IWMN in association with the RIBA are running a design competition to decide on the re-landscaping of the external space around the museum. They are now down to the final five concepts from five architects:

- Kinnear Landscape Architects, London, UK
- White Arkitekter AB, Goteborg, Sweden
- Patel Taylor Architects, London, UK
- Topotek 1, Berlin, Germany
- Field Operations, New York, USA

What do you think about these proposals & which is your favourite? One of them or none of them...

Lets take a vote on it with a poll.

Help decide IWMN's new outside
http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester (http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/image_galleries/130209iwmn_concepts_gallery.shtml)

Concept A: Viral Landscape
DOWNLOAD PDF OF A HERE (http://north.iwm.org.uk/upload/pdf/Design_Concept_A.pdf)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/images/2009/02/12/iwmn_concept_a__01_450x220.jpg

"this will disseminate information, ideas and views throughout Manchester, stimulating wider debate about the museum and war, forging a strong presence for the museum in the city and raising its profile."

"The explosion of the museum has fractured a wheat field, making tilted golden planes and there’s an asphalt field, also shattered along its edges, a contemplative garden with a square of lawn and a majestic tree."


Concept B: Field Of Dreams
DOWNLOAD PDF OF B HERE (http://north.iwm.org.uk/upload/pdf/Design_Concept_B.pdf)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/images/2009/02/12/iwmn_concept_b_01_450x224.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/images/2009/02/12/iwmn_concept_b_02_263x350.jpg

"It's ambiguous and suggestive, which dreams often are. It connects to the individual and reflects the multitude of emotions people experience when visiting the Imperial War Museum."

"It is multilayered and like nature it evolves over time. It is rich, dynamic and diverse but follows a structure offering clarity to people. Four green areas will offer places for individual reflection as well as places where friends can meet."


Concept C: A Remembered Journey
DOWNLOAD PDF OF C HERE (http://north.iwm.org.uk/upload/pdf/Design_Concept_C.pdf)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/images/2009/02/12/iwmn_concept_c_01_450x300.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/images/2009/02/12/iwmn_concept_c_02_450x300.jpg

"This design aims to enhance the building within its setting. The site boundaries are more welcoming and pleasurable with vertical gardens to the east and west perimeter, and a moat with bridges and reeds along the southern edge."

"Visitors are introduced to thematic and interpretive exhibits; given opportunities for quiet reflection and play; and interaction with multi-sensory installations that encourage memorable, poignant experiences that compliment the museum's message."


Concept D: Camouflage
DOWNLOAD PDF OF D HERE (http://north.iwm.org.uk/upload/pdf/Design_Concept_D.pdf)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/images/2009/02/12/iwmn_concept_d_01_450x217.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/images/2009/02/12/iwmn_concept_d_02_450x282.jpg

"The camouflage patterns used by the military are an abstraction of landscapes of combat. These patterns represent a visual average of the natural environment."

"The idea is to confront the global scale of war represented by the building with the local scale where battles are fought. War does not only re-configure lines on a world map, but changes everyday landscapes."


Concept E: Reconnaissance Field
DOWNLOAD PDF OF E HERE (http://north.iwm.org.uk/upload/pdf/Design_Concept_E.pdf)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/images/2009/02/12/iwmn_concept_e_01_450x225.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/images/2009/02/12/iwmn_concept_e_02_450x226.jpg

"Interactions – social, physical, intellectual and experiential – are fundamental not only to museums but to society more broadly. Interaction requires active effort, not simply passive reception."

"This proposes a highly interactive landscape, a field of discovery, hide-and-seek, movement and engagement. Ideas, information and activities are dispersed throughout the field in order that they may be found, interpreted and pieced together."

Imperial War Museum North Seeks Your Views On Proposed External Development - 13 - 25 February 2009
http://www.architecture.com/UseAnArchitect/FindAnArchitect/Competitions/Exhibitions.aspx

Visitors to the multi-award winning Imperial War Museum North (IWMN) between Friday 13 and Wednesday 25 February will be able to view and give their feedback on 5 shortlisted design proposals to develop the external spaces of the Museum.

The shortlisted designs will be on display in the WaterShard Cafe between 10am and 5pm daily where visitors will be asked to complete feedback forms of their views. This feedback, together with further research will help inform a judging panel (made up of representatives from the RIBA and IWMN) who will meet in March.

The designs are initial concepts only and once a final proposal is selected IWMN will begin the task of fundraising and seeking partners to help realise the project. Once funding has been secured, the chosen design team will work closely with the Museum to develop the ideas and create the scheme. The development of the outside areas is aimed at completion before the opening of MediaCity:UK in 2011.

Continues Here... (http://www.architecture.com/UseAnArchitect/FindAnArchitect/Competitions/Exhibitions.aspx)

Ignoring the fact there is very little to go on…….

Perhaps it is more conventional but I have to say I’m really liking B on initial impressions.

I like the way it seamlessly connects the water, earth and air through the canal side and the trees in contrast to the symbolisation of IWMN representing shattering and disconnect. The metallic/angular nature of parts of IWMN cut into this "dream world".

I also think it’s conventional enough to be understood by the average user and be a welcome “greening” of the canal side.

And this is just awesome……

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/8717/iwmnconceptb02263x350jr8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

agree with you frodz :)

Concept b for me.

Seems there is a clear favourite so far....is it down to the nature of the renders?

My thoughts on it...from a rant I posted in the IWMN thread:

Concept A is something I would go for, maybe because it reminds me of this piece of land art:

http://www.iupui.edu/graphics/denes_wheatfield.jpg
Agnes Denes - Wheatfield - A Confrontation, Battery Park Landfill, Downtown Manhattan, 1982

...or simply because of its abstract nature, although there is scant detail of the full idea [via the BBC website] and therefore difficult to judge...maybe there is a little more at the Museum itself?

I like parts of the concept statement of B, 'Four green areas will offer places for individual reflection as well as places where friends can meet', though I think there might be a little too much 'wild meadow' style landscaping in the first render, and too many trees may obscure the outside of the building.

The second render of B reminds me of a formal Japanese garden, something I would like to see.

The design of Scheme D is a little too similar to the fractured nature of the building itself and I don't think they fit together, the canal side walkway looks to be a little disjointed with all the gardens, the creation of a camouflage pattern with landscaping is quite clever however.

I feel that something like C or E would look a little too cluttered. With concept C you are effectively bringing part of the Museum outside, the combination of 'quiet reflection' and 'interaction with multi-sensory installations' does not sound great. Ongoing maintenance of C could be quite high as well, with weathering effects it could date quite quickly.

Those pipes/tubes in E look a little messy, great for interactivity however & I wonder just how much 'interactivity' the IWMN specified/wanted themselves in any scheme & how much weight they place on it when judging?

How much emphasis are they placing on public response? Some of these concepts are quite abstract visions, some with more basic renders than others, and they are certainly not the final versions of any scheme...

There is actually large PDF files of each of the concepts on the IWMN site :doh:

Links to the docs are above or via this link:

http://north.iwm.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5887

Err can we start the poll again....

I rather like concept D. But then I've always been a sucker for putting the parking 'underground'. But it hasn't got my vote.

My vote goes to concept E. There is already lots of open space around the quays, media city will add to this with its new green park and plaza.

What all these areas have in common is that they are grown up spaces. But it strikes me that one of the principle user groups at the quays are children, visiting IWMN/Lowry either with their parents or as part of an organised school trip.

Sure, the facilities themselves cater well for these young visitors. But what of the outside spaces? Thinking back to the school trips I went on, some of my strongest memories are not of the museum/attraction we were visiting, but the park/play area we went to for our packed lunches. For me proposal E addresses the needs of this currently overlooked demographic best. If I were 8 it is certainly the park I'd want to eat my sandwiches in.

I think it's important for IWMN to complement the 'existing' public realm. For me the more grown-up grass based schemes just replicate what is going on over the water in the new media city park.

I also like the whole Reconnaissance idea. Inside visitors get that intense experience, learning all about horror of war in years gone by. Outside it's more light hearted, more interactive and more fun but still educating visitors on reconnaissance and intelligence, which is the most weapon of modern day warfare.

I like B ,Field of Dreams,although it is perhaps the most conventional of all the designs.But as the architecture is so minimal and stark I think the contrast would work well.And the idea of areas to sit and contemplate are really good,always find a visit to the museum quite moving and thought provoking,which is it's whole point of course;think I must be a pacifist at heart !!It certainly needs something around it ,the bleak industrial look of the IWMN is great but some planting in the area would make it a bit more inviting for a lot of people.
I really like the idea of a wheat field ,the whole concept is great but for just how many months of the year would this planting look effective !? Visiting in winter you are just going to see bare earth,so it makes it kind of pointless !
Some of the renders look great in a plan view but think they get lost at ground level,it is all very well having fantastic angles and pathways seen from above but how many people will see that ?Quite often think some designers only see things as a plan and how it fits into a space rather than how it is going to look at ground level,probally why plan B is so effective!

I think B looks quite nice, but I'm not sure it's suitable. The IWM is a destination rather than a community focus and so something that's more like a typical (if very nice) local park will look sad and abadoned all the time outside weekends and holidays. So B is out. C I don't get. It seems to be trying too many things at once and not achieving them. I really like the ideas of A and D, especially A. At least when the area is semi deserted it will look appropriate. However it doesn't add much to the Quays like the other schemes might. E does this in spades, but it does seem a bit gimmicky.

I suppose it depends what they want. As a setting for the building I think it has to be A. As an addition to the facillities of the museum then it must be E (perhaps slightly toned down). If it's a nice park for Trafford Quays then D. So A. I think.

As I thought some of the other designs are let down by the original BBC article. Have to say after reading the PDF's it's a lot harder to be certain of one overall winner.

My thoughts so far;

A - The idea has grown on me a lot and I can see from the PDF how cleverly such landscape can be used.

My problems with it though are firstly that it TOTALLY ignores the canal side, parking is not innovative and more importantly will make the area appear so desolate. I get that that is part of the point but really it's not exactly a place where people will want to congregate. It's something to be seen from a distance, not something to be inside. I can't see it helping further regeneration of the canal side either. So nice idea but need convincing it's the best.


B –


DREAMS
War is a nightmare which is
vividly represented within
the museum. Positive dreams
are therefore used as subtle
themes within the spaces
outside the building to create
a contrast to the content
within the museum. The three
elements earth, water and
air constitute the different
shards of the museum. The
outside space is designed to
correspond to these elements
of the building.

They stole my lines! :lol:

I’m perhaps disappointed with a lack of much innovative solutions to parking or play areas. It has somewhat included play and recognises the need for specific equipment but I’d like to see more detail on that.

I would have also preferred if they would have followed Libeskinds shatter marks more closely to emphasise war breaking into this dream, much like A achieves.

But if they can pull off a high quality landscape such as this it would certainly act as a reference point for future green space in the city which would be an important legacy.

These are not the final proposals however and I think if revisions can incorporate more innovative ideas regarding the parking and play areas I think it could be the best of the bunch.

So it is still my favourite but I can see how some of the other designs have advantages over it.

C – I like the fact it shields much of the parking from the actual building but while the PDF talks about removing visual clutter from IWMN I can’t help feeling that these silo’s will be exactly that. Perhaps a bit too busy and does detract from the building.

If an educational use is desired by IWMN for the exterior then I’d prefer this design to achieve it but perhaps something more low-key.

The design does address the canal much better however.

D – I’m loving the “underground” parking, and the hills funnel (in a good way) visitors to the main entrance. It also doesn’t greatly detract from the building itself, in fact it probably sets the building the best of all the designs. It also generates far more space on the site than the other designs.

Perhaps not my favourite but I wouldn’t be unhappy if it was picked.

E – Have a bad feeling I’m gonna sound really harsh but here goes. I’ll start with the good things.

It does, as said above, do one thing that perhaps all the other proposals really don’t get at all and that is the child element.

War is a pretty heavy subject for your average kid dragged along to a museum by well meaning parents and while I as a kid probably wouldn’t have minded (was far more interested in how the bombs or rockets worked…..) I can imagine “interest fatigue” is a big problem.

Unfortunately I think E’s solution is a tad………crass. Hell, why not just give the kids toy guns?

It does address the canal which is a plus point but I’m feeling it is a bit simple and moreover I’m not keen on a kids play area being so close to steps into the canal……..

I also think the “pods” interfere far too much with the building. I really don’t think the concept respects what a high quality building IWMN is.

And for the love of god the site does not need to remain an asphalt heaven………



So overall D is a safe choice but i think both A and B have more potential if rethought .

are there differing images available for B that I can't see causing everyone to vote for it? Because to me it just like they want to put some grass down?

D is my favourite, I like it for it's simplicity. Well defined areas that we can assume would be easy to maintain. It doesn't draw attention away from the building at all it focuses it quite nicely and the underground parking is the icing on the cake for me.

B imo would look messy after 6 months

I like B.(as most people do) A sense of Flanders is being advicated. (more below)

http://i.pbase.com/g4/58/673958/2/62357599.k4BV9l90.jpg

However, I feel the trees detract and obscure the IWMN to an extenet. This wonderful building/museum should always be in full view and should not be hidden behind trees and tall grasses. (see render below)

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

For me it has to be D.

Stunning. Modern and contemporary, just like the IWMN, yet it still reflects the essence of what the IWMN stands for with the bunker affect where the car park currently is(which I love) and the flat grassed areas.(Flanders) I also like the steps which mirror those of Mediacity.

There is only one choice.

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

Reminds me of the heartless landscaping at Picc gardens though. And those pretty clean-cut lines of paving will dissapear once the corners of grass get trampled on.

Pity they couldnt plant a row of Trachycarpus fortunei along the canel edge....

I go for A. I love the idea of the wheat field and how the changing seasons will dramatically affect the look of the building from afar, which for me is the main purpose - The museum is a striking accent in vistas from all over the quays and 90% of the people who look at this building and the new external space will see if from afar.

http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/NEA1416.jpg

I'm no horticulturalist and I presume it isn't possible but from the moment I saw the wheat field idea I imagined how brilliant those vistas would become if for just a few weeks of the year, after the wheat field dies it replaced by a poppy field, illuminating the museum to the entire quays. It could be a real attraction.

http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/photos/Poppy_field.JPG

the asphalt field I'm not so keen on though.

--

B just has sod all to do with the museum and it does nothing but detract from it. Yeah it'll probably be a nice looking garden but that garden could be placed along any of the banks of the quays and still look attractive. Even the spiel refers to it as ambiguous (best interpreted as irrelevant and inappropriate). Lets be honest the external space is going to be used by just a few dozen people a day as the museum is a destination at the end of the line and has very little passing foot-traffic.

C I like the idea of the moats to replace the fences but Frodz says, it seems to add more clutter than it removes.

D Is my second favourite but I see it struggling to pull of this camouflage look. Again it addresses the museums place in the vista more than up close, which I like but I don't think the colours of the camouflage will be as strong as the wheat field and the concept and effect will go largely unnoticed.

E Would be disastrous. Irrespective of whether the ethics of including fun activities to the war museum weighs up, attempts by the designers to extend the museum into the grounds using these interactive playthings is like asking a joiner to do the plumbing in your bathroom. The outsides activities will become part of the museum and if they are shit then they will be detrimental to the reputation of the museum itself. This is totally the wrong route to go down.

For me it has to be D.

Stunning. Modern and contemporary, just like the IWMN, yet it still reflects the essence of what the IWMN stands for with the bunker affect where the car park currently is(which I love) and the flat grassed areas.(Flanders) I also like the steps which mirror those of Mediacity.

There is only one choice.

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

I agree, when I initially looked at the entries it was this one that struck me the most, I think maybe because of the Libeskind-like layout of the paths, reminded me of the Jewish Museum for some reason. I think it's a muted enough garden that emphasises the building.

It's D for me. The landscaping should be such that it presents the building in the best possible light. The building that is the IWMN does not really need anything extra and 'D' does not try to do this.

It add with simple landscaping, with a nod towards the great war and the form Liebeskind's architecture, acts to remove the unsightly surface parking and brings additional and enhanced areas for contemplation by the waters edge. D.

Reminds me of the heartless landscaping at Picc gardens though. And those pretty clean-cut lines of paving will dissapear once the corners of grass get trampled on.

Agree completely - it wouldn't be so nice with Manchester rain and mud. The hard landscaping of Field of Dreams (specificaly that tree-area) looks like it would be quite pleasant where D would not.

Parts of B looks like it would get worn down equally as quickly:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/images/2009/02/12/iwmn_concept_b_01_450x224.jpg

I think B looks quite nice, but I'm not sure it's suitable. The IWM is a destination rather than a community focus and so something that's more like a typical (if very nice) local park will look sad and abandoned all the time outside weekends and holidays.

I think this is a key reason why they shouldn't go OTT with the green landscaping.

IMO I still feel that the fractured landscaping of D mimics the building a little too much & detracts from the design and impact of the museum, rather than compliment it...

My thoughts have largely been already mentioned but one thought that may be worth considering is possible future expansion.

After visiting the IWM in London last summer, when I visited the IWMN on the weekend I thought it rather small with a relative lackluster of museum pieces and facilities. I think the building is great, was impressed with the viewing platform and loved the hourly (or so shows) which took up the whole main section, with a great combination of sound effects, lighting, video and voice clips which everyone watched and experienced together was a great addition (one which brought people together to get a glimpse of what its like during wartime).

Most people would expect the main museum to be bigger, have more facilities and artifacts but there is a vast difference between the two. It may not be possible for an expansion/extension of the IWMN now but it maybe worth considering it as a future possibility when spending millions on a public realm project to surround the building.

Is no one else taken in by the simplicity of the wheat field concept?

http://i42.tinypic.com/2l90hld.jpg

The straight forward seating along the canal side.

The mono-toned landscape that changes with the seasons, succinctly marking the passing of time:

http://i39.tinypic.com/2rp446c.jpg

The solitary tree in the contemplation garden:

http://i41.tinypic.com/dy3uhk.jpg

Annual events based around the sowing & the harvesting.

Spotlighting would make it look amazing at night, from afar it would highlight the building.

To all those wavering on this idea, what amendments do you think could be made to make it a little more attractive as an option?






Footnote: The asphalt field part of A is a little brutal, I must admit.

What about the people with hay-fever? :)

What about the people with hay-fever? :)

Antihistamines?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/images/2009/02/12/iwmn_concept_b_01_450x224.jpg

Imagine that in the middle of winter when all the plants and grasses have died off. Yes it will look wonderful in late spring and the summer, but the winter months will be barren. The upkeep will be a nightmare as well. For all it's positives, there are just as many negatives.

Is no one else taken in by the simplicity of the wheat field concept?


me, me, me. I'm A all the way. I overlooked the positives of lighting effects when I first read through the pdf too, which now I believe will be another highlight of the design. The asphalt field should just be ditched though. Just extend the wheat field over that part of the site.

The only real contender for me is D because it's some reasonable landscaping that ticks the boxes of improving the public space without detracting from the museum. There's nothing special or unique about it though. It could largely be transferred to a multitude of public spaces and still tick the same boxes. And the only aspect of the design that is directly relevant to the museum is the token camouflage effect, which I think would have to be pointed out to passers by or go unnoticed.

Last day(I think) today for sending your comments on the design concepts to the IWMN.

Manchester Confidential

Is the Imperial War Museum North going war-lite?

Jonathan Schofield interviews Jim Forrester, the director of the museum, over whether something’s missing in the new plans

When Daniel Libeskind finished off the Imperial War Museum North (IWMN) in 2002 there was an important part missing. Budget cuts meant that any landscaping round the building had to be abandoned, and a crude but effective car park and promenade space was created: effective because they were military in their sparseness.

Without loads of hardware in the space outside, isn’t this a missed opportunity to increase visitor numbers? Without them wouldn’t the museum, forgive the pun, be shooting itself in the foot?

Several weeks ago the Imperial War Museum North released initial ideas that may form the basis for a future funding bid for the landscaping.

Many of these are lovely as you can see with the pictures here. They include a corn field, a poppy strewn flower garden, cherry blossom and so on.

Something seems missing though. War.

There are oblique references to conflict with poppies recalling Flanders Fields and the odd bunker-like shape, but where’s the hardware?

Surely the landscaping should be an extension of the museum, take the theme forward. Why not extend the display area with a very big gun maybe, a tank or two, a Lancaster bomber and some Heinkels?

In 1825 Thomas Bowdler produced a family version of Shakespeare’s plays with the stronger language and the rude bits taken out. Has IWMN ‘bowdlerised’ its own theme, produced a war-lite war museum?

Director Jim Forrester is strenuous in denying this: “Not at all. My brief to the designers was to provide a landscaped area covering the following themes: memorial and commemoration, play, performance and waterside. These proposals are the bare bones of the designs, we may never take them forward and they may well be changed. They may even contain some hardware.”

He’s cautious with that last point.

What about lots of hardware? Most lads (and dads) have a fascination for weaponry, they love the war movies, they like to see the big tanks and aeroplanes up close. The Russian T-34 tank, inside the IWMN, is already a magnet .

Without loads of hardware in the space outside, isn’t this a missed opportunity to increase visitor numbers? Without them wouldn’t the museum, forgive the pun, be shooting itself in the foot?

“No,” says Forrester, “because we aren’t trying to give a simple boys and toys message. There are plenty of museums that offer that. We’re not simply about collections of weapons, about people ogling a piece of kit. We’re looking at the whole message of war, the full story. Tanks and planes are interesting in terms of scale and also contain their own message about how battles are fought and thought. They can be key objects. But we don’t want to fall into a pigeon hole. I want our museum to try and tell a more complete story of how war affects the lives of soldiers and civilians.”

He has a point. It is a strength of IWMN that it takes an analytical, if not judgemental, look at conflict, unlike so many others such as the sword-drenched Royal Armouries at Leeds. IWMN’s timeline and silos in the main room are effective in bringing home the horror and heroism without expressly saying so. It’s an intelligent and thoughtful museum.

But something is nagging away. Is there any sense with these proposals that they are part of a moral judgement from the chattering classes? That to put in a field of armoury would just not be ‘nice’ for some people? Is this a manifestation of that unreal, shush-don’t-talk-about-it attitude, that some parents adopt in the face of brutal realities? After all the hardware could be presented in such a way as to make people think about the damage and destruction it could or has delivered.

“It’s certainly not a museum just for the chattering classes,” says Forrester. “We want to attract all types of audience. That is not an interpretation I would put on to it. This is simply our approach to our way of getting a message across: trying to explain the broader picture of war. We wouldn’t want anything to get in the way of that. As I say though these are provisional designs.”

In an aside Forrester reveals one idea all families to the Quays can agree with, and it involves hardware of a much more benign character.

“I’d also want a play area included. It would help complete the Quays.” Too right. This is something which is desperately needed and perverse of both Trafford and Salford Councils in that one has not already been provided.

That aside, Confidential still thinks it would be great to have a whole gallery of armour and planes outside the museum. With demonstrations too.

Sometimes obvious tourism in a region still having to work hard as a tourist destination might be the best way to go. Thoughtful and clever curatorship shouldn’t exclude boys with hobbies, their dads, and men in anoraks with spotter notebooks.

Rants.

http://www.propertyconfidential.com/index.asp?Sessionx=IpqiNwc6IW7oKaqiNwF6IHqi&realname=Is_the_Imperial_War_Museum_North_going_warlite

Interesting point ,when my brother (ex-Army) went he was really disappointed as he was expecting more "toys" to look at and play with;but I was struck by the simplest of things like a soldiers letter or a piece of clothing,which to me told more about war than a hulking great tank or gun ! Although the Harrier jet is very impressive !!

Definately A - Liebeskind did not design this museum to sit in the middle of a theme park.

And the winner is

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


Topotek 1 wins RIBA contest to revamp War Museum grounds

12 June 2009, 09:44

http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/archive/3846-topotek-1-wins-riba-contest-to-revand-war-museum-grounds.html

well that looks pretty sublime to me. from the pic i can't really tell what's going on though, seems to be higher than road level and stuff. underground parking?

edit: scratch that, pdf on previous page of this thread explains all. my bad.

Still a bit disappointed they didn't go for A. Especially as I've just noticed they'd be putting a wheatfield in front on the Hovis grain silos. Still that's nice enough I suppose.

Comdot: I think from looking at the plans that you're right, and that the garden forms an artificial mound over the car park, but returns to ground level at the road.

I still think they should plant cherry blossom instead, it would look surreal in the spring. :)

Fantastic. My choice. Apart from anything else, it should mirror the Mediacity side perfectly. I can just imagine sitting on those steps in the middle of summer in a few years time, looking at the hustle and bustle of Mediacity from the IWMN.

Good choice.When do they expect to start work?

Good choice, that's the one I went for.

Topotek1 website. New render's. Obviously the website is in German.

http://www.topotek1.de/#/de/competitions/chronologically/102/

Also. http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/first-look-topotek-1-adds-to-libeskinds-imperial-war-museum-north/5203431.article and http://*************************/manchester/imperial_war_museum_landscape.htm

Thanks jerb. A worthy winner - my choice for the adults

Note language options in the top right corner of that website. The whole thing is available in English too.

Obviously the website is in German

There is an english version. Click top right.

Nice one chaps, don't like this one though, makes the whole thing further look like an alien spaceship left on the land *again*. it's got a room in it though which is decent i suppose.

completed in 2011 :D

I voted for 'B'. I'm not really sure why. There wasn't a great selection to choose from I suppose.
'D' is probably the cheapest of a bad bunch.

IWMN hold landscaping design competition, award to Topotek1, Peel work with Form Associates & design promenade...hope they integrate. The promenade in the render does look similar to that in the Topotek1 images Edit: It doesn't actually look that similar...

Can't find the planning app?

Peel Media plots promenade at Imperial War Museum North
http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?storycode=3149401
23.09.09
By Jennifer Rigby

Peel Media has submitted a planning application to develop a pedestrian promenade and public realm area in front of Imperial War Museum North.

The promenade, designed by FoRM Associates, would be built over the current canal embankment and link the existing canalside promenade to the new footbridge being built as part of the first phase of MediaCityUK. It would create a ‘walking circuit’ including the MediaCityUK piazza, The Lowry and Imperial War Museum North.

It is part of the Irwell City Park project which is being co-ordinated by Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company in partnership with three local authorities – Salford, Manchester and Trafford, and the North West Regional Development Agency. Irwell City Park is set to link the Quays with central Manchester.

The first phase of MediaCityUK is due for completion in 2011.

http://www.mediacityblog.com/images/uploads/phpAbSJ7UPM.jpg

http://www.mediacityblog.com/images/uploads/imperial-war-museum-sideview.jpg

(Images via Mediacity Blog (http://www.mediacityblog.com/index.php/uk/article/peel_proposes_quayside_promenade_opposite_mediacityuk/), hadn't seen your post in the Mediacity thread ;))

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/yop.jpg
Topotek1 Concept

Notice on the Topotek1 (http://www.topotek1.de/#/de/competitions/chronologically/102/)website that the greenery by the river has been replaced by hard landscaping, which is a bit crap in my view. Surely the area will still feel pretty 'grim' without the plantlife to liven it up.

http://*************************/manchester/jpgs/imperial_war_museum_riba120609_1.jpg

I'm not sure, I quite like the fact that the water facing side will be left rather cold and hard and brutal which I think fits in with the design principles behind the museum itself.

The extended and improved water-front should look just fine IMO, especially as it will lead somewhere i.e. the bridge to Media City.

The start? The whole are was fenced off. Yesterday.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/DSC00161.jpg

jrb...could be I was there few days ago and plants/shrubs were being torn up by contractor

looks like it, fingers crossed

Bump

Can this be added to the construction thread please?

Think this is really the only thread I can add this to, but polystyrene blocks are being attached to the delivery ramps at the IWMN, any ideas?

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/PB201023.jpg

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/PB201024.jpg

Does this competition still stand? Now they have finished the promenade, will they continue with the initial camouflage theme of 'D,' or did they decide to take a different approach? It's only because I was hoping for a bit of greenery.

Just to let everybody know, the new promenade area in front of IWMN opened today along with a new entrance to the museum.

and the bridge?

and the bridge?

I have been told that the bridge will not open until May, if I can find out any more I will post on here.

Was May 6th or something around then its public opening wasnt it?

The museum officials aren't sure as to when it will be opened for public use exactly, apparantley there have been a few teething problems. Not sure what those are but its expected for some time next month.

Yes May was always going to be the public opening for the bridge, ever since the offical opening by the Archbishops earlier this year, May was noted in press releases as when the bridge would officially opening.

Just to let everybody know, the new promenade area in front of IWMN opened today along with a new entrance to the museum.

The new Quayside Entrance is now noted on the maps of the Imperial War Museum North here. http://north.iwm.org.uk/upload/pdf/IWMNFloorPlan01-2011.pdf

And so this project comes to a near close...I feel it works well, there is certainly a feel of space, its certainly a sun trap and adds another dimension to the Quays...

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P4241317.jpg

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P4241318.jpg

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P4241319.jpg

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P4241320.jpg

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P4241321.jpg

I have followed this project from day one (most of my photgraphs are in another thread) and to walk through it today was rewarding, ( strange to think I was stood above a piling I watched going in a few months ago)

Great pictures WingTips. Is it fairly busy round there? I'd hate it to just be a windswept area until ITV opens there.

Does this competition still stand? Now they have finished the promenade, will they continue with the initial camouflage theme of 'D,' or did they decide to take a different approach? It's only because I was hoping for a bit of greenery.

Great pics. Sorry to rebump this question, but I was just wondering what happened to the camouflage idea if anyone knows seen as it is near completion.

Great pictures WingTips. Is it fairly busy round there? I'd hate it to just be a windswept area until ITV opens there.

Yes it is very busy...people sunbathing, relaxing, cyclists passing through...this has added a new dimension to the water front, and the new entrance to the IWMN seems popular.

Great pics. Sorry to rebump this question, but I was just wondering what happened to the camouflage idea if anyone knows seen as it is near completion.

Good question...at the moment there certainly appears to be no further major works about to start...perhaps an email to the Director of the IWMN might be in order?

To give a little more perspective to the IWMN...this really is an iconic building...these are just two photographs that I hope reflect this...

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P4031276.jpg

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P4031278.jpg

I thought moving the car park underground and having a garden on top was dropped?

I thought moving the car park underground and having a garden on top was dropped?

I really cant remember..was the whole idea eventually dropped?

Great pictures , those stepped seating areas look like a skate boarders dream , despite the "fins" at the end of each one ! but overall looks great .

Great pictures , those stepped seating areas look like a skate boarders dream , despite the "fins" at the end of each one ! but overall looks great .

I think thats why the "fins" have been put there..also the area is patrolled and monitored by IWMN staff, the area will also be closed off after hours. (I find it sad that such measures as putting the "fins" in place has to be taken, there should be no question of people using the area for any such purpose other than it is designed for)

(I find it sad that such measures as putting the "fins" in place has to be taken, there should be no question of people using the area for any such purpose other than it is designed for)

I can see what you're getting at, but to expect skateboarders to stick to designated facilities is somewhat missing the crux of the activity and culture. In comparison with any alternative measures, I reckon that a few "fins" on benches is a fairly innocuous solution to the problem.

Best regards,
Slip

Surely the area should just be patrolled and not closed off. It's a continuous promenade isn't it?

I think thats why the "fins" have been put there..also the area is patrolled and monitored by IWMN staff, the area will also be closed off after hours. (I find it sad that such measures as putting the "fins" in place has to be taken, there should be no question of people using the area for any such purpose other than it is designed for)

What is it designed for?

If it's anything like the rest of the prom on the Trafford side, it will be mostly deserted 99% of the time. Why shouldn't it be used as a boarders dream?

I noticed last night that there are both a forest of steel TRex teeth on the ends of the benches, and little tabs sticking up along the edges as deterrence.

Why shouldn't it be used as a boarders dream?

Because they leave dirty marks, scrapes and scratches on the stonework and chip pieces off the edges of the benches - which is what happened in Exchange Square before they fitted the chrome 'arm rests' or whatever they are called.

Surely the area should just be patrolled and not closed off. It's a continuous promenade isn't it?

After hours I think would be cost prohibitive

What is it designed for?

If it's anything like the rest of the prom on the Trafford side, it will be mostly deserted 99% of the time. Why shouldn't it be used as a boarders dream?

I noticed last night that there are both a forest of steel TRex teeth on the ends of the benches, and little tabs sticking up along the edges as deterrence.


Actaully its been busy this week...and dont forget there is now an entrance to the IWMN on the promenade.

Because they leave dirty marks, scrapes and scratches on the stonework and chip pieces off the edges of the benches - which is what happened in Exchange Square before they fitted the chrome 'arm rests' or whatever they are called.

Totally agree...its part of the Museum not a skate park..its not what it was designed for and is not in keeping with the IWMN.

Media City - IWMN footbridge is now open as I crossed it this afternoon :)
There does seem to be some work going on near the bridge in a fenced off area on the museum side of the water, but all is running smoothly.

Media City - IWMN footbridge is now open as I crossed it this afternoon :)

Reported yesterday (with photos) by Wingtips on the 'Bridge / MediaCity / Wharfside' thread.....

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=989209&page=15

Keep up there at the back...... :):)

I was going to have a look myself today until I realised there were no trams running - might have a trip across on Monday if this weather holds.

Reported yesterday (with photos) by Wingtips on the 'Bridge / MediaCity / Wharfside' thread.....

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=989209&page=15

Keep up there at the back...... :):)

I was going to have a look myself today until I realised there were no trams running - might have a trip across on Monday if this weather holds.

Haven't read that thread for a few days. I shall have to keep up indeed!