think these are as bad has been claimed, given the location.

I'm still waiting for some decent three or four bedroom townhouses to get built near the city centre. Where are all these yuppies and nipples going to live when they have kids?

I live on the 12th floor of St Georges Island Block 1, Vie is right below me, I'll get some pictures and upload them. I like living here, really... looking forward to the bridge being installed I'll say that much, right now I have to walk right around to get in and out of the place.

Oh it's an improvement. But I think it's all rather unexciting, and not particularly beautiful. If you look at CJC we're all saying wow, but nobody's saying wow here. I think some of the problem is design detail, like those balconies I was on about, and some of it is colour. The look is rather dull and brown and grey, not 21st Century technicolour "land of the future" that's-where-I-want-to-live. OK, there's maybe other things, and maybe I'm speaking too soon. Maybe this neck of the woods will have the wow factor when it's all finished with street furniture and plantings etc. We'll see I guess.

hey guys, im working for a major architects in Liverpool just needing your help if possible with the area between Pomona Metro station and the Vie development........need to find out what developments are underway/in planning and who they are by along the riverside. We are attempting to make the argument that a highrise/high density pattern is emerging helping to sew manchester to salford more effectively via the ordsall/ship canal area.

Im already aware of the following developments:

VIE
LAMBA COURT
THE MILL (who was the developer?)
THE URBAN SPLASH AREA (Moho, Timber Wharf, Britannia Mill, Circalife etc)
CASTLEFIELD LOCKS
ST GEORGES ISLAND
XQ7 (who is the developer??)

If anyone has any information about any other developments in that area, primarily lining the ship canal/peel holdings space it would be very much appreciated.

Or, any quick links to Planning dept info? :) :)


.....my practice is planning a development opposite the new 3/4 storey apartments on Ordsall lane (not lamba court) on existing active industrial land.

hey guys, im working for a major architects in Liverpool just needing your help if possible with the area between Pomona Metro station and the Vie development........need to find out what developments are underway/in planning and who they are by along the riverside. We are attempting to make the argument that a highrise/high density pattern is emerging helping to sew manchester to salford more effectively via the ordsall/ship canal area.

Im already aware of the following developments:

VIE
LAMBA COURT
THE MILL (who was the developer?)
THE URBAN SPLASH AREA (Moho, Timber Wharf, Britannia Mill, Circalife etc)
CASTLEFIELD LOCKS
ST GEORGES ISLAND
XQ7 (who is the developer??)

If anyone has any information about any other developments in that area, primarily lining the ship canal/peel holdings space it would be very much appreciated.

Or, any quick links to Planning dept info? :) :)


.....my practice is planning a development opposite the new 3/4 storey apartments on Ordsall lane (not lamba court) on existing active industrial land.

There's definietly one, maybe two 20+ storey proposals for this area. Just inside Salford. One of the towers/proposals had a curved pointed top.

Hulme Ward 076336/FO/2005/C3 05/08/2005 Land Bounded By Bentinck Street/ Ellesmere Street/ Arundel Street City Mixed use development of 4 blocks comprising shop (A1), financial and professional services (A2), business (B1), creche, gallery, museum, library (D1) and/or sports and fitness centre (D2) at ground floor, 217 apartments (C3) above, basement parking for 187 cars and associated landscape works

http://www.circalife.com/

------------------------------------

A bit more info! The architects are Hattrell and Partners. The developemt will be 14 storeys high! Not very exciting to look at! Another good midrise though!

Hulme Ward 076565/FO/2005/C3 27/10/2005 Site Off Harry Ramsdens, 1 Water Street City Erection of mixed use development comprising three office units (use class B1), one shop unit (use class A1) and 160 residential apartments (use class C3) with 197 car parking spaces, following demolition of the existing building

http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/publicaccess/dc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=IKLFP9BC90000

The developers for The Mill is LPC who also did Quay 5. LPC are also taking a major interest in all things Ordsal at the moment as well.
http://www.lpc1.co.uk/salford.html

There is Vanguard house in this list (check for the Ordsall one)
http://www.salford.gov.uk/planninglist-archive?id=71805

There area also two other developments planned for the single storey industrial units next to the Casino/kfc/McDonalds, can't find the planning numbers for them but i think i put them in the Central Salford thread.

The completed Vie
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/367Vie_pic17.jpg

Same view 2 years ago
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/367Vie_pic2.jpg

Cheers for the travelling chris.

Looks nice...

St Georges really isnt that bad either...

Didn't they used to make lampshades in that old building or something, Searchlight or something the company in there used to be called?

Yeah it was Searchlight, they've moved across town near to Sharp.

Good to know that they are still in business, too many of those type of jobs have been lost.

Thanks for the photos chris, Vie's a nifty looking building innit.

This area's got the potential to look fantastic, only now i'm worried about the effect of the proposed 20 storey commie block accross the way on the KFC site.

This:
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/1270/countrysideoldfield3px.jpg

Actually it's just opposite vie

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=4825

There's another building proposed next to that as well with a nice pointy roof and a bit taller, on the site next to the casino

This is the building planned for opposite Vie and next to the casino/kfc/mcdonalds.

Apparently it'll include some "family accomodation", and comercial space along ordsal lane and the two side streets.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v692/skit_uk/untitled-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v692/skit_uk/untitled3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v692/skit_uk/untitled2.jpg

Looks a bit 'Green Quarter' to me.

After getting the train past St Georges Island a couple of times recently, once I could see past all the scousers on the train with their weeked Primark shop, I have decided that I 'offically' like St Georges Island.

They do still ruin the Castlefield landscape a bit because they don't fit in, but up close, I like them. Hopfully whatever it is their made out of will stay shiny, sparkly and new looking for a long time.

so there!

I like St Georges to, the blocks shimmer as you wiz past on the tram, they add depth to Castlefields and create a good gateway impression on route into the City centre.

Ordsall Lane needs a tram route, its trying so hard to join the City Centre/Quays party, it needs a nudge