The economic growth arising from the construction of new towers of apartments benefits everyone, some directly, other indirectly. As The Mill pointed out a while ago, Manchester’s council tax base has increased dramatically due to the new construction. That benefits everyone who lives in Manchester.
On top of that is the economic activity spurred by all the new residents.
I agree with you about the council tax base. It was certainly one of the key things driving Manchester City Council policy as is pushing some of its poorer citizens into neighbouring boroughs. This is the sad face of the desperate financial straits many councils find themselves in. Though that is very important it is equally important to consider the long-term future of Manchester city centre and its role in relation to GM boroughs, some of which are in much worse financial straits in Manchester. From what I've read there are very few European cities who are going down the road of skyscrapers and its important to understand why. If it was a good solution you'd expect lots of other places to be following suit. I don't like the cityscape that skyscrapers create, they are not places I want to be and the ones that Manchester has built are uninteresting and architecturally worthless. I worry about what will happen in 30 years when the blocks will need refitting and start to need remedial work. The original financiers will have made their profit and long gone, who will pay then. Will the costs default to the council?
Unfortunately that's not true for some of the areas. I worked in some of the areas that were working class and are now middle class and the information came directly from council officers and was widely understood within the council at a senior level. For instance the new developments in the north of Manchester are displacing former council housing in Collyhurst which was knocked down and not replaced. The Mill did an article about Ancoats recently and explored this issue.
Not sure why the costs would default to the council any more so than any other type of building? People are still happily living in high rise buildings constructed nearly 150 years ago.
It is so easy for people like Dave Haslam to make this claim time and again without any real suggestion of what should be done instead.
In a strange way it reminds of the Farage / Reform tactic of parroting things which sound logical on paper but would be wholly unachievable if they ever somehow managed to come to power. I have friends I respect who like Farage because they think he ‘talks sense’ and in the same way I have many friends who constantly reshare and support Dave Haslam’s perspective.
There is a genuine debate to be had about the gentrification of Manchester but it should be had with people who have genuine, workable alternatives to what we’ve seen so far.
I do hope you fact-checked the article from The Telegraph about wind turbines on Scout Moor. Their opposition to wind turbines is well understood and I'm not sure you should be recommending clearly biased publications. The proposed farm would be a good subject for a Mill article, I suspect a lot of locals would welcome it, especially if it came with community benefits. I was up there recently and I have no objection to a wind farm there, seems a very suitable place.
As a frequent walker and cyclist through the existing wind farm I would be interested in some fact based analysis of its effect on the ‘bog’. Irreversible damage is regular criticism of such development, harming a vital carbon capture asset etc. The Scout Moor wind farm has now been there nearly 20 years. What has been the actual damage ? My casual eye does not see much. It’s still overwhelmingly a very boggy place.
The trouble about ENO coming to Manchester is that it will badly damage Opera North, which is doing a very good job in Manchester and does amazing community outreach work. In addition, it really knows the patch - which ENO does not. Northern Ballet has already lost its orchestra, which means a valuable source of work for freelance musicians has been lost. Why make life more difficult for Opera North? A better place to put ENO would be Bristol which is very creative but does not have an opera company. There ENO could serve under-provided areas like Devon and Cornwall.
Rachel, thanks for commenting. I really like Opera North and have loved some of their performances at the Lowry. However, I'm not convinced at all that ENO coming to GM will hurt them. In fact, building a habit for people up here to go to opera and introducing tens of thousands of new people to the joys of opera will surely boost ON? ON already had to cover a handful of northern cities, so surely we should have the ambition of Germany, where some cities have two or three opera companies? Rather than relying on one company to serve the whole of the North?
Thé desire to emulate Germany would be a laudable ambition, if it were not for the UK’s dismantling of music education in schools. Instrumental lessons do not happen in most State schools. General music lessons are becoming increasingly scarce. You can’t expect people to
Want more opera when they don’t know about it (or get exposed to it). This ENO plan is muddle-headed knee-jerk politicking, based on lack of investment in arts education.
These plans seem very modest, and apart from the concert performance of Cosi, don't seem to trespass on Opera North territory. The collaboration with RNCM should be excellent, and I'm excited for Einstein on the Beach directed by Phelim McDermott, a long-time Philip Glass collaborator. Their Tao of Glass at MIF was truly wonderful. It feels like what Aviva Studios should be there for. It also feels like a positive for Manchester, if not for ENO, their chorus and orchestra, in London. Really it's a fudge, and ACE is a very dubious organisation, but I'll take it.
I had a look at ENO's website. None of the productions state where they are being held except those outside London. As the article says, Manchester is just outreach.
Sorry, I see it now. Me being stupid. Not a lot here, indeed. But really, the whole thing is nuts, ideologically driven by an Arts Council that regards artistic excellence as elitist.
I am someone who can’t afford a mortgage because they fail finance tests, yet pays more in rent because of it. I have to say I’m tired of being angry about constantly finding every new block of flats to be either shared ownership and outside normal people’s finances, or just straight buy to let only. Where’s the affordable housing that isn’t designed for 16 students to share, or some ultra chic, ultra cool matchbox with no room to put a wardrobe or your pots and pans? It’s depressing that on the decent wage I am, I can’t afford to mortgage anywhere close to where I’d like to be; in town.
The housing system in this country has been broken since forever. However living in town has (anecdotally) always involved a trade-off between space and price vs convenience. I'd be interested to see if there is any hard data on relative rents between the city centre and other locations over time.
Bit late to the party on this, but some points on Mr Haslam's piece.
Firstly, as previously noted by Mohammed, skyscrapers full of buy-to-rent apartments do indeed help ameliorate the highlighted issues. They are council (and indirectly business) rates factories full of net financially contributing types. Few kids, few long term social care needs, decent disposable income. This is all "free" income. If these people weren't here, then a lot of them would be in Birmingham, or Dublin, or Berlin, spending their money there instead.
Secondly, why is having a sector of the city devoted to a young and transient population particularly a bad thing? We know what dumping thousands of lairy 20 year olds in places such as Withington does to established communities. If we as a city are going to continue to attract new blood through Manchester being an exciting and interesting place to be, then it makes sense to house those people closest to where the action is. And conversely, as far away as possible from those whose idea of action is cleaning out the log burner.
Anyway there are plenty of positive things to be said about a degree of discretionary transience. People, especially those of a more formative age like the "try before you buy" lifestyle that the city centre offers (define that as you will). No-one cares that much about "cohesion" because they'll be somewhere else in five years. Maybe even in one of those reconverted HMOs formerly occupied by students in M14 or M20. The city centre is itself a transient space, let's stop trying to turn it into something it isn't nor really needs to be, just because we don't like the architecture a la mode.
In addition, I'd agree that there are issues in the city with affordability, alienation, kowtowing to corporate interests, etc. But go to Barrow-in-Furness or Burnham-on-Sea (no relation) and see if they would disagree that their town is also suffering from similar afflictions. This isn't a Manchester problem, this is a British, or Western European, or indeed global, issue.
Finally, places earn soul and character through being lived in and experienced. A stalled development site on a surface car park doesn't have much of either for this reason. The Hacienda was just a decaying Edwardian warehouse till people turned up to make it the (transient) centre of the universe. Give "new" Manchester that same chance.
The citizens of Britain do not have agency only a tentative right to be consulted then maybe ignored in essence. Any politician from the mainstream who talks the language of inclusiveness is lying because the draw of holding power or at least pontificating about being in office is so much more intoxicating so why share a good feeling?There may be an increasingly small cohort of elected representatives who want to do right by their constituents,but in the main m,politics at the centre and at local level follows the same template as before representative democracy took root in 1828. When international capital decides that the returns from city centre towers are insufficient then it will dump its holdings, cash in the profit and move on elsewhere in search of bigger yields.
I disagree with Dave Haslam.
The economic growth arising from the construction of new towers of apartments benefits everyone, some directly, other indirectly. As The Mill pointed out a while ago, Manchester’s council tax base has increased dramatically due to the new construction. That benefits everyone who lives in Manchester.
On top of that is the economic activity spurred by all the new residents.
Dave should buy an economics textbook.
Thanks for posting your take Mohammed. We'll have a response from another Miller in the next few days.
I agree with you about the council tax base. It was certainly one of the key things driving Manchester City Council policy as is pushing some of its poorer citizens into neighbouring boroughs. This is the sad face of the desperate financial straits many councils find themselves in. Though that is very important it is equally important to consider the long-term future of Manchester city centre and its role in relation to GM boroughs, some of which are in much worse financial straits in Manchester. From what I've read there are very few European cities who are going down the road of skyscrapers and its important to understand why. If it was a good solution you'd expect lots of other places to be following suit. I don't like the cityscape that skyscrapers create, they are not places I want to be and the ones that Manchester has built are uninteresting and architecturally worthless. I worry about what will happen in 30 years when the blocks will need refitting and start to need remedial work. The original financiers will have made their profit and long gone, who will pay then. Will the costs default to the council?
No one was pushed out of the city centre, it was a Tabula Rasa... No one lived there.
Unfortunately that's not true for some of the areas. I worked in some of the areas that were working class and are now middle class and the information came directly from council officers and was widely understood within the council at a senior level. For instance the new developments in the north of Manchester are displacing former council housing in Collyhurst which was knocked down and not replaced. The Mill did an article about Ancoats recently and explored this issue.
Not sure why the costs would default to the council any more so than any other type of building? People are still happily living in high rise buildings constructed nearly 150 years ago.
It is so easy for people like Dave Haslam to make this claim time and again without any real suggestion of what should be done instead.
In a strange way it reminds of the Farage / Reform tactic of parroting things which sound logical on paper but would be wholly unachievable if they ever somehow managed to come to power. I have friends I respect who like Farage because they think he ‘talks sense’ and in the same way I have many friends who constantly reshare and support Dave Haslam’s perspective.
There is a genuine debate to be had about the gentrification of Manchester but it should be had with people who have genuine, workable alternatives to what we’ve seen so far.
I do hope you fact-checked the article from The Telegraph about wind turbines on Scout Moor. Their opposition to wind turbines is well understood and I'm not sure you should be recommending clearly biased publications. The proposed farm would be a good subject for a Mill article, I suspect a lot of locals would welcome it, especially if it came with community benefits. I was up there recently and I have no objection to a wind farm there, seems a very suitable place.
This is some info about the Community Wealth Find that could link to the scheme.
https://scoutmoor2.co.uk/#Fund
As a frequent walker and cyclist through the existing wind farm I would be interested in some fact based analysis of its effect on the ‘bog’. Irreversible damage is regular criticism of such development, harming a vital carbon capture asset etc. The Scout Moor wind farm has now been there nearly 20 years. What has been the actual damage ? My casual eye does not see much. It’s still overwhelmingly a very boggy place.
I’d definitely be interested in a Mill article on this. Good idea!
The trouble about ENO coming to Manchester is that it will badly damage Opera North, which is doing a very good job in Manchester and does amazing community outreach work. In addition, it really knows the patch - which ENO does not. Northern Ballet has already lost its orchestra, which means a valuable source of work for freelance musicians has been lost. Why make life more difficult for Opera North? A better place to put ENO would be Bristol which is very creative but does not have an opera company. There ENO could serve under-provided areas like Devon and Cornwall.
Manchester's music scene is in serious danger
Rachel, thanks for commenting. I really like Opera North and have loved some of their performances at the Lowry. However, I'm not convinced at all that ENO coming to GM will hurt them. In fact, building a habit for people up here to go to opera and introducing tens of thousands of new people to the joys of opera will surely boost ON? ON already had to cover a handful of northern cities, so surely we should have the ambition of Germany, where some cities have two or three opera companies? Rather than relying on one company to serve the whole of the North?
Thé desire to emulate Germany would be a laudable ambition, if it were not for the UK’s dismantling of music education in schools. Instrumental lessons do not happen in most State schools. General music lessons are becoming increasingly scarce. You can’t expect people to
Want more opera when they don’t know about it (or get exposed to it). This ENO plan is muddle-headed knee-jerk politicking, based on lack of investment in arts education.
These plans seem very modest, and apart from the concert performance of Cosi, don't seem to trespass on Opera North territory. The collaboration with RNCM should be excellent, and I'm excited for Einstein on the Beach directed by Phelim McDermott, a long-time Philip Glass collaborator. Their Tao of Glass at MIF was truly wonderful. It feels like what Aviva Studios should be there for. It also feels like a positive for Manchester, if not for ENO, their chorus and orchestra, in London. Really it's a fudge, and ACE is a very dubious organisation, but I'll take it.
I had a look at ENO's website. None of the productions state where they are being held except those outside London. As the article says, Manchester is just outreach.
I'm not sure I understand. ENO performs at the Coliseum, so there's no need to state where shows are taking place - people know.
I didn't know that and I was looking for productions in Manchester.
Sorry, I see it now. Me being stupid. Not a lot here, indeed. But really, the whole thing is nuts, ideologically driven by an Arts Council that regards artistic excellence as elitist.
I am someone who can’t afford a mortgage because they fail finance tests, yet pays more in rent because of it. I have to say I’m tired of being angry about constantly finding every new block of flats to be either shared ownership and outside normal people’s finances, or just straight buy to let only. Where’s the affordable housing that isn’t designed for 16 students to share, or some ultra chic, ultra cool matchbox with no room to put a wardrobe or your pots and pans? It’s depressing that on the decent wage I am, I can’t afford to mortgage anywhere close to where I’d like to be; in town.
The housing system in this country has been broken since forever. However living in town has (anecdotally) always involved a trade-off between space and price vs convenience. I'd be interested to see if there is any hard data on relative rents between the city centre and other locations over time.
Bit late to the party on this, but some points on Mr Haslam's piece.
Firstly, as previously noted by Mohammed, skyscrapers full of buy-to-rent apartments do indeed help ameliorate the highlighted issues. They are council (and indirectly business) rates factories full of net financially contributing types. Few kids, few long term social care needs, decent disposable income. This is all "free" income. If these people weren't here, then a lot of them would be in Birmingham, or Dublin, or Berlin, spending their money there instead.
Secondly, why is having a sector of the city devoted to a young and transient population particularly a bad thing? We know what dumping thousands of lairy 20 year olds in places such as Withington does to established communities. If we as a city are going to continue to attract new blood through Manchester being an exciting and interesting place to be, then it makes sense to house those people closest to where the action is. And conversely, as far away as possible from those whose idea of action is cleaning out the log burner.
Anyway there are plenty of positive things to be said about a degree of discretionary transience. People, especially those of a more formative age like the "try before you buy" lifestyle that the city centre offers (define that as you will). No-one cares that much about "cohesion" because they'll be somewhere else in five years. Maybe even in one of those reconverted HMOs formerly occupied by students in M14 or M20. The city centre is itself a transient space, let's stop trying to turn it into something it isn't nor really needs to be, just because we don't like the architecture a la mode.
In addition, I'd agree that there are issues in the city with affordability, alienation, kowtowing to corporate interests, etc. But go to Barrow-in-Furness or Burnham-on-Sea (no relation) and see if they would disagree that their town is also suffering from similar afflictions. This isn't a Manchester problem, this is a British, or Western European, or indeed global, issue.
Finally, places earn soul and character through being lived in and experienced. A stalled development site on a surface car park doesn't have much of either for this reason. The Hacienda was just a decaying Edwardian warehouse till people turned up to make it the (transient) centre of the universe. Give "new" Manchester that same chance.
The citizens of Britain do not have agency only a tentative right to be consulted then maybe ignored in essence. Any politician from the mainstream who talks the language of inclusiveness is lying because the draw of holding power or at least pontificating about being in office is so much more intoxicating so why share a good feeling?There may be an increasingly small cohort of elected representatives who want to do right by their constituents,but in the main m,politics at the centre and at local level follows the same template as before representative democracy took root in 1828. When international capital decides that the returns from city centre towers are insufficient then it will dump its holdings, cash in the profit and move on elsewhere in search of bigger yields.