Really interesting piece, this. I think I would've liked to have heard their response to critics who talk of the structures all falling into a narrow range of designs, but also - you can't always get what you want from an interview!
I do find a lot of sniping about the towers very dull, though. Lots of this country is covered in identikit housing (endless rows of terraces, vast swathes of mock-Tudor semi-detached, legions of Washington/Peveril/whatever marching over a hillside) and yet somehow the ire is focused on these shimmering structures. Every age produces a lot of average, some terrible, and some good architecture, this age is no different. Yet the presumption in a lot of critiques is that somehow what went before is better - no, just much of what survives tends to be the better stuff, the past generations were equally as capable of creating structures without "human scale" or aesthetic appeal to anyone. York Minster is well, well out of human scale, yet I'm not sure we'd see many folks demanding it be torn down! It is a stunning building for its own reasons; and I think some of what has been built may well enter the canon of "good" rather than "average" over time; and as other things come through to change what we build.
I still can't look at the Beetham Tower without cringing. The first outbreak of the Japanese Knotweed now strangling the amazing wildflower meadow that is/ was our city centre. It needed refreshing, growing and managing with love and care; not swamping with alien invasive species out of all proportion to human scale.
I am curious - when was Manchester city centre a "wildflower meadow" in the post-war period? Why are tall buildings so bad? We've built things vast out of "human scale" throughout human history, and these structures that have survived are now exalted. Where would you have housed the folks now living in these flats?
It would have been interesting to have a response from Simpson Haugh about climate change. From the accounts of residents of their shiny towers the heat is unbearable in the summer and this will only become worse as the years pass.
Yes, I thought this was an amazing failure of the article (sorry for the criticism). Did neither Simpsons or Haugh talk about climate change or was it just left out of the article? You really can't talk about architecture now without talking about both the effect of climate change on the short and long-term livability and the embodied energy in buildings (generally skyscrapers are thought to be the worst buildings for the energy used in constructing them). Skyscrapers are not a symbol of a modern city, they hark back to older cities built at a time when no-one understood about climate change.
Such an interesting article, caught my attention as soon as I saw the email. I'm struggling to keep up with my Mill and Dispatch reading at present due to family matters but woke up extremely early and thought 'Got to read that now!)
I've always been interested in the built environment of Manchester and am fascinated by how change happens in a city centre and what causes those changes.
I listened not long ago to a podcast involving an interview with Norman Foster and how his Manchester childhood had influenced his work . Can anyone tell me if Simpson Haugh have featured in a podcast at all ?
I’ve come to the conclusion the Mill is the best place to turn to for balanced coverage of the regeneration of Manchester. It is much appreciated by this reader, and is my main reason for being a subscriber.
I've just got back from some time in North America and it struck me whilst there how they have lots of variety in their tall buildings whilst it feels like all we see in our current build upwards is the same shapes and materials. It's probably a result of them being built within the same few decades but it did hit home when in a city with a big variety of shapes and London manages to build things that are not just tall rectangles.
The other thing i noticed that whilst cold and windy lots of the residential sky scapers in Chicago still have balconies, something really lacking in most new SH developments.
“There’s a behind-the-scenes school of thought that says if you’re working with a UK developer, a Manchester one, a Manchester architect, a Manchester supply chain [...] that’s the way you get things built,” says Spinoza.
This was refreshing to read, people are quick to critique and often criticise the Renaker towers, and that’s okay, but the reality is that they may well not exist if the Council and developer had elected to work with a different architect on what many would label a ‘more ambitious’ design.
The fact is SimpsonHaugh are very good at what they do.
Interesting details about people who have been clearly influential in forming modern Manchester. But a bit of context would have helped my understanding. It seems there are 32 buildings over 100m high in our city, built or under construction. How many of these have Simpson Haugh designed ?
Well, Denton Corker Marshall designed the tower by the Irwell, just inside Salford, on New Bailey. OMI has designed towers on Trinity Way & Greengate, & Hodder + Partners designed the tower in the St Michael’s development, between Albert Square & Deansgate. Jon Matthews designed the Oxygen tower on Great Ancoats Street, and the tower by Victoria Station. Virtually all the other tall buildings, nearly thirty, are SimpsoHaugh.
For all that big towers dominate the skyline, there's also a preponderance of medium-height (say 5-10 storey) residential buildings in the city centre environs, where cut corners and lazy drafting create avoidable problems for residents (and developers!) almost immediately on moving in. There's something to be said for architects being reliant on future work
I think Manchester is approaching saturation point with tall buildings, but to be fair recent developments are much better than the awful Arndale Centre
Really interesting piece, this. I think I would've liked to have heard their response to critics who talk of the structures all falling into a narrow range of designs, but also - you can't always get what you want from an interview!
I do find a lot of sniping about the towers very dull, though. Lots of this country is covered in identikit housing (endless rows of terraces, vast swathes of mock-Tudor semi-detached, legions of Washington/Peveril/whatever marching over a hillside) and yet somehow the ire is focused on these shimmering structures. Every age produces a lot of average, some terrible, and some good architecture, this age is no different. Yet the presumption in a lot of critiques is that somehow what went before is better - no, just much of what survives tends to be the better stuff, the past generations were equally as capable of creating structures without "human scale" or aesthetic appeal to anyone. York Minster is well, well out of human scale, yet I'm not sure we'd see many folks demanding it be torn down! It is a stunning building for its own reasons; and I think some of what has been built may well enter the canon of "good" rather than "average" over time; and as other things come through to change what we build.
I still can't look at the Beetham Tower without cringing. The first outbreak of the Japanese Knotweed now strangling the amazing wildflower meadow that is/ was our city centre. It needed refreshing, growing and managing with love and care; not swamping with alien invasive species out of all proportion to human scale.
Would love to know which parts of the city centre you thought was better before
I am curious - when was Manchester city centre a "wildflower meadow" in the post-war period? Why are tall buildings so bad? We've built things vast out of "human scale" throughout human history, and these structures that have survived are now exalted. Where would you have housed the folks now living in these flats?
It would have been interesting to have a response from Simpson Haugh about climate change. From the accounts of residents of their shiny towers the heat is unbearable in the summer and this will only become worse as the years pass.
Yes, I thought this was an amazing failure of the article (sorry for the criticism). Did neither Simpsons or Haugh talk about climate change or was it just left out of the article? You really can't talk about architecture now without talking about both the effect of climate change on the short and long-term livability and the embodied energy in buildings (generally skyscrapers are thought to be the worst buildings for the energy used in constructing them). Skyscrapers are not a symbol of a modern city, they hark back to older cities built at a time when no-one understood about climate change.
Such an interesting article, caught my attention as soon as I saw the email. I'm struggling to keep up with my Mill and Dispatch reading at present due to family matters but woke up extremely early and thought 'Got to read that now!)
I've always been interested in the built environment of Manchester and am fascinated by how change happens in a city centre and what causes those changes.
I listened not long ago to a podcast involving an interview with Norman Foster and how his Manchester childhood had influenced his work . Can anyone tell me if Simpson Haugh have featured in a podcast at all ?
Great article Jack...The Mill strikes again.
I’ve come to the conclusion the Mill is the best place to turn to for balanced coverage of the regeneration of Manchester. It is much appreciated by this reader, and is my main reason for being a subscriber.
I've just got back from some time in North America and it struck me whilst there how they have lots of variety in their tall buildings whilst it feels like all we see in our current build upwards is the same shapes and materials. It's probably a result of them being built within the same few decades but it did hit home when in a city with a big variety of shapes and London manages to build things that are not just tall rectangles.
The other thing i noticed that whilst cold and windy lots of the residential sky scapers in Chicago still have balconies, something really lacking in most new SH developments.
I believe OMA are Dutch firm not Danish.
“There’s a behind-the-scenes school of thought that says if you’re working with a UK developer, a Manchester one, a Manchester architect, a Manchester supply chain [...] that’s the way you get things built,” says Spinoza.
This was refreshing to read, people are quick to critique and often criticise the Renaker towers, and that’s okay, but the reality is that they may well not exist if the Council and developer had elected to work with a different architect on what many would label a ‘more ambitious’ design.
The fact is SimpsonHaugh are very good at what they do.
Interesting details about people who have been clearly influential in forming modern Manchester. But a bit of context would have helped my understanding. It seems there are 32 buildings over 100m high in our city, built or under construction. How many of these have Simpson Haugh designed ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_Greater_Manchester
Well, Denton Corker Marshall designed the tower by the Irwell, just inside Salford, on New Bailey. OMI has designed towers on Trinity Way & Greengate, & Hodder + Partners designed the tower in the St Michael’s development, between Albert Square & Deansgate. Jon Matthews designed the Oxygen tower on Great Ancoats Street, and the tower by Victoria Station. Virtually all the other tall buildings, nearly thirty, are SimpsoHaugh.
For all that big towers dominate the skyline, there's also a preponderance of medium-height (say 5-10 storey) residential buildings in the city centre environs, where cut corners and lazy drafting create avoidable problems for residents (and developers!) almost immediately on moving in. There's something to be said for architects being reliant on future work
I think Manchester is approaching saturation point with tall buildings, but to be fair recent developments are much better than the awful Arndale Centre
Don’t think we are anywhere near saturation and, if you believe the economists, we desperately need them.
true, anything is better than the Arndale though that is a very low bar.
Illuminating. Once again reading the Mill I learned something new.