Manchester rejects £58m Shudehill homes
The city council’s planning committee could not look past the impact that the conversion of a grade two-listed building into 175 apartments would have on the area’s heritage.
Interland Holdings had its eyes on the site of the grade two-listed 29 Shudehill and the Rosenfield Building, a former department store located at 18-20 Dantzic Street in Manchester.
Approval for the £58m project would have seen the complete demolition of the vacant Rosenfield Building and partial demolition of 29 Shudehill. The building’s front wing and most of its centre would be kept and repaired.
Manchester City Council’s decision to refuse the proposals follows officer recommendations.
According to the officer’s report, the partial demolition of 29 Shudehill would “cause harm to and fail to preserve the building and the features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”.
With plans for the tower to reach up to 19 storeys in height, councillors also raised concerns about the scale and mass of the scheme.
Interland Holdings, Interland, whose directors are listed as Maryland Securities’ Jacob, Ebrahim and David Jabreel, lodged its revised plans for the site last July.
The developer had attempted to reduce the visual impact of the building by adding distinct markings to break up its solidarity.
To find out more about the proposals, search for application number 121195/FO/2018 on Manchester City Council’s planning portal.
The areas heritage Hahahaha. I’m not saying this is a great scheme at all but come on. I tell you what would respect the whole of Manchester City centres heritage though, better public realm and litter free streets. The city is an embarrassment at ground level currently.
By Bob
At last planners seeing the past is worth keeping.
By Pietro
Good. This a truly dull and uninspiring design. The Rosenfield building should be saved
By Bob
If possible, i would like to see the old buildings gentrified and the new buildings use brick.
By MrP
Good. This was a joke of a design with zero ambition. If approved we would have looked back on this with embarrassment.
By Byronic
Good riddance. This is one of the main entrances to the city. There are so many good proposals around here that are in a different league. The only thing I’d welcome is the ground floor commercial and the density close to transport.
By Do Better
It needs some balconies or some public space, the residents need some outdoor space.
By Anonymous
Happy to see this rejected, I can now see why so many people disliked this, I was wrong all along!
By Toast Rack
It’s fine. Don’t understand the fuss.
By A noun
Get the grade II listed building torn down! It offers no value what so ever to the area. Get a decent skyscraper built here with apartments for young professionals and amenities for the public.
By MC
@anonymous some of the flats on the right side have balconies, however now they can go back to the drawing board and provide more!
By Balcony Warrior
RE balconies and public space, these central developments house students and young professionals who stay for a year or two before leaving to buy a house. That’s why balconies and outside space aren’t essential.
By DH
Chocolate coated cladding just like the arndale that everybody hates.
The architecture is horrid. We’re seeing these copy paste designs
everywhere. Happy it has been rejected. There is a serious problem with design in the UK
By John
I’m normally for MOST developments in town but this is POOR. Doesn’t match the Nearby tall buildings (Inc Shudehill Bus Station) OR the classic architecture Federation Street et al.
By Sam
I wouldn’t class the bus station and MSCP as heritage!
By Anonymous
Not sure how this is wildly different to most of the other cuboids thrown up in Manchester in recent years.
By Clap
It’s better than the laughably named shard buidling opposite
By Dan
Good that they mentioned preservation, this is not an ‘old car park site. Also agree with Bob, do the council members walk around with their eyes closed? streets badly need some tidying .
By Anonymous
This is dreadful, well short of the normal Buttress Standard. Imagine looking at all the bricks there are available and picking that.
By AA
Love the massing, the active frontage but poor design
By Anonymous
Are the developers insane? Do they think part demolitioning a listed building to build this student block slum could ever get through planning? Why waste everyone’s time? Mad.
By Dr B
It looks like a 1960s local authority scheme (the sort we are ripping down en masse). Totally inappropriate and fails to reuse some wonderful 19th Century architecture. Glad this has been binned.
By Heritage Action
As it stands this is a grim site, absolute eyesore. But the proposal is boring and value driven, city deserves better.
By Anonymous
Shudehill is hardly a Mecca of great taste, the site overlooks the Printworks, the bus stations & a tram stop. It’s one of the saddest looking areas of the city & the area is badly in need of investment. It would be great to retain all old buildings but the reality is that refurbishment is more costly than building new. There’s very little here of ‘heritage’ value to save!!! Manchester council need to fight the right battles.
By BuildaBear
@Anonymous you say the city deserves better but why? It’s already a net beneficiary, not a net contributor, not exactly fair is it?
By Anonymous