Manchester pulling away or Birmingham just teasing?

[birminghamculture]

Most people on the UK Forums have decided that in a few years Manchester will overtake Birmingham as the UK'S second best skyline, but are they ignoring Birmingham due to the sudden boom of highrise proposals in the northern city?

Are they forgetting that it will take Manchester along time to plug the gaps of thier skyline with mid-rises, which Birmingham has already completed and enhancing. They have many proposals, but are all of them realistic and guranteed to be built (Canopus, Eastgate) and finally is thier enough people and money for this growth to continue in Manchester?

Least we forget that Birmingham this year alone has a 122m(130m), 90-100m and numerous other mid-rises being and nearing completion.

Your thoughts

Originally Posted by birminghamculture

Most people on the UK Forums have decided that in a few years Manchester will overtake Birmingham as the UK'S second best skyline, but are they ignoring Birmingham due to the sudden boom of highrise proposals in the northern city?

They're not ignoring anything. The simple fact of the matter is that Manchester currently has about two and a half times as many highrise proposals as Birmingham and about twice as many under construction. Even assuming some get cancelled, Manchester will still have more 150m+, more 100m-150m, more 50m-100m and a higher average height when they are complete. This was always going to happen due to the fact that Manchester is currently the fastest growing city in the UK outside London, is expected to benefit most from the Government 'Out of London' moves, has the second best transport infrastructure in the UK and has what will be one of the best universities in the world.

Originally Posted by birminghamculture

Are they forgetting that it will take Manchester along time to plug the gaps of thier skyline with mid-rises, which Birmingham has already completed and enhancing. They have many proposals, but are all of them realistic and guranteed to be built (Canopus, Eastgate) and finally is thier enough people and money for this growth to continue in Manchester?

Birmingham has a lot of buildings around 70-80m. Whilst this makes a good base for a skyline peaking at around 130m, you need more 100m+ buildings as the base to your skyline if you are aiming for taller heights. This is what Manchester is aiming for. Add a couple of 180m towers to Birmingham's skyline and the existing "skyline" will disappear overnight.

Originally Posted by birminghamculture

Least we forget that Birmingham this year alone has a 122m(130m), 90-100m and numerous other mid-rises being and nearing completion.

Manchester has more of these under construction right now than any other city apart from London and was already ahead of Birmingham in the 90m+ range to start with.

[birminghamculture]

Originally Posted by EarlyBird

Manchester has more of these under construction right now than any other city apart from London and was already ahead of Birmingham in the 90m+ range to start with.

Did it?

Originally Posted by birminghamculture

Really, Birmingham had the 152m BT Tower, The Sentinels and Alpha Tower.

The BT tower isn't a building. Should we include our BT Tower too? Or our radio masts? Alpha is Birmingham's tallest building. CIS and City Tower in Manchester are both taller than it. We also have the lovely Arndale Tower.

Then when you look at towers being constructed over that height, Birmingham has Beetham. That's it. Manchester has the GN Tower at 90m, our lovely Beetham (that's 50m taller than yours ), the Inacity Tower at 188m that they've just begun selling apartments in, Crown Building which has planning permission and is due to being soon...

It's not even close.

[caw123]

Originally Posted by EarlyBird

The BT tower isn't a building. Should we include our BT Tower too? Or our radio masts? Alpha is Birmingham's tallest building. CIS and City Tower in Manchester are both taller than it. We also have the lovely Arndale Tower.

Then when you look at towers being constructed over that height, Birmingham has Beetham. That's it. Manchester has the GN Tower at 90m, our lovely Beetham (that's 50m taller than yours ), the Inacity Tower at 188m that they've just begun selling apartments in, Crown Building which has planning permission and is due to being soon...

It's not even close.

We won't include our BT Tower because it's 50m tall and 4 miles out of town!

The Gn Tower is only 72m to roof, the spire to 90m looks to have been dropped.

Originally Posted by caw123

We won't include our BT Tower because it's 50m tall and 4 miles out of town!

I was extracting the proverbial...

[jolon]

Originally Posted by EarlyBird

Alpha is Birmingham's tallest building.

Is this in a world where HCT doesn't exist or something. You should really try and get your facts straight before typing anything.

And just becasue Manchester's metro area is bigger doesn't mean it has more suburbs than B'ham.

Originally Posted by jolon

Is this in a world where HCT doesn't exist or something. You should really try and get your facts straight before typing anything.

HCT is still under construction, as is Manchester's Beetham tower. I didn't include anything under construction in the list. Maybe you should get your facts straight.

Originally Posted by jolon

And just becasue Manchester's metro area is bigger doesn't mean it has more suburbs than B'ham.

I never said it did. Manchester has at least as many though. This is dictated by the fact it's urban area is the same size.

[caw123]

Well, alot can happen in a short space of time, the answer in a year could be very different from what it is now.

With 171m Beetham over halfway, and the 188m Eastgate and 131m Crown Building approved in no time Manchester is embracing tall buildings, provided they are quality of course. Canopus is apparently going to/has been rejected and for that I'm glad, its crap.
I don't think Manc and Brum will ever have similar skylines. Brum will have a denser skyline with a few peaks that really stand out(Bt, AC, HCT) while Manc will have less density but more 500ft towers, though they will be quite spread out.

Don't forget though that Manc IS adding alot of density in some parts of the city. Eg. around the River Irwell and Spinningfields. Massive buildings like the Civil Justice Centre will add much needed bulk. The Chapel Wharf project(112m,60m,55m) will sit literally a few metres from the 60m Edge twin towers and the 80m North Tower. It's not upto Brum levels but it's a start.

[birminghamculture]

Oh I didnt know Canopus had been rejected, are there any plans afoot to market a different style skyscraper on the land?

[caw123]

Originally Posted by birminghamculture

Oh I didnt know Canopus had been rejected, are there any plans afoot to market a different style skyscraper on the land?

Yes and it's going to be scaled down! It'll be the 5th design for the site since 2001.

The best chance of a cluster for Manc will be at the left side of this image taken by Crush:


With Hardman Square, Manchester House, Whatever goes at Canopus and Chapel Wharf we will have a very dense area that might rival Brum.

[andysimo123]

Didnt GN tower have two more floors added at the last minute because the apartments were selling so well.

[brum2003]

Manchester is doing very well, as the Manchester forumers are always quick to point out, no one disputes this and its very good for them to be ahead of the game....only leeds is close to them and in this is good for those cities and the country

Birmingham at present suffers on two counts, its proximity to london and it still large manufacturing based which drags down the cities overall economic performance, this will take years to correct, other cities went throug this pain years ago, and are now reaping the benefits

good luck to manchester and leeds, but do not write birmingham off yet

as for second city., when birmingham claimed this title in the fordist boom of the late fifties and 60's (look it up EB) it truly stood head and shoulders above, as did the west midlands region, the poorer regions of the north; in major economic decline at the time
how things change and now the Northern regions perform better, but by no means by a greater margin as birmingham did in the sixties....and even after 25 years of major deindustrialisation manages to hold its own on many levels, so manchester cna gladly be second city, but not by much

(thats for early bird by the way, his knowledge of history is fuckin awful and he knows nothing about the context of his weak arguments, no doubt there will be a massive ream of facts and figures...but he cant dispute facts from the past)

BY the way, EB, did you realise yet that Bham toen hall is a copy of a Classical Roman/Greco architecture and not Amercian Classical revivalism ????

Originally Posted by brum2003

as for second city., when birmingham claimed this title in the fordist boom of the late fifties and 60's (look it up EB) it truly stood head and shoulders above, as did the west midlands region, the poorer regions of the north;

As you'll know, though, when Birmingham "claimed" this title, in doing so it took it from the city of Manchester which had suffered massive industrial decline. It was as much the decline of Manchester as the rise of Birmingham that led to this.

Originally Posted by brum2003

BY the way, EB, did you realise yet that Bham toen hall is a copy of a Classical Roman/Greco architecture and not Amercian Classical revivalism ????

Yes I did realise that. You copied the same thing the Americans did and made just as bad a job of it as they did.

[Rigadon]

Originally Posted by brum2003

Birmingham at present suffers on two counts, its proximity to london and it still large manufacturing based which drags down the cities overall economic performance, this will take years to correct, other cities went throug this pain years ago, and are now reaping the benefits

the seond one is pretty much a myth. bielduct posted figures on it a hwhile ago -theres isnt much between Manchester and birminghm int emrs of manufactruing deppendence.

ialso think proximity to london is a mssive plus nto a minus. What it need its to convince proecott to ignore mK and concentret on links between Brum and london.


Oh and since there's a mini-consensus here. I also very much like Manchester- before I moved here I knew it much better than Birmingahm - but I prefer Brum in almost every way, albeit not by much.

Originally Posted by Rigadon

the seond one is pretty much a myth. bielduct posted figures on it a hwhile ago -theres isnt much between Manchester and birminghm int emrs of manufactruing deppendence.

It's not a myth though. A larger portion of Manchester's manufacturing base is in "high tech" pharmaceuticals, biotech and the like, whereas more of Birmingham's is your traditional manufacturing base. Manchester has the highest percentage of high tech manufacturing out of the "big 5", though some smaller places have higher percentages. Whilst it's technically manufacturing, it's not the part of the sector that is declining.

[brum2003]

by the way last time i visited manchester i was very impressed with what i saw, architecturally they are way ahead of birmingham, in my opinion...but glasgow is the best in the uk....again my opinion

[MIDGEBLACKANDWHITE]

The over-riding feeling one gets from Manchester is a city that is trying very very hard to promote itself and push itself forward. Great, I only wish Birmingham were more like this. Instead we amble along producing the odd morsel here and there. Birmingham is like a big gentle lioness, doesn't really have anything to prove but raise its shackles & you see the teeth. We're too easygoing here, too laid back. It can come as no suprise that the pushy upstart from the North grabs all the headlines and becomes intoxicated on its own publicity. Manchester is doing great for itself. Birmingham is still way ahead but for how long?...Albert Bore et al were great at one thing...a grand vision for this grand city. They are gone. What of the future? We deserve more.

[cookoid_0]

Hmm. This debate has got a lurker out.

I live in Birmingham but now spend more time in Manchester.

I have to say that Manchester is a nicer city, more pleasing on the eye and with a "big city" feel to it as you drive through. Theres loads of lovely buildings looking like they date from Victorian thru' the 20's or 30's and quite a nice "grid" road layout that gives it hints of an American city. Add the trams especially in Piccadilly square gives it a continental feel and Manchester has a lot of charm.

Once Manc have these new 'scrapers on board they are in a pretty good position to claim 2nd city.

I think Brum will creep back in the "walking the city streets" appeal once eastside rolls out and this is critical for Brum. If a few biguns heightwise can drop around the same time Brum might be able to stage a strong comeback in 4-5 years time?

[brum2003]

whats a lurker ??