JV unveils 758-apartment Ancoats development
Liquid Funding Business and Cityside want to redevelop the site of Stocktons Furniture off Great Ancoats Street in Manchester, providing two residential towers and 45,000 sq ft of commercial space.
The joint venture has launched a consultation on the proposals, which feature 758 apartments across a pair of buildings rising to 47 and 20 storeys. SimpsonHaugh Architects and Reform Landscape Architects are leading on design and Turley is the planning consultant.
Have your say on the proposals
Around 55% of the four-acre site is earmarked for public realm, according to the developers.
“This development represents a significant investment in the area, providing much-needed housing and commercial opportunities while enhancing the public realm,” said Daniel Green, director at Liquid Funding Business.
Green is a serial entrepreneur and has completed several multimillion-pound exits from businesses he set up, including energy company HomeSun to Aviva Investors.
He is currently the chief executive of Liquid Funding Business and Electron Green, a solar power company. Green has partnered with developer Cityside on the Stocktons project. Cityside, headed up by Daniel Cohen and Benjamin Carr, is also behind proposals for a 260-bed student scheme near Whitworth Park.
The Stocktons site falls within Manchester City Council’s East Village Central regeneration area, earmarked for 550,000 sq ft of offices and 1,100 homes under an SRF adopted last year. It is also located close to the former Central Retail Park, which is to be redeveloped into a civil service hub.
“Our development will complement the proposals for Central Retail Park as well as set the standard for future developments coming forward in the area,” Green added.
“We encourage the community to participate in the consultation process and share their valuable insights to help us create a development that truly reflects the needs and aspirations of Ancoats.”
The Stocktons store was put up for sale in 2020 with a £20m price tag. At the time, Ken Bishop, one of the agents appointed to find a buyer for the site, described it as “arguably one of the finest remaining freehold sites within Manchester’s Inner Ring Road”.
The public realm aspect is brilliant and that can’t be taken from them. However, that design is horribly bland and boxy. This needs to be massively addressed before we throw away the potential Great Ancoats Street has.
This doesn’t have to be a spectacular design but this looks 10 years out of date and something more at home on a university campus.
By Byronic
Interestingly despite all the blurb no information saying how many storeys the buildings will be?
By Boom
Development as a whole looks good, but design illustrations look bland and boring. let’s hope the final designs are improved with quality cladding etc
By Steve
Looks like Manchester has already entered its next economic/development boom. Did the last one really even end?
By Anonymous
One day Simpson-Haugh will realise it’s not 2005 anymore and stop designing buildings which look like they are from that era
By dated
Re: Interestingly despite all the blurb no information saying how many storeys the buildings will be? October 30, 2024 at 10:31 am By Boom
The article states “feature 758 apartments across a pair of buildings rising to 47 and 20 storeys”
By Drew
What an absolute monstrosity this appears to be. Is it meant to be some Communist / Soviet era ” detention centre ” ? Because that it what it looks like. And also, yet another fake and ridiculous looking watercolour inspired image to put forward to give an idea of how it will look. Architects and developers keep on putting forward fake images and continual hype and clichés. Try treating us with respect for a change.
By Anonymous
Not yet more Simpson Haugh! They design buildings whose architecture would in single cases be mediocre, but through so much monothematic repetition, their mediocrity is amplified: they have become worse than dull and boring, to the point of stifling the expression and variety that any city’s landscape deserves. If Manchester city centre could ever be compared to a garden, Simpson Haugh architecture is its Japanese knot weed. And like Japanese knot weed, it cannot be removed: it just keeps spreading, and we’re stuck with it.
By Justin Beevor
A tricky site with lots of constraints and then to go and overcome this and the massive price paid, a big hulk of over development. Really not a good outcome. Maybe being waved through to support the overpaid site opposite – Central Retail Park – which is now failing.
By Jimmy Carr
Let’s be honest here, they’re almost certainly just getting the planning to flip it… Yes this design sucks, albeit public realm is welcome.
By Dr B
‘It’s a fake image and I don’t like it blah blah blah..’ Yes it Cgi, therefore it’s a fake image because they haven’t actually built it yet. I’m sure they can come up with many images people will like. They will also be fake.
By Doh
This area is incredibly windy, another 2 towers facing onto the main road will make it even worse. The masterplan landscape layout seems to be a straight strip of green which sadly people will not be able to use as they would be swept away. As for the proposed 2 towers – in reality there is not much space for this particular land to be of good quality public realm. There will be nominal green space just to tick off boxes but who knows what will happen to the rest of the site.
The design is unclear and these visuals are not helping…
Simpson-Haugh have some great schemes but sadly for the past few years everything they’ve done have been absolutely horrendous and with no architectural value.
By Anonymous
Another day, another box for Manchester. Next.
By Anonymous
High density AND lots of public realm. This design is debatable, however the general approach is applauded in a city which seriously lacks on green space. Give the people who aren’t skyscraper geeks something to look forward to.
By Anonymous
Good lord the name Simpson haugh unleashes a pack of dogs……..a few disgruntled architects out there by the sounds of things!!!
By Anonymous
Standard developer’s box-ticking pre-app “consultation” then.
Short on detail, renders picked to be the most flattering/helpful, and no mention at all of on-site affordable housing provision/off-site contribution, beyond perhaps the suggestion that the landscaping/paving they have to do anyway – unless the blocks would otherwise be surrounded by mud, rubble and abandoned cars – count as sufficient wider social benefit.
By Rotringer
Another perfect opportunity for a skyscraper with twice as many homes! Lack of ambition once again!
By MC
I’m concerned about the wind tunnel effect around here. It’s already bad enough with Oxygen and Islington Wharf Phase 4 towers here on a mildy windy day. The divot all these towers centre around makes it 5x worse than it would usually be.
By Anonymous
The diagrams are not very informative and they make the plans look dated, so its a no from me.
By MrP
The tower on Port Street is impressive.The Stockton’s site has potential but there is still no cohesion along GAS. Someone needs to get a grip of linking both ends of the street, with some life. Hopefully when Piccadilly East matures, this will happen. Port Street works, because the ground level is busy.
By Elephant
People in the comments having a meltdown over what are clearly outline plans. If they’re not then hopefully the developers will have the good sense to include some balconies on the scheme to make it more attractive for long term occupation. And in doing so ignore the preference of the person or team within MCC’s planning department that conducts pre-application discussions.
By Balcony watch
@October 31, 2024 at 9:28 am
By Balcony watch
No amount of balances will make this ungainly brick stump attractive.
By Rye
Yes, people in the comments always have meltdowns about a CGI for some reason. So many easily triggered and yet completely unaware of their own irrelevance. Fascinating but also slightly sad.
By Anonymous
It looks monumental..which is good in the city centre. I like it , but the devil is in the detail and one little picture won’t show that.
By Winthrop
Yet another woeful ‘public consultation’, scant on details with forms to fill in which involve given away your phone number etc. It is a little bit sad that measures introduced in the pandemic whereby public cons went online is continuing as normal. Developments of this scale should have actual public events where locals and interested parties can talk to the client and design team and write feedback on a piece of paper. That’s what’s written in the Localism Act.
By Anonymous
I hope this proposal will not be allowed. The proposed structures are lacking in character, visually unappealing, oversized, and completely dated for the area. Placing the 47- storey structure—side by side with Oxygen on narrow Store Street defies logic and disrupts the area’s harmony. This will make
the surroundings and unliveable neighbourhood for all including those at the beautiful Piccadilly basin.
By Chris Owen