Jarvis Piccadilly Hotel | 14 floors | 49m

[jrb]

I don't F***ing believe it! The old slapper is finally getting a face lift.

Jarvis 'had' to invest. There's to much quality/competition in the Manchester Hotel sector now, and it's only going to get better and tougher. I love market forces.

Info below. No associated documents yet.

080426/FO/2006/C2

Jarvis Hotels Plc

JWA Architects Ltd http://www.jwa-architects.co.uk/inte...ctice_main.asp

Jarvis Piccadilly Hotel
Piccadilly Plaza
Portland Street
M1 4PH

Refurbishment and repair of external elevations



John Davies. http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?im...lr%3D%26sa%3DN

[The Longford]

Would have prefered Stephenson Bell to do it cos these lot look a bit rubbish.
This building needs a smypathetic touch and these lot could just fuck it up and get rid of the buildings (not so) obvious charms.

[jrb]

Originally Posted by The Longford

Would have prefered Stephenson Bell to do it cos these lot look a bit rubbish.
This building needs a smypathetic touch and these lot could just fuck it up and get rid of the buildings (not so) obvious charms.

Is that sympathetic enough Longford? Unfortunately it won't happen though.



Not to worry. What ever they do to it will be an improvement.

[rolybling]

OMG They do indeed look shit, after looking at their site and the Hotels they've been involved in the Jarvis could end up looking even worse(sorry longy) than it does. If that's possible.

[The Longford]

Its easy for you to take the piss but 60's architecture has its very own distinctive style and the buildings themselves have some very unique structural 'idiosyncrasies' that have to been done right or you just fuck it up.
Piccadilly Hotel have some great period touches and its the detailing on it that gives it its character -whether you actually like the building or not. If its not done right, by a decent architect, renovating 60's architecture can turn a unloved but decent building in to a unloved shit building.
If its done right (and it can be) renovating 60s stuff can make really exciting, modern buildings. I dont reckon these jokers are up to it.

[jrb]

Originally Posted by The Longford

Its easy for you to take the piss but 60's architecture has its very own distinctive style and the buildings themselves have some very unique structural 'idiosyncrasies' that have to been done right or you just fuck it up.
Piccadilly Hotel have some great period touches and its the detailing on it that gives it its character -whether you actually like the building or not. If its not done right, by a decent architect, renovating 60's architecture can turn a unloved but decent building in to a unloved shit building.
If its done right (and it can be) renovating 60s stuff can make really exciting, modern buildings. I dont reckon these jokers are up to it.

Not being funny Longford, but what can you do with a concrete monolithic block like that, apart from installing new windows/frames, and giving it a clean with a karcher pressure washer?

[The Longford]

I'm a bit tired jerbil and ready for beddy byes and would really love to be able to walk and talk you through what is good about that building and what can be done with it but.....!
I'll do a full report tomorrow or if you want, come out for a walk round town one afternoon and i'll explain in person with visual aids and pointing sticks.

[frozenmusic]

Originally Posted by jrb

Not being funny Longford, but what can you do with a concrete monolithic block like that, apart from installing new windows/frames, and giving it a clean with a karcher pressure washer?

sounds perfect jrb, just what it needs, nothing else, I'd give you the job on that pitch!

[jrb]

Originally Posted by The Longford

I'm a bit tired jerbil and ready for beddy byes and would really love to be able to walk and talk you through what is good about that building and what can be done with it but.....!
I'll do a full report tomorrow or if you want, come out for a walk round town one afternoon and i'll explain in person with visual aids and pointing sticks.

Looking forward to it Longy.

[jrb]

Originally Posted by frozenmusic

sounds perfect jrb, just what it needs, nothing else, I'd give you the job on that pitch!

If proof was needed that it can be done.





Don't tell Jarvis though.

[Farsight]

Great stuff! Thanks jrb, you mercury heeled messenger you. I reckon it'll look just great when it's done, and a few mingers will be eating their words!

[The Longford]

Originally Posted by jourdan

I read someone a while back that the firm that had revamped and modernised that big 1960s BBC building in that there London village, had been drafted in to do Picadilly Hotel (apparently they shared the same original architects? Is there any truth to this?)

No.

[The Longford]

For Jerbils sake (and those of you who still insist that 60's architecture is shit) a quick rant on why Piccadilly Hotel is a good building and needs sensitively restoring and not 'modernising'.

Where the buildings of the previous century relied on decoration and ornament for expression, Modernisn cast off what the movement saw as unneccesary adornment.
The axiom of Modernism, coined by Mies van de Rohe, was 'Less is More' and the buildings elevations were expressed more in strong horizontals and clean lines as apposed to the towers and turrets so loved by the Victorians.
British Pre war Modernism still relied on stone, glass, brick, faience tiles etc but after the war a lack of materials and advances in technology led to the increased use of concrete.
From the French for 'raw concrete' beton brut - the Brutalist style became popular with many British architects. Contrary to popular belief Brutalism doesnt mean brutal architecture. It is more accurately associated with 'truth to materials' and geometric forms. Concrete was an ideal material to express these two ideas.
Along with the clear stylistic motifs there were also intellectual and social aspects to post war architecture, associated with amongst other things town planning and traffic control.
Another , much criticised, aspect of Brutalism is the abandonment of the grand entrance and the formation of a more abstract approach wherein the building should be read for its honesty. To get rid of the more obvious entrance was in some way ridding the building of any class connatations and ironicaly makes the building more 'open' and lesss intimidating.
Another idea that developed after the war was the 'MegaStructure' wherein a building would house several different aspects of the urban make up, and centralising a city dwellers needs. For a building to qualify as a MegaStructure it must accomadate at least three different urban functions with the three obvious sectors being commercial, retail and residential.

Now we come to Piccadilly Plaza. If you were take all the aspects i have very briefly talked about and as an experiment followed the 'rules' you would come up with Piccadilly Plaza. It is one Britains few Megastructures, housing commercial, retail and hotel (a hotel being one of the criteria for Megastructure status!) in one self contained block.
The whole form, with tower and podium, is a 'classic' post war model. What is (was) exciting about the Plaza was if differing, contrasting shapes and 'textures' on the skyline. The hotel is not a monlith jerbers. You could argue City Tower is a monolith but even that has some interest which disqualifies it as a true monolith. Bernard House was a funky little brother to the tower and the hotel is a very dynamic, adventurous shape. It is a podium on top of podium. The accommodation block cuts across at right angles to the ballroom/restaraunt block and juts out with a dramatic cantilever. The same lower horizontal block has lots of interest, with its funny little castellation and blocks of coloured glass, which follow on what i was saying about Brutalism's liking for geometric shapes. There is as much going on vertically as there is horizontally throughout.
There is lots of different textures and finishes externally which also add interest.
This is where i worry about a cack handed 'restoration'. First off - the windows. Anyone who knows and likes buildings will tell you that the fenestration are the 'eyes into the soul' of a building. The quickest way to fuck up a building is mess with the windows. Conversely the best way to lift a tired looking building is to put some new windows in. Stephenson Bell understand this and have kept the same fenestration pattern on City Tower and i worry that Jarvis will just whack some cheap plastic windows in that will be inelegant and clunky. The ones in at the moment are slender and simple but in such a configuration as to stay true to the lines of the rest of the elevations.
I also worry that the groovy coloured glass panels will be removed. They look tatty at the moment but are very 'period' and if i had a pound for everytime some of you lot have said 'its nice to see a bit of colour' when we see a new building with funky coloured panels. Its a small thing but something that places the building firmly in the era it was built.
The finishes are looking a bit worse for wear and concrete doesnt weather well but i think you all know my opinions on re cladding. Just reinstate and clean what is there, perhaps paint the exposed concrete to weather protect it but any recladding will just look cheap and tacky, especially on such a higgedly piggedly building. On a plain, flat faced office block maybe but the hotel is just too 'giddy' and any cladding will just make it confusing.
Also i'm worried any cladding would cover up the textures and geometric shapes dotted all over the building here and there.
'All' this building needs externally is for the window frames to replaced like for like- the concrete cleaned, reinstated, maybe painted - the interesting 60's features like the coloured glass and funny crown thing on the top spruced up and some creative lighting to pick out all the interesting shapes and form all round this building and ...............thats it.
No cladding, no shit plastic windows, no steel additions, no daft sticky out bits like on Gateway House, no glass gazebos.
Less is More!

This building has lots of potential to be really exciting and a worthy neighbour to the good work being done on the rest of the Plaza.Somehow though i think this is going to be the ugly cousin and will just drag down all the hard work already being done.



All of the above is open to argument and i'm sure all of you will not hold back in expressing a counter argument to all of it and i'm preparing myself for the onslaught!

[spacepostman]

Can't see much difference myself, what's the point. The entire complex is a blight on the City Centre, until it's bulldozed for good it will hold Manchester back a long time.

[jrb]

Thanks for that Longford. I do appreciate the reply.

'All' this building needs externally is for the window frames to replaced like for like- the concrete cleaned, reinstated, maybe painted

Not being funny that man, but I did suggest that on my original post. To be honest there isn't much more that can be done with the Jarvis apart from the above. If the refurb is done correctly and sympathetically there's no reason why the Jarvis can't become accepted or even liked again.

If proof be needed. Has anyone got the renders looking at the refurbed city tower and Jarvis hotel from ground level? Had to use the old render below.

I would like to see the areas circled red demolished, and the area circled green changed so it matched the windows either side. This would give the refurbed Jarvis a cleaner and sleeker appearance.



PS. I must be honest though. If city tower, Jarvis, and the plaza were totally demolished and the site was redeveloped I wouldn't shed a tear.

[SleepyOne]

Doesn't matter how clean and shiny they make it. Its the form of the buildings, the proportions and arrangement of the differents shapes which means....

It will never provide proper encosure to Piccadilly Gardens - Manchester's most important public space, nor will it ever provide an attractive backdrop to them (some may beg to differ though)

It will never be integrated into the surrounding street network in a positive way.

The arrangement of Sunley Tower, Bernard House (new or old) and hotel slab will never look like an attractive, unified group of buildings; more an uneasy arrangement of disparate shapes and forms.

The lack of any kind of relationship between the buildings and the podium means there will always be a compromised streetscene and compromised urban design

The nature of the Plaza having been designed without any regard to the existing context means it will always sit uneasily in its location and will always compromise the quality of the experience of surrounding streets and spaces.


The question remains, does the Plaza's inherent qualities as eloquently described by Longford outweigh its deficiencies? To some the answer would be yes; to me it would be no. Like the Maths tower its simply not good enough to warrant a listing or a campaign to keep it long term.

[jrb]

Originally Posted by SleepyOne

Doesn't matter how clean and shiny they make it. Its the form of the buildings, the proportions and arrangement of the differents shapes which means....

It will never provide proper encosure to Piccadilly Gardens - Manchester's most important public space, nor will it ever provide an attractive backdrop to them (some may beg to differ though)

It will never be integrated into the surrounding street network in a positive way.

The arrangement of Sunley Tower, Bernard House (new or old) and hotel slab will never look like an attractive, unified group of buildings; more an uneasy arrangement of disparate shapes and forms.

The lack of any kind of relationship between the buildings and the podium means there will always be a compromised streetscene and compromised urban design

The nature of the Plaza having been designed without any regard to the existing context means it will always sit uneasily in its location and will always compromise the quality of the experience of surrounding streets and spaces.


The question remains, does the Plaza's inherent qualities as eloquently described by Longford outweigh its deficiencies? To some the answer would be yes; to me it would be no. Like the Maths tower its simply not good enough to warrant a listing or a campaign to keep it long term.

I agree with you Sleepy.

Unfortunately for the foreseeable future City tower, Jarvis, and the plaza won't be going anywhere, so we have to make the most of them. A complete refurb is the only option. Lets hope it's a good one?

AWK. Bruntwood did have a very good opportunity to demolish everything and redevelope the site. Unfortunately they were either very short sighted or had numerous tins of paint left over?.

[hammerb24]

Originally Posted by spacepostman

Can't see much difference myself, what's the point. The entire complex is a blight on the City Centre, until it's bulldozed for good it will hold Manchester back a long time.

I'm interested to know how it's holding Manchester back ?

I cannot think of a city or town in the UK that does not have numerous examples of 'brutal' 60s buildings. Whilst I do think that a fair few of these deserve the wrecking ball I also believe some of these add to a city centre. The swimming pool in Leeds city centre springs straight to mind as an amazing structure about to be lost forever.

I accept that everyone will have a different opinion in terms of a building appearence but I can't think why this building is holding the city of Manchester back ?

[spacepostman]

It lowers the tone of the Piccadilly area, not good for business or public morale.

[hammerb24]

I'd dis-agree with that, yes at the moment it could look better, but a good re-clad could turn this into one of the most eye-catching building in Manchester, look at its layout, so distinctive...