Commentary
Has Manchester lost the plot, or have we just lost the story?
Have you seen the photo doing the rounds on socials? From the vantage point of the railway arch at Deansgate station, it shows the stark difference between the Manchester skyline in 2015 and 2025, writes Lucy Lomas of Luma Marketing.
Manchester has changed beyond recognition over the past 10 to 15 years. That’s not a controversial statement. We’ve gone from being England’s second city (sorry Birmingham, it was never a serious competition) to a genuinely global one, attracting talent, capital and attention from well beyond the UK. We’re now the fastest-growing city-region economy in the UK.
So, we should all be celebrating, right?
Not everyone agrees.
For a city that has benefited so visibly from development, there’s a growing sense from some that all is not rosy. Towers are seen as symbols of greed rather than homes. Investment is treated as extraction. Growth is talked about as something done to Manchester, not for it.
Some of that criticism is reasonable. Questions about affordability, who benefits, and how value is shared are legitimate and necessary. But alongside those debates sits a parallel narrative that is, quite simply, wrong. The idea that city centre Manchester is full of empty high-rise investment vehicles doesn’t stack up: vacancy rates are at historic lows. Foreign investment exists, yes, but most of those homes are occupied, largely by people who live and work here.
So how did we get here?
The short answer is that we lost control of the story.
Who’s telling the story?
The built environment has always been better at delivering places than explaining them. We rely heavily on data, policy, viability arguments, and long-term benefits. We’re all in our little built environment microcosm where we all speak the same language. All important, all necessary, and all completely ineffective if the audience doesn’t trust the messenger.
Spreadsheets just don’t do much work when it comes to currying favour with the public. Public opinion is, and always has been, shaped by stories.
A perfect example sits outside Manchester but should worry everyone in the industry. The so-called 15-minute city.
At its heart, it’s a simple and broadly positive idea. Walkable neighbourhoods. Local services. Less time commuting and more time living. Healthier, less polluted places. Versions of this exist across continental Europe and are widely celebrated.
But in Oxford, and elsewhere, the concept was hijacked. What should have been a conversation about quality of life became one about control, surveillance, and restriction. Once tarred with an Orwellian brush, the accusations stuck and took on a life of their own.
This wasn’t a persuasive conspiracy theory either, it was just that it was emotional, human, and easy to grasp. Basically, it told a good story that people could relate to. Meanwhile, the industry response leaned on clarification documents and rational explanations. We lost the information battle before we realised we were in one.
Many of those schemes are now politically toxic. Not because they were bad ideas, but because they were badly explained.
Is Manchester facing the same problem?
The story being told about Manchester’s development is increasingly one of villains and victims. Machiavellian developers, distant investors, and a city sold off piece by piece, all of which is a compelling narrative, even if the truth is much more complex and nuanced.
What’s missing is a competing story that feels equally human.
We talk about growth at a city scale. Critics talk about its impact at a personal one. You can make a reasonable guess about which resonates more.
If someone feels priced out, disconnected, or unheard, it doesn’t matter how strong the macroeconomic case is. The tower becomes a symbol of everything that feels wrong, regardless of what’s actually happening inside it.
That’s not a planning problem. It’s a storytelling one.
What better storytelling actually looks like
Don’t mistake my meaning here. I’m not suggesting a full-scale campaign of spin or gloss. We just need to do the hard work of understanding the audience.
Good marketing in the built environment should start with a simple question: who are we trying to convince, and what are they worried about?
From there, a few principles matter.
First, start with people, not buildings. Who lives in these homes? Who works nearby? Who benefits from the shops, services, and transport that density makes viable?
Second, acknowledge fears rather than dismissing them. Concerns about affordability, ownership, and identity don’t go away because we say they’re misplaced. We must build trust by engaging honestly, not defensively.
Third, translate city-wide benefits into everyday ones. Shorter commutes. More jobs within reach. Streets that feel safer because they’re busier. Places that can support culture, not just survive it.
And finally, compete emotionally as well as rationally. If opponents are telling stories about loss of control, the response can’t be a planning statement. It has to be a story, in a local voice, about opportunity, pride, and belonging.
Marketing must be built into the infrastructure
Manchester didn’t become successful by accident. But its future success depends on whether the people who live here feel part of the journey, not collateral damage from it.
If the built environment doesn’t get better at telling its own story, others will keep telling a very different one. And once a narrative sets and hardens, facts will always struggle to soften it.
Marketing and storytelling aren’t an afterthought to development or planning policy, they’re part of how cities function. Just like transport, housing, and public space.
We can keep building the city, but unless we also win hearts and minds, we shouldn’t be surprised when the skyline grows faster than public support.
- Lucy Lomas is director at Luma Marketing
This article claims to be about celebrating the economy of the city region.But it’s not it’s all about Manchester city centre.She clearly has no interest in Bolton or Wigan and probably has never been there in her life.When you equate the city region as this perhaps if you had some self awareness you might understand why people skeptical about the supposed city region success which seems to be built on the idea of trickle down from Manchester to likes of Oldham and Rochdale.Its a fallacy Manchester is to Greater Manchester what London is to rest of UK where self serving elites live who pretend their success iis spreading wealth rather than concentrate it.
By Sara Smith
Good article. In days gone by Sir Howard Bernstein provided a very strategic and compelling narrative about the direction of travel and the challenges to be overcome. Those were in the days when Social Media platforms were in their infancy.
Today the Politicans and Sir Howard’s successor need to be front and centre shaping and delivering a narrative with all stakeholders in the city that is relevant to the ambitions the city has for the third decade of this century and getting that message out there. Maybe I am missing something but it appears to me to be absent.
By Anonymous
The negative stories are mainly from a London dominated press who look down their noses at the rest of the country and have never wanted anywhere else outside of the M25 to prosper. Manchester sorts its self out, starts to thrive and its met with how dare you Northern upstarts
By Bob
There are certain political opportunists for whom everything about the UK must be bad. Especially if it is new. The idea that a northern city under Labour control is doing well doesn’t fit the narrative. So some how it has to be wrong. Lies will do if the truth doesn’t fit.
By MJC
Story telling isnt the answer Lucy….its part of the problem. The first parts of your article are pretty much correct and most people would acknowledge this. Spinning a narrative won’t change anything. paraphrasing Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn…..”We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying, they even know that we know they are lying, we also know that they know we know they are lying too; they of course know that we certainly know they know we know they are lying too as well, but they still keep on lying….”
By anonymous
Sorry Manchester, Birmingham is the second city but believe your illusion.
By Anon
By which measure anon 1.19…….geography yes, population size yes………..by virtue of every other measure, Manchester is undoubtedly the second city………we even have a king of the north according to the labour party
By Marky
Anon at 1:19. By almost every metric Manchester completely out-does Birmingham. After London which is in the highest category, Manchester is the next highest ranked UK city according to Globalization and World Cities Research Network and the only UK city in the Beta category. Manchester’s GDP and GDP per capita are way higher than Brum. Manchester is arguably the UK home of sport and of music (the latter, Liverpool could argue with). Depending where you draw the line, it’s the second biggest in population. GM economic growth outpaces Birmingham and in recent years, London. Manchester has 2 of the top 3 biggest indoor music venues in the UK, both are in the top 5 in Europe. Need I go on…it’s not even close.
By 2nd
Great article and I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I was at an event this morning where the same theme occurred. Manchester needs a new narrative that acknowledges that some people are still waiting for the warm glow of regeneration to reach them, and reassures them that they won’t be forgotten. The big success story is perfect on the political stage, but we now need something more nuanced too.
By Simon Donohue, SEC Newgate
I think we should let Birmingham be the second city. A modest city, with so much to be modest about.
By Elephant
Someone recently told me their solution to the 15-minute city conspiracy theory:- build a model 15-minute city and invite all the conspiracy theorists to visit and see what it’s really like. Then lock the gates and switch of the internet.
By Anonymous
Since when has the marketing industry been interested or concerned about truth and honesty ? It is a contradiction in terms .
By Anonymous
Oh bore off. About 10% of the above is reality, the rest is hyperbole. Money not people drive cities. If there is money to be made, people will follow.
By Dan H
The problem is that rapid regeneration is making independent, artist-run spaces absolutely impossible to sustain. These developments are pushing out creatives and replacing them with corporate-backed investment projects. Art studios are closing down and we’re being forced into box rooms or into quitting completely. Rents are ridiculous and contractual terms are unsustainable for small enterprises.
This is the reality for the musicians and artists forced out of Hotspur House who never found a creative home again. Look at Lowry House in Chorlton: home to musicians and craftspeople, turfed out, left derelict for 10 years, and now it’s becoming a Lidl. We need genuine investment in places for artists to exist if we’re to remain a city of innovation. If we only trade on the legacy of the Factory, The Smiths, and The Stone Roses without supporting the new generation, there will be nothing left but instagrammable brunch bars, soulless gyms and vape shops.
By Eva
As Sir Richard Leese used to say (and I paraphrase) of the second city anoraks debate – he was happy for Birmingham and London to fight it out between them. Enough said.
By Anonymous
Simon at 1.57pm states “some people are still waiting for the warm glow of regeneration to reach them” – well they have had significant opportunity to grasp that opportunity over the last 25 years.
The Council has consistently sought to derive local benefits from all of its contracts over that period, and it has been a central tenet of the Council’s economic strategy, throughout that 25 year period, as a result of the hard work of Leese and Bernstein, to create significant and sustainable economic and employment growth linking tjhoses opportunities to Manchester residents along with embedding a new education Academy led system in the city which is now delivering young people with qualifications to compete for the jobs created.
The challenges in this city today stem from a range of external factors that lie well beyond the control of politicians in Manchester and Greater Manchester – the economic and demographic impacts of leaving the European Union added to an unstable global economic landscape driven by the pandemic and a new 2025 Presidency in the USA are not something that they can realistically influence.
By Anonymous
Manchester is never loss and not 3th city in UK, but Greater Manchester population is most nearly 3 million and Birmingham West Midlands population is 2.5 million which is impossible for Birmingham is second city. Manchester is second city as always because of Manchester is populations are grown twice fast than Birmingham it true because they are most popular live in Greater Manchester areas since 2018.
By G J Kitchener
It’s often asked why the city doesn’t shout louder about its “opportunity and success.” The answer, of course, is beautifully simple: it’s currently guided by a group of leaders who treat success a bit like a suspicious object—best kept at arm’s length. In their world, progress is measured not in real outcomes but in catchy slogans, tidy sound bites, DEI spreadsheets, and a vision of “equity” so heavy it can sink even the strongest momentum. Inspiring stuff—just not in the direction anyone intended.
But here’s the optimistic twist: progress is absolutely possible. All it really takes is a bit of vision, a belief in meritocracy, and the courage to make pragmatic decisions rather than marching along the narrow tracks of rigid ideology. Simple, really—almost quaint!
The Bernstein legacy will keep the UK’s second city powering ahead for a good while yet, and Manchester’s GDP lead over its ever-ambitious challenger Birmingham is likely to hold. That’s the good news. The slightly less rosy bit? Without a shift in mindset from today’s leadership, even Manchester could eventually start sliding backwards—slowly at first, then with increasing enthusiasm.
So, Mr. Bandwagon, here’s your big moment. Make a name for yourself by embracing the radical idea that opportunity and success are actually good things. Growth—yes, actual economic growth—creates higher tax receipts, better services, and stronger communities. Funny how that works. Stifle opportunity for ideological purity, though, and the Bernstein legacy won’t just fade; it will unravel.
But look on the bright side—what an opportunity that would be for someone with the vision to turn it all around.
By Steve5839
What has happened to Manchester is the reason why we are moving elsewhere
By Robin
The Manchester growth story has to make material change in the outer boroughs (especially the North of GM) or its going to be vulnerable to a political backlash, and we’ll see some signs of that in the May elections. That said, I remember a GM where a lot of the better jobs had drifted southwards out of the city centre, and were inaccessible by folks north of the city. The fact that the centre thrives now creates opportunity for everyone, but that’s nuanced story.
By Rich X
Well Robin, you’re in the minority as the population is greatly increasing and I’m one of the of the many that came here because of what it’s become , jobs,opportunities, growth. There’s plenty of places in the UK that have none of that.
By Anonymous
When your own mayor is exposed as desperate to leave and get a London based job and London life style again. Tells you everything about true reality of Greater Manchester.Its like a badge kissing Everton player secretly having tails with Arsenal.
By Jack Tree
Wow. Mancunia a village once!
By Philip Rushmere
Mancunians don’t help themselves, all I hear are people complaining about development, they don’t think Manchester should have skyscrapers, offices or apartments. They want it to go back to how it used to be.
By Anonymous
Lomas has ignored a key downside to the surge of new developments over the past decade. The vast majority of new builds are bland, square & rectangular-boxed any-city structures and few are built with traditional brick. In addition, these new-builds have replaced splendid buildings , full of majesty and character, like the 1930’s Quakers HQ in St. Peter’s Square which aesthetically could have been built in the Victorian era. Plans for interesting, curvaceous (residential & commercial) new-builds, for example, the “One-Heritage” development in Greengate, have been mothballed on cost grounds. Ian Simpson nailed it over a decade ago when he said that Manchester can’t afford “curves”. Secondly, this “second city” debate is very outdated. The truth is that Birmingham & Manchester, by every metric , are so far ahead of every other provincial city that both of them should be classed equally as “SECOND CITIES”. In terms of modern population modelling (continual structural density from a city’s CBD) , Birmingham is roughly 2.55 million compared to Manchester’s 2.45 million. In most other metrics (financial, economic, leisure, culture, sporting, grade A office space, Airports etc.) the two cities are very similar. Brum edges Manc in the number of Hotels & high-end restaurants but Manc edges Brum in graduate retention & Airport size/capacity. In addition, their CBD resident populations far outstrip every other provincial UK city.
By Bill De Burgh
Manchester is only 580k people, it’s nothing without the surrounding towns where it silently leaches investment from. From the surrounding hills, it’s just a murky hazy grim blot on the landscape, where appartment tower blocks have replaced tall chimneys. And I wonder how many of those apartments are just a financial investment or actually lived in?
By Brian
The reality is that Andy Burnham and the rest of Labour have destroyed Manchester and Salford, sanding down or demolishing every bit of character both cities had. They’ve displaced Salfordians and Mancunians, destroyed communities in the name of globalism to the point where you will never hear a Mancunian or Salford accent in either place anymore. The excuse in the 90s for moving people out of blocks of flats because they were an eyesore and ruined the skyline. What did we replace them with? More flats. Manchester has become a soulless place devoid of all community and personality that made us unique. The narrative has been lost because reality is setting in and people are waking up.
By Old Salfordian
Manchester has been wrecked since the IRA bomb, it has no soul now. I remember all the independent shops and pubs in the 1970s, just chain shops and pub now. Money is only spent in the city centre and the suburbs, such as Rusholme, Longsigt and Burnage ignored and neglected. The Council must take the blame
By Anonymous
The transformation has shocked me. I spend 3-4 nights out a week in town from mid 90’s to late 2000s. I walked round town the day after the bomb, i watched people with binoculars trying to see their car in a multi storey. I remember picadilly sinking from the gardens. I remember the escalators to the food court that never worked, my only high points then were a look round the most wonderful but chaotically laid Debenhams in the world, Kendals and Waterstones. It was tired and somewhere it was very hard to have pride in, though i did.
Now, i grin from ear to ear, nowhere, even London, has the heritage,architecture, new build mix we do, the city scapes are amazing. All is not perfect but it feels a lot more lived in than i was catching the train go picadilly or Oxford Rd and heading out for a gig by the Uni and most definately round Whitworth St, Boardwalk etc. It felt like a box loads of people filled on certain nights of the week. Now it feels alive and we visit every month minimum.
By Garton
1995 versus now…. Your call. I’ve lived both, i’ve worked in the wider region and I’ve worked in Albert Sq, in an iconic building that really will add as it always has, regardless of the cost.
By Kathryn
If you’re looking for the second city it’s down the M62
By Frank
The transformation of Manchester city centre in the last 30 years has been amazing. I remember the grim place Manchester was in the 1970s and 80s, it’s so much better now.
By Anonymous
I’m curious to see the impact of the Good Growth Fund and the expansion of TfGM on the region. From what i’ve seen the Mayor and the Combined Authority are really trying to ensure we all benefit from investment which I like. It’ll take time but i’m sure it’ll get easier with all the momentum GM seems to have at the moment. I know there are still areas that need a lot of attention but personally I think the city region is so much better than it was when I was a kid. I’m not sure who gets to create the story-telling as mentioned above but i’ve become a huge advocate of what’s happening here and feel very proud.
By Anonymous
Those of you who champion Birmingham have obviously never tried to get anything off the ground there!! Their planners work from home all of the time………its an absolute shambles. Some of you clearly don’t like some or all of the things that happen in Manchester but Manchester supports progress and change and is fully functioning unlike nearly everywhere else
By Superdave