HOME | First Street North | U/C

[jrb]

Interesting.

From AJ.

Contest to be launched for new Manchester arts venue 24 November, 2010 | By Richard Waite

The Cornerhouse cinema and the Library Theatre Company will hold an international competition to design a new joint home in Manchester City Centre

[madferret]

Originally Posted by Seasonedbest

I wonder how many people here a regular users of the cornerhouse. Not many by the sounds of it, otherwise you'd be dead against this move.

I used to be when I lived nearer Manchester. I don't see why regular users should be against it. I think it sounds good and would have more chance of tempting me into the city now than the current venue.

[madferret]

Originally Posted by Isaac Newell

I've only ever used it for a coffee. But that's why I like the location, you're on a busy street and the main road to the University and some of the nicer residential parts of Manchester. Oxford Road brings the Cornerhouse to life.

You do know the Cornerhouse isn't on Oxford Road?

(It's Oxford Street - Oxford Rd is the other side of the railway, after the Medlock bridge)

[Isaac Newell]

Originally Posted by madferret

You do know the Cornerhouse isn't on Oxford Road?

(It's Oxford Street - Oxford Rd is the other side of the railway, after the Medlock bridge)

I don't care

[macc]

Originally Posted by Isaac Newell

I've only ever used it for a coffee. But that's why I like the location, you're on a busy street and the main road to the University and some of the nicer residential parts of Manchester. Oxford Road brings the Cornerhouse to life.

I don't understand why moving the cornerhouse to first street and the next life for the existing buildings require discussion in the same debate.

Clearly the cinema building has problems and it's difficult to see another viable use for it in it's current form. Is there an any concern that if the cornerhouse leaves it's former home in tact a new startup cinema may enter foray and compete? Now that backfire would be interesting.

More of a concern for me is the site of the bar/cafe. I'm not a regular but it's clearly one of the very best locations for a business of this type in the city. If the cornerhouse moves to First Street its new cinema may well flourish with the LTC but it's cafe/bar will be almost certainly be demoted to a pre-cinema/theatre bar.

Very often great bars use their building as the basis of what gives them their character. Off the top of my head I can think of no great bars in the city which reside in a new build. Indeed most of the city's best bars are in interesting buildings; The Cornerhouse being one of them (and few, if any have the views).

Why are they so keen to redevelop the building? If the cournerhouse must move (there's so many things that dont' work in the city, why mess with one that clearly does?) I would find the whole thing more agreeable if the bar/cafe can be left to be taken over by another independant.

[Garibaldi773]

Originally Posted by macc

I don't understand why moving the cornerhouse to first street and the next life for the existing buildings require discussion in the same debate.

Clearly the cinema building has problems and it's difficult to see another viable use for it in it's current form. Is there an any concern that if the cornerhouse leaves it's former home in tact a new startup cinema may enter foray and compete? Now that backfire would be interesting.

More of a concern for me is the site of the bar/cafe. I'm not a regular but it's clearly one of the very best locations for a business of this type in the city. If the cornerhouse moves to First Street its new cinema may well flourish with the LTC but it's cafe/bar will be almost certainly be demoted to a pre-cinema/theatre bar.

Very often great bars use their building as the basis of what gives them their character. Off the top of my head I can think of no great bars in the city which reside in a new build. Indeed most of the city's best bars are in interesting buildings; The Cornerhouse being one of them (and few, if any have the views).

Why are they so keen to redevelop the building? If the cournerhouse must move (there's so many things that dont' work in the city, why mess with one that clearly does?) I would find the whole thing more agreeable if the bar/cafe can be left to be taken over by another independant.

I don't know the figures for Cornerhouse but I was at an event last week where the boss of Band on the Wall said that they take 50 percent of their income from the box office and 50 percent from "front-of-house" operations (food and drink). Cornerhouse as an entity needs a successful bar and cafe offer to survive.

If I were them I would echo the Odeon in their restrictions on use of the vacated building, only instead of stipulating that the site cannot be used again as a cinema, I would say that it cannot be used again as a bar - unless that bar is part of a chain with wall-to-wall plasma screens showing non-stop football...

[heatonparkincakes]

I bet the new Cornerhouse on (sic) First Street will have a very large secure car park next to the supermarket.

This sums the mentality involved.

"Coun Mike Amesbury said: "Manchester is committed to culture, something we see not as a luxury but as a necessity which creates jobs and other opportunities and is a fundamental part of attracting investors."

And council leader Sir Richard Leese said: "This is exactly the sort of scheme we need to get people into work, get our economy moving even faster, and show the world that Manchester is still an ambitious city."

Art as a commodity, culture as a means to make money. Call it Blackpool with a bigger town hall.

Remind me when Morrissey/ Stone Roses/Jeff Noon/ Anthony Burgess et all created what ever they created, did they do so to "generate jobs for the community?"

[kids]

Blackpool but only a minority can enjoy and reap the benefits of the culture they foster. And the rest that is good? yeah, they are literally packaging it, covering it in cellophane and shipping it out.

[heatonparkincakes]

Blackpool in that its about making money and not a Barca or Berlin where its creativity first and then economic benefits second.

Sort of which happened in Manchester until the various career opportunity and youth workers on the council got too old and detached and plainly conservative and started to see only balance sheets.

[kids]

I think you're being a bit naive there RE Barcelona. Barcelona is the blueprint for the aggressive dislocating form of regeneration and the push towards the economic benefits of culture. I think that art centre in El Raval was built as apart of slum clearance.

The point is that we're past that now. If they haven't realised through the recession that they shouldn't be propping up ridiculously unsustainable property developments then they should be OUT. We need real change, and what's good we need to treasure.

[Seasonedbest]

Forget the Cornerhouse. Creating a purpose built building in a specifically designated area while retaining its original ethics and fans - it doesn't work. It's dead from 2014 onwards when it goes mainstream. Hopefully by then, new indy cinemas will have sprouted in and around the city.

[heatonparkincakes]

Now that the frozen rage of standing in the -10 of a Warsaw street has worn off today, I can and should look at this rationally.

I can see why MCC are looking at this. Firstly it gives them someone to anchor the First (sic) Street wasteland with. Given that it rumoured that they will share half the profits from any developments, it is clear they will favour this over other plots in the city.

Second it ensures that the Cornerhouse is developed when some feel its not up to scratch. It ensures a firmer future for the Library Theatre. That is tremendous.

It releases a very prime piece of land on Oxford Street for development and thus higher incomes for MCC.

I am convinced by the economic arguments, but then again......................................

Its location is not great. Talk about 100 or 500 metres, but First (sic) Street is a wasteland after 6pm and doesnt entice anyone to explore it alone. Especially if you are middle aged and/or female. Its not the Baltic Centre, astride the river, nor the Nottingham Contemporary, next to trendy Hockley. Its plonked between a rail viaduct and a motorway and lifeless at the best of times.

Compared to the present locations (Of the C'house and library theatre) the public transport access is worse. Not wholly poor i admit, but it will encourage car usage. So I guess this will have to contain a 500 capacity car park which again makes this ascetically less pleasing.

They will really need to do a very good job to convince people of the credibility of this project. As well as make the area feel safe.

But most of all, I just don't trust MCC to get it right. I think of the Free Trade Hall, the Urbis and even to a lesser degree Piccadilly Gardens and realise when it comes to "culture" MCC just don't get it. And when they do its based on balance sheet and 80's perceptions of "art" forged in some Labour committee in a smokey room upstairs from a pub where the sounds of the "big Match" was followed by the karaoke. Ill thought concepts that seemed to mirror everything about the excesses of the last two decades.

Witness the chasing of the Royal Opera House to a city that lacks a modern operatic tradition. Yet we were lead to believe that this London "franchise" would survive like some middle class disney based on the tourist trade, propped up with public funds.

So to conclude I see the good reasoning behind this, but I am cynical about this. My head and heart aren't in tandem. We will see.

[highriser]

Some people are so scared of change , with it moving to this new facility with the Library Theatre it will be saved .

2 choice's .

1. In the near future the Cornerhouse will close and never to be seen again , and the building turned into a Tesco Metro .

2. The Cornerhouse move's 5 mins up the road to a new building which it will share with one of the cities favorite thatre's

Mmmm i know which one i prefer .

[highriser]

Originally Posted by heatonparkincakes

Its location is not great. Talk about 100 or 500 metres, but First (sic) Street is a wasteland after 6pm and doesnt entice anyone to explore it alone. Especially if you are middle aged and/or female. Its not the Baltic Centre, astride the river, nor the Nottingham Contemporary, next to trendy Hockley. Its plonked between a rail viaduct and a motorway and lifeless at the best of times.

Good grief what a miserable moaning twat you are ,, First St is 100m from Deansgate Lock's the G-mex, Bridgewater Hall and your precious grotty hole Cornerhouse
First St is in progress give it bloody time . with this theatre moving there it will change the area .
Stop being so negative

[monkey_rat]

off an a slight tangent - if whitworth street west wasnt just a boring series of estate agents and kebab shops but had some actual retail then the journey from oxford road to first street would be a lot more appealing.

and when are dandara going to let that unit on the corner? (near the railway arch).

In manchester they seem to be one of the worst offenders in terms of unlet units...the bridge and the ground floor units in the lowry hotel also being shocking wastes. is this just a case of rent greed or incompetence? it's not like they are bad locations.

and their buildings are shite, generally.

[Beram]

Apologies for the essay, but the provision of culture in Manchester tends to get me going...

Like a lot of people, I'm ambivalent about this move because I'm so attached to the existing building. But while its bar space and book shop are great, the cinemas are tawdry and the gallery space is frankly terrible--a shame, because while the exhibitions that the Cornerhouse hosts are sometimes niche they're usually decent and deserve to be seen by more people. Cornerhouse have been looking into the possibility of expansion and redevelopment for some time: MBLA (then MBLC, I think) were commissioned to do a feasibility study into redeveloping the existing premises about a decade ago, but nothing came of it. A move like the one proposed might seem like cutting the Gordian knot rather than an attempt to resolve the issues presented by the current building, but it'd enable the organisation to cut running costs while improving the quality of their theatres and gallery spaces significantly. Surely good things.

Not much has been said about the Library Theatre on here, but it deserves attention: it's an excellent little theatre whose productions are usually both high-quality and well-attended, despite being produced at low cost. It's also been a key part of Manchester's cultural fabric since the 1950s, and personally I think it's a great example of a post-war model of civic cultural provision that has stood the test of time. It's good that it's ready to expand.

My big worry isn't really to do with location, as I'm sure First Street will, given time, integrate into the fabric of the city fairly well: transport connections are better there than in the Cornerhouse's current location and a decent cultural institution might serve to connect "Heritage Manchester" (aka Castlefield) with the university area. It's the uprooting of existing cultural institutions in order to form a single "cultural campus" that worries me. First, the danger with this approach is that the visibility of culture across the city is reduced--once upon a time we had Urbis, Cornerhouse, the Library Theatre etc., situated all over the city in way that helped to increase the city's general cultural provision. The danger with ghettoising cultural institutions is that the city ends up feeling like a shopping centre with a couple of big culture spots on the outskirts.

Second, and connected: this is a very New Labour approach to urban regeneration, and I'm worried that the national support for it has completely disappeared. The tendency while Labour held power was towards cultural governance, and this manifested itself in the use of cultural campuses to regenerate derelict areas of Salford, Sunderland etc. However, the national agenda has completely changed: the current administration is moving away from cultural governance and the exposure of existing institutions to the market is undoubtedly going to increase as it tries to implement its "Big Society" idea. (See the People's History Museum and the Museum of Science and Industry currently face having their funding cut drastically.)

The Cornerhouse and Library Theatre have established remits and enjoy solid patronage, but they may need support after the move, and I'm worried that proper resources won't be made available to them if the move causes difficulties. One consequence of the shift away from cultural governance might be that provision has to be locally-funded to a greater extent. I actually quite like this idea, but it entails being ready to take a long-term approach and support institutions accordingly. We don't want another Urbis: shaky at first, getting better and better every year, attracting higher profile exhibitions while remaining dynamic, but built at great cost without a proper remit and soon a real economic problem for the council which they eventually sought to remove as a liability. (Don't get me wrong: I'm glad the NFM is coming to Mcr--if nothing else, for economic reasons--and I don't mind it occupying Urbis's building, but I hate that it's at the expense of Urbis as an institution.)

One last thought: presumably the fact that the Cornerhouse means that it can't easily switch uses. Isn't there a possibility that another cinema organisation will step in? Eg Picturehouse, which tends to focus on middle-of-the-road provision?

[heatonparkincakes]

Pardon me highriser!?!?

Call me a tw@t. You aren't the first nor last. But is it necessary to use such language when anyone disagrees on this forum!!

Actually you might be surprised, but we agree on most of this. Agreed that the distances from elsewhere is not substantial. it won't break anyone's back to walk down there and as the research points out the passing trade is not what drives the C'house nor Library Theatre. People go to these venues. Its the distance in people's minds that matter and physical boundaries such as the rail viaduct that inhibit movement.

I agree that the site needs an anchor to succeed. There is a credible economic argument here. But my point is that there will be some very careful planning, utility of lightning and space and public safety to ensure that this feels part of the city centre and not something plonked on wasteland at the back of a motorway.

Its been achieved with the Salford Quays/Lowry, Deangate Locks and Castlefield. All areas that were previously considered unkempt and unsafe after dark. It can be done again, but it really needs good design, public safety and easy access to work. It needs to feel organic than like some Soviet era "gift" to the proletariat. I have seen the Warsaw Palace of Culture this week and no one loves it. If it doesnt have the goodwill of the various "stakeholders" associated with the two cultural centres, then it will struggle.

And as Monkey says it means considering all the adjoining areas, not just what ASK owns. But maybe that's the idea. This as the catalyst.

[heatonparkincakes]

Big Society Beram. That more about Victorian ideals of rich private donations and non state public subscription like Public Radio in the states.

The latter would be a great idea if only there was the numbers of supporters was there to achieve it. Its an untested idea so far in the UK.

As for the former. Anyone wish to ask Mr Guggenheim or Frank Cohen. Well feel free.

[Isaac Newell]

It's not distance it's location, the Cornerhouse is something you walk past as you come out of the railway station, and ride past as you sit on a bus. It's nicer as part of a living mixed streetscape not a cultural industrial estate.

[GShutty]

Originally Posted by heatonparkincakes

....it won't break anyone's back to walk down there and as the research points out the passing trade is not what drives the C'house nor Library Theatre. People go to these venues. Its the distance in people's minds that matter and physical boundaries such as the rail viaduct that inhibit movement.

I agree that the site needs an anchor to succeed. There....will be some very careful planning.... to ensure that this feels part of the city centre and not something plonked on wasteland at the back of a motorway. As Monkey says it means considering all the adjoining areas, not just what ASK owns. But maybe that's the idea. This as the catalyst.

The proposed new sight is at the City Centre side of First St, so I don't personally think that it will feel isolated. As a catalyst this should hopefully prove the element that will entice people, businesses, developers etc, to cross Whitworth St to occupy and expand this part of the city.

As you say the Library Theatre and Cornerhouse were venues in their own rights and as physically increased and conjoined attractions I can only see this being more of the case.

Yes, it could be argued that the cafe and brasserie may suffer as they would have benefitted more from passing trade, but as there are no other similar provisions in this expanding part of the city, they should hopefully benefit from a new audience of office workers during the day and the clientele as well as passers by in the evenings, which will certainly be an enhancement of trade for the Library Theatre.

Originally Posted by Beram

.....One consequence of the shift away from cultural governance might be that provision has to be locally-funded to a greater extent. I actually quite like this idea, but it entails being ready to take a long-term approach and support institutions accordingly. We don't want another Urbis: shaky at first, getting better and better every year, attracting higher profile exhibitions while remaining dynamic, but built at great cost without a proper remit and soon a real economic problem for the council which they eventually sought to remove as a liability.

I think a large decider in his move has been the economic circumstances. In an ideal world the city council would have rehoused the library theatre in the Theatre Royale and the Cornerhouse could have epanded and flourished in it's current home.

The problems are that £19m was apparently not enough to restore the Theatre Royale, and the Cornerhouse sight is restricted and is expensive to maintain.

£22m, gets you a landmark, enlarged and purpose built facility to house both on a single sight, with shared amenities which I am certain will reduce overheads massively and thus reliance on subsidy frm the public purse.

As a benefit, they also get to revitalise a sight that is lets face it extremely central, but performing well below expectation and potential given the centrality. Bridgewater Hall is a stone's throw away and has been an immensely successful addition to the city's cultural portfolio.

The Contact Theatre does well and retains that intagible 'Manchester' vibe and RNCM performs well in modern surrounds. I am a regular patron and massive fan of the Cornerhouse in it's present state, but who says it can't keep what it's got by moving premises. It is after all the functions that it performs and the people that attend and love the Cornerhouse that make it what it is.