Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

SAVE fires broadside at Hodder's tower for Giggs and Neville

SAVE Britain’s Heritage has become the latest heritage group to voice its opposition to Hodder + Partners’ reworked design for the controversial St Michael’s tower scheme in Manchester, backed by former footballers Gary Neville and Ryan Giggs

Earlier this week, Historic England wrote to Manchester City Council saying it was unable to support the application because of the ‘cumulative harm that would be caused to highly graded listed buildings’ (see attached file below).

The Victorian Society has also sent a stinging letter to the local authority, objecting to the high-rise scheme’s ’absolute failure to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the [surrounding] conservation area (see attached file below).

Now SAVE has submitted major objections to the plans for the 134.5m-tall tower in the city centre.

SAVE director Henrietta Billings said: ‘Not only is this highly sensitive, historic location the wrong place for a 40-storey tower, but the bulky design of the lower elements also clash with and overwhelm the buildings the developers claim to be protecting.

‘Manchester City Council can and should use its powers to demand better – and refuse this alarming and destructive proposal.

SAVE executive president Marcus Binney compared the damage that the tower could do to Manchester’s skyline to the Montparnasse Tower built in Paris in 1973.

Tour Montparnasse in Paris

Tour Montparnasse in Paris

Source: Chaglajose

Tour Montparnasse in Paris

‘Not since then has a single tower proposal been so damaging to a great European townscape,’ he said. ‘The revival of Manchester’s near dormant historic core over the last 30 years into a vibrant city centre full of restored Victorian buildings and well-designed modern ones is an outstanding achievement.

‘It has depended not on flashy iconic buildings but first-class local architects who have maintained the muscular grit of the city centre responding to its red brick warehouses, mills and office chambers.

‘Manchester planners must not be allowed to destroy their own finest achievement.’

Hodder + Partners’ designs replaced a previous proposal by Ken Shuttleworth’s practice Make, which announced last summer it had resigned from the city-centre development after almost a decade working on it.

Last year, the scheme’s developer, the St Michael’s Partnership, said the new designs changed the configuration of the single 134.5m centrepiece skyscraper into a ‘unique lozenge shape’, with a floating canopy supported by a three-storey colonnade at the crown of the building.

Among the changes to the reworked scheme were the retention of the historic Sir Ralph Abercromby pub and the frontage of the Neoclassical Bootle Street Police Station (1937). Both had been scheduled to be demolished to make way for the Make-designed development, and in January 2017 the police station was included in the Twentieth Century Society’s top 10 list of buildings most at risk.

However, the 1950s-built Manchester Reform Synagogue in Jackson’s Row remains earmarked for demolition, with a new synagogue to be built within the podium of the proposed tower block.

Responding to SAVE’s letter, Hodder said: ‘Manchester is an ever-changing, developing city. But tall buildings will always provoke a discussion and I welcome that.

‘The parallels with the Montparnasse tower are superficial’

’However the language used by SAVE is very emotive and disappointing, The strength of the response is surprising and the parallels with the Montparnasse tower are superficial.’

He added: ‘Historic England’s seven-page response is far more qualified. We have had a lot of dialogue with them from the very first day and their response is very carefully worded and crafted. [Although they said they could not support the application] there are some very positive messages in there,’  

‘I’m convinced the tower is the right scheme for the site. We have spent a lot of time looking at its shape and profile. we would not have submitted something for planning that we were not committed to.’   

Public consultation closed on the proposals on 31 January. The development team hopes the scheme will go before the council’s planning committee on 8 March.

Evolution of the Hodder + Partners' designs

Evolution of the Hodder + Partners’ designs

Evolution of the Hodder + Partners’ designs

Readers' comments (4)

  • The context elevations give the impression of a rather brutal treatment of the retained buildings, whereas the 3D renders here and in the D&A suggest a much better treatment and a great enhancement to the streetscape. This is far better than some of the red brick / punched window buildings in the area that appear to ape the past rather than respecting it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • ha ha ... Pirelli Tower comes to Manchester.
    60 years too late.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 'Overwhelm' is surely the root of the problem.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Geoff Williams

    Geoff Williams30 January, 2018 12:45 pm
    Interesting to hear about the comments of Historic England and their apparent lack of desire to protect historic buildings from fire in respect to cabling issues. They often ignore the danger of fire in high rise structures, that is always imminent, although we all like to think that fire is a rare occurrence. Fighting fire in congested City locations and particularly fighting fires internally above 7 floors is a distinct and highly dangerous hazard. Maintenance of the electrical supply is paramount. Experts in Germany maintain that up to 40% of fires Worldwide have an electrical cable origin. The use of a 2 hour fire rated cable, preferably MICC, should be mandatory. Another fact generally ignored.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.