I don't F***ing believe it! The old slapper is finally getting a face lift. :)

Jarvis 'had' to invest. There's to much quality/competition in the Manchester Hotel sector now, and it's only going to get better and tougher. :master: I love market forces.

Info below. No associated documents yet.

080426/FO/2006/C2

Jarvis Hotels Plc

JWA Architects Ltd http://www.jwa-architects.co.uk/interface/practice/practice_main.asp

Jarvis Piccadilly Hotel
Piccadilly Plaza
Portland Street
M1 4PH

Refurbishment and repair of external elevations

http://www.johndavies.uk.com/Manchester-Picc-Hotel.jpg

John Davies. http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.johndavies.uk.com/Manchester-Picc-Hotel-th.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.johndavies.uk.com/thmanchester.htm&h=185&w=150&sz=11&hl=en&start=11&tbnid=LYqv9DFcqogaqM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=83&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpiccadilly%2Bmanchester%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

Would have prefered Stephenson Bell to do it cos these lot look a bit rubbish.
This building needs a smypathetic touch and these lot could just fuck it up and get rid of the buildings (not so) obvious charms.

Would have prefered Stephenson Bell to do it cos these lot look a bit rubbish.
This building needs a smypathetic touch and these lot could just fuck it up and get rid of the buildings (not so) obvious charms.

Is that sympathetic enough Longford? Unfortunately it won't happen though.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/D/demolitionday/images/wrecking_ball.jpg

Not to worry. What ever they do to it will be an improvement. :)

OMG They do indeed look shit, after looking at their site and the Hotels they've been involved in the Jarvis could end up looking even worse(sorry longy) than it does. If that's possible.

Its easy for you to take the piss but 60's architecture has its very own distinctive style and the buildings themselves have some very unique structural 'idiosyncrasies' that have to been done right or you just fuck it up.
Piccadilly Hotel have some great period touches and its the detailing on it that gives it its character -whether you actually like the building or not. If its not done right, by a decent architect, renovating 60's architecture can turn a unloved but decent building in to a unloved shit building.
If its done right (and it can be) renovating 60s stuff can make really exciting, modern buildings. I dont reckon these jokers are up to it.

Its easy for you to take the piss but 60's architecture has its very own distinctive style and the buildings themselves have some very unique structural 'idiosyncrasies' that have to been done right or you just fuck it up.
Piccadilly Hotel have some great period touches and its the detailing on it that gives it its character -whether you actually like the building or not. If its not done right, by a decent architect, renovating 60's architecture can turn a unloved but decent building in to a unloved shit building.
If its done right (and it can be) renovating 60s stuff can make really exciting, modern buildings. I dont reckon these jokers are up to it.

Not being funny Longford, but what can you do with a concrete monolithic block like that, apart from installing new windows/frames, and giving it a clean with a karcher pressure washer?

I'm a bit tired jerbil and ready for beddy byes and would really love to be able to walk and talk you through what is good about that building and what can be done with it but.....!
I'll do a full report tomorrow or if you want, come out for a walk round town one afternoon and i'll explain in person with visual aids and pointing sticks.

Not being funny Longford, but what can you do with a concrete monolithic block like that, apart from installing new windows/frames, and giving it a clean with a karcher pressure washer?

sounds perfect jrb, just what it needs, nothing else, I'd give you the job on that pitch!

I'm a bit tired jerbil and ready for beddy byes and would really love to be able to walk and talk you through what is good about that building and what can be done with it but.....!
I'll do a full report tomorrow or if you want, come out for a walk round town one afternoon and i'll explain in person with visual aids and pointing sticks.

Looking forward to it Longy.

sounds perfect jrb, just what it needs, nothing else, I'd give you the job on that pitch!

If proof was needed that it can be done. :)

http://www.karcher-usa.com/images/turnpike/left_rushmore.jpg

http://www.karcher-usa.com/images/turnpike/right_rushmore.jpg

Don't tell Jarvis though.

Great stuff! Thanks jrb, you mercury heeled messenger you. I reckon it'll look just great when it's done, and a few mingers will be eating their words!

I read someone a while back that the firm that had revamped and modernised that big 1960s BBC building in that there London village, had been drafted in to do Picadilly Hotel (apparently they shared the same original architects? Is there any truth to this?)
No.

For Jerbils sake (and those of you who still insist that 60's architecture is shit) a quick rant on why Piccadilly Hotel is a good building and needs sensitively restoring and not 'modernising'.

Where the buildings of the previous century relied on decoration and ornament for expression, Modernisn cast off what the movement saw as unneccesary adornment.
The axiom of Modernism, coined by Mies van de Rohe, was 'Less is More' and the buildings elevations were expressed more in strong horizontals and clean lines as apposed to the towers and turrets so loved by the Victorians.
British Pre war Modernism still relied on stone, glass, brick, faience tiles etc but after the war a lack of materials and advances in technology led to the increased use of concrete.
From the French for 'raw concrete' beton brut - the Brutalist style became popular with many British architects. Contrary to popular belief Brutalism doesnt mean brutal architecture. It is more accurately associated with 'truth to materials' and geometric forms. Concrete was an ideal material to express these two ideas.
Along with the clear stylistic motifs there were also intellectual and social aspects to post war architecture, associated with amongst other things town planning and traffic control.
Another , much criticised, aspect of Brutalism is the abandonment of the grand entrance and the formation of a more abstract approach wherein the building should be read for its honesty. To get rid of the more obvious entrance was in some way ridding the building of any class connatations and ironicaly makes the building more 'open' and lesss intimidating.
Another idea that developed after the war was the 'MegaStructure' wherein a building would house several different aspects of the urban make up, and centralising a city dwellers needs. For a building to qualify as a MegaStructure it must accomadate at least three different urban functions with the three obvious sectors being commercial, retail and residential.

Now we come to Piccadilly Plaza. If you were take all the aspects i have very briefly talked about and as an experiment followed the 'rules' you would come up with Piccadilly Plaza. It is one Britains few Megastructures, housing commercial, retail and hotel (a hotel being one of the criteria for Megastructure status!) in one self contained block.
The whole form, with tower and podium, is a 'classic' post war model. What is (was) exciting about the Plaza was if differing, contrasting shapes and 'textures' on the skyline. The hotel is not a monlith jerbers. You could argue City Tower is a monolith but even that has some interest which disqualifies it as a true monolith. Bernard House was a funky little brother to the tower and the hotel is a very dynamic, adventurous shape. It is a podium on top of podium. The accommodation block cuts across at right angles to the ballroom/restaraunt block and juts out with a dramatic cantilever. The same lower horizontal block has lots of interest, with its funny little castellation and blocks of coloured glass, which follow on what i was saying about Brutalism's liking for geometric shapes. There is as much going on vertically as there is horizontally throughout.
There is lots of different textures and finishes externally which also add interest.
This is where i worry about a cack handed 'restoration'. First off - the windows. Anyone who knows and likes buildings will tell you that the fenestration are the 'eyes into the soul' of a building. The quickest way to fuck up a building is mess with the windows. Conversely the best way to lift a tired looking building is to put some new windows in. Stephenson Bell understand this and have kept the same fenestration pattern on City Tower and i worry that Jarvis will just whack some cheap plastic windows in that will be inelegant and clunky. The ones in at the moment are slender and simple but in such a configuration as to stay true to the lines of the rest of the elevations.
I also worry that the groovy coloured glass panels will be removed. They look tatty at the moment but are very 'period' and if i had a pound for everytime some of you lot have said 'its nice to see a bit of colour' when we see a new building with funky coloured panels. Its a small thing but something that places the building firmly in the era it was built.
The finishes are looking a bit worse for wear and concrete doesnt weather well but i think you all know my opinions on re cladding. Just reinstate and clean what is there, perhaps paint the exposed concrete to weather protect it but any recladding will just look cheap and tacky, especially on such a higgedly piggedly building. On a plain, flat faced office block maybe but the hotel is just too 'giddy' and any cladding will just make it confusing.
Also i'm worried any cladding would cover up the textures and geometric shapes dotted all over the building here and there.
'All' this building needs externally is for the window frames to replaced like for like- the concrete cleaned, reinstated, maybe painted - the interesting 60's features like the coloured glass and funny crown thing on the top spruced up and some creative lighting to pick out all the interesting shapes and form all round this building and ...............thats it.
No cladding, no shit plastic windows, no steel additions, no daft sticky out bits like on Gateway House, no glass gazebos.
Less is More!

This building has lots of potential to be really exciting and a worthy neighbour to the good work being done on the rest of the Plaza.Somehow though i think this is going to be the ugly cousin and will just drag down all the hard work already being done.

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f85/garybaldy/plazablue.jpg

All of the above is open to argument and i'm sure all of you will not hold back in expressing a counter argument to all of it and i'm preparing myself for the onslaught!

Can't see much difference myself, what's the point. The entire complex is a blight on the City Centre, until it's bulldozed for good it will hold Manchester back a long time.

Thanks for that Longford. I do appreciate the reply.

'All' this building needs externally is for the window frames to replaced like for like- the concrete cleaned, reinstated, maybe painted

Not being funny that man, but I did suggest that on my original post. To be honest there isn't much more that can be done with the Jarvis apart from the above. If the refurb is done correctly and sympathetically there's no reason why the Jarvis can't become accepted or even liked again.

If proof be needed. Has anyone got the renders looking at the refurbed city tower and Jarvis hotel from ground level? Had to use the old render below.

I would like to see the areas circled red demolished, and the area circled green changed so it matched the windows either side. This would give the refurbed Jarvis a cleaner and sleeker appearance.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/164CityTower_pic2211.jpg

PS. I must be honest though. If city tower, Jarvis, and the plaza were totally demolished and the site was redeveloped I wouldn't shed a tear.

Doesn't matter how clean and shiny they make it. Its the form of the buildings, the proportions and arrangement of the differents shapes which means....

It will never provide proper encosure to Piccadilly Gardens - Manchester's most important public space, nor will it ever provide an attractive backdrop to them (some may beg to differ though)

It will never be integrated into the surrounding street network in a positive way.

The arrangement of Sunley Tower, Bernard House (new or old) and hotel slab will never look like an attractive, unified group of buildings; more an uneasy arrangement of disparate shapes and forms.

The lack of any kind of relationship between the buildings and the podium means there will always be a compromised streetscene and compromised urban design

The nature of the Plaza having been designed without any regard to the existing context means it will always sit uneasily in its location and will always compromise the quality of the experience of surrounding streets and spaces.


The question remains, does the Plaza's inherent qualities as eloquently described by Longford outweigh its deficiencies? To some the answer would be yes; to me it would be no. Like the Maths tower its simply not good enough to warrant a listing or a campaign to keep it long term.

Doesn't matter how clean and shiny they make it. Its the form of the buildings, the proportions and arrangement of the differents shapes which means....

It will never provide proper encosure to Piccadilly Gardens - Manchester's most important public space, nor will it ever provide an attractive backdrop to them (some may beg to differ though)

It will never be integrated into the surrounding street network in a positive way.

The arrangement of Sunley Tower, Bernard House (new or old) and hotel slab will never look like an attractive, unified group of buildings; more an uneasy arrangement of disparate shapes and forms.

The lack of any kind of relationship between the buildings and the podium means there will always be a compromised streetscene and compromised urban design

The nature of the Plaza having been designed without any regard to the existing context means it will always sit uneasily in its location and will always compromise the quality of the experience of surrounding streets and spaces.


The question remains, does the Plaza's inherent qualities as eloquently described by Longford outweigh its deficiencies? To some the answer would be yes; to me it would be no. Like the Maths tower its simply not good enough to warrant a listing or a campaign to keep it long term.

I agree with you Sleepy.

Unfortunately for the foreseeable future City tower, Jarvis, and the plaza won't be going anywhere, so we have to make the most of them. A complete refurb is the only option. Lets hope it's a good one?

AWK. Bruntwood did have a very good opportunity to demolish everything and redevelope the site. Unfortunately they were either very short sighted or had numerous tins of paint left over?.

Can't see much difference myself, what's the point. The entire complex is a blight on the City Centre, until it's bulldozed for good it will hold Manchester back a long time.

I'm interested to know how it's holding Manchester back ?

I cannot think of a city or town in the UK that does not have numerous examples of 'brutal' 60s buildings. Whilst I do think that a fair few of these deserve the wrecking ball I also believe some of these add to a city centre. The swimming pool in Leeds city centre springs straight to mind as an amazing structure about to be lost forever.

I accept that everyone will have a different opinion in terms of a building appearence but I can't think why this building is holding the city of Manchester back ?

It lowers the tone of the Piccadilly area, not good for business or public morale.

I'd dis-agree with that, yes at the moment it could look better, but a good re-clad could turn this into one of the most eye-catching building in Manchester, look at its layout, so distinctive...

I actually quite like it. The shape more than anything. Or at least I would if it wasn't smeared in the shit of a billion stagecoach monsters. Its not ideal that its made of concrete (nothing is) but I can't see what else it could be made of without looking stupid, so concrete it shall have to stay as. In which case, what more can you do other than clean it?

What are these colured windows/glass you talk about, Longy? I've never noticed them. Maybe they could play on this to brighten it up. A bit of CJC multicolour. With the conservative colour of bare concrete they should push the boat out and get wacky with the glass.

I like the idea of night lights too. Not that they will, but they could make quite a feature out of this. It could work really well, being a great shape with the proximity to the city tower and of course nightime making it too dark to see the boring concrete.

I'd disagree with that, yes at the moment it could look better, but a good re-clad could turn this into one of the most eye-catching building in Manchester, look at its layout, so distinctive...

I think as it stands it is certainly not doing anything positive for the city centre. Frankly it's an eyesore. That said, as 60's buildings go (which are not to everybodies taste), this for me in it's own right- ie the rest of the podium aside- is in Manchester's top 3 of its type in the centre, with the Lazy 'L' and Gateway House and as such deserves a bit of TLC. I think most peoples hatred of it stems form the fact that it is filthy.

The other problem is that it IS attached to the podium, though as JRB pointed out, the podium is staying so lets make the best of it and a quality refurb of this hotel will again for me make this interesting building an asset to Manchester and add an additional layer of architecture to the rich mix of 21st century glass and Victorian Stone that we all love so much. (don't we peeps!)

I look forward to the forthcoming mall that Bruntwood are currently working on the should create a thoroughfare from Piccadilly Gardens to a revamped York St. This will help to break up the barrier effect that the podium has.

In it's current state this podium area and the Jarvis remain 'old Manchester'. The pre-bomb Manchester that the Yank travel writer Bill Bryson dismissed. Lets hope the refurb lives up to the standards that are being set by the new Manchester.

btw thanks for the 'lecture' Longford ("...and it was a lecture")

Good thread. Good lecture Longford. Yes I hope they keep the good bits. Thanks again for the info jrb, I agree with you about sleeking it up a little. Whatever they do, I hope it turns out looking a whole lot better than its current grubby state. Maybe what with this and all the recent bus trouble, the council might have a think about the bus station, and then the berlin wall. There's potential here for a radically improved Piccadilly, heart of Manchester.

Whatever they do, I hope it turns out looking a whole lot better than its current grubby state. Maybe what with this and all the recent bus trouble, the council might have a think about the bus station, and then the berlin wall. There's potential here for a radically improved Piccadilly, heart of Manchester.

With regards to the bus 'situation', good may well come out of bad and the council as you say Farsight, may get rid of this area as a bus stop- something that would prove very popular on these pages.

I feel that if this area was opened and pedestrianised, it would alter the imposing feel the the podium holds for the public who us the area. As you cross over from the Berlin Wall, you basically end up hemmed in under a dark concrete apron, with an uninviting, prohibitive bus run on one side and a poor retail mix on the other. Okay the trams would still run through the middle, but it would be a massive improvement.

Doesn't matter how clean and shiny they make it. Its the form of the buildings, the proportions and arrangement of the differents shapes which means....

It will never provide proper encosure to Piccadilly Gardens - Manchester's most important public space, nor will it ever provide an attractive backdrop to them (some may beg to differ though)

It will never be integrated into the surrounding street network in a positive way.

The arrangement of Sunley Tower, Bernard House (new or old) and hotel slab will never look like an attractive, unified group of buildings; more an uneasy arrangement of disparate shapes and forms.

The lack of any kind of relationship between the buildings and the podium means there will always be a compromised streetscene and compromised urban design

The nature of the Plaza having been designed without any regard to the existing context means it will always sit uneasily in its location and will always compromise the quality of the experience of surrounding streets and spaces.


The question remains, does the Plaza's inherent qualities as eloquently described by Longford outweigh its deficiencies? To some the answer would be yes; to me it would be no. Like the Maths tower its simply not good enough to warrant a listing or a campaign to keep it long term.

:applause:

I used to hate this, but then I noticed the funky windows, and the interesting shape, and the sheer incomparability to anything else I'd grown up with and I've grown to love it. In a pittying way, like you might a runt puppy, but it's still love. I do think something needs to be done with the podium though. Perhaps not get rid of it (although it does feel oppresive when walking those pavements) but certainly do something. Encourage a more interesting and varied bunch of shops, let a bit of light through it, perhaps convert the car park into a terrace restaurant. Give it some visible life.

The problem as I see it with brutalism is one of association. Since it is a style primarilly used for cheap, post-war civic architecture and housing projects, even excellent examples have to fight the negative connotations that they bring to mind. This can easilly distract us from any inherent qualities of the building. Sleepy is right that the building doesn't really fit the location, but Picadilly's problems won't be solved by knocking one building down. Perhaps we should just accept Picadilly gardens as the post-modern mix of clashing styles and forms that it is, and rather than dreaming of it attaining an imposible grace and style, press for the removal only of those elements that actually diminish its usefulness (i.e. 1 Picadilly Gardens, Berlin Wall, Picadilly Bus Station, [the tram stop?]) as a public space.

Sounds good to me Cher. Realistic. It sure makes sense to look at the things that we, or more properly the council, either own or control and therefore can tackle.

Andrew Paul Brroks.

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

That looks possibly worse than it is now. And why can't the top of the city tower be cleared of all that junk, or even add something over the top to hide it all.

That isn't a render, skid mark, it isn't altered at all.

Someone just dynamite the lot of it. It's rank.

And why can't the top of the city tower be cleared of all that junk, or even add something over the top to hide it all. I'm with you, skid-mark.

That isn't a render, skid mark, it isn't altered at all. Someone just dynamite the lot of it. It's rank.

You can tell the people who genuinely like skyscrapers. Some older highrise comes up for a refurb, and they talk eagerly about what it might be, how far it might go, how it might turn out, all that stuff. But people who don't like skyscrapers ain't interested. They just want it demolished. And they ain't interested in 40 storeys at Chapel Wharf either. And they're more interested in some mundane brick pub than its possible skyscraper replacement. OK, OK, some people don't like skyscrapers. Fair enough. Not a problem. Unless they conceal this because they want to persuade young impressionable minds to dislike skyscrapers too. They seek to turn them into brainwashed unthinking little parrots, making little parrot sounds. Caw caw caw.

Unless they conceal this because they want to persuade young impressionable minds to dislike skyscrapers too. They seek to turn them into brainwashed unthinking little parrots, making little parrot sounds. Caw caw caw.

Cripey, they're a bit like them gays these lo-rise lovers eh? Always seeking young blood to spread their sorded little messages to. In fact, I've never seen a bender and a heritage nazi in the same room. Makes you think, eh?

farsight, you're brilliant sometimes! You had one too many and got a little sad and angry tonight?

I can assure you that there are loads of Gay Heritage Nazis (sounds like a rubbish Death Metal band from the 90's doesnt it?).
Its all to do with having no kids and looking at pretty things.......and the brainwashing thing aswell of course!.
Just for a change though freezy i dont thing Faraway's spleen is being vented in my direction. I cant quite work out who he is talking about though!!!!!!

It's not the skyscraper it's the podium. Blast a road through the podium, kill the monotony and connect Piccadilly with Chinatown. You could even put a Chinese gate up.

You can tell the people who genuinely like skyscrapers. Some older highrise comes up for a refurb, and they talk eagerly about what it might be, how far it might go, how it might turn out, all that stuff. But people who don't like skyscrapers ain't interested. They just want it demolished. And they ain't interested in 40 storeys at Chapel Wharf either. And they're more interested in some mundane brick pub than its possible skyscraper replacement. OK, OK, some people don't like skyscrapers. Fair enough. Not a problem. Unless they conceal this because they want to persuade young impressionable minds to dislike skyscrapers too. They seek to turn them into brainwashed unthinking little parrots, making little parrot sounds. Caw caw caw.

What a creep you are.

Am I not entitled to an opinion? It is my opinion that Piccadilly Plaza is disgusting and I want it replaced. This is a building I walk under almost every day. I'm not looking at some pictures and spewing froth from my armchair as you do. This does not mean I hate skyscrapers.
Chapel Wharf is so-so. But that's it. I want better for this city. This does not mean I hate skyscrapers.
And the City Road Inn, considering we have already lost the Hacienda, and that there is plenty of space to build on in the Southern Gateway, wanting to keep that pub at the expense of an average 30 storey building is fully justified. This does not mean I hate skyscrapers.

Your tripe about brainwashing is disturbing. I was 14 years old when I signed upto this forum. Is that why I signed up then, to brainwash impressionable young people? Get a hold of yourself.
This is funny actually. Because back then, in 2003, I would have praised any old lump of shit highrise in Manchester, as long as it was tall. That's how the immature mind of a 14 year old works. A 30 storey tower that has never worked and is falling apart is going to be demolished? No! Keep it! It's 30 storeys! At 14-16, that is how I thought, and looking at some of the current members of that age group, it seems to be a common way of thinking. You don't care about design, or how suitable it is, you want height.

But then, as you grow up you realise that keeping a building or supporting a proposal, because of it's height, is juvenile. There are many factors to consider that are more important than stature. I hope you see my point.

I guess I just hate skyscrapers Farsight. I guess that why I've spent hundreds, maybe thousands of hours over the past 3 years walking around Manchester, taking thousands of photos, editing them and posting them here, making skyline renders, drawing those bloody diagrams for skyscraperpage, helping gothicform with skyscrapernews, following the construction of Beetham for 2 years.
But you've found me out, Detective Farsight, I'm an English Heritage plant assigned to SSC to take it down from the inside and spread anti-skyscraper rhetoric, and I hate skyscrapers, I really hate them. The sight of Beetham makes me weep with disgust. :scouserd:

Caw: I didn't say you were trying to brainwash impressionable young people. If that's the impression you got I apologise. By the way, how old are you now?

Caw: I didn't say you were trying to brainwash impressionable young people. If that's the impression you got I apologise. By the way, how old are you now?

That seemed to be what you were implying. Either that or you were saying I have been brainwashed. Neither is true. And I am 18..


Looking back, calling you a creep was a bit much, sorry about that.

Can i be the one who is doing the brainwashing then please?
:horse:

LOL, Longford, you sweet talking charmer you.

Yeah sorry too caw. I was riled about some stand on his neck stuff on another thread.

It wasnt even directed at you anyway was it Fartoosensitive?
I thought he was wanting to stand on Mr Ask's neck?

Whatever. :dunno:

As the bloke in Ally McBeal used to say "Bygones".

Was talking to my bezzy mate Roger Stephenson today and he tells me that both Bruntwood and Stephenson Bell have an input into the designs Jarvis have for the restoration of the hotel.
Roger says it will be a sensitive restoration with all the good bits restored to former glory and no daft cladding.
He assured me i would be happy with what is being done (and he knows as much as anyone what i do and dont want to see!).
He couldnt be certain how the contractors will carry out the work but he believes that the scheme is well intentioned and says Bruntwood will be keeping their beady eye on what is being done.

I see they have removed some of the scaffold on the podum under the hotel and the concrete has ben painted a diffrent colour to the side that was done previous to Bruntwood buying the Plaza and the windows are a diffrent design. This is going to make the whole plaza look mismatched one side under the Hotel will look cleaner and the windows look sleek, the other side will look dirty and cheaply cladded with gray crap. Any ideas if they will look at redoing the side where M&S is or is it a case of looking like 2 diffrent buildings now the building has been split in the middle?

This morning I have noticed that they have now started work on the side of City Tower to install the new windows which would have been better as an external glass lift in my opinion. They also have some test patches of the new paint for the side which is the same as the paint they have applied on the concrete below the Hotel on the podum.

Bruntwood own the whole kit and caboodle (blimey, never used that word in a post before...) including the hotel, which jarvis lease from them. I think bruntwood always planned to have the whole lot looking like new with all the concrete painted in that pale grey that's going on the end walls of the tower, they just needed to get jarvis to pull their socks up. The Longford will correct me if I'm talking cobblers, but I think the bit above M&S looks like it does as a result of the previous owners attempts to do up the plaza - Bruntwood will be looking to get that looking smart and matching the tower and hotel too.

It's going to be weird when it all looks clean and neat and tidy, so used to the plaza being a big dirty bruise on the skyline...

The other side was done when Bernard House was removed and the box built to house a David Lloyd gym that was never completed hense the gray box with a poor layout for an office. Anyone have any idea why David Lloyd pulled out after the building had almost been completed? I belive this was built around the time the Plaza was owned by a an Arab bank after an owner defaulted on payments to them.

Sounds good Longpants. Thanks for that info.

Refurb revealed.

http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/publicaccess/dc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=J41H9PBC90000&searchtype=WEEKLY

jrb you are a veritable font of information. Thanks.

All: you might start off looking at file 3. Basically it's a makeover, with very little changing. The roofline might be tidied up a little on one side because of a new "signage zone". Personally I'd be happier if they did a bit more to clean up the lines and infill the stilts, but I'm still pleased it's getting attention.

Approved.

Diagrams and information below.

080426/FO/2006/C2

Jarvis Piccadilly Hotel
Piccadilly Plaza
Portland Street
M1 4PH

Refurbishment and repair of external elevations

http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/publicaccess/dc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=J41H9PBC90000&searchtype=WEEKLY

Is the refurb still happening? If so, why go to the expense and trouble of this?

http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/MCCList1.aspx?082272/AO/2007/C2

Am i missing something here ????

Just looked at that application jerb as posted , Looks like the Ramada are moving into Piccadilly :)

Something is in the air , i can smell it :)

Am i missing something here ????

Just looked at that application jerb as posted , Looks like the Ramada are moving into Piccadilly :)

Something is in the air , i can smell it :)

F*** me H. Spot on as usual. Missed that. Nice to see you around. :)

Jerb , i can see the Jarvis from my apt , they have been ripping out the resturant part for weeks now .
This would confirm that the scabby Ramada on Deansgate will be demolished in the near future :) i think a biggie is about to surprise us soon :)

Ramada and Jarvis are part of the same hotel group

http://www.ramadajarvis.co.uk/home.asp?id=3

also when you type Jarvis Hotel in on Google it comes up as Ramada Jarvis Hotels and links you to http://www.jarvispiccadilly.co.uk/

so it looks like the Jarvis Hotel in Piccadilly Gardens will get rebranded and refurbished to become a new Ramada Hotel and then the Ramada Hotel on Deansgate will get demolished when West Developments start on that site there

Jarvis run the Ramada brand in the UK and the Piccadilly Jarvis is the last solo branded Jarvis in the UK as it wasn't upto Ramada standards so couldn't take the name a few years ago when they got the UK licence for the brand.
The hotel on Deansgate that is going is called the Renaissance hotel and is owned by Marriott.

Is there an opening date for the Piccadilly Ramada hotel? Like a launch date.

Is there an opening date for the Piccadilly Ramada hotel? Like a launch date.

The hotel website - http://www.jarvispiccadilly.co.uk/ - mentions an £18,000,000 refurbishment. Sounds like they're spending a few quid on it anyway....

The hotel website - http://www.jarvispiccadilly.co.uk/ - mentions an £18,000,000 refurbishment. Sounds like they're spending a few quid on it anyway....

Sounds impressive. The interior should be finished long before the outside then.

Says the refurb should be finished by August 2007.
Is it?

Says the refurb should be finished by August 2007.
Is it?

No, it's says the inside should be finished by August. The facade, lifts and other parts later. Much later.....

They keep washing the concrete ends. Do you reckon they are still going to paint them??

They keep washing the concrete ends. Do you reckon they are still going to paint them??

Do you mean on the City Tower? I am not sure if they are still planning to paint them. I had a look at the paint patch they did and it looks crap now with some peeling.

Why don't they just clad this sides in copper? (Piccadilly Place/Water Street) It's the new Manchester must have. :)

Remember the other phases. Green, slanting roofs, thin windows, glass. Talk about keeping up with the Joneses.

Do you mean on the City Tower? I am not sure if they are still planning to paint them. I had a look at the paint patch they did and it looks crap now with some peeling.

Yes sorry, my mind was wandering, i did mean City Tower!! It's because there is also a thread for the whole complex, rather than just the hotel too.

Why don't they just clad this sides in copper? (Piccadilly Place/Water Street) It's the new Manchester must have. :)

Remember the other phases. Green, slanting roofs, thin windows, glass. Talk about keeping up with the Joneses.

Or brushed aluminium? That would look modern and bright. Copper didn't work well on W3 building opposite the Palace Theatre. Looks like the headquaters of Lego.

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u180/markydeedroppics/004-7.jpg

Scaffolding and green netting just beneath the bottom windows of the main block. Just visible in Marks pic. I'll post a picture tomorrow.

Sides now white

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2069/2047870272_0757851ea2_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2386/2047078967_a0b1c0ffa8_b.jpg

Sides now white

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2069/2047870272_0757851ea2_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2386/2047078967_a0b1c0ffa8_b.jpg

The paint looks different in this photo to what i see out of my window. When i look out, i see City Tower in white emulsion, bloody awful. In this photo it has a different shade, less bright. Lighting for you. At least it's cleaner!

That sign " Bedrooms 59.99" needs taking down , tacky as fook .

That sign " Bedrooms 59.99" needs taking down , tacky as fook .

An electronic sign might be alright for showing special deals on rooms.

I'm just amazed that a room in that kip costs £59.50!

It looks bloody awful. If they think a bit of paint slapped on and some mirrored plastic covering on the windows is goinG to make any difference they are sadly mistaken. It looks cheap, tacky and low class.

I'm just amazed that a room in that kip costs £59.50!

I think although the place looks like absolute sh*t from the outside its quite reasonable on the inside.

The outside look must really put off potential customers though, I'm suprised they havn't hurried up with the rennovation!

At least it has parking, unlike most cheap hotels in the very centre of Manchester.

I notice that the upper 9 floors of the hotel have been cleaned up, but is the building's podium going to recieve any renovations at all? Because the podium still looks like dirt.

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u180/markydeedroppics/030-7.jpg

They have cladded between all the windows on the Piccadilly side now. Looks the same design as before but clean and new looking. I forgot what was their before the cladding job.

The Jarvis hotel is starting to look quite nice now. I'm impressed overall with what they're doing to the plaza. New York street looks good too. If anything though the refurbishment it just further highlights what a horrible building that plastic shite is above marks and spencers.

I hate seeing these crappy piccadilly gardens threads always at the top of our construction part of the forum, its almost depressing.

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u180/markydeedroppics/006-13.jpg

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u180/markydeedroppics/City%20Centre%202008/014.jpg

I think they are doing a very, very good job with this.

I've always liked City Tower but I saw an old picture of it and couldn't believe how ugly it looked, having become used to the new version.

It's Manchester's ugly duckling that turned into a swan. Thanks for the pictures Marky. Think I'll take some pics next weekend.

It's Manchester's ugly duckling that turned into a swan. Thanks for the pictures Marky. Think I'll take some pics next weekend.

I take it your talking about City Tower because that Hotel is still a state.

I take it your talking about City Tower because that Hotel is still a state.

Haven't seen the hotel for a couple of months now. The last time I saw it was in early December and it was coming along nicely.(windows/painting) I can only assume it looks even better now.(continued work) I'll take a closer look next weekend.

not enough TNT used in the refurb for my liking
bruntwood tight and annoyingly long tenancies though, ah well

Yeh, to be honest I'd still prefer them to knock the entire complex down and start from scratch.

pretty sure they would have had it not been for the very long tenancies. the whole site is so very far below its potential for what should be an amazing site. i'm pretty sure it isn't even remotely tall enough or enough floorspace considering the amazing access the site has. i give it til 2028 before it gets lowered :)

The jarvis sign on the roof that overlooked Piccadilly Gardens has been removed.

pretty sure they would have had it not been for the very long tenancies. the whole site is so very far below its potential for what should be an amazing site. i'm pretty sure it isn't even remotely tall enough or enough floorspace considering the amazing access the site has. i give it til 2028 before it gets lowered :)

I don't understand some of you lot wanting to pull it down, I really don't. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with it that cannot be fixed. It's just knocking it down for the sake of it because you don't like that particular style of architecture. I don't particularly like John Rylands library, it's far too messy, but I would never advocate pulling it down, because it has its place. What would you like to put in Picc Gardens, some more square glass Simpson boxes? There are loads of sites in need of serious development in and around the City Centre, without the need to start pulling this to the ground. Doing so would not only be architectural vandalism, but also deprive other areas in far greater need of regeneration.

The jarvis sign on the roof that overlooked Piccadilly Gardens has been removed.

I presume then that the hotel will soon be changed to the Ramada brand, as they put a planning application in last year to change the signage.

http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/MCCList1.aspx?082272/AO/2007/C2

The corner £59 rooms sign has gone today. Seems all signage is being removed ready for the new stuff to go up.

Ramada Manchester Piccadilly

Our £18 million refurbishment programme is now almost complete and has carefully transformed this Manchester icon back to its rightful position as a quality 3 star hotel in the North West. Renamed the Ramada Manchester Piccadilly, the hotel is the newest and largest Ramada hotel in the UK with 280 bedrooms in an ideal city centre location and easily accessible from the M6 and M60 motorways.

All 280 bedrooms have a bright, new, contemporary style and feature the latest flat screen LCD TVs with high speed internet access, movies on demand and music jukebox, all for your entertainment. You will also find a brand new Arts Bar and Grill serving modern cuisine in fresh and friendly new surroundings. The impressive new international suite accommodating up to 700 delegates theatre style and 10 well appointed new conference rooms firmly reinstate this iconic hotel as Manchester's meeting place.

http://www.ramadajarvis.co.uk/hotel/overview.asp?hotel_id=87

What did they spend the £18 Million on? :dunno: Still looks shit.

You couldn't open a pub with 1 million nowadays, never mind refit a hotel that size.

It looks vile.

Is that all they are doing? I thought it was less than halfway through the clean up!!

It will offically be a Ramada from 1st April so 2 more months to finish things off.

I don't particularly like John Rylands library, it's far too messy, but I would never advocate pulling it down, because it has its place.

Ever been in there? It's an absolute masterpiece. Amazing architectural detail absolutely everywhere, and there's so much inside it feels like the Tardis.

Booo - lame job

Yeh, to be honest I'd still prefer them to knock the entire complex down and start from scratch.

If only. I've found the perfect smilie to represent the mood I feel when I walk or drive past Jarvis Piccadilly Hotel --> :ohno:

City Tower's come on well though.

Ever been in there? It's an absolute masterpiece. Amazing architectural detail absolutely everywhere, and there's so much inside it feels like the Tardis.

Yes, it is beautiful, but I was rather talking about the outside.

The jarvis sign on the roof that overlooked Piccadilly Gardens has been removed.

There is now a new Ramade sign in the location now.

Isn't it time to rename the thread Ramada Piccadilly? The hotel website names the hotel 'Ramada Manchester Hotel'. No mention of Jarvis for the hotel anymore, just the group name has Jarvis included.

Am liking City Tower but I still cannot stand this!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/andysimo123/Manchester%2030th%20July%202008/IMG_4677.jpg

It would look fine in Magaluf

It would look fine in Magaluf

Don't you mean benidorm.

It's better than it was. That goes for the inside as well. It ain't going anywhere before we die, so we might as well get used to it.

It's better than it was. That goes for the inside as well. It ain't going anywhere before we die, so we might as well get used to it.

Your forgetting the different in age between me and you.

1964.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/raver_mikey/397026008/in/set-72157594547280512/

haha about time! it looks great now

http://1person1million.com/img/158/r08c1006bidc/biggrin.gif