Renaker seeks £120m GMCA loan for two towers
A 55-storey skyscraper that forms part of the four-tower Trinity Islands cluster and the 444-apartment Bankside in Salford’s Greengate neighbourhood are in line to benefit from public cash.
The Greater Manchester Combined Authority will meet next week to approve a combined £120m of loans to Renaker from its Housing Investment Loans Fund, which would support the delivery of 927 apartments.
Renaker, one of the most active developers operating in Greater Manchester, is requesting £54.1m for Bankside and £65.6m for tower D2 at Trinity Islands.
Trinity Islands D2
The 55-storey scheme represents the first of four towers, which together will provide 1,950 apartments.
The £741m Trinity Islands scheme was approved by Manchester City Council in March last year.
The SimpsonHaugh-designed towers are divided between two 2.2-acre plots, which together are bounded by the River Irwell, Liverpool Road, Water Street and Regent Road. The plots, named C and D, are separated by Trinity Way.
The C plot is located east of Trinity Way. It would comprise two diamond-form skyscrapers with a crystalline façade. One tower would be 39 storeys, with 414 apartments. The other would be 48 storeys and have 521 apartments.
The D plot is to the west of Trinity Way. Its two towers have curved facades. One is 55 storeys – and is the subject of the loan request – with 483 apartments, while the other is 60 storeys with 532 apartments.
Bankside
Construction of Bankside is underway. Credit: via planning documents
The 42-storey building is currently under construction and is the second of three towers Renaker is building at Greengate.
The first, the 52-storey Cortland at Colliers Yard, received £37.5m from the GMHLIF and is nearing completion.
Plans for the third tower, the 518-home Parkside, were lodged late last year.
Once complete, the Renaker’s Greengate development will provide more than 1,500 homes across the three towers.
A report to the GMCA said that Bankside and D2 would “deliver a further 927 new homes, making a significant contribution to the GMHILF target to deliver 10,000 new homes and GM’s identified housing need to build around 200,000 new homes by 2037”.
The total value of offers of loans from the GMHILF approved by the combined authority to date is £656.1m. These loans are to support the delivery of more than 9,000 homes.
To date, Renaker has benefitted from £268.5m in GMCA loans for the delivery of 3,720 homes across six schemes, according to the combined authority.
How many of these units will be affordable if they are being given a Public funded loan ?
By Anonymous
These are loans not grants so will be repaid with interest. The public benefit is the provision of housing that might not have been delivered or delivered as quickly had the developer had to rely on private finance alone – or that’s the theory. In this way our overall housing provision is expanded.
We should still make the loan contingent on certain criteria around build quality, space standards and amenities. I’m not sure GMCA nothing carrying out enough due diligence in this regard.
By House Mart
Although these don’t hit all the social/environmental aims, we as a society need to recognise that we need more housing units. Renaker have a proven track record of providing a huge number of much-needed homes in sustainable locations. With Renaker, we have a more populated, richer inner-core, with higher population density, a more sustainable transport mix and more council tax receipts.
By Support
I guess this is the secret sauce behind Manchester’s skyscrapers, it needs the GMCA to de-risk the funding
By Rich X
@Rick Not so secret as loans have been widely publicised for previous scheme and underpin many commercial developments all over the country, London included.
By House Mart
This fund has been a massive contributor to Manchester’s success. It is very Manc/Salford Centric though. The dividers of this fund,forget that GM does not end at Alan Turing Way.
By Elephant
Overall it will help because they can fit in a lot more people in these towers for the time frame of the build, that may alleviate some demand pressure on the Manchester housing market which locals can benefit from, less demand on housing market price will come down a little making things more affordable.
Also it benefits the council because they collect way more tax and it benefits the Manchester economy, a lot more people will be shopping and spending in the city. Thus, bringing more investment in, more jobs created and the cycle continues, the city continued to grow just like London has.
By Saeed Khan
These new skyscrapers in Manchester really struggles with architectural diversity don’t they
By Anonymous
How about some giant office towers to balance the skyline? 200-300 meters tall would be good.
By itsadogsdinner
@Elephant, GM might not end at Alan Turing Way, but the desirable bit to live if you are under 35 does.
By Mammoth
Great news but now there are so many of these I’ve almost lost count. A 70 storey with a step back and a pointy top next please.
By Anonymous
Excellent. Without GMHF and Renaker, the whole supply and demand imbalance in the City would be even worse! Only Salboy are anywhere near touching the numbers that Renaker deliver, and they’re no where near on quality, design and placemaking. Long may it continue for the City.
By John W
These units wont be affordable which is regrettable. However they are contributing in other ways – they give millions per build to the council for public spaces & they have also contributed towards a school. The 1000’s of people moving in also contribute hugely to the economy too.
So i see both arguments. They are definitely a net benefit to the City, but its time we got serious about affordable housing
By Anonymous
I hope my taxes are used to create balconies for residential towers of a sensible height
By Balcony warrior
I am not doubting you Mammoth but not everyone is 35 and under.
By Elephant
Roll on 20 years and I wonder how we’ll all look back on this approach to providing private housing (and profits) through public spending. Yes, they are loans and not grants and they will be paid back but let’s see!
By Digbuth O'Hooligan
@Support “we as a society need to recognise that we need more housing units.”
Sorry but this isn’t true. More people in government and in the construction industry need to accept that the housing crisis is about commodification – housing as assets and investments. This is a complex societal issue and we need to stop pretending it can be solved by building more homes.
Healthy development is a good thing but we should be judging that based on sustainability, social provision and quality over quantity.
By W
@W
I totally agree with you. I also cringe when I hear housing being referred to as ‘units’. And I dislike statements which start ‘we as a society need to recognise…’ Of course problems should be recognised. Careful grassroots persuasion over blunt statements are what wins hearts and minds.
By SW
We need not only more housing units for homes, we also need more building plots. The population is shrinking naturally, so soon we can build-back the inhuman-scale big cities anyway. Then we can all live in England’s pleasant land. Who says no?
By James Yates
Do they need to look all the new towers exactly the same?? What a boring skyline Manchester is getting 🤦🏻♂️
By AlbertoR
Oh but it is a real skyline now AlbertoR. If you visit you’ll see that actually they are far from all the same and vary in both shape and form. Lots more coming so I’m sure you’ll also get something taller than the 64 stories currently holding the record. 20 years ago who’d have even thought. What you’d give for just a little of that ‘boring’ eh!
By Anonymous
Thoughtful when you see comments on commodification of housing that GM was built on vast swathes of identical terraced housing to support the growth of the textile industry. They weren’t built with noble intentions, but still became something that was valuable to society.
By Rich X