To sustain its urban renaissance, Manchester must make tough choices on property

The Manchester skyline. Image: Michael Colvin/Flickr/creative commons.

The announcement from Manchester earlier this year that the city council would grant approval to St Michael’s development, a 30 storey tall building in the heart of the city, has sparked controversy across the city.

Those in favour of the project emphasise the positive economic impact of the building, which will include flats, grade A offices, retail space and a hotel, in an area of the city that the council has long been keen to regenerate. Those against it are particularly concerned about the location and aesthetics of the new tower block, especially due to its proximity to historic Victorian buildings.

This story reflects wider concerns about the redevelopment of the city centre, for example about the lack of affordable homesheritage buildings at risk of being lost, and distinctive areas such as the Northern Quarter losing their spirit.

It’s true that Manchester city centre is undergoing massive economic and social changes. As the Centre for Cities' recent City Space Race report shows, between 1998 and 2015 the number of jobs located in the city centre increased by 84 per cent; and the number of residents grew by a whopping 149 per cent between 2002 and 2015.

But notwithstanding the concerns of people who aren’t comfortable with the transformation of the city centre, these changes show how much Manchester city centre has improved as a place to live and a place to work. In terms of employment and businesses, it has been particularly attractive to knowledge-intensive activities, which accounted for half of the new jobs created in the city centre between 1998 and 2015 and represented 44 per cent of all city centre jobs in 2015. This economic success, in turn, has made the city centre a more attractive place to live, with young professionals accounting for a large part of the overall increase in city centre population.


To date, the city centre has been able to accommodate both types of growth because of the amount of land available. But the recent controversies suggest that land availability may now be becoming a restriction. And this poses an interesting challenge for the city’s planners, who need to strike the right balance between commercial and residential use.

Just as Manchester’s urban renaissance has been fuelled by the growth of knowledge-intensive jobs in its city centre, so much of its future success is likely to hang on the continued ability for the city centre to support their growth in the future. This will mean that the ongoing availability of appropriate commercial space will be very important.

Yet national planning policies tend to favour the development of residential space over commercial, as shown in our report City Space Race. Permitted development rights (PDR) are a good example of this. Under this policy, converting office blocks into residential units does not require a planning permission, meaning that local authorities have less power to balance building uses.

Manchester has obtained an exemption on PDR over parts of its city centre, which has helped to protect its office stock. But as shown on the map below, many conversions under PDR have happened – or are currently underway – at the fringes of the protected area, bringing a total of 718 new residential units, which suggests that competition for space is building up.

Source: Manchester city council.

This policy is likely to result in an ad hoc approach to city centre development. The task for planners will be to balance and manage the competing needs of employment space, residential space, heritage and cultural amenities, which PDR makes more difficult.

The city centre cannot absorb all the growing demand; given the importance to the city’s economy of supporting businesses to thrive in the city centre, planners will need to make adequate space available for residential property in other areas of the city.

So while land pressure is not currently as acute in Manchester city centre as it can be elsewhere in the country, current economic changes suggest that this is likely to soon become a significant issue. This will require action today to allow the city centre to continue to play a central role in the city’s growing economy tomorrow.

Hugo Bessis is a researcher for the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this article originally appeared.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

This election is our chance to treat housing as a right – but only if we listen to tenants

The Churchill Gardens Estate, Westminster, London. Image: Getty.

“You’re joking, not another one... there’s too much politics going on at the moment..!”

Brenda of Bristol’s televised comments in 2017, when told that another election was to take place, could just as well have been uttered when MPs voted to call a general election for 12 December this year. 

Almost immediately the politicking began. “A chance to transform our country”. “An opportunity to stop Brexit/get Brexit done”. ‘We can end austerity and inequality.” “A new revitalised parliament.” “Another referendum.”

Yet dig behind the language of electioneering and, for the first time that I can recall, there is mention of solving the housing crisis by all the major parties. I can welcome another election, if the result is a determination to build enough homes to meet everyone’s needs and everyone’s pocket.

That will require those who come to power to recognise that our housing system has never been fit for purpose. It has never matched the needs of the nation. It is not an accident that homelessness is increasing; not an accident that families are living in overcrowded accommodation or temporary accommodation, sometimes for years; not an accident that rents are going up and the opportunities to buy property are going down. It is not an accident that social housing stock continues to be sold off. These are the direct result of policy decisions by successive governments.

So with all the major parties stating their good intentions to build more homes, how do we ensure their determination results in enough homes of quality where people want to live, work and play? By insisting that current and prospective tenants are involved in the planning and decision making process from the start.

“Involved” is the key word. When we build new homes and alter the environment we must engage with the local community and prospective tenants. It is their homes and their communities we are impacting – they need to be involved in shaping their lived space. That means involvement before the bull-dozer moves in; involvement at thinking and solution finding stages, and with architects and contractors. It is not enough to ask tenants and community members for their views on plans and proposals which have already been agreed by the board or the development committee of some distant housing provider.


As more homes for social and affordable rent become a reality, we need tenants to be partners at the table deciding on where, how and why they should be built there, from that material, and with those facilities. We need them to have an effective voice in decision making. This means working together with tenants and community members to create good quality homes in inclusive and imaginatively designed environments.

I am a tenant of Phoenix Community Housing, a social housing provider. I am also the current Chair and one of six residents on the board of twelve. Phoenix is resident led with tenants embedded throughout the organisation as active members of committees and onto policy writing and scrutiny.

Tenants are part of the decision making process as we build to meet the needs of the community. Our recently completed award-winning extra care scheme has helped older people downsize and released larger under-occupied properties for families.

By being resident led, we can be community driven. Our venture into building is small scale at the moment, but we are building quality homes that residents want and are appropriate to their needs. Our newest development is being built to Passivhaus standard, meaning they are not only more affordable but they are sustainable for future generations.

There are a few resident led organisations throughout the country. We don’t have all the answers to the housing situation, nor do we get everything right first time. We do know how to listen, learn and act.

The shocking events after the last election, when disaster came to Grenfell Tower, should remind us that tenants have the knowledge and ability to work with housing providers for the benefit of all in the community – if we listen to them and involve them and act on their input.

This election is an opportunity for those of us who see appropriate housing as a right; housing as a lived space in which to thrive and build community; housing as home not commodity – to hold our MPs to account and challenge them to outline their proposals and guarantee good quality housing, not only for the most vulnerable but for people generally, and with tenants fully involved from the start.

Anne McGurk is a tenant and chair of Phoenix Community Housing, London’s only major resident-led housing association.