2-4 Chester Road | 55m | 17 floors

[Accura4Matalan]

Fantastic project! Decent size too.

[dgnr8]

Lest ye forget, anything tall would be a bitch to approve in Castlefield. And rightly so. These are probably the right height. I do hope they're large enough to take your eyes away from Citygate though.

[sprouty76]

If they're on the site of the Peugeot delearship, then they're no more in Castlefield than Beetham or GN Tower.

[Farsight]

Anyhow, are we all agreed that everybody likes this? I do.

[caw123]

Originally Posted by sprouty76

If they're on the site of the Peugeot delearship, then they're no more in Castlefield than Beetham or GN Tower.

No these are on the other side of the road, very much in Castlefield. The plot is currently a car park.

[Mez]

A building of similair design would look top just across the road on that corner.

[Northbeach]

Nice and delicate crystal gaffs.
But how far are the plans for the rumorued Simpson 'tower' directly next door to these (on the Quay/Modo Bar plot) Subfacts?

[SleepyOne]

Once again, a mightily impressive looking development which will be a great asset to Castlefield. People should close their eyes and try to envisage seeing these 'gems' as a passenger on a tram or train trundling over the viaduct into central Manchester. There is such a great quality of light in this part of the city centre - I can really see what massive presence these buildings will have.



My only regret is that whilst Ian Simpson always produces special buildings, as we are now seeing, they are creating special buildings all over the place. People will start to talk about The Ubiquitous Ian Simpson Architects which will inevitably start to take the shine and prestige out of their projects.



If they want to keep having the same impact they really need to start pushing their creativity and diversity to another level to keep people interested and as appreciative of each new project as they have been in the past.

2-4 Chester Road is a great looking set of buildings in their own right, perfectly suited to their location. Its only a shame that people are already casting envious glances across the pennines to the Venture Towers and making the inevitable comparison. You don't, afterall, see Carey Jones creating stunning buildings in Manchester although this is probably a mark of the gulf in class between the two practices.

I would like to see Ian Simpson, as a home grown practice become synonymous with Manchester yet there is a danger they will be better known for what they build elsewhere! Maybe their expansion will spur on the other well known, high quality Manchester practices to make that leap and become the architect of choice within Manchester and beyond? Roll on Southern Gateway and lets look forward to seeing what they come up with for this new, emerging district.





Still, all this hand-wringing really should not detract from what is a great pair of buildings. One question though - is there any steel cladding remaining on these buildings as was present on the earlier design?

[frozenmusic]

I look at the ISA expansion plans from the other perspective. Imagine if they do get the London tower and Criterian or Venture built and get a larger national and then international profile. Then Manchester becomes more famous for being the home of Ian Simpson buildings - we have one on every corner, we even have an Ian Simpson car park!
keep them coming!

P.S. can someone please explain to me how that damn roof on the lower building works. Every side seems to slope downwards from the next, is it just me?

[gothicform]

not sure you can take that approach frozen, afterall richard siefert managed to get 600 highrise buildings built around the world - some of them like tower 42 and drapers gardens are even quite nice, centrepoint is too.
its all very well being prolific but its not so good being overexposed. my problem with ISAL isnt that they dont design good buildings, but that there's so much repetition in their design. perhaps if they werent so prolific we wouldnt notice this.
subtract, as far as the west central renders go, ive seen two in a magazine one is one youre complaining of.

[SleepyOne]

its all very well being prolific but its not so good being overexposed. my problem with ISAL isnt that they dont design good buildings, but that there's so much repetition in their design. perhaps if they werent so prolific we wouldnt notice this.
subtract, as far as the west central renders go, ive seen two in a magazine.

I can see where you are coming from but this debate has been had before. Taken as a whole their portfolio demonstrates remarkable variety although as I say above they will have to push the envelope out even further in the coming years. I think your main problem with ISAL in reality seems to be that they don't play ball with SN.com like other practices do, leaving poor old Gothic out in the cold with the rest of us.

I think its more a case of how quickly ISA have expanded recently, the types of project they seem to be involved in (many large, publicity hungy skyscrspers so it seems) and the fact that they seem to be damn well everywhere at the moment.

[gothicform]

oh lots of practises dont play ball, i know though a lot of people who work on the simpson projects disagree with their p.r approach too. i have no trouble getting people to talk about them, just hard to get my hands on the damn renders unless its from the developer.
i cant think of another practise that recycles parts of their designs so much since siefert and i think we will notice this in the coming years when we look at what has been built, people will see similarities that are striking and a lot of people wont like that.
dont forget, we're also british, and its fashionable to bash things once they get up and become successful, and we've rarely bashed them on the site even if i do slag them here personally. just look at the savaging foster got a few years ago though, i expect the press will give ISAL the same sort of treatment at some point.
incidentally i prefer these shorter ones to their taller leeds cousins.

[SleepyOne]

P.S. can someone please explain to me how that damn roof on the lower building works. Every side seems to slope downwards from the next, is it just me?

- because its not the roof! Its the side wall angled away from the standpoint of the viewer.

[Jerv]

Originally Posted by SleepyOne

- because its not the roof! Its the side wall angled away from the standpoint of the viewer.

No. It's a trick of the eye based on this, my favorite peice by MC Escher called "Ascending and Descending". Interestingly, It was reproduced in a photograph by the Lego company....i'll leave you to ponder how they did it.

[Subtract]

Originally Posted by gothicform

oh lots of practises dont play ball, i know though a lot of people who work on the simpson projects disagree with their p.r approach too. i have no trouble getting people to talk about them, just hard to get my hands on the damn renders unless its from the developer.

ISA are restructuring their pr and image as youve seen in the last 10 months with a new website and new litrature and branding thats been printed.

The thing is with all due respect why should you have access to the latest renders or news on work in progress? Only the people who need to know, get to know about what ISA are up to which mainly resides on a client allowing information to be released which can be difficult as 2-4 shows.

ISA are expanding at a massive rate but projects like 2-4 were on the drawing board about 2 years ago so newer projects that are in progress use different techniques/forms not seen in past ISA projects so its hard to be critical of any style as some people have no idea what will come next.

Remember ISA make commercial buildings, there not like Future Systems or Alsops and dont make out to be anything else than a practice that delivers high quality designed architecture across a variety of sectors. Manchester has a lot and will get more ISA buildings and are extermely proud to be involved in landmark buildings in the city and across the uk

Blackfriars shows the aim of the practice and the stage their at, it makes me laugh as some people on here were critising ISA's 'box' like architecture and lack of curves on buildings, when infact that couldnt be further from the the facts!

These are exciting times and there is variety

[gothicform]

The thing is with all due respect why should you have access to the latest renders or news on work in progress? Only the people who need to know, get to know about what ISA are up to which mainly resides on a client allowing information to be released which can be difficult as 2-4 shows.

then dont complain when people run images you dont want released
you can hardly try and have people remove things from their sites if you dont scratch their backs. i suspect its a p.r approach that one day will go very wrong.

you're right the p.r approach has been improved amazingly in the last ten months, but pissing off editors gets you nowhere because the moment you make a mistake no one cuts you any slack as you saw with foster - and it wasnt even their fault - but projects foster had been attached to made mistakes, people remembered their rather snobby p.r and the next thing they knew channel 4 news was running ten min long segments on why foster and partners sucked. as i say, the sad thing is it doesnt even have to be your fault but it works in the same way that people will blame a rock group for the record companies mistakes on an album as you guys are the people in the public view.

on the otherhand, you can pop over to the liverpool forum and see what an effect the opposite approach from a developer/architect gets you - all that lobbying and pressurising on your behalf by hundreds of people who actually care and believe in what you believe, this is the approach you should be advising.

from the other point of view, great strides have been made in places like london into bringing more transparency into the planning process on landmark buildings - beetham london however failed miserably. i think its the right of the public to know, particularly if youre gonna stick a 220m tall tower anywhere. in this case the consultation was handled very badly. why shouldnt things be released? well in this case because the architects and developers actually sat down with the public and then claimed they hadnt even designed a tower yet and proceded to tell the public things that weren't very true. im pretty sure you dont agree with the beetham london approach though, who would really... the only reason why it hasnt become a story is because the e/s havent picked it up yet.

Remember ISA make commercial buildings, there not like Future Systems or Alsops and dont make out to be anything else than a practice that delivers high quality designed architecture across a variety of sectors.

totally agreed. you're a business providing what the clients want, id compare ISA to tescos and future systems to fortnum and mason. i really dont like alsop, a blob here, a motorway there, another blob here is his idea of architecture but everyone shops at ISA because ISA can do those cantilevers so much cheaper than most people.
im sure if someone is willing to pay for it ISA will easily be able to move outside the envelope but then you have developers who come along and say "no we want a tower like brunswick quay" and partly because for developers its an 'in' look - beetham tower in blackfriars IS a move in the right direction.

it is probably unfair to blame ISA for all the repetitive features in their designs, its the best the client can afford for the budget and what the client wants. infact its just like siefert, i cant help but wonder which ISA buildigns will actually be loved in the future and which will be hated or simply forgotten. always interesting to play with any architect.

[Subtract]

Originally Posted by gothicform

then dont complain when people run images you dont want released you can hardly try and have people remove things from their site if you dont scratch their backs.

What Editors have ISA pissed off? they have a great working relationship with BD & AJ who are important to them.

Why should ISA scratch the backs of some fan website, or other sites that dont have the same stature as BD/AJ? Its in ISA's interest to only deal with publications/sites that will benifit ISA and fit into the image they want to portray, They have had a 24 page feature in a Korean Architecture Magazine and theres more in the pipeline, these are important and strategic publications and you have to be careful who you give information and the effect it can have on the practice.

If someone in the press wants info on any ISA development they can email press@iansimpsonarchitects.com and will be dealt with no problem

[gothicform]

im not talking about this place subtract, ive never asked for anything on simpson from anyone working for simpson... (gah!) am talking about newspaper / magazine editors here!!!

[Subtract]

Originally Posted by gothicform

im not talking about me subtract... (gah!) am talking about newspaper editors here!!!

Yes but what Newspaper Editors? no information has been witheld from ISA and I know that they have recently been working with the Liverpool Echo and Evening Standard with no problems, Ians also had a centre spread peice in the Guardian recently and there is a great working relationship with the Men

I dont understand your comment about ISA 'pissing' editors off, how & who?

[gothicform]

you know i cant name names. ISA have been getting some good press lately... would you say perhaps that its the approach of the developers that is being mistaken for ISA approach?