Manchester Central Sky Park

[Garibaldi773]

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

While I'm not convinced the restricting visibility is a particular problem (surely that's just what buildings do) I too am a bit concerned about how the towers, the park and the street are going to relate to one another. Are the towers going to be accessed from the park or the street, or from both? If they don't open onto the park then it's going to become an abandoned and intimidating space, but if they don't open onto Great Bridgewater Street then they're going to be cut off from the rest of the city. To be honest I think a square is a better bet than a park, but if it's a well used and overlooked space then it should work.

The only part of the scheme I really don't like is the skywalk itself. I can see why it's useful in terms of opening up the area for development, but if they've got to expand the Metrolnk viaduct anyway why don't they attach one well designed structure (for trams and pedestrians) to the side of the G-Mex rather than two ill-fitting ones?

Sorry, I should've been clearer. It's the sky walk that I really don't like and that I think would unnecessarily detract from the Lower Mosley Street elevation of the former station building.

I would like a park in the city but not there and not up in the air. Something on the scale of one of the London parks would be good, with grass and lots of it. Not sure where, it would probably have to replace someone's development site and so presumably will never happen.

However, I think that this should be as much of a priority for the city as facilitating the next development. Well, that's if we are serious about the health and sanity of our citizens as well as reducing surface temperatures in the city.

A couple of years ago a report by the University of Manchester suggested that a 10% increase in green space in Greater Manchester would off-set the 4 celcius increase forecast in surface temperatures in the next 75 years. I know that the integrity of climate change research has been called into question recently, but this claim seems to make sense.

[Cherguevara]

Originally Posted by Garibaldi773

Sorry, I should've been clearer. It's the sky walk that I really don't like and that I think would unnecessarily detract from the Lower Mosley Street elevation of the former station building.

I would like a park in the city but not there and not up in the air. Something on the scale of one of the London parks would be good, with grass and lots of it. Not sure where, it would probably have to replace someone's development site and so presumably will never happen.

I don't really have a problem with the park being up in the air as long as its accessible and seems safe. Presuming that the buildings open up onto it it will simply be like a very small hill in the middle of the city. It would be very easy to do this badly though.

To me the idea of a skywalk isn't a bad one, but it should be built in a way that enhances Lower Mosely Street rather than detracts from it. If I had my way I'd join the Metrolink viaduct with the vaults under the GMex and allow pedestrians to use the space on top between the two, while redeveloping the arches fronting onto the street into useful spaces.

[WatcherZero]

I suppose theyb want to keep natural light at ground level. in effect you could be burying the street.

[Seasonedbest]

Originally Posted by Garibaldi773

They have also omitted to show the dayglo-frocked security guards that will no doubt be restricting access to this "so called" public space, as at Spinningfields and Piccadilly Place. Honestly, if they built that 200m ramp I would have to take-up skateboarding.

The problem is that I don't like it. Manchester Central Station is the jewel in the conference quarter development and this proposal restricts visibility with the walkway and associated Simpson cladding. It is also reminiscent of the 1960s futurama-thinking that brought us Piccadilly Plaza - cities in the sky anyone? It's like Jane Jacobs never happened...!

I also doubt that the sky walk would generate sufficient footfall to justify the investment. Perhaps the view is that providing this access will encourage more hotel companies to locate next to Beetham. At the moment though, I suspect that most Manchester Central users approach from the east not the west.

Surely the best way to serve Manchester Central via Metrolink is to have a new station on Lower Mosley Street (between St Peter's Square and G-Mex). In fact, if the Lower Mosley Street traffic could be re-rooted, you might be able to create a safe public space that spread across to Barbirolli Square. I would call this enlarged area Peterloo Square and put the proposed memorial in it. That would be original and modern, which is good, rather than post-modern, which is very bad.

I disagree with skyparks being 1960's thinking. Modern proposals for skyparks differ greatly from the sparsely populated, concrete ashtrays of old. Although the video render doesn't go into great detail within the public space, and is after all conceptual, the possibilities of usage for this space are broad. The High Line in New York had been mentioned before on this thread in relation to the Castlefield Bridge and its possibilities as a recreational park. Although the structure above GMEX station would be new, unlike the High Line and Castlefield, and having been on the High Line, something like this would be massively welcomed:

image hosted on flickr



www.thehighline.org/

Marketed in the correct way, there is no reason why it wouldn't become a public visitor attraction in itself, other than simply being used by people solely waiting for their tram or on their smoking break. Some sort of railway theme could be used harking back to the Manchester Central of old. If only the public park could extend across the Deansgate Bridge and to Castlefield Bridge.

I also think the station, although technically further from the entrance to the conference centre than St Peters Square, offers more in its connections to the rail station and its proximity to the first street development. Besides a station outside the conference centre would be far too close to St Peters.

I do however agree with your comment on the amount of footfall along the walkway. Possibly why in the past, people did not alight here was down to the precise reason that access to the city centre was down the side of the GN Tower or down a 'fire escape' next to the now defunct Sugar Lounge, which still isn't acceptable. Footfall for station usage will however remain questionable. In terms of it detracting from the conference centre, with all the modifications externally to the facade over the years and more recently, with it being downgraded, changes around the building are inevitable. I'm a bit sceptical however about all that glass.

I think the covered station is necessary, and will be necessary as an important interchange and also to protect from the adverse weather conditions in winter months.

[Garibaldi773]

Originally Posted by Seasonedbest

I disagree with skyparks being 1960's thinking. Modern proposals for skyparks differ greatly from the sparsely populated, concrete ashtrays of old. Although the video render doesn't go into great detail within the public space, and is after all conceptual, the possibilities of usage for this space are broad. The High Line in New York had been mentioned before on this thread in relation to the Castlefield Bridge and its possibilities as a recreational park. Although the structure above GMEX station would be new, unlike the High Line and Castlefield, and having been on the High Line, something like this would be massively welcomed:...

Marketed in the correct way, there is no reason why it wouldn't become a public visitor attraction in itself, other than simply being used by people solely waiting for their tram or on their smoking break. Some sort of railway theme could be used harking back to the Manchester Central of old. If only the public park could extend across the Deansgate Bridge and to Castlefield Bridge.

I also think the station, although technically further from the entrance to the conference centre than St Peters Square, offers more in its connections to the rail station and its proximity to the first street development. Besides a station outside the conference centre would be far too close to St Peters.

I do however agree with your comment on the amount of footfall along the walkway. Possibly why in the past, people did not alight here was down to the precise reason that access to the city centre was down the side of the GN Tower or down a 'fire escape' next to the now defunct Sugar Lounge, which still isn't acceptable. Footfall for station usage will however remain questionable. In terms of it detracting from the conference centre, with all the modifications externally to the facade over the years and more recently, with it being downgraded, changes around the building are inevitable. I'm a bit sceptical however about all that glass.

I think the covered station is necessary, and will be necessary as an important interchange and also to protect from the adverse weather conditions in winter months.

The High Line looks great and I would welcome that sort of thing in the city. I am not sure that the thinking that is going into this part of town is broad enough to include something as rough around the edges as this, however. I suspect that the City Council & Co would consider it in Castlefield, but not in the shiny new quarter that they are hoping to create around G-Mex. We will end up with something more like Piccadilly Gardens, I suspect, but hopefully I am wrong.

Are the connections with Deansgate Station that important for conference traffic? I would've thought that it would be better to ensure that the Metrolink connection from Piccadilly to Manchester Central was the best it could possibly be, as that is the most likely route for visitors.

There are some stations close together in the city already, such as Piccadilly Gardens and Mosley Street. However, I would be in favour of getting rid of St Peter's Square station in favour of the new Manchester Central one that I proposed. St Peter's Square could be an interesting public space without the station that has become even more intrusive on the area after the recent redevelopment. Losing the station would allow more options for the new design team, when they are appointed, with a more sensitive treatment of things like the Lutyens war memorial as a result.

Alternatively, if we have to have a St Peter's Square station then why not move it to the site of the Peace Gardens (I think that Jonathan Schofield suggested this on ManCon last year)?

[WatcherZero]

a quarter of a million people use Deansgate every year, since their aint much else around it must be for Interchange/confrence centre.

[Jongeman]

The role of Deansgate station might change quite dramatically with the Mancheser, sorry Northern Hub proposals....I'm not sure quite how but I assume that it will increasingly take local services following the new Victoria-Deansgate-Piccadilly arc and v.v.

Gmex station might also take on an interchange role, because it will be the only station with the exception of Victoria and Cornbrook with trams on all lines passing through (and by that I specifically mean 2CC)

Would the best location for a Manchester Central station be by the side of the Midland Hotel? Just a thought.....

[hulmeman2]

Originally Posted by Jongeman

The role of Deansgate station might change quite dramatically with the Mancheser, sorry Northern Hub proposals....I'm not sure quite how but I assume that it will increasingly take local services following the new Victoria-Deansgate-Piccadilly arc and v.v.

Gmex station might also take on an interchange role, because it will be the only station with the exception of Victoria and Cornbrook with trams on all lines passing through (and by that I specifically mean 2CC)

Would the best location for a Manchester Central station be by the side of the Midland Hotel? Just a thought.....

2cc won't pass the east side of the Midland, it will run down the west side, then across the rear, then its 3 tracks part way up the ramp.

[future.architect]

Originally Posted by hulmeman2

2cc won't pass the east side of the Midland, it will run down the west side, then across the rear, then its 3 tracks part way up the ramp.

I was thinking, will this not present some issues when party conferances take place? i Suppose they will just have to do without the 2nd route for 5 days.

[ferge]

Seems a pity that the new line proposed to go passed the Town hall doesn't quickly zip through up onto Deansgate for a short leg so that a station could be put beside Spinningfield and then back up off Deansgate and up passed Urbis and to Victoria station, I know it is within walking of Salford central but it would be a boost (surely) to have it linked to the Metrolink?

[Jongeman]

Originally Posted by hulmeman2

2cc won't pass the east side of the Midland, it will run down the west side, then across the rear, then its 3 tracks part way up the ramp.

So in this case, a tram stop at the bottom of the ramp would need four platforms? I can see the case for that, it would be easily visible from St Peter's Sq, perhaps a better location for access from Oxford St, and provide direct tram services to everywhere on the network. What it lacks is access to heavy rail services.

[Cherguevara]

Originally Posted by ferge

Seems a pity that the new line proposed to go passed the Town hall doesn't quickly zip through up onto Deansgate for a short leg so that a station could be put beside Spinningfield and then back up off Deansgate and up passed Urbis and to Victoria station, I know it is within walking of Salford central but it would be a boost (surely) to have it linked to the Metrolink?

Since the benefits of the 2CC are primarily from improving capacity and journey times across the city there's very little advantage to be had running such a route that isn't counteracted by the expense, inconnvenience to passengers trying to access existing destinations and reduced speed.

It would be good if the Castlefield Viaduct could be used in a similar way to the high line and joined to this proposed park to provide open space reaching out towards and potentially connecting to the Irwell City Park.

[hulmeman2]

Originally Posted by Jongeman

So in this case, a tram stop at the bottom of the ramp would need four platforms? I can see the case for that, it would be easily visible from St Peter's Sq, perhaps a better location for access from Oxford St, and provide direct tram services to everywhere on the network. What it lacks is access to heavy rail services.

As there's only 3 tracks there, a double and a single would suffice.

[Seasonedbest]

..

[tomegranate]

Originally Posted by Garibaldi773

I would be in favour of getting rid of St Peter's Square station in favour of the new Manchester Central one that I proposed. St Peter's Square could be an interesting public space without the station that has become even more intrusive on the area after the recent redevelopment. Losing the station would allow more options for the new design team, when they are appointed, with a more sensitive treatment of things like the Lutyens war memorial as a result.

This is the best idea I've seen regarding the city centre Metrolink in a long while. Pretty obvious when you think about it. The stop really makes a mess of St Peter's Square, and once the bus stops and through traffic are removed it will be the only thing still stopping it from being a 'proper' public space we can be proud of, instead of a noisy, tangled smaller version of Parker Street. The new tram stop nearby in St Albert's Square would only make it even more sensible.

[WatcherZero]

Yes the new stop on the other sides probably okay for serving the immediate area, though there would be a fair distance between Manchester Central and Piccadilly Gardens, potentially putting off existing users in offices on the right side along that route.

[nicky2tu]

Originally Posted by WatcherZero

Yes the new stop on the other sides probably okay for serving the immediate area, though there would be a fair distance between Manchester Central and Piccadilly Gardens, potentially putting off existing users in offices on the right side along that route.

What about locating the stop outside the Art Gallery. Not as daft as it sounds given the plan to close the south bound only stop on Mosley Street. It would require a mostly traffic free Mosley Street other than that required for access.

[tomegranate]

Originally Posted by nicky2tu

What about locating the stop outside the Art Gallery. Not as daft as it sounds given the plan to close the south bound only stop on Mosley Street. It would require a mostly traffic free Mosley Street other than that required for access.

Ya bugger, you beat me to it! The 'forecourt' area of the the gallery seems rather unloved and unused to me, could scale it back closer to the building itself to make room.

[GShutty]

It looks to me as though the Bridge at Great Bridgewater St and the back at of the G-Mex (...... sorry: Manchester Central) is going to disappear under the proposals, or at least from the CGI flythrough. That would really brighten that area up and make it much more pedestrian friendly. The proposal looks fantastic to me!

[nq]

MCC picking up a little bit of land by Manchester Central,

1.0 Introduction

1.1 MCC have provisionally agreed terms to acquire a 0.27 acre site on Great Bridgewater Street which will need to be completed urgently as the current terms are only available until the end of March 2011. If contracts are not exchanged by this time the commercial terms will need to be renegotiated. Exemption from the call in process is therefore being sought for the related Capital Expenditure approval.

2.0 Background

2.1 The site lies within the Manchester Central – Castlefield Strategy regeneration project area. This is a public transport led regeneration scheme which will facilitate improvements to the Metrolink system.

2.2 The opportunity has arisen to make a strategic acquisition of this key site, which will ensure continuity of servicing and access to MCR Central during the phased implementation of the regeneration proposals and will lead to significant cost savings because the Council will have more control over the land holdings in the area.

2.3 The acquisition will also increase the Council’s equity stake in the area and it’s ability to generate a return from any commercial aspects of the project.

2.4 The Capital Programme, to be approved by Council on 9 March, includes £1.3m to cover the acquisition and associated costs. The total acquisition costs can be met within this budget.

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_do...ter_Street.pdf

Wonder if it's related to this site?

http://www.estatesgazette.com/proper...le-3277256.htm