Manchester tips 900,000 sq ft GPA campus for consent
The £310m redevelopment of part of the 10.5-acre former Central Retail Park into a hub for 7,000 civil servants is expected to be approved by the city council next week.
Manchester Central Retail Park Digital Campus
GPA’s interest first occurred in 2022. Credit: via planning documents
Developer: Government Property Agency
Architect: AtkinsRéalis
Planner: Deloitte
Reference number: 141607/FO/2024
The 900,000 sq ft office scheme would be split into two parts. The North Building would be eight storeys tall, while the South Building would be seven storeys.
The South Building would be more public facing than its northern neighbour, containing 10,800 sq ft of ground-floor retail and a 320-space cycle hub, alongside locker and shower facilities.
Both of the office blocks are targeting a BREEAM rating of Excellent and NABERS score of five stars.
The buildings would sit on the western side of the former Central Retail Park plot, bordering Redhill Street and Great Ancoats Street, which Manchester City Council acquired for £37m in 2017 from TH Real Estate.
MCC’s ambition for the whole site includes up to 1.25m sq ft of offices with ground floor retail and leisure spaces, as well as public realm.
In addition to designing the campus for GPA, AtkinsRéalis is also the scheme’s landscape architect, structural and civil engineer, and M&E engineer. Gleeds is cost consultant and project manager.
Rounding out the project team are Arup, Stephen Levrant Heritage Architecture, E3P, Delva Patman Redler, and Counter Context.
As well as the buildings, plans for a central green space as part of the scheme have been submitted separately by the city council, which still owns the other half of the site.
Designed by Planit, the 1.7-acre park will divide the GPA scheme and the phase two land.
The park will provide additional walking routes and access to Cotton Field Park and Ancoats Marina. It will feature more than 100 trees, a 6,500 sq ft wildflower meadow, space for outdoor gym equipment, three play areas, and seating spaces.
Euan Kellie Property Solutions is advising on planning for the park.
GPA has agreed to contribute to the cost of the future park’s maintenance as part of its planning application terms.
This is a major positive for the city. Recouping a significant proportion of the £37m through a land disposal to the GPA and, as importantly, a fantastic addition to the retention of business rates base – possibly at £25 per sq ft = over £22m per annum. Plus all of the jobs!!!!!
By Anonymous
Surely you would think build high along great ancoats street and add as much green space to cotton field park to tick both boxes
By Anonymous
cladding is so out of character with the area. how can they recommend this for approval!?!
By Anonymous
Big, Bland monstrosities – disappointing – wheres the ambition
By meh
Rubbish anodyne architecture-by-numbers. And what’s with the huge wall around the building to the rear of the site?
GPA do not look like the most enlightened client here…
By GPA watch
What an opportunity wasted. The architecture here is abysmal. Why are there no windows on the wall looking out to the “park” area? Why have they chosen beige brick when the buildings would gel much better with the surrounding mills and housing in red brick? And why are the designs just so overwhelmingly boring? I live in the area and to say this proposal is a let down would be an understatement.
By David Walker
Awful scheme. Bland white facades facing onto the iconic, red brick Manchester mills along Old Mill Street. A massive wall around one of the buildings. No relationship with the surroundings or the proposed park. A blank wall facing towards the park. These will be demolition fodder in 50 years. Manchester City Council needs to stop accepting any old rubbish. I pray that the City Council has behind the scenes discussions to at least vary the palette and change it to a red brick. Look at First Street for some good recent examples of this.
By Red Brick
wow, great development and agree it will be phenomenal for the city overall but this just proves that MCC care very little for good quality placemaking. Such a shame
By Anonymous
Wouldnt it make more sense to have all the space in one taller building, thus a smaller footprint which allows for more public space, which as this area becomes more populated will be a boon of green space for everyone to enjoy. Also a blank wall facing the ‘park’ that’s a huge design fail.
By GetItBuilt!
The buildings we agree are all boring bland boxes but then it is funded for a government agency. The park I’ve never understood why it is raised given the current car park isn’t. Why make it inaccessible with steps for no reason
By Tomo
Anodyne is fine, cladding is also ok, bland is inoffensive and we can all have subjective opinions etc. At the end of the day its investment and development that brings employment and much more of what we need.
By M Friedman
Will be good for the local economy & eateries, but still such a waste of a good opportunity. Bland, but nowhere near as bland as the units that were there previously.
By Anonymous 1
Build these at Mayfield instead and build something more fitting with the area which includes more green space that everyone is screaming for.
By Anonymous
More ill-informed judgements on design……..get on line this will be very similar to 1 St Peters square. ……..if you think that is bland and boring you will never be satisfied with architecture in Regional cities. When was the last time that a tall office building was built outside London? It won’t happen. Bearing in mind that this is being built for the GPA has it not occurred to you that they have specific requirements. If I was spending 1bn in Manchester I’d want a building that suited my needs!!!
By Heavenhelpus
@Heavenhelpus – no there is a key difference with 1 St Peter’s Square and that is that building was designed by an actual architect rather than an engineer with a side line in architecture. 1 SPQ is beautifully proportioned and detailed and with quality materials. This makes all the difference, whereas this group of buildings appears to have no such refinement appearing dumpy. ill proportioned, relate particularly badly to the public realm and are derivative.
The GPA have clearly gone for the cheapest approach to procuring the design as possible and think that dressing it up in the clothes of a prime office building design from 15 years ago will fool people. And using all that buff coloured brick in Ancoats of all places – did they even visit the site?!
By Anonymous
Surely the planners will reject such bland, boring, design by school book template architecturre. Worst still why are all the building devouring ALL the ground leaving so little open green space – the lack of such spoace in Manchester is a national disgrace. Why are the buildings not half the footprint and twice the height in an aspirational architectural style. Shocking this is even being put forward for planning as currently proposed
By David
Pipe down everyone. This is nothing more (or less) than an exercise in Levelling Up financial engineering which happens to use the lever of a GPA scheme for civil servants who mostly WFH. A gigantic bland elephant which brings meaningful financial investment into the city. By all means demand more but this isn’t property development
By Anonymous
If the Ancoats NIMBYs want more green space try lobbying for the Medlock Valley along Palmerston Street – nothing will ever be built there. Meanwhile in the real world we get a shedload of decent jobs, the Council gets a stronger tax base which can help pay for much needed public services and new public realm that connects Great Ancoats Street to the existing park at New Islington. What’s not to like.
By Anonymous
Go higher and have more land area for public use.
By Tom
Agree with others here manchester council need to step up and demand something more appealing aesthetically for such a prime location and common sense should prevail regarding building height and footprint freeing up as much green space as possible come on MCC sort it out!!
By Anonymous
50% are new jobs to the city. That’s a lot of civil servants and a very significant development. Manchester really does excel at pulling in more and more jobs which fund the continuing development of the city, Offices, apartments, transport infrastructure etc. very Impressive.
By James
What other major schemes has AtkinsRealis delivered as architects? I’m sure they’re great engineers and it was cheap to engage the same company to deliver all aspects of design but looking at the renders, I don’t think this was a good idea from a place making point of view. They seem to think that trying to copy 1 St Peter’s Square on a very superficial level would fool people into thinking this is good architecture.
By Anonymous
Get it built.
By Manc
It is very utilitarian in design, public-office buildings these days tend to be. I actually think I they look fine anyway. It’s an office!
By Critoforo
Horrible design. Concrete Brutalist box, will be fodder in 30 years. Where’s English Heritage? Is this the ugliest building award winner?
By Anonymous