£50.4m subsidised loan for Salboy’s 76-storey Manchester tower

What free market?

So if Burnham’s Manchesterism is essentially funnelling taxpayers money to billionaires to make it look like the local economy is much stronger than is really the case – otherwise the billionaires could surely go the bank like everyone else or even use their own money? – where is he going to find the £ squillions to help out every other cash-strapped tycoon around the country, and what chance is there of getting much of the money back if viability is so marginal even in the overheated market of Manchester?

it’ll become such a depressing windy place to walk around

Any project has a ‘viability gap’ if you intentionally design it in from the outset!

Headline is correct its 76 storey the text says 71

You are quite correct. The story has been updated. Apologies for the error.

June 08, 2026 at 1:21 pm

By Julia Hatmaker

It’s a loan rather than a gift, it’s a great idea.

If Burham does make it to No 10, this might come back to haunt him at QT on his housing policies?

Fred Done, owner of Salboy, met the literal King on Saturday. Does Burnham really expect us to believe he can’t pay his own way?

@ Anonymous the Viadux money is going to the social rent tower which is providing accessible housing.

There are a number of comments here that clearly reflects a lack of understanding the real world of development and the challenges being confronted by both residential and commercial developers to make schemes viable.

Congratulations to the GMCA to recognise the challenges and taking steps to keep momentum going – if it did not nothing would be being built for the next 18 to 24 months.

What does Aubrey Weiss think of this, or is it only an issue for them when it involves Renaker?

It’s essentially public money propping up private capital isn’t it, with most of the risk loaded on to GMCA?

In the 2010’s Manchester found away to keep the growth model moving, HIF, GMPF, Middle East investors, and we are enjoying the fruits of that today. This feels like something from the same playbook, but up a notch in risk. My gut says the Good Growth Fund will work not least because other places will struggle to replicate it, and the city will have first mover advantage.

Of course there are comments that reflect a lack of understanding of real world development..or even the real world . Armchair critics, the do nothing say anything most gifted and greatest contributors to society as a whole..y’know..once they get out of their armchairs ! 😉

Well done GMCA, positive statement of intent to keep a market moving forward in challenging times. I agree, the lack of understanding of basic scheme economics (or any real world economics) is staggering but somewhat unsurprising. One of the main reasons Reform are making such headway!!

All I can say is thank god people in the PNW comments section aren’t in charge of Manchester. Luckily the elected officials, mayor, and people working hard at the GMCA and councils know what they’re doing. And that’s why this city has been growing rapidly for decades

Similar to DSQ – public money being used to build property that will eventually be owned by foreign investment or pension funds, pushing up rent for everyone else so its “viable” for everyone to get their returns – except genuine residents who want to live and work in the city. Meanwhile politicians marketing it as Manchester is booming – look at all these giant towers and growth!

If we are giving cheap loans why don’t we the taxpayer get any equity?

Plenty of us understand development, viability and the associated financial engineering perfectly well *and* wonder why the Bank of Andy needs to keep taking on risk in a supposedly booming City Centre property market; can’t help thinking accusations of us all being ill-informed “armchair critics” are coming from the, erm, armchair critics and amateur skyscraper fans who haunt online forums and every planning consultation.
If by far the strongest property market in the UK keeps needing cheap loans from the taxpayer to get stuff like this off the ground, Andy’s going to have a better answer than “Manchesterism” when it comes to reviving and regenerating pretty much everywhere else in the country.

Has Giant Skyscraper Fan fainted with excitement ?
Seriously, I think it’s a fantastic development and feel sure many cities around the UK wish they had the drive and determination Manchester has.
I was at a concert last week at the Bridgewater Hall and still find it staggering the small footprint these tall buildings like Viadux 2 occupy.
Hope they crack on with it now.

Viability issues ? Reduced interest rates needed and supplied by the fund because those provided by the banks are too high to enable developers to make a profit? What, in Manchester????? Surely not in Manchester!?! Proof that Manchester is currently a cross between Donald Trump and Paul Daniels. Tony Wilson began the lies. All blag and smoke and mirrors. But in a pure numbers game regarding the built environment and getting things built, the blag is working so I guess they will keep going and who can blame them..

Lending Fred Done money at a cheap rate, he is richer than the king. Why on earth should council tax payers subsidise his projects, if the council should make him build the social housing or lose the site.

Most of that land had social housing on years ago

What an embarrassing right wing city we live in

Well done Manchester . This loan will create new jobs and lots of affordable homes and the tax payers will get the loan back , just like all the loans that have been paid back from past funding, the negative people would have a point if this was not the case . Totally agree with the point regarding the Weiss group who just point fingers why don’t they get on and build the two new towers they are sitting on.

Well done in GMCA on plugging the viability gap. This is exactly what the likes of this fund is in place for. This building will continue to bring further growth and prosperity to the city, and the ROI is much higher than the interest paid on the loan itself. Its surprising to see so many readers of PNW so out of tune with regards to the challenges in development in the current market and how they could not see this as a good thing. We the people of Manchester are all benefiting from the smart work of the GMCA fund over the last decade.

Gabby – it is not your Council Tax that is being used for these loans. It is Government money.

Typical council giving away tax payers money to the the already rich.Who wants to live in one of these eye sores.

I think people are misunderstanding what the Good Growth Fund is all about. It is still a loan, albeit it are below market rates, at the end of the development GMCA will get their full loan (in this case £50.4m) plus agreed return. It is a win-win situation for everyone involved. GMCA makes money. Developer makes money. Manchester continues to get fantastic developments when the rest of the country (outside of London) stalls and struggles.

Yes, the Free Market alway was a fiction. Our economy is a social-democratic-market economy; which together with Technological Progress explains how prosperous we almost all are. Same for European economies been WW2. And when our Challencellor talks about Democratic Capitalism, ignore here. Only Marxists call our society or economy Capitalist. It never was. Capital does not rule our society, just like Politicians dont, even if they think they do. Let then dream on.

I cant see what the issue is, the developer can build, which creates jobs, homes and future tax revenue and GMCA gets the money back plus interest. If banks weren’t so greedy then this wouldn’t be needed and without assistance from local government nothing would get built.

Investment spurs on more investment, something the North West has been starved of for far too long.

Please stop and think before you sound off and spout nonsense on here. Public bodies cannot simply give huge sums of money willy nilly to whomever they choose. There are strict guidelines that have to be adhered to. This fund essentially addresses market failure…..something Manchester has sought to address successfully for three decades. You should admire and applaud the manner in which change has been supported and delivered in Manchester. There is list risk or cost to the public purse involved here.

Absolute joke. Will any money be made available for “normal” developers who actually deliver thoughtfully designed housing and make an effort to deliver some affordable, or is it just reserved for those like Salboy and Renaker who have a proven track record of delivering “units” rather than homes that people actually want to live in.

@Anonymous 09:59 where do you think “government money” comes from? The magic money tree?

Why do they need to build a social housing tower next to the tallest residential building in Europe? Why can’t this be built in a less prominent and valuable part of the city centre? Surely social housing in central areas does not need to always be a proviso of every single development. Was social housing attached to the Shard?

Hey hamza if you do a bit of research you will find that a broad range of schemes have been supported across Manchester and greater Manchester. PNW only picks up on the eye catching ones and you unfortunately miss out on the rest. But it is public info so if you broaden your reading base you will learn more

It’s a right wing city..err Donald Trump..arrrgh..Also other things I don’t understand ! Ok I’ll calm down now ..my tea is getting cold and my copy of Socialist Worker isn’t going to read itself .

Elephant, what an awful tone. So only posh rich people can live in the middle? What a ghastly way to think. Cities are for everyone.

Manchester is already dominated by affordable housing, it’s more decent homes we need, currently you have to leave the city to get anywhere nice.

Elephant is bang on. Manchester is fortunate to have attractive commercial real estate in its core AND owns significant brownfield outside the core. It makes total sense to keep the core commercially thriving provided it can create lower cost housing solutions on the ou.tside that have good frequent transit access to the city If you look at the latest plan for the city you can see it has plans for both.

In response to Hello Elephant. I didn’t mean it like that. I meant that there is this obsession with affordable housing being available with every development. I agree wholeheartedly with affordable housing being available but why do we have to incorporate this into every single skyscraper or complex before these get built? Affordable housing needs to be built as a separate entity. I knew someone would respond to my comment in that way, because people like to appear worthy. I can’t afford to live on Deansgate and I don’t expect someone to build a flat for me on there I can afford, because that isn’t the real world.

It’s very snotty to think that rich people are all “posh”. Fred Done himself is certainly not posh. Ridiculous comment.

A deliberately inflammatory and divisive title for the article from Place Northwest. I notice the other article headline for the office scheme didn’t have “SUBSIDISED LOAN” in it.

@June 09, 2026 at 2:19 pm
By Anonymous

Define ‘decent’ and ‘nice’.

There’s a wider point to consider on the issue of including AH in ultra-high value buildings in that: why would you insist on it’s inclusion in these buildings when you could use the same money to delivery probably 5 or 10 times as many homes if you spent it on sites just a few hundred metres away? This is ensures city centres remain mixed communities but also maximises AH bang for buck.

I want only affordable terraced houses built in the city centre..also bungalows. It’s the right place for my socialist paradise. Look at London..that’s all they allow here and we’re solid Labour too.

The point on being able to maximise affordable housing by location a kilometre away is not lost on us but its a political point not a commercial one.

If one can sponsor the English derby youe don’t need taxpayers money .the lad from Salforddone good.

Affordable housing would absolutely be misplaced here. Manchester Living Rent is 15-20% reduction to market rent for example. Considering these will be top tier apartments going for a few thousand a month it would be out of reach for those that would qualify for such benefit even with a 20% reduction. Alternatively it would be a shared ownership scheme… i am just assuming people don’t really want that. Same issue with council rent.

Get it built, collect S106 contributions, loan repayment, council tax and build proper affordable elsewhere.

Only here for my daily dose of comment misery. I’ve got my fix.