Marble Arch reiterates opposition to tower bid
Although McGoff has reworked its residential project close to the Manchester pub, creating a public realm buffer zone, the company behind the historic venue remains firmly against the plans.
Place North West reported earlier this week that the second phase of McGoff’s Downtown Victoria North project had been amended from an iteration that would have seen blocks of 10, 15 and 17 storeys hard up against the Marble Arch.
In that first version, which was revealed in November, the former Victoria Inn, most recently used as a convenience store, would have been refurbished into a modern commercial unit.
In the new version of the scheme, there would be a 13-metre gap opened up between the Marble Arch and McGoff’s development. An area of public realm would be created in this void.
As a result, the Victoria Inn building would be knocked down. The updated vision also proposes slightly more homes – 153 instead of 145 – in a single, chunkier block.
Consultation on the reworked scheme closes today.
The initial scheme featured differing heights, and immediately abutted the pub. Credit: via Philosophy PR
Marble Beers has submitted a lengthy contribution to this second round of consultation. The hospitality firm said that “the inclusion of a landscaped area is welcomed but that this does not offset the significant harm to the setting of the Listed Building that the proposal would create”.
Marble’s opposition covers several areas. The first of these is “substantial harm to a heritage asset” as the pub dates back to 1888 and is grade two-listed. Marble Beers’ team highlights scale and massing, loss of openness, and loss of historic context.
The second area is impact on a non-designated heritage asset – the Victoria, dating to 1870. The third is structural integrity of a listed building – Marble has reservations over the possible impacts of the piling and other works required for a 17-storey block.
Fuller information, such as a construction methodology statement, and surveys on related buildings, would be expected as part of the planning application.
The other main area of concern for the pub is the loss of amenity for the flat above the pub, through loss of privacy and loss of light.
The submission concludes: “The scale, height and proximity of the tower are fundamentally inappropriate to this sensitive heritage context.
“On behalf of Marble Beers Ltd we respectfully request that the applicant significantly reduce the height and mass of the current proposed development.”
CAMRA’s Pub Heritage Group has also voiced its concerns to Manchester City Council on the proposals.
These are obviously very real concerns as Marble will know the inhabitants of the block might be welcomed custom but still worth fighting against
By Tomo
The Marble Arch is an amazing pub. However, I am puzzled at these objections? Surely the clientele moving in around there,is ideal for enhancing the trade of this pub?
By Elephant
I can see your point, Elephant, but flat dwellers don’t go to pubs. Just ask the former proprietors of Deansgate Locks what happened when Renakerville went up.
By Anthony
Looking at the sites context with the two heritage buildings, and new developments, a more cohesive plan would be to restore the old Victoria Inn and have a low rise element on this former carpark which would compliment both pubs. Dense urban living is what we need for successful city centres, however the placement of such taller buildings and their impact shouldn’t result in attractive heritage buildings being destroyed. This stretch of Rochdale Road has a handful of old buildings, so its important to the character and history of the area to retain what’s left and enhance with new developments.
By GetItBuilt!
@ elephant – the Marble Arch is not lacking custom.
By Hail Ale
“Flat dwellers don’t go to pubs”. Most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read. Is that why The Shamrock in ancoats, the Crescent in Salford, the Rovers Return in Salford, and that pub at St John’s have all reopened in recent years, despite having been closed and derelict for decades prior? Increasing the density of the city centre absolutely leads to more patronage for pubs – the evidence is there for your eyes to feast upon
By Anonymous
Appropriate density is not necessarily achieved through such behemoths. Five, six, and seven storey structures would be way more appropriate next to a Grade II listed building like the Marble Arch, and even that would be pushing it. Not to talk about how horrible the building looks.
By Anonymous
I’m surprised they’ve increased the number of homes since their earlier layout, and the massing is now just a big block. No interest or intrigue in the design and somehow less sympathetic to Marble Arch imo.
By Anonymous
Everything that “GetitBuitl!” said – every effort should be made to build ipupon the unique character of the historic main streets in to the city centre – postwar planning demolished nearly all of them sadly. But retaining a unique Mancunian (or Salfordian), character to these streets is a key ingredient to successfully rebuilding the city centre fringe – which is one of the great successes of thriving cities (London or Bristol (think Gloucester Road) for example).
The Marble Arch is a gem but so too is 85 Rochdale Road – both should ideally be retained an sensitively integrated in a to a high quality mixed use perimeter block. If the developer really needs to make money back on what they paid for the land to get this built (and cannot access any pubic grants money), then height can be realistically found elsewhere on the site! Where there is a will there is a way…..
By Anonymous
I think I prefer the original scheme to be honest – it kept both heritage building and would provide more visual variety along the street frontage. Is it really a VE/BSA redesign being masqueraded as responding to heritage concerns and those of the Marble Arch Inn & Brewery?
By Anonymous 2
@Anthony, flat dwellers don’t go to pubs?!?
The problem with Deansgate Locks was the outdated offering.
By Antonio
@Anthony – ‘flat dwellers don’t go to pubs’. As a flat dweller who goes to pubs, I disagree. I would also disagree with the implication that Deansgate Locks had any ‘pubs’ on it.
The whole conversation about this (including the local media coverage) seems a bit odd, as if there’s something unspoken about the development which ‘threatens’ the pub but which people don’t want to spell out.
By Chapel St Resident
They have every right to object, this is a really poorly designed scheme without the retention of the Victoria Inn. As per the comment below, a low rise element on the former car park, Victoria Inn restored and then a building of scale is the way to go.
By Heritage Action
I’m confused slightly as on the face of it this looks a great compromise. The Marble is left untouched and with ‘room to breathe’. More housing in the city centre, additional green spaces and the dilapidated old shop replaced. City centre living isn’t for everyone – but for those that do enjoy the location , this seems spot on. What’s all the fuss about?
By Danger Mouse
Too tall. It needs to be keeping with the level of the pub or just above. Not great at all.
By Patrick bateman
Remember how snotty Marble were about the Northern Quarter when they closed their bar there, blaming the clientele of the surrounding bars. I think they just don’t like people different from them.
By Anonymous
The picture of the initial scheme shows exactly how architecture has declined, from beautiful buildings of long-lasting character, all the way to the soulless boxes littering the Manchester skyline.
By Francis
Second design far better than the first. Get it built.
By Mike