daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Projects and Construction > Manchester Metro Area

Manchester Metro Area For Manchester, Salford and the surrounding area.



Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 13th, 2013, 09:32 PM   #501
oakman
Registered User
 
oakman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sale,Manchester
Posts: 348
Likes (Received): 13

A bit late with this , not been on here in a while , but the report of this from the Times the other day .
What would Ena Sharples make of it? Ikea is talking to ITV about buying the broadcaster’s Granada Studios site in Manchester as part of its expansion of property development.
The Times understands that Landprop, the Swedish retailer’s property division, has resumed talks with the broadcaster to buy the site where Coronation Street was made and where the Beatles’ first television performance was filmed in 1962.
ITV put the 14-acre complex on Quay Street, which was its base for more than 50 years, up for sale last year, instructing Jones Lang LaSalle to market it for about £25 million. A sale was made possible after ITV moved its operations to the MediaCityUK complex in Salford.
The broadcaster has been in exclusive negotiations with its preferred bidder — a joint venture between Gener8 and the Chelsfield Group — but these stalled after the consortium experienced funding difficulties. This has resulted in discussions reopening with Ikea, and previous bidders may also be asked to re-enter talks.
Granada Studios is one of the largest development opportunities in the city centre. It can accommodate up to one million sq ft of new development, including offices and prime housing.
oakman no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old March 25th, 2013, 12:47 PM   #502
VDB
Registered User
 
VDB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,798
Likes (Received): 2151

Interesting. "International Buyer" = Ikea?

BDNW

Quote:
Buyer found for Victoria & Albert hotel

25th March 2013




THE Victoria & Albert Marriott hotel in Manchester has been sold to an unnamed "international buyer".

The four star hotel was put on the market in September by administrators at Zolfo Coper handling the assets of Dania Properties.

They were understood to be looking for around £20m but no details of the sale price were released today, although it should be included in a future creditors' report.

The 148-bed hotel sits between the ITV Granada site and the River Irwell on Water Street. At present it is hidden behind the TV complex - now decommissioned following ITV's move to Salford - but is expected to benefit from plans to redevelop that site, and its proximity to Spinningfields.

Administrator Graeme Smith said: “We are pleased to have secured the sale of the Marriott Victoria & Albert Hotel. This sale is another sign that experienced investors see the potential for growth in hotels in the major UK cities outside London. With new owners in place who have long-standing knowledge and expertise of the hospitality sector, the hotel is well positioned for the future.”

Agent Jones Lang LaSalle said it was Manchester’s first major hotel sale for 2013. Chris Moore, national director at its hotels and hospitality group in Manchester said: “This transaction reflects the keen interest which continues to be shown by both international and regional operators for representation in Manchester. The outstanding success of the city in recent years has resulted in strong corporate and conferencing trade combined with world class sporting and cultural events.

"Together, these provide hotel operators with competitive advantages in all of their important business segments; Manchester continues to be at the top of the regional ‘wish list’ for many such investors.”
VDB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2013, 02:08 PM   #503
BlackFriars
BlackFriars
 
BlackFriars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Salford
Posts: 335
Likes (Received): 47

Is the Albion Market tin roofed thingy listed? I read that the V&A owned that bit as well.I thought they'd have done away with that by now
BlackFriars no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2013, 03:52 PM   #504
marni1971
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 927
Likes (Received): 966

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackFriars View Post
Is the Albion Market tin roofed thingy listed? I read that the V&A owned that bit as well.I thought they'd have done away with that by now
Not sure. Most recent it had portacabin project offices for part of Spinningfields in it. Before that it was parking. The long term plan was for a pool for the hotel back when it was Granada owned but that never happened. Given the state of it you'd assume it was listed or it'd be torn down by now.

Quote:
At present it is hidden behind the TV complex - now decommissioned following ITV's move to Salford
Hardly hidden. Its clearly visible to anyone passing. And Quay St is not totally decommissioned yet and won't be for a while yet.
marni1971 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2013, 10:25 PM   #505
Cobbydaler
Registered User
 
Cobbydaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Detroit, Manchester
Posts: 378
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDB View Post
Interesting. "International Buyer" = Ikea?

BDNW
Quote:
"With new owners in place who have long-standing knowledge and expertise of the hospitality sector, the hotel is well positioned for the future.”
IKEA, I think not...
__________________
No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, but millions of electrons were terribly inconvenienced...
Cobbydaler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2013, 04:49 PM   #506
jrb
10th February 2008
 
jrb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 30,928
Likes (Received): 2515

IKEA are back in talks with Granada to buy the site.

Hopefully IKEA will buy the site in the end. Manchester city centre could end up with a really interesting and vibrant waterfront neighbourhood.

Quote:
The property development subsidiary of Inter IKEA Group has placed under offer ITV’s large site near Manchester city centre, PropertyWeek.com can reveal.



ITV is in exclusive talks with Landprop for the sale of its 13.5 acre Quay Street site in Manchester, after negotiations collapsed with Chelsfield-backed Genr8 Developments.

The developer, which is also bringing forward StrandEast near to the Olympic Park in east London, is thought to be proposing a rented residential-led scheme with more than a 1,000 homes.


The site has consent for 1.2m sq ft of offices, 200,000 sq ft of retail, 895 homes and a 575-space car park.

Landprop is thought to have bid around £25m for the site. ITV is looking for a cash payment rather than conditional bids or joint venture proposals.

Jones Lang LaSalle put the site up for sale earlier this year, ahead of a planned ITV relocation to MediaCity in the middle of 2013.

Greater Manchester Property Venture Fund, advised by GVA, and residential landlord Grainger both lodged interest in Quay Street, but did not bid as high as the shortlisted three, which were Landprop, Genr8, and a sustainable development company called The Bion Group.

Allied London and Urban Splash are believed to have considered a joint bid but other possible suitors, such as Hines, Muse, BAM Properties, Bruntwood and Delancey, are not thought to have bid.
jrb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2013, 08:13 PM   #507
Schooner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 784
Likes (Received): 104

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrb View Post
IKEA are back in talks with Granada to buy the site.

Hopefully IKEA will buy the site in the end. Manchester city centre could end up with a really interesting and vibrant waterfront neighbourhood.
Come on JRB,a shed on the waterfront,is not a vibrant sight.
Schooner no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2013, 11:18 PM   #508
Chogmook
Mancunian Member
 
Chogmook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Stalybridge, Manchester
Posts: 6,267
Likes (Received): 49

Have you even read any of the article and the resi development in London they're involved with?!
__________________
Britain is Great, Manchester is Greater!
Chogmook no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2013, 12:10 AM   #509
js1000
Registered User
 
js1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Mcr / Lon / Sheff
Posts: 2,248
Likes (Received): 587

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schooner View Post
Come on JRB,a shed on the waterfront,is not a vibrant sight.
Google the Ikea LandProp development in Stratford. I think you will find a bit more than a shed.
__________________
The higher the building, the lower the morals
js1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2013, 04:41 PM   #510
jrb
10th February 2008
 
jrb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 30,928
Likes (Received): 2515

Did a bit of digging.

Oh I love digging.

IKEA/LANDPROP HOLDING BV(IKEA's property arm)

Quote:

Development Site Sugar House Lane Peninsula Sugar House Lane Stratford London

Outline element: All matters reserved except access; demolition of buildings where stated; 1192 residential units (C3) of which 10% of properties wheelchair accessible; 12,593sqm flexible uses including retail (A1), financial and professional services (A2), restaurants, cafes and bars (A3/4), offices and workshops (B1), non-residential institution (D1) and assembly and leisure (D2); 33,950sqm offices and works shops (B1); 350 bed hotel (C1); pedestrian bridge across Three Mills River; a riverside park; car, motorcycle and bicycle parking; servicing and ancillary works. Detailed elements: Demolition of existing buildings where stated; 8 residential units (C3) within Sugar House only; 300sqm financial and professional services (A2); 500sqm public house/bar (A4); 2,620sqm office and workshops/non-residential institution (B1/D1); 8,170sqm offices (B1); public square; access including limited emergency services access along Three Mills Wall River and east-west along Sugar House Lane; 28 parking spaces; hard and soft landscaping.

Docs. http://pad.newham.gov.uk/AniteIM.Web...?grdResultsP=1

Strandeast: http://strandeast.com/#explore
jrb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2013, 04:53 PM   #511
Rational Plan
Registered User
 
Rational Plan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Slough
Posts: 3,287
Likes (Received): 271

Quote:
Originally Posted by js1000 View Post
Google the Ikea LandProp development in Stratford. I think you will find a bit more than a shed.
I don't think people have cottoned on that we could be seeing a transformation in the UK residential market. Recent tax changes have created a situation to encourage pension funds and other investors to build and rent out private sector housing. A practice normal in many countries. Probably as a holdover from the view that private landlords or nothing but slumlords after world war 2 when council housing would provide all the housing people who could not afford to buy would ever need.

The creation of short term tenancy's and increasing landlords rights boosted small small scale landlords and created the buy to let market.

But no large companies ever became interested in doing the same in the UK.

But now that is beginning to change.

Recently the Prudential announced a tie up with Berkeley homes to buy £100 million worth of rental properties. It is the first such investment launched in the UK market.

Currently there is lots of interest in building private homes for rent and the main interest at the moment seems to centred on the Olympics site in London, where that Abu Dhabi fund is planning on being a long term landlord for it's new developments and IKEA of all people have launched their Strand East development.

At the moment IKEA seem the most ambitious, in so far it is looking outside London and is looking at the major metroploitan centres of the UK and wants to create it's new rental properties.

All of these sites are looking at a minimum of a 1,000 units and look big enough for them to create a destination. They probably hope to sell a controlled and cleaned urban environment that many people want, but is hard to achieve in a fragmented city. If they do it right I imagine the rental margins will be high.

If this takes off you might see more of concierge services common in the US but rare here.

It is too early to tell at the moment, but if it works it might be the ideal way to transform large scale sites surrounding our city centres. You could see much faster development in such a scenario, with mixes or rental and for sale properties.

If I could afford the rents in such a development I'd prefer to rent from a corporate with a brand to protect than an individual landlord.
Rational Plan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 4th, 2013, 01:15 AM   #512
Irish Blood English Heart
Letting off the happiness
 
Irish Blood English Heart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wherever I lay my hat
Posts: 4,882
Likes (Received): 126

If I was rich it's certainly where I'd be investing my money right now. Until we see a sea change in housing policy in this country it's a goldmine.
Irish Blood English Heart no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 4th, 2013, 02:41 AM   #513
LongRipple
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Manchester
Posts: 793
Likes (Received): 296

From a pure wealth point of view (with £500million to invest in the UK) the IKEA Landprop proposal looks interesting and could ensure the area is constructed much quicker than some of the other developers mentioned (reliant on bank lending and pre-lets) which can only be a good thing.

The vagueness surrounding the Strand East designs and the lack of reference to anything they have achieved so far is probably why IKEA lost out in the first place to Genr8 Developments (also having Mancunian John Early, founder of Amec/Muse, on board helped- but no great loss having them out of the picture given their protracted low-quality Smithfield Market project). I imagine the London site will be cheap build to replace the social housing cleared for the Olympics with the government eager to proclaim a shiny new legacy of the games irrespective of how it will look in 20years. The density there looks worrying, with little engagement with the waterway or over abundance of green space.

If IKEA use the Granada Studios plot as a benchmark for their work then great. The concern has to be over the quality of any buildings given its prime city centre location; if it is allowed to be another Green Quarter of nominal space-filling tat then the City Fathers should hang.

IKEA’s desire to get into the Budget Hotel and Student Accommodation market should be frowned up for this plot as well. Plus, their previous housing projects were indeed BOKLOKS.

There is a real opportunity with the Granada plot to embrace the river frontage, link throught to Deansgate and the rest of the city, construct some high quality family homes in the city centre that tap into the adjacent Spinningfields Business Quarter and Mediacity (with the potential wealth accumulated there) and demonstrate that high quality can be lucrative in Manchester.

Does any modern developer have that in them and does MCC have the BOKLOKS to enforce it?
.
__________________
Nothing dates faster than Man's vision of the future
LongRipple no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 4th, 2013, 11:44 PM   #514
urbnist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 256
Likes (Received): 53

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rational Plan View Post
I don't think people have cottoned on that we could be seeing a transformation in the UK residential market. Recent tax changes have created a situation to encourage pension funds and other investors to build and rent out private sector housing. A practice normal in many countries. Probably as a holdover from the view that private landlords or nothing but slumlords after world war 2 when council housing would provide all the housing people who could not afford to buy would ever need.

The creation of short term tenancy's and increasing landlords rights boosted small small scale landlords and created the buy to let market.

But no large companies ever became interested in doing the same in the UK.

But now that is beginning to change.

Recently the Prudential announced a tie up with Berkeley homes to buy £100 million worth of rental properties. It is the first such investment launched in the UK market.

Currently there is lots of interest in building private homes for rent and the main interest at the moment seems to centred on the Olympics site in London, where that Abu Dhabi fund is planning on being a long term landlord for it's new developments and IKEA of all people have launched their Strand East development.

At the moment IKEA seem the most ambitious, in so far it is looking outside London and is looking at the major metroploitan centres of the UK and wants to create it's new rental properties.

All of these sites are looking at a minimum of a 1,000 units and look big enough for them to create a destination. They probably hope to sell a controlled and cleaned urban environment that many people want, but is hard to achieve in a fragmented city. If they do it right I imagine the rental margins will be high.

If this takes off you might see more of concierge services common in the US but rare here.

It is too early to tell at the moment, but if it works it might be the ideal way to transform large scale sites surrounding our city centres. You could see much faster development in such a scenario, with mixes or rental and for sale properties.

If I could afford the rents in such a development I'd prefer to rent from a corporate with a brand to protect than an individual landlord.

Any moves to break the hegemony of the volume builders in the housing market is to be encouraged. But it remains to be seen if this model will work at scale outside London.

Not many sites - particularly around large post industrial cities - will offer clean consolidated ownership and the level of risk and margins attractive to institutional investors when compared to other asset classes.

And this is where the government have neglected the other bits of the jigsaw. Many sites will require consolidation, remediation and investment in public services and infrastructure to make them viable and attractive to investors and occupants alike. Gap funding will probably be needed and crucially local co-ordination to make it all happen.

In other words, as with so many of the issues discussed on this forum, we need to break the hegemony of Whitehall. Not a very palatable message for you and your colleagues I would have thought, RP. Which is why you will have to forgive me if I contain my excitement for the time being.
__________________
Concilio et Labore

heatonparkincakes liked this post
urbnist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2013, 12:44 AM   #515
heatonparkincakes
Registered User
 
heatonparkincakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,779
Likes (Received): 310

More of this urbanist and Ripple.Good read.

Yeah the Granada site has to be thoughtfully designed. Sadly not that easy in stagnation Britain, but it has to be.

I think I have seen some Book look Bokloks in Malmo. I think, but I am not sure. They look familiar to what Ripple has posted, but frankly I wasn't taking notes on social housing that day. Too busy doing work thangs.

Pop these houses there and you might as well call it Ordsal east or Chorlton on Medlock north as it will make this part of the city feel like an book end suburb.

Yeah it needs some big city buildings. It needs VD boy and the Norwegian sovereign fund not some turnip houses from the Swedes.
__________________
1914 Lions led by donkeys
2014 Lions led by donkeys
heatonparkincakes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2013, 02:00 AM   #516
Rational Plan
Registered User
 
Rational Plan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Slough
Posts: 3,287
Likes (Received): 271

We shall see. But it's a bit early to be dismissive just because Ikea have in the past been keen to try tackle the lower end of the mass market. What's so wrong about Ikea anyway? I feel that all of Ikeas efforts have tended to be dismissed by comments by ideas that reek of class distinction and what is considered to be cool. Most articles about there land development ideas have been filled with comments about extra bits, or they must be poor build quality, which makes me just roll my eyes considering a lot of new builds in this country.
Rational Plan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2013, 02:34 AM   #517
Rational Plan
Registered User
 
Rational Plan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Slough
Posts: 3,287
Likes (Received): 271

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbnist View Post
Any moves to break the hegemony of the volume builders in the housing market is to be encouraged. But it remains to be seen if this model will work at scale outside London.

Not many sites - particularly around large post industrial cities - will offer clean consolidated ownership and the level of risk and margins attractive to institutional investors when compared to other asset classes.

And this is where the government have neglected the other bits of the jigsaw. Many sites will require consolidation, remediation and investment in public services and infrastructure to make them viable and attractive to investors and occupants alike. Gap funding will probably be needed and crucially local co-ordination to make it all happen.

In other words, as with so many of the issues discussed on this forum, we need to break the hegemony of Whitehall. Not a very palatable message for you and your colleagues I would have thought, RP. Which is why you will have to forgive me if I contain my excitement for the time being.

Councils already have the power of land assembly and compulsory purchase to help developers with big sites if they wish to do so. In fact councils have long been doing this, so I'm not sure how a sudden transformation of the power balance between whitehall will suddenly make a difference on this.

Councils have long had powers to create simplified planning zones or condemn properties for redevelopment. it's just some are more interested in using them than others. Of course it's council over keen use of these powers in the past that often led to electoral backlash, so it is really up to the council to have the correct plan and vision and the ability to sell it to the local populace. It's now't to do with Whitehall.

Of course this only works if the value is high enough to overcome the costs of doing so. I don't see many large sites being done by single developers, as the whole process is so long winded and so it really is only going to happen on largish sites. But at medium to high densities you don't need that big a site to get a few hundred units.

Of course central government could lift restrictions on how much council tax local authorities could charge to raise more funds.

From an urban design point of view, its probably best if only a few buildings are developed at the same time by the same developer. But happily that covers most urban sites.

If property companies can make a profit selling flats and houses across the country there is no reason why they can't do the same renting them out. Institutions like offices and shops for the steady cashflow from rent, it can happen in residential and does happen the same way all over the world.

They don't have to be super fancy schemes, they can just be standard housing estates or small apartment blocks or low rise complexes. Properties will be built to suit the rental levels that can be achieved. There is no particular reason they have to be in city centres they can just as easily be new suburban estates.

This won't happen over night and it could one of those changes you won't really notice till 15 to 20 years have gone by and suddenly there everywhere.

It took that long for buy to let to flower from the changes in tenancy agreements to attract larger numbers of private sector investors and then change the mortgage market. Suddenly apartment blocks were being sold off plan and builders could build much larger blocks of flats and sell them quickly. It's buy to let that allowed high rise apartments to flourish in British regional cities.
Rational Plan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2013, 02:26 PM   #518
LongRipple
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Manchester
Posts: 793
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbnist View Post
Not many sites - particularly around large post industrial cities - will offer clean consolidated ownership and the level of risk and margins attractive to institutional investors when compared to other asset classes.

Many sites will require consolidation, remediation and investment in public services and infrastructure to make them viable and attractive to investors and occupants alike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rational Plan View Post
Councils already have the power of land assembly and compulsory purchase to help developers with big sites if they wish to do so. In fact councils have long been doing this, so I'm not sure how a sudden transformation of the power balance between whitehall will suddenly make a difference on this.
Manchester City Council has long used their power to drive forward investment in the city centre. The 1996 bombing was a catalyst (backed by central government) where they effectively implemented the redevelopment scheme they wanted irrespective of individual land owner objections.

They’ve continued to follow that pattern, with the majority of the big boom-time developments undertaken on their own land holdings or those of larger concerns such as the Co-op and Network Rail; Smithfield, Ancoats, New Islington, First St, Angel Meadow and the Green Quarter all received varying degrees of public money to help stimulate initial development and smooth the path for developers.

The danger they have created is that every new developer sees this and asks “what can you do for us” even if their proposal isn’t necessarily in the immediate interests of the wider city such as the Green Quarter or Pollard St which came at the expense of finishing Ancoats or Castlefield, say. There are too many half completed projects in Manchester that will never have a chance to become real communities until they are finished.

The challenge for MCC is to ensure that the assets of the city are preserved within the framework of redevelopment. They failed monumentally with Smithfield Market to ensure the Mackie Mayor was restored and genuine beneficial public space created; similarly with Urban Splash and the Ancoats Hospital debacle.

Their failure to demand real quality and permanence from developers also does no favours to the future of the city and doesn’t effectively fill the gaps in the urban landscape in a sustainable way that might justify the inflated (Boomtime-valued) council tax bills they charge.

I have no issue with IKEA Landprop developing the Granada estate in the same way as the Co-op will develop the NOMA project (their financial muscle makes them a better proposition than the Ask Developments or Urban Splashes who squandered their opportunities and our money); what they deliver in terms of quality will depend on MCC who I hope at least ring-fence any public money his time for things like the Bonded Warehouse at Granada to be central to any design, maybe liaising to expand MOSI onto some of the vacated land in lew of 106 monies or future council tax revenues.
__________________
Nothing dates faster than Man's vision of the future

Twizzer88 liked this post
LongRipple no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2013, 08:06 PM   #519
marni1971
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 927
Likes (Received): 966

I'm assuming this proposal is purely for the Quay St / Water St land, the other parcels will be sold separately? We're still told there is an active plan to keep the Corrie lot as a stand alone attraction, again possibly still with the MOSI.
marni1971 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2013, 10:26 PM   #520
GShutty
Registered User
 
GShutty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lancs
Posts: 2,376
Likes (Received): 449

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongRipple View Post
The danger they have created is that every new developer sees this and asks “what can you do for us” even if their proposal isn’t necessarily in the immediate interests of the wider city such as the Green Quarter or Pollard St which came at the expense of finishing Ancoats or Castlefield, say. There are too many half completed projects in Manchester that will never have a chance to become real communities until they are finished.
I can't disagree, but I perceive that this has been the result of a deliberate MCC strategy; assist (/go out of their wayto get) private developers to get a project off the ground and let them capitalise the momentum to the wider benefit of the city development and to hopefully create a catalyst and ripple effect that would regenrate an area. This was perhaps sound rationale in a rising economy but has left a lot of half baked projects as you have stated.

As frustrating as this has been, it does mean that when the global economy does upturn again (on the assumption that there are still enough city slickers and PLCs who need to make money on an inflating economy), then unlike the 90's when the city could only get up and running once the bubble was 3/4's inflated, Manchester will be well placed to capitalise when the upturn begins.

There are signs of this strong positioning and green shoots IMO with the completion of the Smithfield Market apartments, which includes an initial refurb of the Mackie Mayor (see below). I suspect that this was always part of the deal with the developers who have (guessing) chosen to undertake their obligation in the final stage of the project. BTW this was a '5 year scheme' as quoted by Ician (Crosby/AMEC) who started off as the developers and is now 13 years and counting, so the initial premise that Mackie Mayor would be completed by c.2005 was not a bad proposition, but alas times have changed.

What the city have done well is to secure large projects that have so far seen through the current 'depression': Metrolink, BBC Salford, Manchester University property re-evaluation and now (finally) Manchester Victoria to name four.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongRipple View Post
The challenge for MCC is to ensure that the assets of the city are preserved within the framework of redevelopment. They failed monumentally with Smithfield Market to ensure the Mackie Mayor was restored and genuine beneficial public space created......
further to this, I wonder if left to its own devices and given the current state of Swan Street if Mackie Mayor would have been developed by eny other developer at this stage? we'll never know, but my suspicion is not. It's a single storey so not very useful to profiteer developers, would require money spending on it and given Grade II listed staus this would be expenisve. My suspicion is that somebody by now would have wanted it demolished for parking/future land values, but again that's all guess work.
__________________
Keep the Faith.
GShutty no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu