Motel One | London Road | 42m | 14 fl | Demo

[Cherguevara]

Originally Posted by kids

There will be new networks. New scenes will materialise in other dingy quarters of this overwhelmingly dingy city. This is only one instance of the destruction of what you call a communal space, there is not a whole scale sack of Manchester going on as some like to imagine. There is however a lot of poverty and the place needs investment and some pacification. If it's an issue of inclusivity then that is something for planners to think about in terms of the future development of the village rather than preserving the status quo as a preserve of inclusivity for a minority (seemingly) to have for themselves. No liberties are being lost here, this isn't public property, once the contract is finished the owners a free to close the club and the club is free to move elsewhere. This is not something MCC should consider.

New networks take time to form, but much value held in the old ones is lost immediately. I'm not against all redevelopment of communal space because of this, but I think planners need to take into account the impacts of development on the social life of the city.

I understand that it's private property, but our laws already constrain a property owners freedom to dispose of private property in some ways; in which case it's the concern of the polity to decide the form those constraints should take. I believe that protection the social life and community of the city is a value that should be respected within this process.

[dhulkamaniac]

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

New networks take time to form, but much value held in the old ones is lost immediately. I'm not against all redevelopment of communal space because of this, but I think planners need to take into account the impacts of development on the social life of the city.

I understand that it's private property, but our laws already constrain a property owners freedom to dispose of private property in some ways; in which case it's the concern of the polity to decide the form those constraints should take. I believe that protection the social life and community of the city is a value that should be respected within this process.

Well said

[Architecty]

It seems to get forgotten that planning is about enforcement of law, not about wants and likes and memories.

The application has to be assessed on its own merits. Surface car parks or derelict buildings around the corner have nothing to do with it.

I know nothing of Twisted Wheel, but genuinely if someone here thinks it was of sufficient cultural significance make a spot listing application. Make your case to the authorities who can consider it on its merits.

Better still though, would to have done it before waiting for the demolition of the building to have been proposed.

[urbnist]

Originally Posted by kids

Might avoid the man con article now. The comments about "losing our history" "think of the cavern!!" are gonna make my head explode. What I want to know where these incredible history buffs were when those early 19th c buildings on Greengate that preserved the medieval streetscape were demolished recently? Equally do they care that the collegiate school masters building on Millgate will be demolished to make way for a hotel?? Or that the Palatine building too is doomed? All of these buildings are far more worthy of preservation for architectural and historical reasons than the building that hosted the twisted wheel. Unfortunately for those buildings though they just didn't/don't appeal to this mythical and emotional sense of what is Mancunian to a certain group of people.

How about this, nobody has the right to say what is an important part of Manchester's cultural history, unless it will bring money in. Cities change all the time. Manchester has such a transient and young population I wonder if even 20% of those in the borough are aware of what the twisted wheel is. And so what? Honestly what is it worth? Future academics that want to talk about how culture was passed from America to Europe in the late 20th c. have film and accounts and a mass of ephemera, what could they ever get from the building? Equally there is no worth in it economically as there would be for the cavern, which is why this comparison is ludicrous. I agree with Architecty, it would be completely unjust if the people who own this property couldn't develop it because a few bleating over-privileged Mancunians carry a warped and emotive sense of the history of Manchester. It's time for these people to move on and realise that just because they care about something that doesn't mean everyone else should.

At the risk of angering you to the point of tipping you into spontaneous combustion, but you are talking garbage, kids.

The planning system is designed to mediate between economic, social and environmental interests. Outside of listing, the ability of people to make representations about a planning application is the principal means through which (largely subjective) social and cultural concerns can be accounted for within this process.

I would agree that it is sad that there is greater public outcry at the loss of something with connections to pop culture than lesser appreciated but perhaps worthier examples of industrial, educational or civic history but to rail against the situation is completely futile; akin to railing against the existence of tabloid newspapers. You're right to highlight the hypocrisy and injustice of this populist mindset however.

But in response to this situation, effectively throwing your toys out of the pram and advocating a purely economic approach to the planning system, you're arguing for an even more right wing vision of planning than even the Tories are trying to push through whereby the definition of "sustainable development" boils down to whether it stacks up financially, albeit with a few concessionary safeguards.

I repeat, just because something falls out of your frame of reference does not mean a cause is worthless. Moreover, when there is popular support for the retention of the buildings for reasons of historical importance (which there clearly is), when the buildings themselves make a positive contribution to the townscape (views on either side but the conservation of similar townscape in areas like the Northern Quarter provide precedent) and when there is much concern at the loss of an existing social / leisure facility, you have a very strong case to refuse the application.

Not all of these reasons might be material in the sense that they might not conform to planning law and stand up to scrutiny in a court of appeal but there is a good reason why the planning process is both a democratic as well as a technocratic exercise.

[urbnist]

All that said, I do actually think the proposed building has the potential to be a good and attractive building in its own right. I think this sort of stripped back modernism sits better in the streetscape of Whitworth Street than Simpson's signature faceted / barcode style as per the Origin or First Street sites.

I just think the loss of the existing buildings for all the above reasons far outweighs the comparatively marginal benefits that this development would bring.

[kids]

You say the effects are marginal but another thing to consider is that (presumably) as this site will have been bought at a premium, as a development opportunity, the developer will lose a significant money when they try and sell it on as a precedent will be set. What kind of message does that send out to future investors and developers?

[kids]

Originally Posted by urbnist

At the risk of angering you to the point of tipping you into spontaneous combustion, but you are talking garbage, kids.

The planning system is designed to mediate between economic, social and environmental interests. Outside of listing, the ability of people to make representations about a planning application is the principal means through which (largely subjective) social and cultural concerns can be accounted for within this process.

I would agree that it is sad that there is greater public outcry at the loss of something with connections to pop culture than lesser appreciated but perhaps worthier examples of industrial, educational or civic history but to rail against the situation is completely futile; akin to railing against the existence of tabloid newspapers. You're right to highlight the hypocrisy and injustice of this populist mindset however.

But in response to this situation, effectively throwing your toys out of the pram and advocating a purely economic approach to the planning system, you're arguing for an even more right wing vision of planning than even the Tories are trying to push through whereby the definition of "sustainable development" boils down to whether it stacks up financially, albeit with a few concessionary safeguards.

I repeat, just because something falls out of your frame of reference does not mean a cause is worthless. Moreover, when there is popular support for the retention of the buildings for reasons of historical importance (which there clearly is), when the buildings themselves make a positive contribution to the townscape (views on either side but the conservation of similar townscape in areas like the Northern Quarter provide precedent) and when there is much concern at the loss of an existing social / leisure facility, you have a very strong case to refuse the application.

Not all of these reasons might be material in the sense that they might not conform to planning law and stand up to scrutiny in a court of appeal but there is a good reason why the planning process is both a democratic as well as a technocratic exercise.

Which is why I said "Unfortunately for those buildings though they just didn't/don't appeal to this mythical and emotional sense of what is Mancunian to a certain group of people" and "I wonder if even 20% of those in the borough are aware of what the twisted wheel is" and "it would be completely unjust if the people who own this property couldn't develop it because a few bleating over-privileged Mancunians carry a warped and emotive sense of the history of Manchester." There is only popular support for this amongst a vocal minority of people who are fortunate enough to have sufficient leisure time and energy to be able to muse about what is or isn't Mancunian. It's probably more like 10% in the inner city who will even be aware of it.

[Cherguevara]

Originally Posted by kids

Which is why I said "Unfortunately for those buildings though they just didn't/don't appeal to this mythical and emotional sense of what is Mancunian to a certain group of people" and "I wonder if even 20% of those in the borough are aware of what the twisted wheel is" and "it would be completely unjust if the people who own this property couldn't develop it because a few bleating over-privileged Mancunians carry a warped and emotive sense of the history of Manchester." There is only popular support for this amongst a vocal minority of people who are fortunate enough to have sufficient leisure time and energy to be able to muse about what is or isn't Mancunian. It's probably more like 10% in the inner city who will even be aware of it.

You can't support developer interests and then criticise because the opposite view is a minority interest. That minority figure of inner city Mancunians who care is likely to be well in excess of the people who will a) profit from this development or b) get jobs in it.

The point "what precedent does this set" is a more worthwhile one as that might have an impact on future developments and economic growth in the city. However I think the precedent it sets is that potential developers should be mindful of the interests of the community if they want to minimise their risks. While the availability of car parks and empty land shouldn't influence this planning decision, it should influence developers who will know where will and won't be easy to get planning permission and popular support for their buildings.

As you say, cities change all the time, and that process doesn't have to be a negative one. However the city centre is a special case, as it's the space that all aspects of the community want to use in differing ways. Finding the right balance is important, and I believe that this development would be a failure of that process.

[Lookin Up]

Originally Posted by kids

You say the effects are marginal but another thing to consider is that (presumably) as this site will have been bought at a premium, as a development opportunity, the developer will lose a significant money when they try and sell it on as a precedent will be set. What kind of message does that send out to future investors and developers?

Sorry Kids, but that comment betrays just how little you know about the world of investment and development. Only the most stupid and naive investor would pay in full for something which only has added value that is conditional upon planning. Rather than 'buying', the scheme proposer may indeed only have an option on the site which is triggered by satisfactory planning approval.

Have a look at this from the opposite perspective. What kind of message would be sent out to investors and developers if this went ahead?: buy any site, knock down whatever is there, build low class anywhere stuff et voilà Birmingham II - quality would suffer because the message would be 'really it doesn't matter, do whatever you want because we'll pass it anyway'. We would live to regret that in 20 years time.

As it happens, I share your scepticism about the value of the twisted wheel in keeping it for heritage reasons. It's marginal at best, not even in the same league as the Hacienda for example. In fact the TW debate is an un-necessary distraction.
The reason I would oppose this is because of the current social and cultural value of the site (the current activities there are indigenous rather than multi national) and the fact that the buildings are of some merit. Just because they are covered in grime and have not been maintained well doesn't mean they're not worth keeping.
Would you have the Northern Quarter demolished and paved over with budget hotels and Tesco Expresses?
These few buildings have as much going for them as large chunks of the NQ.

It's not really a credible argument that this budget hotel operator will suddenly decide it doesn't want to be in Manchester if it can't have this site.
Another developer with another better site will be straight on the plane to Germany in the event that planning is refused. The hotel group is not the developer but the prospective tenant.

Anyway seems pointless arguing about it, the inevitable seems inevitable.

[Joydivison82]

The club is still in use today. I go to many straight rock nights there, they are brilliant and meet so many friends from my past and present there. They are the most successful rock nights in Manchester and in some ways have partly bought back Jilly's.

This is why I would be very sad to see Legends go, we can't think of another club big enough to transfer these rock nights to should Legends be pulled down.

If it does stay there I think the exterior certainly needs to be restored and improved it looks like a right dive in its current form.

[nidave]

The current building needs tidying up - My understanding is its the landlords responsibly. The leaseholder is not allowed to make any changes (including cosmetic) to the outside of the property. The previous landlord was in in trouble and the planned redecoration of the frontage had been cancelled a few times. We all know it needs tidying up and once done will make the place look a lot better.

The building dates back 1750 and has been (and still is) important to the culture and diversity of the city bringing in 100's (if not 1000's) of tourists to the city for an alternative night out. - Who is going to stay in the hotels if there is nothing to bring them into the city.

(I am limited to posting web addresses) if you visit savelegends (a uk address) it has a timeline on the history of the building (if you know of any corrections I would be grateful)

It may not succeed but its worth the fight.

[dhulkamaniac]

Originally Posted by nidave

The current building needs tidying up - My understanding is its the landlords responsibly. The leaseholder is not allowed to make any changes (including cosmetic) to the outside of the property. The previous landlord was in in trouble and the planned redecoration of the frontage had been cancelled a few times. We all know it needs tidying up and once done will make the place look a lot better.

The building dates back 1750 and has been (and still is) important to the culture and diversity of the city bringing in 100's (if not 1000's) of tourists to the city for an alternative night out. - Who is going to stay in the hotels if there is nothing to bring them into the city.

(I am limited to posting web addresses) if you visit savelegends (a uk address) it has a timeline on the history of the building (if you know of any corrections I would be grateful)

It may not succeed but its worth the fight.

Whoop whoop mr bloxham

[CHG]

Originally Posted by kids

it would be completely unjust if the people who own this property couldn't develop it because a few bleating over-privileged Mancunians carry a warped and emotive sense of the history of Manchester."

PMSL! If you think the nostalgia towards this building stems from some sort of snobby, "over-privileged" minority then you couldn't be further from the truth. That comment is soooo blinkered and presumptive it's untrue!

This building, the different trends in music it pioneered and the generations of people who have used it represents the social history of Manchester clearly more than YOU will ever understand. During the 70's / 80's this building was the get away for the struggling working classes... the place to go and forget about the recession. Alongside the Hacienda and Bowlers (amongst others) a place in the 90's where you could go in your own city and be proud that WE were at the forefront of music. A place where you could go and enjoy a genre of music which you couldn't find anywhere else in the country.

This building represented the normal people of Manchester who for that one night they were there, were living a part of history. It certainly wasn't a club filled with ponces, sipping glasses of wine and slapping each other on the back about the good times they were having.

Originally Posted by kids

There is only popular support for this amongst a vocal minority of people who are fortunate enough to have sufficient leisure time and energy to be able to muse about what is or isn't Mancunian.

Just for the record, where exactly are you from? Currently... previously...?

[kids]

Originally Posted by CHG

PMSL! If you think the nostalgia towards this building stems from some sort of snobby, "over-privileged" minority then you couldn't be further from the truth. That comment is soooo blinkered and presumptive it's untrue!

I'm saying the people who argue that this is a culturally historical building worthy of preservation for Manchester are arguing from a privileged position. The stuff you posted re its history - yawn. I don't care. Along with most Mancunians.

Just for the record, where exactly are you from? Currently... previously...?

I'm from Salford. But what does that have to do with it. I'm not claiming to know what 'Mancunian' is, I specifically said no one should have the right to make those claims.

[nidave]

Originally Posted by kids

I'm saying the people who argue that this is a culturally historical building worthy of preservation for Manchester are arguing from a privileged position. The stuff you posted re its history - yawn. I don't care. Along with most Mancunians.

I'm from Salford. But what does that have to do with it. I'm not claiming to know what 'Mancunian' is, I specifically said no one should have the right to make those claims.

People have the right to make whatever claims they want, there are lots of places where people feel strongly about the history and heritage (and some people could not give a toss - its for them to decide their own priorities) .

You would be surprised at how much people care about history. How many times do you hear people saying all High streets are the same.

Don't dismiss the general public and push your opinion onto them. You cant speak for anyone else but yourself. Just as I can only say with any conviction what my feelings are.

There is a lot of history in the building (as a building in its own right) - going back 1750 - yes it was a cheap warehouse and factory but its over 250 years old.

Besides al that - forgetting about the past its still in use.
It brings people into the city from all over the UK and abroad.
I have customers who have travelled to my nights from the USA, Australia and lots of mainland Europe. (They have chosen Manchester specifically for that reason - which is amazing when I stop to think about it)

I know this is the same for the other promoters.

These people would not be there is if was not for the nights we put on. (It may only be couple of dozen in the year but its all money coming into the city) Plus about 1/3 of my monthly customer base is from outside Greater Manchester.

There are not a lot of alternative venues left in Manchester. If this closes we are going to all be fighting for what is available which may not be appropriate.

The hotel has a decent occupancy rate and the current lease holders are locals who employ a decent about of staff .

[kids]

Stop misleading people, this building is not 250 years old. *Someone* thinks some parts of the back wall might date from that time but that is very dubious and wouldn't be enough to preserve the building anyway.

[Slow Burn]

Originally Posted by nidave

The building dates back 1750 and has been (and still is) important to the culture and diversity of the city bringing in 100's (if not 1000's) of tourists to the city for an alternative night out. - Who is going to stay in the hotels if there is nothing to bring them into the city.

I'm sympathetic to your cause but come on statements like this really don't help your cause. The building was certainly not built in 1750. It does not bring in 1000's of tourists and to say the removal of this will result in their being nothing left in the city to draw people in is simply laughable. Have you seen hotel occupancy rates in Manchester???

[Pump Action]

The Whitworth st conservation area is real eye sore the club in question is not even in the conservation area, as for people trying to it listed no bloody chance.
The old fire stn and police stn are a disgrace and the biggest eye sore in the area they need to go i dont see anyone taking pictures of or asking for them to be put on the tour guide. As for the German Hotel I here the northern soul mob are hoping to move into the new basement when it is built with there DJ Pete Robertson swapping his big baggies and carcinogenic talc for German lederhosen and Vasaline and playing his favourite Um pa pa tune Do I love you ducky in deed I do lol. That should keep the gay Deutsch-landers happy lol.
As for the existing buildings on the site of the proposed hotel i have seen better slums demolished.
Pump Action
Sanctioning Slum Clearance.

[Seasonedbest]

Jesus.

[Joydivison82]

This is like peoples favourite pub being pulled down. If Legends closes it will tear the alternative community apart and it will mean at least 200 less people out on a night. The rock nights at Legends are just getting more and more popular and unlike many clubbers rockers tend to carry on going out for decades.