Goodbye Urbis?

Urbis is one of Manchester's modern landmarks, the Ian Simpson designed building being seen as many as starting the new 'tradition' of wedge-shaped structures in the city. Recently Urbis has been in the headlines over controversial plans to relocate the National Football Museum from Preston to Manchester and on November 18th the decision was taken to move the museum.

Originally opened in 2002, Urbis has a unique programme of temporary exhibitions that focus on popular culture and the culture of the modern city, essentially it is a place to showcase city life through art, music, photography, fashion and other creative industries that Manchester has become famous for. The National Football Museum could not be more different, a permanent showcase of the 'national game'. The museum already has roots in Manchester as it was designed by local practice OMI architects (opening in 2001).

There have been mixed reactions to news that the museum is to move with Preston councillor Ken Hudson reported to have said that the museum's trustees had "stuck two fingers up" at Preston by agreeing to the move. Sir Richard Leese, Leader of Manchester City Council, said that the relocation could help make the museum an "internationally important destination" and attract up to 400,000 visitors a year. The move won't come cheap though with costs expected to reach £8million to relocate the exhibition contents and refurbish Urbis.

Speaking to Chanel M the Chief Executive of Urbis, Vaughn Allen, hinted that the National Football Museum would provide a "long term sustainable future" for Urbis, calling it an "interesting an challenging building" to run in its current guise. He explained that Urbis would close in February/early Spring 2010 and would hopefully open again as the National Football Museum in 201. But what happens to the exhibitions that currently call Urbis home?

As of yet there are no solid plans to find new homes for the 'creative industries' that could be found at Urbis, although preliminary discussions are said to be taking place - there are very few alternatives at present that engage the public with this type of attraction in Manchester. Yes Manchester has a proud ‘footballing’ tradition but it has a resonance with creative industries that could be lost or forced back under ground with out a public face.

The debate will more than likely rumble on right on up to the new museum's opening and beyond so for the final word for now we turn to Phil O’Dwyer, director of OMI Architects, a born and bred 'Manc' who had this to say to the Architect's Journal (before last week’s decision):

"The Urbis building is a great landmark and has contributed to Manchester’s evolving identity. I suspect it is flexible enough to absorb the Football Museum, like it could absorb many other exhibitions with varying degrees of success. But would it engage with this subject to the same extent? Would it have the ingredients that make the difference between a place that has spirit and one that feels soulless and detached from the people that use it? I have my doubts, but that would be the challenge."

Ian Simpson Chosen For Refurbishment of Town Hall Extension

Manchester's trademark Architect, Ian Simpson, has been named as the chosen architect for a £165 million refurbishment of the Town Hall Extension, designed by E. Vincent Harris in the 1930's. Harris's neighbouring Central Library is also to be revamped, except not by Simpson, but Ryder Architects. The two schemes are also running along side a competition, to be launched in January, for a redesign of St Peters Square and the recently revealed design for 1 Peter Square. Due to be completed within 4 years, the massive redevelopment will see St Peter's Square become a much more attractive public space.

Perhaps one of the most interesting projects within Manchester is the refurbishing of the Town Hall Extension by Ian Simpson. Well known his modern glass facaded buildings, a refurbishment will see the practice take a completely different approach to not just designing but architecture as a whole. How they express themselves within an already monumental building will be intriguing, however they may take a encompassing approach and simply improve the existing building with no added flare.

The Horizontal Vs The Vertical City

Manchester’s skyline is slowly evolving into a striking amalgamation of new architecture, but which axis is the right direction?

Ian Simpson’s Beatham Tower is an iconic symbol of the architectural development here in Manchester, but should our city thrust itself into a high-rise city centre, or should it expand the plan to create grounded structures that are still part of the earth around us.

The book City Levels, by Nick Barley, explores the hierarchy of a city, and explores the social relationship between a city’s level and it’s public. Most significantly of all is how the book associates height with the social connection, the taller a building is the more detached and baron it becomes to humans, where as a low storey building is more part of it’s environment, and has a significant attachment to the building’s users and the community around it. Socially then Manchester should push for a city that is orientated towards it’s public. Manchester has a vast culture that’s spread thousands of miles across the world, so why build further away from what makes our city a miniature world. The horizontal buildings are embedded within Manchester’s culture and a city with society at it’s heart can only prosper and evolve.

In the case of American cities, the architectural skyline is a direct reference to the countries power, the taller the more power. But us British are somewhat more modest about our power, since the decline of the empire, post Queen Victoria. Instead we divulge in other mediums, rather than the building of phallic like objects that protrude the sky. But shouldn’t we move away from this low rise strut we seem to be stuck in, developments in structural engineering are making it possible to be build eclectic forms that pierce the air above us. Except our long-standing connection to tradition still holds us back. Take Prince Charles for example, his presence in British Architecture is stalling our development in comparison to similar countries. His views, that by law means no more than a single member of the general public, has managed to destroy a billion pound project by none other than Lord Richard Rogers for a new development of the Chelsea Barracks. Whilst he ploughs on with creating a new village, Poundbury, in the heart of Dorset that already seems to be 150 years out of date. However his influence on British design is largely publicised, and perhaps a large majority of the British public shares the Prince’s views, and thus architecture will keep to tradition and remain shallow in the expanse of the sky above.

But how long can tradition last, with so many countries racing for the title of the tallest building, is it then inevitable that Manchester will join the race and build higher and higher? Take London as an example; here architecture is growing taller everyday, with no end in sight. But it is also expanding horizontally, and seems to have discovered the perfect line between the vertical and horizontal city. But London’s persona as a city is somewhat different to that of a typical British city. It has to reiterate it’s power as a capital and as one of the largest cities in the world, making height a necessity rather than a luxury. Manchester on the other hand has no need for establishing it’s strength, instead it should focus on building practical structures that serve a physical purpose, rather than a metaphorical message.

The majority of new builds in Manchester are built to a height that stretches as high as possible, without letting go from the land below. Take for example William Alsop’s Chips, in New Islington, this 10 storey building feels tall within it’s context, but it doesn’t remove itself from it’s environment. It still feels part of the ground below, and part of the social fabric that is slowly being weaved in the rebranded area of Ancoats. However about a mile away lays the relatively low Victorian buildings of Deansgate, juxtaposed against Ian Simpson’s Betham Tower. Statistically the “Hilton” isn’t incredibly tall, but it’s position in contrast it’s low rise context creates a tree in a field of flowers. This individuality, to me, detracts from the city of Manchester and the sheer height separates it from the built environment surrounding it. Architecture and society are the elements of all cities, and so Manchester should embrace architecture that is designed for societies benefit, not the financial.

Maybe Manchester will one day have extravagant buildings jettisoning from it’s horizon and the only place to live is in the sky above, but as it currently stands it has no need to promote it’s power nor does it need to stick to tradition, instead it has to carve it’s own path, it’s own horizontal path. Creating a city that is built around society rather than power.

by Jack Penford Baker