Great building, it keeps being said, but this is Britain's first provincial city Skyscraper, which truly broke the mould.

Ok, so there were old skyscraper proposals, but this was the first one built. And i do believe that this building paved the way for the stunning proposals we're now seeing in other provincials. So, as much as people may not like it, you've still got to applaud what it achieved. And i'm proud it stands in Manchester.

It's a constantly changing building also, which changes depending on the light of day, and angle being viewed from. It looks like an ice cold white monolith in the early morning with the sun shining off its northern face, and can turn quite moody in the evening when the sun sets. Then at night, it shines as a towering beacon on the Manchester Skyline.

Wonderful, daring and god-damn controversial.

I do believe, buildings that become talked about, which is both liked and hated, are definately iconic.

This is one of them.

Why 157m? all other scrapers are classed to the pinnacle height,this blade feature is a huge structure in itself,change the title to Beetham tower 169m. Can't be having it sold short now can we.

Why 157m? all other scrapers are classed to the pinnacle height,this blade feature is a huge structure in itself,change the title to Beetham tower 169m. Can't be having it sold short now can we.

exactly, the blade is the height of a 6 storey building and as much a part of the building as any other part

for some reason this tower looks absolutely huge compared to anything else in britain!

Bacause there's nothing around it of any great height?

i would rate it by asking myself would i want it in my city? im still not sure tho

Its fucking stunning. Saw it the other week. It definitely needs to stand alone though, wouldnt be a disaster if it had company would just take the edge off. Hopefully when it gets a clean up after it is listed they`ll be forced to remove the Hilton sign ha.

They should remove the Hilton sign now whilst Paris Hilton does her stretch in prison. Woohoo. Stupid spoilt jail bird.

Hey i'm kind of new here - took these pics of the beetham tower almost a year ago now but just decided to post them, enjoy:

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j223/jonny35/BeethamTower8.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j223/jonny35/BeethamTower5.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j223/jonny35/BeethamTower3.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j223/jonny35/BeethamTower2.jpg

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

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u180/markydeedroppics/012.jpg

Superb Beetham collage from flickr

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/194/494552544_0987b2f14b_b.jpg

Was in Manchester yesterday for the day out, pics taken just before it pissed it down !!!

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l165/markie_h/BeethamManc001.jpg

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l165/markie_h/BeethamManc002.jpg

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l165/markie_h/BeethamManc003.jpg

nice pics :)


it doesnt look as bad close up, and they are prob some of the best pics ive seen of it. Whats it like standing next to it an looking up, does it seem more immense in real life or smaller

Standing near it in reality makes it look taller, the part that juts out gives a dizzying effect as you look up as though its about to lean over towards you,I think the jut out or cantilever to be correct is about 75ish metres up anyway,then the rest just seems to soar,

Standing near it in reality makes it look taller, the part that juts out gives a dizzying effect as you look up as though its about to lean over towards you,I think the jut out or cantilever to be correct is about 75ish metres up anyway,then the rest just seems to soar,

Funny thing is that Bridgewater in Leeds feels taller I don't know why? Maybe it is it's curve that gives it that effect or maybe it's because Beetham is like a rising glass wall where Bridgewater has clearly defined levels I don't know. Impressive all the same.

It doesn't to me, Bridgewater place looks stumpier cause of the emphasised horizontal lines. ;)

nice pics :)


it doesnt look as bad close up, and they are prob some of the best pics ive seen of it. Whats it like standing next to it an looking up, does it seem more immense in real life or smaller

That's quite a point you made there, standing next to it was not what I percieved or expected it to be, for some reason it really dosen't seem all that tall really, no doubt I like Beetham but for some strange reason I did not get the "WOW" factor that I was expecting.. I also envisaged the place to be quite busy, but apart from 1 geezer walking on the other side of the road and a pigeon roosting on a neighbouring roof top it was totaly dead !

It doesn't to me, Bridgewater place looks stumpier cause of the emphasised horizontal lines. ;)

Why have you been close to and seen Bridgewater place in real life ?

I've not stood underneath it no, but i've seen them both close in real life.

Bridgewater place looked shorter than I expected when I saw it for real but I was not up close,infact I was driving past.Looked smaller than CIS which I believe is slightly taller than Bridgwater and the shape does not help to make it soar like Beetham , the curved front looks very good, but the back looks wrong to me.

Bridgewater place looked shorter than I expected when I saw it for real but I was not up close,infact I was driving past.Looked smaller than CIS which I believe is slightly taller than Bridgwater and the shape does not help to make it soar like Beetham , the curved front looks very good, but the back looks wrong to me.

The side angle is slightly clumpy but bother from both the front and back it looks good.
The front
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d172/SMARTCITY/SS852298.jpg
The back
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d172/SMARTCITY/SS852294.jpg
The side
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d172/SMARTCITY/SS852291.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d172/SMARTCITY/SS852414.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d172/SMARTCITY/SS852434.jpg

Beetham looks great, all that I was trying to get across is that because of its smooth finish, you don't get the same feeling of height from Beetham at the base of the structure. In some ways when Lumiere in Leeds is completed it will probably create a similar effect unless the second tower there helps to make the site achieve the WOW factor with the mass.

That's quite a point you made there, standing next to it was not what I percieved or expected it to be, for some reason it really dosen't seem all that tall really

That's very true. The vertical stripes and smooth finish do tend to shorten one's perception of its height, particularly looking at it side on, from a close distance. Its in looking at it face-on particularly a little way down deansgate that you can really appreciate the impact of its scale.

Thanks for the pics.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/101/284933442_6b68e2917e.jpg?v=0

This building is a truly grotesque edifice, completely lacking in any sense of charisma or style. It is completely and utterly devoid of any charm or proper interaction with the city around it. The thing looks temporary in my eyes; it doesn't strike me one bit as a structure deserving of a permanent place in a city. Certainly not one that has any respect for itself.

This building is simply a concrete superstructure clad with glass. What is so clever or impressive about that? How can people be so impressed by such a blatant act of philistinism? The building is ill proportioned and top heavy. It interacts terribly with the street below. It is entirely lacking in any originality of design. The most simple design conceivable- a box for sticking things in.

Where is the architectural merit in this structure?? This isn't a twenty first century building; it isn't remotely pioneering. It is little more than an off-the-shelf copy cat design from the 1950s/60s, except with tacky, cost effective cladding where there would typically be clear glass.

The look of it is ugly and ill proportioned. It makes a hideous impact on the city's skyline. It is entirely unoriginal and lacking in taste, style and charisma. There couldn't possibly be a greater act of philistinism. A simple box designed to make as big a return as possible without giving anything back to the place that it so rudely imposes itself on. The only impressive thing about this building is its scale, but anybody that interested in size (and I will avoid Freudian connotations) could easily see superior and more original variations of the theme in numerous cities throughout the world.

I am left feeling appalled and disappointed by this building. If this sort of ill-planned under-achievement is really representative of our modern-day, urban aspirations, then I weep for the future.

I've not stood underneath it no, but i've seen them both close in real life.

Stand underneath it and do a full 360 of the whole building,.. there is a great pub at the back called The Grove Inn, you could pop in for one half way around. :)

Lol. I will do when I go to Leeds. ;) Talking of pubs, check this one out. It's a bit of an odd one out. It'll be even more surrounded once City Lofts has been completed (100m), and the St. Pauls Place No. 3 (60m) and Car Park (40m) and just across the road, 1 Furnival Square (70m). :lol:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y257/Steelcityrise/4-3.jpg

Will defo check it out !, next time I see my sister in South Anston "Ah well my bro in law used to play for Sheff Utd"..Not been to Sheffield city centre for at least 15 years, so it will be good to have a look around and take some snaps and check the local pubs out of course :) :cheers:

This building is a truly grotesque edifice, completely lacking in any sense of charisma or style. It is completely and utterly devoid of any charm or proper interaction with the city around it. The thing looks temporary in my eyes; it doesn't strike me one bit as a structure deserving of a permanent place in a city. Certainly not one that has any respect for itself.

This building is simply a concrete superstructure clad with glass. What is so clever or impressive about that? How can people be so impressed by such a blatant act of philistinism? The building is ill proportioned and top heavy. It interacts terribly with the street below. It is entirely lacking in any originality of design. The most simple design conceivable- a box for sticking things in.

Where is the architectural merit in this structure?? This isn't a twenty first century building; it isn't remotely pioneering. It is little more than an off-the-shelf copy cat design from the 1950s/60s, except with tacky, cost effective cladding where there would typically be clear glass.

The look of it is ugly and ill proportioned. It makes a hideous impact on the city's skyline. It is entirely unoriginal and lacking in taste, style and charisma. There couldn't possibly be a greater act of philistinism. A simple box designed to make as big a return as possible without giving anything back to the place that it so rudely imposes itself on. The only impressive thing about this building is its scale, but anybody that interested in size (and I will avoid Freudian connotations) could easily see superior and more original variations of the theme in numerous cities throughout the world.

I am left feeling appalled and disappointed by this building. If this sort of ill-planned under-achievement is really representative of our modern-day, urban aspirations, then I weep for the future.

So do you like it or not?

:hahano: Urbanised has said everything I have thought in a way I could never say. :applause:

:hahano: Urbanised has said everything I have thought in a way I could never say. :applause:

Yes, he speaks rather openly, but honestly. It is horrid, a horrid mistake. I wish it had not been built, it despoils one of our Great Northern Cities. What I cannot understand is whether those who write about it in such eulogistic terms actually mean it or if they are just being defensive of a building they know to be a liability. People like Sleepy are only propagandists for all things Manc, so you cannot expect objectivity or even candour from them. But what about others? If that were proposed for Liverpool there would be uproar.

If it were proposed for Liverpool, English Heretics wouldn't have let it see the light of day. It's crap, as is the first Beetham tower.

I have mixed views on Beetham Company as a whole. Have their towers actually really helped our skylines at all? Beetham Birmingham has been fraught with problems such as loose cladding, dodgy parking system and shitty flats. The first Liverpool one is just shit externally. Beetham Manc is *imo* boring as fuck.

I have a horrible feeling they were just experimenting more than anything and now they are learning from their mistakes. Hence Beetham West (which I am still unsure about) and Beetham London (which I am also unsure about). Either way, Simpson has had a whale of a time.

I'm gonna be honest. I love the shape and form of this tower. Adore it even, i think it's perfect. The way it responds to mancunian weather with colour change, how striking and bold it is. But i do think it fails a little in the detailing. The vents at the front, the weakness of the unfulfilled blade, the miss-matching and inconsistent styles and colour on the back and the Hilton signs. It needs tidying up.

But still, look at it, its fucking gorgeous:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/214/493471385_5f6c076a23.jpg?v=0

It's schizophrenic, here, appearing almost as a haze:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/143/358810370_ae807eab97_o.jpg

Whilst here its a vivid mark on the landscape:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/67/184768429_f5f465eb83_b.jpg

A vertical piece of Manchester

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/190/469025222_29e2991b05_o.jpg

wow UrbaniseD what you said and the way you put it is exactly what i have always thought but have never been able to say it in such an eloquent way.

I think the the reason why you generally see a more positive then normal response about such talls on these forums is that many on here are skyscraper buffs, therefore anything tall no matter how crap is considered good and positive.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/67/184768429_f5f465eb83_b.jpg

That is an ugly scene from top to bottom. Horrid.

I disagree, what can i say? :dunno:

i think the pics are ok but they have all had the colours altered to make them more vivid and alive. If they were to be unedited they would more lifeless perhaps. (altho i dont personally think they look that bad)

I disagree, what can i say? :dunno:

I also disagree.

I also disagree.

Me too, I don't think it looks absolutely amazing but "an ugly scene from top to bottom" is harsh to say the least. I do think it would better without the overhang and the grill but that said I think it's a real statement. Also, I think the canal scene looks rather lovely.

:yes:

I think the the reason why you generally see a more positive then normal response about such talls on these forums is that many on here are skyscraper buffs, therefore anything tall no matter how crap is considered good and positive.

I think you are right. The same naive kids are merely heirs to those in the 1960s and 70s who marvelled at those great, white tombs springing up everywhere. They weren't to know what disastrous mistakes they would prove to be, mainly because their fixation with all that was big and imposing, made them blind to considerations of good design, interaction with the street, changes of fashion, etc.

It's all about opinions isn't it. Yes, it's not perfect, but given the choice, I would have this tower in Manchester anytime. Put it another way, if this tower was located in any another major UK city, I would been envious.

People are still talking about it a year after it was completed. Doesn't that say something about it? You can't say that about any other tower recently built.(except Swiss Re)

since people are being brutally honest lol i might as well be. I think beetham is a real ugly monstor and an awful blight on the sky for millions of residents who look out their window and see this monolithic towering grey ugly rectangle box in the distance imposing on view they have. To me, whenever i see completed pics of beetham, i always think in my head omg is that actually finished. It looks half completed, or like a partly bombed 60s tower that is being re-done up. It doesnt fit in at all with its surroundings, it looks so alien in every way and no attemt has been made to connect it with its street level. There is nothing inspriing about it at all in anyway. American scrapers 80 years ago were taller, had more character and quality, and many are still here today, looking better than the brand new beetham tower.

The only thing going for it is its height. People who like skyscrapers like it because its tall. They like it because, being the tallest building currently in the provinces, it makes a big statement. So they are prepared to overlook its ugliness, and would rather have it then not have it, which is fair enough, and I can understand that. If it was london, it would have been rejected, because a rejectionw ould have meant a better quality building that looked nicer being submitted instead, or the land being sold and a diferent developer making a tower. But up north, if someone is offering to make the tallest resi in the UK, as long as it looks ok, you jump at the chance, because that chance might not be available again. So its necessary to understand that aspect too.

It does make me wonder what our new talls will look like in 40 years, or even 10 years given that some of them already look 'old fashioned' and ill-fitting of the surroundings.

One argument would be that over time, as other talls are built nearby, it wont look as bad. But, the problem with UK cities outside london is the density is so low, the chance of another tall being built on the next grid block is virtually nil. All mancs talls are being built dotted around and all spaced out. Which personally i dont think is good.

Anyway moan over lol :P It does look so much nicer close up as i said earlier, where it looks clean and crisp and the glass looks like glass as opposed to grey concrete like it does from a distance.

One argument would be that over time, as other talls are built nearby, it wont look as bad. But, the problem with UK cities outside london is the density is so low, the chance of another tall being built on the next grid block is virtually nil. All mancs talls are being built dotted around and all spaced out. Which personally i dont think is good.

Incorrect.

There are plans to built towers either side of Beetham.

Two schemes below. There's also a third scheme across the road by Ask, but I can't remember where the information is posted. Infact, Ask also have another proposal for the Tom Garner site next to Owen Street.

Axis. Starts August. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=443838

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/966AxisSetForSpeculativeStart_pic1.jpg

Owen Street. Possible tower/s?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/owenstreet.png

I like it because it is brutal and imposing, in a way it's gothic. I bet it looks amazing in the snow.

One argument would be that over time, as other talls are built nearby, it wont look as bad. But, the problem with UK cities outside london is the density is so low, the chance of another tall being built on the next grid block is virtually nil. All mancs talls are being built dotted around and all spaced out. Which personally i dont think is good.

I really don't get this line of reasoning. Look at US cities and you'll find their cores are much less dense than the cores of British cities, yet they manage to build up large clusters of skyscrapers.

That's quite a point you made there, standing next to it was not what I percieved or expected it to be, for some reason it really dosen't seem all that tall really, no doubt I like Beetham but for some strange reason I did not get the "WOW" factor that I was expecting.. I also envisaged the place to be quite busy, but apart from 1 geezer walking on the other side of the road and a pigeon roosting on a neighbouring roof top it was totaly dead !

It was completely different when i took mine. I thought it looked really tall and i deffinately got the wow factor. Also, i was dodging endless traffic to get some good shots..

I really don't get this line of reasoning. Look at US cities and you'll find their cores are much less dense than the cores of British cities, yet they manage to build up large clusters of skyscrapers.

but thats because they have specific zones, and so all skyscrapers get built in the same zone, eventually over time building up a sky line. In mancs, and Leeds, and Bham. skyscrapers are put up anywhere with no 'masterplan'.

take any US city, all talls are in the same urban zone, and gradually get smaller away from the central skraper zone. Just think, if a massive high rise was built at the opposite end of the pic, it would completely spoil the whole look

http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Invent/Dallas.jpg

^^Err there is a masterplan for Birmingham. The council produced the High Places document which outlined a number of sites which they say are appropriate for highrises. They also say that all highrises should be built on the city ridge, though they will allow exceptions such as Opal Court and VTP.

i mean, if in mancs, each tall was built on a grid next to the other talls, it would be fine. But this isnt hapening. The closest we can get to that skyline look imo is leeds when all its UC talls and Approved talls are complete - this is because, due to the small size of the city core, all talls will be relativey near each other, rather than a scattered look that say Bham has right now.

http://www.asuz39.dsl.pipex.com/skyleeds3.jpg

^^Err there is a masterplan for Birmingham. The council produced the High Places document which outlined a number of sites which they say are appropriate for highrises. They also say that all highrises should be built on the city ridge, though they will allow exceptions such as Opal Court and VTP.

well that's good to know at least. At least town planners are considering the effects of where talls should go. The only problem with Bham is that its a little too late, given that the majority of talls have already been built - in the 60s and 70s. However at least they are aware of the effects of building-placement now

i mean, if in mancs, each tall was built on a grid next to the other talls, it would be fine. But this isnt hapening. The closest we can get to that skyline look imo is leeds when all its UC talls and Approved talls are complete - this is because, due to the small size of the city core, all talls will be relativey near each other, rather than a scattered look that say Bham has right now.

Where exactly in Manchester is this empty grid?

I really don't think the way a skyline looks is a pressing issue for most councils. The 'tall buildings policies', like the one erebus mentions (which, btw, manchester loosley has too) are there to make sure developers take into account historical context/conservation areas and to 'classify' areas when building.

I don't understand why you lot care about it too. Can we get back on topic.

lmao why wouldnt we care. This whole website is about tall buildings (skyscrapers), so im sure all of us care about the effects they have on the city and the skyline.

You really know how to kill a thread dont you!

That's right, I'm not a mod, but can we get this thread back on topic.(Beetham tower) This stuff ^^ belongs in City Talk.

Thanks.

^^ now *that's* the discussion killed. lol

That's right, I'm not a mod, but can we get this thread back on topic.(Beetham tower) This stuff ^^ belongs in City Talk.

Thanks.

Hear Hear! (For getting the thread back on track, but hear hear also that you are not a mod, despite your ridiculous little campaign to become one recently).

Now it seems that this building, now it is completed, has become controversial and seriously divisive. People who love tall buildings and modern architecture seem to say they find it repulsive, and only some loyal Mancs here are saying it looks wonderful.

It looks like two buildings, one plonked on top of the other, and is just monstrously ill-judged and in very poor taste. God only knows that it'll look like in 10 years when the cladding isn't even remotely fashionable, I can see the city being really pissed off that they permitted such a huge mistake. It's not like some 15 storey mistake that you can ignore, or that can be affordably re-clad - this is probably going to look increasingly ridiculous for decades!

So why is it that skyscraper fans who are critical of some blocks in all cities are critical of this block (eg I have been critical of proposals in Liverpool and London, and found the initial plot 3a proposal for Liverpool's Princes Dock really awful and said so) and only loyal Manc patriots seem to find it not just okay, but positively wonderful?

I just think there is something funny going on on here, and now it is completed, and you see it from different places, is no-one just a wee-bit disappointed that it looks as it does?

From the drawings I thought it was going to look great, that is why I am so shocked at how it turned out.

A good reason to ask this is that unless people can accept it was a mistake, a similar mistake could happen again. I don't think Manchester or any city could recover from two mistakes on this scale, it would look like a laughing stock. There are splendid tall buildings going up in the current boom (I was in Leeds recently and saw some stunning new architecture) so it doesn't all have to be ugly. You can have attractive, well proportioned, stylish skyscrapers rather than this mis-shapen ugly lump of a thing.

I saw this tower a few months ago... it is a fine building and a true symbol of the regeneration of Manchester. What took me by suprise was how tall it looked. It looks taller than the Natwest Tower in the City and more like the height of One Canada Square. Truly vertiginous. All it needs now are some neighbours, notably EastGate. When that's built, Manchester will start looking seriously impressive.

Hear Hear! (For getting the thread back on track, but hear hear also that you are not a mod, despite your ridiculous little campaign to become one recently).

Now it seems that this building, now it is completed, has become controversial and seriously divisive. People who love tall buildings and modern architecture seem to say they find it repulsive, and only some loyal Mancs here are saying it looks wonderful.

It looks like two buildings, one plonked on top of the other, and is just monstrously ill-judged and in very poor taste. God only knows that it'll look like in 10 years when the cladding isn't even remotely fashionable, I can see the city being really pissed off that they permitted such a huge mistake. It's not like some 15 storey mistake that you can ignore, or that can be affordably re-clad - this is probably going to look increasingly ridiculous for decades!

So why is it that skyscraper fans who are critical of some blocks in all cities are critical of this block (eg I have been critical of proposals in Liverpool and London, and found the initial plot 3a proposal for Liverpool's Princes Dock really awful and said so) and only loyal Manc patriots seem to find it not just okay, but positively wonderful?

I just think there is something funny going on on here, and now it is completed, and you see it from different places, is no-one just a wee-bit disappointed that it looks as it does?

From the drawings I thought it was going to look great, that is why I am so shocked at how it turned out.

A good reason to ask this is that unless people can accept it was a mistake, a similar mistake could happen again. I don't think Manchester or any city could recover from two mistakes on this scale, it would look like a laughing stock. There are splendid tall buildings going up in the current boom (I was in Leeds recently and saw some stunning new architecture) so it doesn't all have to be ugly. You can have attractive, well proportioned, stylish skyscrapers rather than this mis-shapen ugly lump of a thing.

I think i've already reasoned enough to show that i'm not this loyalist manc you think. I'm very critical of buildings in manchester. If you knew what course i'm starting this year, and the titles of the books on my shelf you'd know that i'm a fan of design, architecture and tall buildings

Yet i still love it.

Hear Hear! (For getting the thread back on track, but hear hear also that you are not a mod, despite your ridiculous little campaign to become one recently).

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:rZ2gbtam1yYPcM:http://www.completegamester.com/pages/AR-Signs/outdoor/DANGERMENFISHING.jpg

Ice cream for the true professional. :wink2:

http://turisti.blogsome.com/images/1095470617_neopolitan.GIF

More pics

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/79/230048869_c3e05546b4.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/199/448073716_5fc26346fb_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/75/161295030_9a562c55f2.jpg?v=0http://farm1.static.flickr.com/49/161437043_4b43325304.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/132/412748445_fe77303a9f.jpg?v=0

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u180/markydeedroppics/074.jpg

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u180/markydeedroppics/100-1.jpg

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u180/markydeedroppics/101-1.jpg

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u180/markydeedroppics/102-1.jpg

in 50 years time it will be classic example of early 00's architecture and probably grade 2 listed.

I think its a very spectacular building,no I am not a biased Manc,and have no connection with this city but I do really like the beetham tower.I always thought this building would polarise opinion though due to its unusual profile. It may be just based on your generic glass slab scraper but I have not seen anything quite like this, Barcelona are doing a somthing similar now but that one is much shorter.I remember someone described it as a looking like a Hungarian tombstone.

I think its a very spectacular building,no I am not a biased Manc,and have no connection with this city but

not biased and no connection? all your past post history suggests otherwise :nuts:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/132/412748445_fe77303a9f.jpg?v=0

I don't think this building is remotely controversial. It isn't one that I think the public at large either really, really love (in a cult following sort of manner), or absolutely despise. It isn't that special; indeed, it isn't remotely special. It is mainly just badly done (as the above image testifies), and I will bet that a majority of the general public (i.e. including non Mancs AND non skyscraper enthusiasts) would say they dislike this. It isn't ground breaking, it is based on old designs from 50 years ago, except some originality has been sought by the whole sticking-two-blocks-on-top-of-one-another thing.

I know this doesn't amount to extensive research, but I have asked 7 different people (3 of them as I was stood looking at it in Manchester), and 4 looking at images. Not a single one expressed any liking for the thing, except to say that the scale was impressive. I imagine it will be especially under rated by females who, whilst not being particularly impressed by the whole imposing size thing, will also be unimpressed by the total absence of any curves or perculiarities of design. This building is stark and brutal; there seems an almost desperate attempt to be masculine and "hard", but even in its pursuit to be manly and powerful it falls short. The profile (see above) is clearly a bit skinny, and wimpy.

The ill proportioned top half, simply stuck on top of a thinner bottom half, brings to mind a skinny, long legged male attempting to push out his chest to appear aggressive. It brings to mind David Hasselhoff when he starred in Bay Watch. We all remember his over built chest, his sucked in belly, and laughable skinny chicken legs. So we have a building, like the C-list celebrity (the embodiment of mediocrity), trying to be something it is so amusingly is not.

Not withstanding these considerations; I cannot stop thinking that it looks horrible on the city skyline. Had it been 30 or 40 storeys high, the proportions might have worked better, and it might not have ruined the streetscape around it. It is not only ill proportioned in itself, but it is out of proportion with its surroundings. And taking stock of the above considerations, the attempt to be manly and powerful, what does this building say about Manchester? Does the city crave American style power, but secretly knows it's not "all that"? The city seems to crave importance; it sticks out its chest and beats it, "acknowledge me!"; "Take me seriosuly world!"

Oh, if only the city's leaders could be self assured, and if the city could be happy with itself. A bit of self esteem might have seen this awful design revised and improved. Not accepted so desperately.

that last picture is probably the worst ive seen of it. cold, chilling, 1960s, russia, cold war. those are the images that appear in my head when i see that.It just looks like someone has photoshopped a funny rectangle there. it is just so ill-fitting of the environment *ever*

Whereas really, for a new skyscraper, the images should be 'wow', impressive, pleasent , clean, modern, possibley sexy? lol

Every picture tells a different story.

No it's not perfect. I've already stated that. Which tower is?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/172/382938575_c9fa77aaab.jpg?v=0

This building is a truly grotesque edifice, ..

You have to admit though that it looks great in todays banner ;)

Whereas really, for a new skyscraper, the images should be 'wow', impressive, pleasent , clean, modern, possibley sexy? lol

Err but those are the things people said about 1960s post war architecture at the time!

There are a myriad of reasons why most of it failed and there is no particular reason why the Beetham should fall in the publics eyes as those previous buildings did. For a quick example just look at todays banner see how attractive it is on the skyline compared to a lot of those other large buildings, it is in a completely different league.

You have to admit though that it looks great in todays banner ;)

No, not at all. It stands out like a dog's dick.

Habitat Sky, Barcelona.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/Jaume/Amigfer085-1.jpg?t=1181833216

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/Jaume/Amigfer087.jpg?t=1181833551

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/Jaume/Amigfer086.jpg?t=1181833608

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/Jaume/Amigfer088.jpg?t=1181833658

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/Jaume/Amigfer089.jpg?t=1181833680

You have to admit though that it looks great in todays banner ;)

Eh? Today's banner completely under-sells the strengths of Manchester's skyline and cityscape. It looks bloody awful. There are some fantastic new buildings that aren't visible, like the Civil Justice Building.

^^ but look at the sky ...

How come Barcelona keeps getting these similar buildings that are built in the UK?

^^ but look at the sky ...


Quite, if you need to distract attention with a sunset, there is a reason for that! You get lovely sunsets everywhere on earth.

How come Barcelona keeps getting these similar buildings that are built in the UK?

and not as good by the looks of things, the cladding on the 'Habitat Sky' makes it look like a Hilton hotel. No where near as dynamic

More images of this amazing building :banana:


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/237/449965741_f26ff3483c.jpg?v=0





http://farm1.static.flickr.com/119/312198835_a5d88c8477.jpg?v=0





http://farm1.static.flickr.com/100/296320813_2f03ec7c25.jpg?v=0





http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1263/558693189_b92eb5704b.jpg?v=0




http://farm1.static.flickr.com/143/329028076_4348859928.jpg?v=0





http://farm1.static.flickr.com/137/328342478_57302e84c5.jpg?v=0





http://farm1.static.flickr.com/144/329028073_bddaf40808.jpg?v=0





http://i15.tinypic.com/5z1dwt2.jpg





http://farm1.static.flickr.com/229/444044789_00e77399ce.jpg?v=0

I love your building, who is the architect?

It is a bit good isnt it, Ian simpson is the architect!

not biased and no connection? all your past post history suggests otherwise :nuts:

No a born and bred Lancastrian..OK Wigan is now in GM but it was Lancashire when I was born. still dont assosciate myself as a Manc (no Wiganer does) I just love visiting my favourite uk city outside London,handy when its just 18 miles away..now back to Beetham

"this amazing building"
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1263/558693189_b92eb5704b.jpg?v=0


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I consider that a horriby ugly urban scene. You consider it beautiful. Maybe if you grow up in a place, you love it no matter what it looks like. Do you, however, have any insight into the minds of those who find this ugly? Do you honestly believe they are all just jealous? Do you think people in London or Liverpool or Edinburgh think "damn, if only we had a view like that?"

Nice of you to selectively edit his post there poli...

Incidentally, as far as I'm concerned, yes, people in London, Liverpool or Edinburgh would be quite happy to have a view like this:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/137/328342478_57302e84c5.jpg?v=0

Do you think people in London or Liverpool or Edinburgh think "damn, if only we had a view like that?" :yes:


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/137/388266872_0cea611b79.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/134/371156531_074831aa8c.jpg?v=0

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y35/fernolea/diagonal/DSC05505.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/Jaume/Amigfer122.jpg?t=1181983454

even this building looks better than beetham mancs

No.

You're joking right?

Who? Me?

No.

Sorry, no, I meant wiggleyleeds. You posted while I was writing.

ah, fair enough.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y35/fernolea/diagonal/DSC05505.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/Jaume/Amigfer122.jpg?t=1181983454

even this building looks better than beetham mancs

That's because he is the Son of Beetham. Don't worry though. He will eventually grow up to be just like his dad. Tall, strong and absolutely gorgeous.

^^ Shame about their wannabe Gherkin

Torre Agbar is soo much better than the gherkin, soo much. The gherkin's just an ugly piece of shit that actually lets london down.

:dunno:

Isn't the Gherkin a wannabe Torre Agbar?

^^ Shame about their wannabe Gherkin

lol yeah get ur own designs

Again, Isn't the Torre Agbar the older of the two?

^^ Actually, no. But it is much better.

SwissRe pisses all over the Torre Agbar. Far more elegant, better cladding, more soar, more iconic. The Torre Agbar is only better at night, with its better lighting scheme. Apart from that, SwissRe rules.

Considering Torre Agbar only cost £34m or something it ain't half special.

Im sorry but that is nowhere near the quality and beauty of Beetham. Beetham is iconic and imposing, when im visiting Manchester on the train from my native Oldham it just hovers over the horizon and it gives me a feeling of awe you really have to see the building in person to realise how great it is.

^^Aaah, I've had enough of the word "iconic" for today! :bash:

The Torre Agbar would look out of place in London, just as the Gherkin would look out of place in Barcelona. The Torre Agbar resembles the architecture Gaudi was most famous for. Personally, I prefer Agbar over Gherkin!

Actually I think Beetham looks gorgeous at night and esp sunset as it hides most of the cladding, by day, that's another story. It's pretty much the same story with HCT.

I see Barcelona now has a bit of London and Manchester plus the beach and sun, lovely.

^^Aaah, I've had enough of the word "iconic" for today! :bash:

The Torre Agbar would look out of place in London, just as the Gherkin would look out of place in Barcelona. The Torre Agbar resembles the architecture Gaudi was most famous for. Personally, I prefer Agbar over Gherkin!

I think the gherkin looked out of place in London when it was first built, its just we got used to it.. i consider it more a landmark than a building.

lol yeah get ur own designs

Lol the 'Gherkin' was built first and is one of the best skyscrapers in the world. For those who think the Torre Agbar is better :lol: :nuts:

Take those anti London glasses off:ohno:

ive seen torre agbar up close and all i can say its: its gimicky!

the gherkin is stunning and amazing

Again, Isn't the Torre Agbar the older of the two?

Man. Surely any skyscraper enthusiasts must know the Gherkin came first.

Man. Surely any skyscraper enthusiasts must know the Gherkin came first.

The Gherkin was also voted the most admired skyscraper in the world by world wide Architects in 2005. well i think thats what the title was.........

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c388/Corris_/P26-06-07_16-1.jpg

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c388/Corris_/P26-06-07_15.jpg

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c388/Corris_/P26-06-07_16.jpg

Taken today.

I've finally decided. Awesome building!

love the middle pic :)

A skyscraper that reflects the sky is something i've always admired and i'm proud to have it in Manc!

It's a shame that jealousy breeds contempt, but hey, each to their own!

New Beetham pics from Flickr.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chaseastwood/sets/72157600281754139/show/

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1043/580486307_26e8c49e1a.jpg?v=0

Flickr pic :)

Still the daddy:drool:

I hate it from a distance, but close up, it's good to look at.

Considering Torre Agbar only cost £34m or something it ain't half special.

Upclose its really not that great, it uses off the shelf shading systems and in many ways is rather rustic in construction compared to the high tec nature of the st marys axe. Also the interior of Torre Agbar is really badly built. The shiny ceiling is cracking and the walls are spray painted to look like the windows are reflectining in the lobby. BUT i have to say from a distance it really works and looks quiet beautiful.

Any news on how Ian Simpson's Penthouse is coming on?

I do know they have either finished or within a couple of weeks of finishing the other penthouse apartments.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/139/364691498_249411211d.jpg?v=0

Its nice, but there is somthing about it I dont like and I am not sure what it is.

'Spiderman' back for tower tour
Ciara Leeming
27/ 8/2007

TEAMS of abseilers will scale the Beetham Tower - in a bid to stop it whistling once and for all.

The 47-storey, 561 ft building, on Deansgate, Manchester, is emitting a persistent hum when the wind blows from a certain direction and at certain speeds.

And that means another outing for the team of `Spidermen' who last month cleaned the tower's windows.

The building's whistling problem was first noticed in April last year, when city centre residents complained that they were being woken up by a mystery noise at night.

Outdoor filming of Coronation Street was also affected, with the crew forced to wait for lulls in the whistle before they could go ahead with scenes.

The sound was linked to the £155m tower - the tallest residential building in Europe and now home to 219 plush apartments plus a Hilton hotel - with engineers blaming its unusual design. High winds hit the thin glass `blade' on top of the structure, causing vibrations.

Foam pads were fitted to the glass as a temporary measure, and the building fell silent. It was finished last autumn and the Hilton opened in October. But over recent weeks, residents have started hearing the whistling again. One, from Chatham Street, said: "It happens fairly regularly. It's a weird noise that carries above all the traffic noise. I can often hear it with my windows closed.

"Usually it starts up in the early hours of the morning and wakes everyone up."

Manchester-based architect Ian Simpson, who is due to move into the penthouse apartment at the top of the tower he designed, said recent high winds had dislodged some of the foam, causing the noise to flare up once again.

"The foam was only ever going to be a temporary measure," he said. "We are going to fit some aluminium nosing - little curved sections - on to the glass blade at the top, to stop the noise for good.

"The work was meant to begin last week but was put back a couple of weeks by the sub-contractor. The nosing will have to be put in place using a crane and abseilers."

City council environmental health officers have met with the developer, Carillion, architect and acoustics experts to discuss the problem.

A spokesman said: "Since then the developers and architects have been working with specialists to find a permanent solution and this is due to be fitted at the beginning of September.

"Installation should take around five weeks to complete, weather conditions permitting."

Maybe they can fix the bloody broken aircraft light while they're up there!!

Maybe they can fix the bloody broken aircraft light while they're up there!!

A thought one of them had gone out. You can get a good view of the city centre from my works high up on an hill.

Its nice, but there is somthing about it I dont like and I am not sure what it is.

I kind of understand what you mean Brummyboy92... If it was surrounded by more high rise buildings it would look great, perhaps a cluster of 4 or 5 90m+ buildings... it looks quite lonely on itself there!!!

I think putting it as part of a cluster would make it more worse than it already is. It is not designed for a cluster or to be surrounded by others.

I think it might look better in Birmingham if Im being honest

Naaah! I think it compliments City Tower and CIS Tower more than it could do anything in Birmingham. I'd take HCT over Beetham Manc anyday.

That's the great thing about the Beetham Tower. Love it or hate it people still talk about it. It divides opinion and will always do so.

Naaah! I think it compliments City Tower and CIS Tower more than it could do anything in Birmingham. I'd take HCT over Beetham Manc anyday.

No go on, you can have it, really, its yours, we'll even throw in Portland Tower while we're at it.

I heard someone the other day refer to the Hilton tower as 'the toothbrush' lol,still prefer it over any other tower built outside London so far ,Beetham in Brum is underwhelming,but I would not complain if it was in Manchester,but I would hate to swap it.Same goes for Beetham west.

3 of them are out at the mo... and god knows how many bits of the Hilton signs too.

Typically British.

I wish they'd get rid of that crane!

what a sexy tower. Can't wait to visit in oct :-)

This afternoon, the crane was over the west side - removing an apartment window! It looked like they were swapping it, but by 6pm there was still an open hole in the building. About the 30-35th floor - nothing special to warrant such a drastic measure I doubt (and didn`t see any grand pianos, palm trees or similar going in!) unless the window unit had failed.

This afternoon, the crane was over the west side - removing an apartment window! It looked like they were swapping it, but by 6pm there was still an open hole in the building. About the 30-35th floor - nothing special to warrant such a drastic measure I doubt (and didn`t see any grand pianos, palm trees or similar going in!) unless the window unit had failed.

Could a bird have hit it hard and damaged it maybe? Who knows.

No go on, you can have it, really, its yours, we'll even throw in Portland Tower while we're at it.

Deal! We'll take them. You can have the Hyatt as part exchange if you want ;)

Could a bird have hit it hard and damaged it maybe? Who knows.

It would take one brick-shithouse of a bird to damage a window. Not even a gullible pigeon on steroids could achieve that!

It would take one brick-shithouse of a bird to damage a window. Not even a gullible pigeon on steroids could achieve that!

You maybe right, only i keep hearing architects talk on television about birds hitting and sometimes breaking windows on skyscrapers. I'd be a bit worried if i was sat watching tv in a world of my own and all of a sudden Bang!!, a bird hit's it. It would scare me to death. They say it can be the sun reflecting on the windows that causes them to fly into them.

I'd be scared of leaning against the windows!

I'd be scared of leaning against the windows!

LOL Yeah i know what you mean. You wouldn't want to tempt fate would you!!

The Hyatt's far too nice to part ex for the Portland Tower, I'd swap the beautiful masterpeice known as the Hill Street brown building for the Portland Tower although I know some would object. I'd also swap Kennedy tower in exchange for Beetham Manc, probably the most suitable location for a tall building like the Hilton to be in Birmingham, next door to the Snow Hill Towers. You'd have a 4 and 5 star hotel next to each other :cheers:

On Tuesday on my way into Manchester Picadilly I found myself sat infront of two 'older' folk who had been rabbittin on about life since they'd got on 40 minutes earlier, and I just knew that the moment Beetham came into view they'd have an opinion they wouldn't be able to keep to emselves. Law and behold, as the carraige turned and we got a full eye-ful of Beetham I heard:

'What the flamin 'ell is that?!'
'Its disgusting what they're doing building these things'
'Who'd want work in an office so high up?'

This went on for a while with uneducated banter, finally ending with this comment which really made me want to turn around n sock it to em

'what a useless building, waste of land'

NIMBYS!

Thats what I like about Beetham tower,its so prominant and most people have an opinion about it, good or bad, If those old farts where admiring it then I would be worried ,they would probably rather see a little red bricked cottagesque type building with little shutters on the windows and flower boxes,not a big glass skyscraper that says fuck off !

I think it's admirable if a building raises opinions because the architecture is so unique and original. People will say it is good whilst others will say it is plain ugly and over the top. An example of this is the Selfridges store in Birmingham.

But my problem with Beetham Manc is not that it's architecture is daring (which it really isn't - although the scale probably is) but that the architecture is just plain and boring. It really is featureless and for a building of it's size and prominence, it really is a let down. And it is when there are opinions like this intermingled with those of adoration, that I think there is a problem with the building.

But that's the whole thing - opinion.

I don't see how people can see this as 'featureless'! It's got a glass blade and a frigging overhang! How's that featureless?!

Name any other building in the world that has both of these other than Beetham Manc...

When I say featureless, I mean lacking interesting features. A blade and overhang are hardly the most inspirational of things to be stuck on a building! I understand the overhang is 40 or so metres up but since when have you gone up to a building and said, "Ooh, that building is sticking out a bit at the side!"

Generally i don't think you can knock this building for not being modern or unique. It is by far the tallest building in Manchester i consider and i'm glad that it is not over the top with 'uniqueness' and end up looking ugly(like 20FC) - just to make the building well known and controversial.

This building would look good in a cluster, and encourages modern design (particularly modern, glass cladding) unlike City Tower and CIS before the reclad. And i don't think a building much more 'unique' than this one would look good as a cluster, because it starts looking more like a landmark - and drowns out surrounding buildings - and with lots of hopeful future developments, i think that's an essential feature.

Beetham tower all the way! :okay:

When I say featureless, I mean lacking interesting features. A blade and overhang are hardly the most inspirational of things to be stuck on a building! I understand the overhang is 40 or so metres up but since when have you gone up to a building and said, "Ooh, that building is sticking out a bit at the side!"

The overhang is about 76m up I think but possibly higher:)

An awesome building up close .. a good landmark for getting back from Old Trafford too.

Would have looked better in Chicago or Shanghai .. looks out of place where it is - Manchester's never been about height. Or maybe it just needs company.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1028/1211417316_a037d3c128.jpg?v=0

also: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbocat/1204087705/

She's a beaut!

Positive from today's Guardian:

Bed and bored

If hotels can be as spectacular as the Hilton in Manchester, why are so many just dull, functional boxes, asks Steve Rose

Monday September 3, 2007
The Guardian

London is apparently in the throes of a hotel-building boom, but that's little reason to crack open the champagne - not even the tiny, extortionately priced bottle from the mini-bar. According to a survey by a US-based company called Lodging Econometrics, the capital has more than 13,000 rooms' worth of new hotel accommodation in the pipeline - five times as much as the second-placed city, Moscow. And that was before the 2012 Olympics announcement. For an even scarier statistic, the Mayor's London Plan predicts the capital will need 50,000 extra hotel rooms in the next 20 years. These figures defy belief and, looking at most recent new hotels, conjure up images of a new circle of hell.

Article continues

When was the last time you saw a purpose-built hotel that really contributed something to the built environment? As a building type, hotels have somehow exempted themselves from the ordinary rules of architecture. Of course there are some fine exceptions, but for every Savoy or Metropolitan there are a dozen Travelodges, Premier Travel Inns, Ibises, Holiday Inns and other chain hotels spreading a virus of architectural banality across the nation. Typically, the chain hotel is either a scaled-up domestic house with garish colour added, or a monotonous mid-rise stack of identical boxes of rooms. If that sounds like an exaggeration, go to the Travelodge website and click at random on any one of their 322 hotels in Britain. To test my own theory I've just blindly picked Grantham South Witham and Macclesfield Adlington, and as far as I can tell, they are exactly the same design: a sort of two-storey, pitched-roof stretch-Barratt home. For a more urban example, check out the hulking, Soviet-stye Tower Hotel hogging the river front next to Tower Bridge - a regular fixture on public "most-hated" surveys.

Part of the problem could be that the people who have to walk and drive past these hotels every day are not the people being courted. Hotels are designed for the comfort of strangers, and as a result they can become strangers themselves - awkward, inward-looking alien buildings that soak up the view but don't speak the language. If there's any expense to spend on the design, it is likely to be concentrated on the interiors, in order to create photogenic rooms and restaurants for the brochures and websites. That's not to say there aren't some thrilling, spectacular hotel interiors around, but in many cases hotels are five-star on the inside and one-star on the outside.

"Hotel building is a very strange world," agrees John Whiles, of architects Jestico and Whiles. "We've been working on hotels for some time, both as architects and interior designers, and a lot of hotel companies separate the two. Usually you design a building from the outside, from an operational point of view, and then the hotel operators come along and work on the interior with their brand standard books, ensuring that all their properties, whether they're in Hawaii or the UK, have the same door handles in the same place, and all the rooms use the same colour of paint, and so on, which can be a disappointing experience for both the architects and the interior designers."

When architects are given the opportunity to design the inside and the outside, the results are much more satisfying, says Whiles, such as the recently opened Tower Bridge Hilton. Judging by some of the crimes against architecture the Hilton chain has committed across the globe, they'd be better off putting celebrity heiress Paris in charge of design, but to their credit, the chain has attempted to do something better here. It is certainly more considered than the norm in its detailing and materials. Mediating between the Norman Foster-designed office complex around it and the Tooley Street conservation area, it is a mix of glass, ribbed terracotta stone and copper panelling, with louvred screens and touches of colour to diffuse its mass. What's most striking is the way the building avoids the usual split personality by bringing the same materials to the public areas inside the hotel.

There are other encouraging signs. This week an exhibition opens at New London Architecture called Away from Home, which showcases recent developments in hotel design. The good news is that many of the schemes are conversions and refurbishments. Few Londoners will be disappointed to see George Gilbert Scott's neo-gothic masterpiece above St Pancras Station reopen as a hotel. And there are many examples of conversions of run-down office buildings and town houses into boutique hotels, such as the Zetter in Clerkenwell - converted from the Zetter Pools building - or the chic Moran Hotel in Chiswick, a former 1960s office block. Perversely, Soho's dilapidated Art Deco gem, the Regent's Palace Hotel, is being converted into an office block.

Most of the current activity, however, is at the lowest end of the price scale. The rise of low-cost flights has triggered a corresponding rise in low-cost, low-space "microtels" - the same companies are even providing both, in the case of easyJet and easyHotel. The outlook is not as depressing as it sounds. Most of them are revamping existing buildings, so in design terms, they are not so much pushing the envelope as squeezing as many rooms as possible into it. Even Travelodge looks to be upping its game, with a couple of new designs that are at least distinguishable from one another.

A notable mention is the new Sleeperz chain, which is developing a series of "luxury budget" hotels across Britain. Sleeperz' strategy has been to work with Network Rail on developing difficult sites close to mainline railway termini in major cities such as Manchester, Newcastle and London, with the help of architect Peter Clash. "The hotels, by their very nature have a distinctive quality, because often they're dealing with awkward geometries," says Clash. "Because they're in city centres we often have to develop a relationship with the planners. So even though they are similar in their organisation and rooms, their exteriors are always developed in a different way."

The forthcoming nine-storey Manchester Sleeperz, for example, sits on a tiny triangular piece of land across the road from Manchester Piccadilly station. To the street it presents a transparent, coloured glass façade, while to the rear it displays more of a railway aesthetic - muted colours and hard-wearing materials. Another project in the pipeline close to London's Waterloo station responds to the scale and activity of the street, relating its ground level to the market outside and varying its elevations in accordance with surrounding railway viaducts and undercrofts. "They're very difficult to design technically, getting in the stairs and lifts and so on, but it's great for us because it creates the possibility of turning what could be a standard product into a differentiated one. And, I think, the client is gradually using this as a selling point. It's reinventing the station hotel, but very particular to each city."

Predictably, it is much easier to find inspiring hotel architecture at the super-luxury end of the spectrum, although much of it is within mixed-use developments. Two of London's most high-profile skyscrapers under construction, Renzo Piano's 70-storey "Shard" in London Bridge, and Ian Simpson's 52-storey Beetham Tower on Blackfriars Road, will contain five-star hotels as part of their mix. Simpson has already designed similar projects, most notably his spectacular, 48-storey tower in Manchester, 301 Deansgate. Locals either love it or hate Simpson's slender, lopsided monolith, but it does at least articulate the split between the apartments at the top and the Hilton hotel on the bottom 23 floors.

Other high profile architects are at work in the luxury hotel sector, but mostly in other countries. Go somewhere like Switzerland (ideally with a bank account to match), and you're spoilt for choice between Peter Zumthor's monumental Therme Vals spa hotel, or Mario Botta's ludicrously luxurious Schuggen Grand, or Norman Foster's forthcoming extension to the Dolder Grand, to name but a few. Foster is also at work on a new hotel in Aldwych, to be fair, in addition to luxury destinations in Denmark and Las Vegas. You'll find Richard Rogers in Spain and David Chipperfield in Hamburg, not to mention what's probably the most famous and most expensive hotel on the planet, Dubai's Burj Al Arab, designed by British firm Atkins.

But for us average-income city dwellers the overall outlook for hotel design is still not rosy. This exhibition is full of encouraging signs, but they should probably be taken as good examples, rather than a representative sample. Given the projected scale of hotel growth, and the way the industry has become dominated by global operators, there will be many projects destined to appear in surveys of most-hated buildings rather than exhibitions of good architecture. And whatever good intentions are on show, these London projects are unlikely to filter out to Grantham South Witham or Macclesfield Adlington for some time.

· Away from Home runs at New London Architecture (26 Store St, London WC1E) from Thursday. Details: newlondonarchitecture.org

Just been looking at sale prices on Rightmove and for Beetham Tower, 301 Deansgate, apartment 4700 sold for £650,000 on 9th March 2007. That's Simpson's floor. Sounds a bit cheap and also, i thought his apartment was 4701.

I went to manchester at the weekend, and i couldn't believe at how tall this thing actually was.

damn right she is sweet looking building think she has to be the best in manc by far

Just an FYI; the missing window was replaced yesterday (Tuesday) - it looked boarded up from the inside since last week. Good job given this mornings low cloud; from below the Hilton signs the tower was hidden in the murk early today. And STILL 3 aircraft warning beacons are unlit. Anyone got the number for the CAA?

I like it very much.:drool: Brilliant building!

You maybe right, only i keep hearing architects talk on television about birds hitting and sometimes breaking windows on skyscrapers. I'd be a bit worried if i was sat watching tv in a world of my own and all of a sudden Bang!!, a bird hit's it. It would scare me to death. They say it can be the sun reflecting on the windows that causes them to fly into them.

I've often wondered how hard you'd have to hit a window on the 35th floor to break it. I mean, if you got seriously pissed one night and fell into it, what are the chances of survival?

I've often wondered how hard you'd have to hit a window on the 35th floor to break it. I mean, if you got seriously pissed one night and fell into it, what are the chances of survival?

Did you here about someone in America who was running down a corrider in a skyscraper for the lift, tripped and went straight through the window at the end of the corrider and survived. I think it was last year.

It's not just weight that can break windows, but where and how much area it is spread out when contact is made i guess. Somebody more technically minded on hear may know more. I think on the whole, skyscrapers in Manchester aren't likely to be affected by it too much. It would startle you though. It's like somebody creeping up and banging on your window, albeit Spiderman!!

I was thinking of renting in Skyline Central and the possibility of falling to my death was a major turn off. I stepped out onto the balcony, reached my arms down to hold the railings to take a look down below and got belted by wind whipping round the corner of the building. I'm 6'3" and let's just say I wobbled a bit!
As for falling through windows, you must've all head about the window salesman in New York showing a buyer how strong his company's windows were? Or was that a knock knock joke?

It's like somebody creeping up and banging on your window, albeit Spiderman!!

I once got woken up by a window cleaner scraping away at my bedroom window at about 8am and because I'd never ordered a window cleaner, I shot bolt upright in a state of panic and terror! lol

I was thinking of renting in Skyline Central and the possibility of falling to my death was a major turn off. I stepped out onto the balcony, reached my arms down to hold the railings to take a look down below and got belted by wind whipping round the corner of the building. I'm 6'3" and let's just say I wobbled a bit!
As for falling through windows, you must've all head about the window salesman in New York showing a buyer how strong his company's windows were? Or was that a knock knock joke?

I'd just lock the door and hide the key. Another place I lived a long time ago was the 12th floor of a council highrise in Ashton, and I used to avoid the balcony area as much as possible, especially after a night on the sauce. A tiny little bit of your psyche wonders what it's like to fly......it's sickening.

I once got woken up by a window cleaner scraping away at my bedroom window at about 8am and because I'd never ordered a window cleaner, I shot bolt upright in a state of panic and terror! lol

Imagine leaving the curtains open, getting down on it on the bed then up pops the window cleaner. How embarrassing!! Could be worse i suppose, could be DIY!!

Imagine leaving the curtains open, getting down on it on the bed then up pops the window cleaner. How embarrassing!! Could be worse i suppose, could be DIY!!

Yeah well, since that happened I've always taken precautions and now the curtains stay firmly shut:) You have to consider all eventualities and plan accordingly

Yeah well, since that happened I've always taken precautions and now the curtains stay firmly shut:) You have to consider all eventualities and plan accordingly

Out of interest, if you bought an apartment in the tower, would you have voiles (nets) and curtains or just have night time blinds?

Out of interest, if you bought an apartment in the tower, would you have voiles (nets) and curtains or just have night time blinds?

That's a tough one. I'm tempted by linen voiles but they're a bit 90s. Night time blinds sound appealing as long as the window isn't visible from any other apartment, with or without binoculars.

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u180/markydeedroppics/027-3.jpg

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u180/markydeedroppics/029-3.jpg

I still love this tower but i can never work out what happend with the blade it just looks unfinished and a thoughtless design every time i look at the tower!!

I still love this tower but i can never work out what happend with the blade it just looks unfinished and a thoughtless design every time i look at the tower!!

the blade works more the further away you get from the building

Out of interest, if you bought an apartment in the tower, would you have voiles (nets) and curtains or just have night time blinds?

That's a tough one. I'm tempted by linen voiles but they're a bit 90s. Night time blinds sound appealing as long as the window isn't visible from any other apartment, with or without binoculars.

Gay-ess posts ever? :laugh:

Gay-ess posts ever? :laugh:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


oh matron

Gay-ess posts ever? :laugh:

Ooh you are awful, but i like you!!!!

LOL Do you know i never realised what i had typed until you mentioned that. I mean't it in a innocent way, because i saw many apartments advertised with no form of privacy from the outside world and wondered whether blinds or traditional voiles and curtains would be the most appropriate for that type of apartment.

I think I would let it all hang out without any screening fabrics of any kind, naked and in the sky!

Prey I can never afford a tower block flat!

Dont get me wrong - i love nothing more than a good old manly chat about soft furnishings. i was just surprised to see such a thing on here.
I too like to let it all hang out in front of un-curtained windows.

Does this mean, if i drive down a street and spot a man at the window with sod all on, it's likely to be one of you 2?? I think after all those years working at the top of City Tower with many of our sales team staring out of the windows with binoculars, looking into hotel and apartment windows, i have become far too paranoid people are spying on me. What a nation of perverts we are!! Thank god LOL.

Voyeurs and exhibitionists the lot of us. Long may it continue!

The foam that was added to the vertical strips reduced the transparency of the blade (for the better IMO). I'd like it if the prmranent aluminuim solution helps create a slightly more solid appearence to the structure.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1015/1015888_work_starts_on_whistling_hilton.html

http://m.gmgrd.co.uk/res/280.$plit/C_71_article_1015888_image_list_image_list_item_0_image.jpg?

Work starts on whistling Hilton
Ben Rooth
9/ 9/2007

ABSEILERS will start working on Manchester's Hilton Tower today to try to eliminate its mysterious whistling.

The noise from the tower - captured in this stunning sunset photograph - is caused by wind hitting the distinctive glass blades at the top.

This orange silhouette was snapped from a tower block six miles away in Hyde, using a camera and telescope.

Amateur astronomer Rob Philburn, a sociology lecturer at Salford University, captured the view as the late summer sun went down behind the 47-storey building, on Deansgate.

He said: "I like the way the sunlight shines through the top floors and comes out towards you."

The sun moves north along the horizon as summer progresses - before making its way back again. It will return to this position next spring.

Abseilers will start work today assuming there is no wind or rain.

The persistent hum has been bothering city centre residents when the wind blows from a certain direction and reaches certain speeds.

It has even caused filming on the Coronation Street set to be halted.

Foam pads were fitted to the glass last year as a temporary measure and they are now to be replaced by aluminium nosing - small curved sections which should dampen the noise.

Manchester-based architect Ian Simpson, who designed the building and is due to move into the penthouse apartment at the top of the tower, said that recent high winds had dislodged some of the foam, which was why the noise had flared up again.

"The foam was only ever going to be a temporary measure," he said.

"We are going to fit some aluminium nosing - little curved sections - on to the glass blade at the top, to stop the noise for good.

"The nosing will have to be put in place using a crane and abseilers."

The work is expected to take several weeks to complete.

out of interest, does anyone know if the blade serves any purpose at all

out of interest, does anyone know if the blade serves any purpose at all

Its specifically designed to whistle - as to annoy the neighbours etc.

out of interest, does anyone know if the blade serves any purpose at all

Yes. It is there to show that if you design a really ugly charmless building that with just a little bit more effort you can make it look ridiculous as well!
:lol:

out of interest, does anyone know if the blade serves any purpose at allThe design spiel was that it would make the tower “dematerialise” at the top, which it doesn’t; it is a piece of design flounce, and a bad one at that. They should have had the guts to let the thing be unreservedly monolithic. It does also hark back to some of the earlier concepts for the tower, where they toyed with a stepping back for the penthouses, and a more staggered look for the building as a whole; this was seemingly a last gasp at implying that aesthetic.

Its only litteral function is to make the tower taller in the stats.

I thought that it was supposed to mask the location of antenna arrays, which might have made sense if you compare the top of beetham, to the top of city tower for example

I like the blade.

Like any good work of art (though Im not necessarily elevating it to that sort of status) Beetham embodies power and elegance. The powerful, forthright front elevation might not lose much in removing the blade but the slim, elegant side elevation would be much the poorer without it looking blunt and unfinished. It also helps to visually balance the asymmetry of this side of the building. So the cladding choice for the blade might have failed to realise the architect's vision of a dematerialising facade, it still serves a purpose in its form IMO.

The blade was singing its head off again yesterday - winds from the North West. Even upwind we could hear it vividly, though it was a totally different pitch to last year.

Oh, and the Hilton is the ilton again on the south side at night. Grrrrr.....

Oh, and the Hilton is the ilton again on the south side at night. Grrrrr.....

Maybe it's done on purpose to attract rich chav's!!

The blade does look a bit like advertising hordings from the fat ends but it def works looking at it from the thin end. As sleepyone mentioned, it helps to balance the overhand on the other side. The tower would look far to wonky without it.

They're using views from the skybar in the new late night (not tea time) titles of BBC North West Tonight.

How to build the top storey penthouse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiqF2_S8GKw

have they finished with the interior construction work yet?

yes i can't remember when, probably january. flats been available for sale and rent for months

When they proposed the Transamerica Building in San Francisco in the late 1960's the city went into uproar. Most people hated it, they said that it's "futuristic" design and sheer height would destroy what was an already beautiful victorian city and ruin views of the bay from neighbouring communities. The original design, proposed at over 1150ft hight was scaled down to 850ft to somewhat compromise the impending landmark on the people of SF. Today it is one of the cities most famous landmarks and San Francisco can barely be imagined without it. Sure it is more innovative than Beetham Manchester, and taller too, but these two building share something in common. They both had many critics, but in time Beetham will be loved by most in Manchester especially once other buildings spring up around it. It's a classic design, the sheer-glass-box. I like it, it represents Manchester at the time it was built - modern, striking and ambitious.

When they proposed the Transamerica Building in San Francisco in the late 1960's the city went into uproar. Most people hated it, they said that it's "futuristic" design and sheer height would destroy what was an already beautiful victorian city and ruin views of the bay from neighbouring communities. The original design, proposed at over 1150ft hight was scaled down to 850ft to somewhat compromise the impending landmark on the people of SF. Today it is one of the cities most famous landmarks and San Francisco can barely be imagined without it. Sure it is more innovative than Beetham Manchester, and taller too, but these two building share something in common. They both had many critics, but in time Beetham will be loved by most in Manchester especially once other buildings spring up around it. It's a classic design, the sheer-glass-box. I like it, it represents Manchester at the time it was built - modern, striking and ambitious.

i don't think anyone really doubts that, most Mancs like it (i think)

I seen some guys on the blade today. About half way up it, looked abit crazy. I have no idea what they were doing on it! Anyone got any ideas?

Fixing it once and for all so it stops whistling (and hopefully repairing the aircraft warning lights while they're up there!)

I still think the blade should be lit up at night, like a colour changing beacon.

ya i saw that aswell andy i certainly would not have liked to have been him up there

they've got all four lights working again, wonder how long they'll last this time?

All 4 on the blade or on the overhang? Or all 8?!

can only see it from town side so, all four on the top, the two just below the Hilton sign, however the one on the right of the Hilton sign is faint so it could be from the other side. also Hilton sign still half out. Didn't the great northern tower have red lights? Havnt seen them for ages.

Didn't the great northern tower have red lights? Havnt seen them for ages.

I think the GN tower is not tall enought to need them. They probably stuck some on to draw attention to it.

There was a forumer while back now, who went on to explain it didn't actually need them due to its height.

If I remember correctly, he couldn't understand why they'd been fitted to the structure when there wasn't a need for them! He had some involvement down at Manchester Airport...

I don't know how many lights were on GN Tower to begin with, but I can still see one red light on the top at night from my flat. Must be the angle you are looking from?

ok, I know its off topic but checked some old photo's there was only one light but definatly gone now

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1152/1478135356_129eada80c_b.jpg

Well I can see a light on GN Tower out my window right this second. It's on the left hand side as in your right hand photo...

Oct 4th - I can see 1 red light on city tower, 1 red light on GN tower, 3 lights on top of beetham (from my angle) and 2 in the middle. One light def out still on Beetham.

Oh and lots of red lights on Spinningfields cranes.

The Pink crown is back on the Arndale tower

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1091/1483091862_3fcd6d8a67.jpg?v=0

There is something disingenuous about a building that desparately tries to ape the power and presence of a 1960s/1970s, US corporate office building (of which there are now hundreds of examples through out the world), but which is really just a block flats full of stupid footballers.

It is not only disingenuous, but in design terms is a bit of an anachronism. And I always thought modernism was about being honest. Tut tut Mr Simpson.

I think I've just found the inspiration for the design of Beetham Manchester. Of course, the essense of the building is a copy cat of the standard corporate office tower emerging out of the 1950s and 60s. But there is more: design that is top-heavy and a bit ill-proportioned, not only in and of the building itself, but the way in which it interacts with its surroundings. Who would've thought an ATM shelter could have such a big impact on the design of modern Manchester....

http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200710A.jpg

Well I suppose they do have some things in common: both are dated, preposterous, pompous and have that "about to topple over" look. Do you think Ian Simpson copied this concept for his design? He ought to at least acknowledge this out of professional courtesy to whomever designed this structure.

Terrible thing jealousy!:)

I dont thinks it jealousy, perhaps a misunderstanding of the tower, although it does make a big statement on first appearance ,the tower has many subtle qaulities which are missed on the photos,if see the tower for real on a regular basis you will know what I mean,I think it interacts perfectly at street level. As for being dated it seems to be the inspiration for a similar design like sky habitat in Barcelona.

Notice the Manc 'haters' hate it? Coincidence? I think not.

I hate it but I'm not a Manc hater :)

^^ Then that's ok :)

Notice the Manc 'haters' hate it? Coincidence? I think not.

I can't speak for Blabbers, but I am very far from being a "hater" of Manchester. What a childish thing to say. I visit it often, have relatives and friends there, and love it there. I don't like this building, however, which I think disfigures the skyline and sits awkwardly within the streetscape. Why must one be a "Manc hater" just for not liking this mistake of a building?

I hate it but I'm not a Manc hater :)

Me too. I don't know why anybody would think otherwise. I expressed my opinion in an informed manner, based on design and architectural factors.

I notice none of those who do like it (mainly Manunians suprise, surprise) are able to explain why, other than to make worthless and boring comments like "eeyaah, it's dead good. I love it :)" and "it's so tall! wow!" and "I'm lovin' it" and "it makes such an impact!" ad nauseum. Pointless comments that aren't worth making, or reading, or worth causing carbon emissions for.

I reiterate the point I made earlier. The building is completely disingenuous. It is a block of flats for footballers and other nobeds, like Shane Ward (pop icon extraordinaire), despite the fact that it screams "I'm a corporate HQ!". The design, massing and inappropriate scale are 100% anachronistic. This building hasn't done anything for the people of Manchester; it hasn't furthered the city's regeneration in any meaningful way, and it is going to seem like an enormous mistake in a few years time.

Sorry if this offends the phallic worhsipping brigade, and those lacking a proper knowledge of design, architectural and planning matters, but it is my informed opinion. It doesn't mean I dislike Manchester.

I wonder if this is the first building in the world that literally everyone dislikes at some level? Maybe those infected with excessive civic pride feel so determined not to dislike it that they hope by saying "it's great" they will themselves one day believe it?

Not only is the building itself disingenous, but the gasps of excitement that a few have made about it are also probably disingenous. They want to like it, and hope that if enough people say the same, their doubts will be dispelled and they actually will genuinely like it.

Sorry folks, it's horrid. A big big mistake. Don't keep trying to like it, it's a wasted effort. Plan for its replacement. Onwards and upwards, as they say.

I wonder if this is the first building in the world that literally everyone dislikes at some level?
I'm not even here defending this building as something special because I absolutely share the opinions of those who don't particularly like it and find nothing of real interest about it beyond it being the tallest tower in the city I live but what kind of pathetic comment is that?

Sorry Liverpolitan, I thought you were gonna say Beetham tower was another Manc conspiracy, which i why i said what i said! ;)

I'd rather have a talked about tower which is equally loved as hated instead of a boring safe tower.

Don't forget, this tower broke boundaries in the provincials and raised the bar.

You might not like it, but at least someone had the balls to build it before the other cities jumped on the bandwagon.

Disingenuous? Lets talk about that...

Why do the same two posters keep coming back to this thread to express the same (negative) opinion? There is surely no need to do that unless you were either

1. Insecure of your own opinion or
2. being disingenuous

Disingenuous? Lets talk about that...

Why do the same two posters keep coming back to this thread to express the same (negative) opinion? There is surely no need to do that unless you were either

1. Insecure of your own opinion or
2. being disingenuous

Why look for something that isn't there? How about just "opinionated"?

Is the new Sleepyone rule for SSC "post once on any topic"? We would get the overall post-counts of these threads down if we did that I suppose.

Being opinionated is fine. Repeating the same opinion doesn't contribute to debate. Its smacks of insecurity. Or disingenuity.

Being opinionated is fine. Repeating the same opinion doesn't contribute to debate. Its smacks of insecurity. Or disingenuity.

Now look what I've made you do! You've broken your own rule by repeating yourself. Tut tut. :bash:

Disingenuous? Lets talk about that...

Why do the same two posters keep coming back to this thread to express the same (negative) opinion? There is surely no need to do that unless you were either

1. Insecure of your own opinion or
2. being disingenuous

Well this thread consists of nearly three hundred pages worth of posts. Perhaps more than a thousand posts, predominantly consisting of people uttering the words "wow!", "Loving it!", and "wow! so big!". Certain forummers who like this building, and say so, have contributed scores of posts to this thread.

Are you suggesting the people who like this building and keep on reiterating this are:

1. Insecure of their own opinion or
2. being disingenuous

???

There is no need to make this personal. If you lack the knowledge and intellect to parcticipate appropriately then please don't bother to log on. These forums are after all for those wishing to discuss urban issues. You really shouldn't gate crash urban discussions with deluded nonsense, that makes this a personalised and unpleasant forum to contribute to. Nor should you project your own insecurities and low self esteem onto the entire city of Manchester and confuse the two.

Now look what I've made you do! You've broken your own rule by repeating yourself. Tut tut.

^^ Predictable as always. :ohno:

Are you suggesting the people who like this building and keep on reiterating this are:

1. Insecure of their own opinion or
2. being disingenuous

No im suggesting that most people on this thread are honestly articulating a genuine reaction to the building or a picture. Im suggesting that people such as Liverpolitan (and yourself as his faithful lap-dog) who have a long held and hard earned reputation on these forums for being trolls are being more than a little disingenuous.

Wow. Love it. it's huge.

Whats wrong with that opinion? At least it doesn't have the untrained pretensions of critical review such as "flats for knobheads trying to look like a corporate building from the 50s (I presume the curtain walling technique is only the preserve of american office buildings?)"

I like it's textural variance day or night and the cantilever gives the viewer something to stimulate the @how does it work' part of the brain. Its by no means groundbreaking/cutting-edge design and on some levels it's a bit bland but to be tut tutting at simpson for his crowning glory to date is, in my opinion a bit of an over reaction.

About it being 'bland', surely it makes enough of a statement without it being over-designed?

To the people who don't like it as it is, would you like it if it had 'ooh look at me' flourecent glass all over it, or various shapes pretruding from various edifices?

I doubt it! It's fine as it is, it's not going anywhere for years, well, it'll still be here when we're long gone, that's for sure.

If they're gonna change one thing though, make more of a feature of the blade, eg, lighting it up at night. That'd look cool.

Wow. Love it. it's huge.


^^ He says that to all the men. :hahaha:

No im suggesting that most people on this thread are honestly articulating a genuine reaction to the building or a picture. Im suggesting that people such as Liverpolitan (and yourself as his faithful lap-dog) who have a long held and hard earned reputation on these forums for being trolls are being more than a little disingenuous.

I won't speak on behalf of Liverpolitan. It isn't necessary for me to speak on behalf of anybody.

All I have ever done is express my opinion about the design of a building. Nothing vicious or nasty; just an opinion, expressed in a reasoned manner. I don't claim to be right, but my informed instincts lead me to have concerns and I have expressed these.

I find it breathtaking that you must insist on these rabid and highly personalised attacks on people. What is the matter with you? Why do you take this personally? Is it your building? Do you own a flat in it? Why do you presume to speak on behalf of a building? Is it some sort of mindless Mancunian tribal thing with you? Do you think I am attacking you personally? Or do my evidenced critiques make you feel uncomfortable?

I think most people are aware of your rather sullen and sour faced conduct on these forums. You are like a dark cloud that gets blown over threads; raining down misery and depression, in a self-obsessed and pathological manner.

I hate to say all of this but my hand has been forced. There is always room for a bit of banter and reasoned disagreement. But you have offered nothing. You attack anybody who happens to disagree with you; taking out your insecurities on others.

I stand by my opinions. The building is anachronistic; the building is a forgery; the building is preposterous. By all means disagree with me Sleepyone, but please don't attack me.

What a hysterical reaction!

expressed in a reasoned manner

Point me to some actual reasoning and I might revise my opinion. You can't because there isn't any. My appraisal of you is therefore correct. Disingenuous.

The building is anachronistic; the building is a forgery; the building is preposterous.

It's all of those things and so much more. :wink2:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/172/382938575_c9fa77aaab.jpg?v=0

I find it breathtaking that you must insist on these rabid and highly personalised attacks on people. What is the matter with you?

^^ He says that to all the men. :hahaha:

Pot...kettle black

Anyway, I don't mind the fact that you don't like this building, it is one of it's attribute to divide opinion. Would you have such a strong opinion of a truely bland building, say the sentinel buildings in Birmingham?

I also can't understand your use of the word forgery when delivering your 'evidenced critiques'. Unless you think that the first 1000 odd glass curtain walled 'International' style skyscrapers were original and this is the final straw of replication of a good idea?

Nice photo.

Right then tiny bit of news. Got off the station at Deansgate Station walked over g-mex for the tram, looked up and saw this...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/andysimo123/Photo-0104.jpg
Looked like a big blue sheet of like clear fabric.

[QUOTE=andysimo123;15796973]Right then tiny bit of news. Got off the station at Deansgate Station walked over g-mex for the tram, looked up and saw this...


yeah, I can see it too. Not sure if it is one sheet or in several pieces, but it is definatley blue, didn't notice it yesterday, so it must have gone up quickly

I think it's a resident from one of the apartments drying their sheets!
:lol:

Unless you think that the first 1000 odd glass curtain walled 'International' style skyscrapers were original and this is the final straw of replication of a good idea?

No Jerv. Why must you always be wrong? It is such a shame that you need the basics explaining to you. You people are supposed to be buildings enthusiasts, and yet, do not posess even the most basic knowledge of the history of architecture. Well I imagine for many of the people on this thread, that a building, regardless of its quality, can only truly be liked if it is in Manchester and if it is "wow! so big!". It would explain a lot.

The "originals", as you refer to them, were those by the legendary architect, Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe. You could say that they have all been replicas since his were built. Although I suppose the replicas of the 1970s and 80s might be forgiven for at least being built within 20 years of the "originals". Beetham Manc hardly has that excuse.

Moreover, many of the replicas have borrowed from the originals, but tried to create a variation on the theme, by using perculiarities of form for instance. Again, Beetham Manchester fails. It is the glazed block you can see many, many, many times over throughout the world. Oh, and don't be fooled by the rather feeble cantilevered aspect of the building, which provides only a very brief break from the monotony. Even this aspect of the building is something that has been done so many times before.

But in any case, my criticisms also relate to the location of the building. It is completely out of scale with its surroundings, making it look cumbersome and ridiculous. It also unbalances the Manchester skyline from most angles.

Anyway, I'm glad you agree that this building is a mere replica, that it is the architetcural equivalent of those cheap trainers you see in "Windsors". "Reemok" rather than "Reebok", "Dolce and Banana" sun glasses, etc.

Manchester will move on in time. It's nothing to worry about; no building is permanent. And a quick reminder to readers: please don't take my criticisms of a building personally.

It is the glazed block you can see many, many, many times over throughout the world. Oh, and don't be fooled by the rather feeble cantilevered aspect of the building, which provides only a very brief break from the monotony. Even this aspect of the building is something that has been done so many times before.

But not in the UK.



Anyway, I'm glad you agree that this building is a mere replica, that it is the architetcural equivalent of those cheap trainers you see in "Windsors". "Reemok" rather than "Reebok", "Dolce and Banana" sun glasses, etc.



It's still the Gucci over in the UK though, especially the provincials.

Wake up Blabber, the UK has a hell of a lot a catching up to do, but we have to start somewhere.

At least in Manc, we started something.

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u180/markydeedroppics/027-3.jpg

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u180/markydeedroppics/029-3.jpg

I think the tower relates well to its surroundings at ground level.The juxtapostion against victoriana works well and of course it compliments new build. As for looking unbalanced on the skyline not so when Piccadilly is built,call them bookends for the city centre.

If only it was glass and going all over - then the blade wouldn´t look like wire fencing.

It's called anti-whistling shrouding. It comes in many pastel shades.

Simpson is likely a Man City fan.

He must be.

He lives in a massive penthouse in a massive building....;)

No Jerv. Why must you always be wrong? It is such a shame that you need the basics explaining to you. You people are supposed to be buildings enthusiasts, and yet, do not posess even the most basic knowledge of the history of architecture. Well I imagine for many of the people on this thread, that a building, regardless of its quality, can only truly be liked if it is in Manchester and if it is "wow! so big!". It would explain a lot.

The "originals", as you refer to them, were those by the legendary architect, Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe. You could say that they have all been replicas since his were built. Although I suppose the replicas of the 1970s and 80s might be forgiven for at least being built within 20 years of the "originals". Beetham Manc hardly has that excuse.

Moreover, many of the replicas have borrowed from the originals, but tried to create a variation on the theme, by using perculiarities of form for instance. Again, Beetham Manchester fails. It is the glazed block you can see many, many, many times over throughout the world. Oh, and don't be fooled by the rather feeble cantilevered aspect of the building, which provides only a very brief break from the monotony. Even this aspect of the building is something that has been done so many times before.

But in any case, my criticisms also relate to the location of the building. It is completely out of scale with its surroundings, making it look cumbersome and ridiculous. It also unbalances the Manchester skyline from most angles.

Anyway, I'm glad you agree that this building is a mere replica, that it is the architetcural equivalent of those cheap trainers you see in "Windsors". "Reemok" rather than "Reebok", "Dolce and Banana" sun glasses, etc.

Manchester will move on in time. It's nothing to worry about; no building is permanent. And a quick reminder to readers: please don't take my criticisms of a building personally.



What a charlatan! I thought you claimed to be informed? Van Der Rohe produced plenty of apartment towers, employing the same modernist aesthetic that he pioneered and used substantially on commercial buildings.... What were you saying about Beetham being disingenuous again?

As for its mass, form and scale - you appear to know nothing about the context within which this building sits, its form and massing responding perfectly to the adjacent and similarly massed Great Northern Warehouse, GMEX and various substantial bits of viadcut, canal and roadway. As for its scale, well once again, a perfect response to both local context and location at the terminus of so many radial roads, the intersection of central Manchester's physical communications of rail, tram, canal and road and the bookend to one of its most important streets.

I can accept you don't like it but please don't try to pretend your opinion is anything more than personal taste. For me, the building is the ultimate contextual response to the site.

It's called anti-whistling shrouding. It comes in many pastel shades.

Simpson is likely a Man City fan.

He must be.

He lives in a massive penthouse in a massive building....;)

In the City of Manchester.;)

There is a world of difference between fulfilling a bookend role in the cityscape and sticking out like a sore thumb.

Beetham is the 1st tower in this area of town.

100 yards away as 150m tower is in planning by our Aussie design gurus.
100 yards away are two 80m office towers
200 yards away will be No 1 Hardman c160m
250 yards away will be Manchester House replacement c120m
300 yards away will be Southern Gateway

I think some people have no idea about Manchester.

Beetham is the 1st but will not be a `sore thumb'.

Beetham is the 1st tower in this area of town.

100 yards away as 150m tower is in planning by our Aussie design gurus.
100 yards away are two 80m office towers
200 yards away will be No 1 Hardman c160m
250 yards away will be Manchester House replacement c120m
300 yards away will be Southern Gateway

I think some people have no idea about Manchester.

Beetham is the 1st but will not be a `sore thumb'.

dont forget great nothern tower about 100 metres away and 110 metres tall

If only it was glass and going all over - then the blade wouldn´t look like wire fencing.

But then there would be huge stresses on the blade stucture in stormy winds

In the City of Stockport.;)

Thats better :)

GN tower is 72m?

GN tower is 72m?

Yep something like that.

^^ now now girls...

Looks like part of the blade has been dismantled, the glass attached to it removed.

When is Simpson's pad going to be finished?

Why are there still bugger all of lights on on the whole residential half of the tower, in the evenings? Do only 19 people live there or are they all constantly in the pub?

I've seen quite a few lately, it's looking better as the nights go by!