Dissertation by Alia Paschali

The University and the City: Designing Integrated Campuses

A dissertation submitted to the Manchester School of Architecture for the degree of Bachelor of Architecture

2014

Paschalia Paschali 09027682

Manchester School of Architecture University of Manchester Manchester Metropolitan University

Declaration No portion of the work referred to in the dissertation has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning.

Copyright Statement 1. Copyright in the text of this thesis rests with the author, Copies (by any process) either in full, or of extracts, may be made only in accordance with instructions given by the Author and lodged in the John Rylands Library of Manchester. Details may be obtained from the Librarian. This page must form part of any such copies made. Further copies (by any process) of copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the permission (in writing) of the Author.

2. The ownership of any intellectual property rights which may be described in this thesis is vested in the Manchester School of Architecture, subject to any prior agreement to the contrary and may not be made available for use by third parties without the written permission of the University, which will prescribe the terms and conditions of any such agreement.

3. Further information on the conditions under which disclosures and exploitation may take place is available from the Head of Department of the School of Environment and Development.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Dr. Andrew Karvonen for his help in producing this dissertation. I would also like to thank Cath Keane, Dean Luby, Natalia Maximova and Carla Nuttall for providing primary source information for the research of this dissertation. 3

Contents p. 7

1.0 - Introduction p. 8

1.1 - Overview

p. 10

1.2 - Methodology

p. 13 2.0 - The Spatial Role of Universities in the City

p. 21 3.0 - A Brief History of Manchester Metropolitan University

p. 27 4.0 - Manchester Metropolitan Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Birley Fields Campus p. 28

4.1 - Manchester Metropolitan Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Estates Strategy

p. 36

4.2 - Birley Fields Masterplan Overview

p. 42

4.3 - Birley Fields Masterplan Analysis p. 42 4.3.1 - The Site: Location and Vision p. 50 4.3.2 - Linkages and Movement p. 58 4.3.3 - Community Facilities and Public Realm p. 63 4.3.4 - Built Forms and their Architecture

p. 73 5.0 - Conclusion

p. 79 6.0 - References

p. 87 7.0 - Illustrations p. 88

7.1 - Figures

p. 92

7.2 - Tables

p. 95 8.0 - Appendices p. 96

8.1 - The History of Manchester Metropolitan University

p. 109 8.2 - Interviews 5

1.0 - Introduction

1.1 - Overview As Frank Cunningham observed, universities are often in the city but not of the city, suggesting that few interact in meaningful ways with their host cities. Bickl and Klump, 2012: 1 Throughout time, universities and their host cities have enjoyed mutually beneficial relationships, irrespective of the university’s exact location or campus type. However, the physical attributes and the spatial relationships between a university and its host city can either make the university an entirely separate entity that has no connections to its surroundings, or they can turn the university into a fully integrated part of the city that encourages mutually beneficial and meaningful relationships between the two. Gertler (2012: 8) observed that even though universities have had a longstanding presence within cities, ‘... the nature of the relationship between institutions of higher learning and their urban environments is still not completely understood’. Van Heur (2010: 1714) identifies three main bodies of literature that study the production and use of the built environment of Higher Education and Research (HER): a) research on universities and real estate development, b) urban and regional studies on the role of HER institutes in generating human and social capital and c) science and technology studies on architecture and spaces of science. Acknowledging the existing literature on the various cultural, economic, political and sociological effects that a university has on its host city, this dissertation seeks to investigate the developing spatial relationships between the two and, to an extent, address this underdeveloped research topic. Scholars seem to agree that the civic urban campus model is dominant in imagining the role of higher education and research in the 21st century knowledge economy and society and that classical inner-city universities are developing proposals to revive themselves in a manner that will also benefit their home cities in more substantial and meaningful ways (Merlin, 2006; Hoeger, 2007; van Heur, 2010; Baird, 2012). This overarching vision of creating an integrated community university campus is at the heart of Manchester Metropolitan University’s new 8

Birley Fields campus development. The new campus aims to integrate itself in its local community in Hulme, and on a wider scale Manchester, and improve the relationships between the university and the city. This new masterplan is an example of how MMU is attempting to integrate itself within Manchester and therefore serves as a case study in my dissertation, to help investigate the larger issue of how universities can integrate with their surrounding areas, hence establishing themselves a vital part of the city, rather than just being elements in the city. This dissertation explores how this new centralised campus changes the relationship between MMU and Manchester and how universities can design their campuses effectively, while being “good neighbours”. If MMU’s Birley Fields campus is successful, it might prove itself an innovative and strong architectural design precedent for other universities trying to integrate themselves into their host city’s urban fabric. This dissertation is divided into three main empirical chapters. The first chapter introduces the broad theme of the spatial role of universities in the city, while providing a brief history of university campus evolution. The second chapter provides a brief history of MMU, thus explaining why the university is currently so physically dispersed; a complete chapter on the history of MMU can be found in Appendix 8.1. The third chapter analyses various architectural features of MMU’s Birley Fields masterplan - the focus of this dissertation - all of which were chosen due to their capacity to promote or restrict the university’s integration to the local community and the city. This third chapter is presented as three parts; firstly, there is an introduction to the masterplan, which investigates the possible reasons behind MMU’s decision to rationalise its estate and consolidate its previously multiple campuses. This is followed by an overview of the masterplan and then the main analysis part, which is sub-divided into several sections, each investigating a particular design aspect of the masterplan. By looking into the design aspects separately, I am able to draw conclusions at the end of each section regarding the expectations related to them and whether these will assist in integrating the university with the city.

1.2 - Methodology The nature of the relationship between a university and its host city is multi faceted. When I started researching my topic, I realised that there are a large number of studies on the relationship between the university and the city, but most of them explore this relationship in cultural, economic, political and sociological terms. The literature most relevant to my dissertation was architecturally historical studies on the changing nature of the campus model and its varying forms, along with studies on the geographies of higher education and the expectations associated with this built environment. I therefore used the existing literature to gain a broader, theoretical understanding of my topic and the evolution (past, present and future) of the university campus model and how these educational precincts affect their environments. This research led to the conclusion that universities are currently trying to integrate themselves within their host cities in much more meaningful ways than before and are attempting to blur the boundaries between their educational facilities and the areas surrounding them. In order to investigate how universities integrate themselves architecturally in the city’s urban fabric, I chose to analyze various architectural aspects of MMU’s Birley Fields masterplan, which serves as my case study. I initially collected and studied as much information on the Birley Fields masterplan as I could and then conducted site visits and interviews with people that were directly involved in the design and development of the masterplan. As the Birley Fields site is currently a building site, it is inaccessible to the public. I did, however, walk around the site on numerous occasions, exploring the surrounding area and checking whether various descriptions provided by MMU and the masterplanners were accurate. Overall, I interviewed four key individuals, including two persons from MMU, the masterplan’s design team leader and one policy maker; see Table 1.1. The interviews were semi-structured and lasted an hour to an hour and a half each. The interviewees were chosen from different key groups to provide me with a balanced and coherent view of the masterplan and its design. I attempted to arrange a fifth interview with one of the architects of the masterplan’s student accommodation units, but I was unable to conduct this interview as the potential interviewee was not based in Manchester and had a very busy schedule. The

semi-structured format of the interviews conducted allowed the interviewees to extend the discussions themselves, therefore wielding wider results. I documented the interviews by keeping thorough notes throughout, instead of recording them, as audio recordings seemed to discourage individuals expressing themselves freely. The findings from the interviews were numerous; all interviewees provided me with a great deal of information, most of which is discussed in the third chapter that includes the analysis of the Birley Fields masterplan. All of the data gathered through the literature review, research, site visits and interviews are explained and analyzed throughout the dissertation; a lot of the concepts and ideas overlap, hence assisting in providing a thorough analysis of the Birley Fields vision and ultimately how universities can design their campuses to promote this integration between the university and the city.

Table 1.1 Summary of interviews Name

Role / Position

Date

Location

Carla

MMU Public

10.03.20

MMUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Benzie

Nuttall

Engagement Manager

Building Cafeteria

Duration

1 hour

Associate at Sheppard Natalia

Robson and Design

13.03.20

Sheppard Robson

Maximova

Team Leader for Birley

Offices

1 hour

Fields projects

Dean

Project Manager, MMU

13.03.20

MMU New

Luby

Capital Projects Office

Business School

1 hour

Cafeteria

Cath

Principal Regeneration

14.04.20

Manchester City

Keane

Officer and Hulme ward

Council Offices

co-ordinator

1.5 hours

2.0 - The Spatial Role of Universities in the City

2.0 - The Spatial Role of Universities in the City The very root of what a university is can be traced as far back as man’s earliest search for knowledge, that most fundamental urge to comprehend, measure and in some way control his environment. Pearce, 2001: 7 Pearce (2001: 9) states that the medieval Latin word universitas meant a corporation, society or community of any kind, that had independent legal status and was made up of individuals sharing a common interest. The word did not refer to the universality of learning and could denote any group such as a craft guild or municipal corporation. Pearce (2001: 9) also explains that the terms stadium generale is probably closer than universitas to our modern understanding of a university. This is because stadium denotes the idea of a school or place of learning, while generale refers to the diversity of students and teachers that it attracts. According to the literature, scholars seem to agree that the university is essentially a European invention and that from its very beginnings, the university has had a powerful relationship with the town and / or the city; traditionally, it was urban, not rural-monastic. (Hall, 1996; Pearce, 2001; Baird, 2012) Even though the early medieval universities’ physical manifestations were quite different, they are the educational prototypes for our modern institutions. As these educational institutions’ influence grew, colleges associated with residential groupings of scholars and students started being established, hence producing identifiable territories. Pearce (2001: 10) emphasizes that the important issue is that the universities grew within the cities or towns and concludes that ‘these first generation universities were very much an integrated part of their host cities and towns’, whereas today particular territories can be recognized in the form of colleges and / or universities. Indeed, two of Europe’s earliest universities - Bologna and Paris - both established identifiable, although not sharply defined, institutional precincts within the urban fabric of their respective cities relatively early on. A third early university - Oxford - followed a similar urban pattern to Bologna and Paris; however, as it grew, the university came to dominate the overall form 14

of the city of Oxford much more than the universities in Bologna and Paris dominated in their cities. Baird, 2012: 5 Even though the idea of a university precinct can be identified in all three of the above mentioned examples, none of these precincts can be described fittingly as a campus. Baird (2012: 5) writes that the campus as an organizing concept for a college or a university only came into existence in a later era. Merlin (2006: 186) explains that the term campus is of Latin origin and means “field” or “wide extension of land”. A campus can therefore be defined as the land on which the buildings of a university are built. At the beginning, none of the already mentioned European institutions occupied buildings specifically built for university use. Evolving from the cathedral schools and monasteries, universities initially had no permanent buildings and were physically dispersed in existing buildings throughout the city. However, as these urban institutions grew due to the number of students who enrolled and the field of studies both increasing, new buildings were erected for specific academic and university purposes. These buildings followed a model derived from a palazzo or monastery, ‘a linear building form organised around a courtyard’ (Baird, 2012: 5). For the first four centuries or so of the university’s history as an urban institution, its built form was defined by this pattern of urban university precincts consisting of courtyard-type buildings. As universities grew further in size and student population, it became necessary to gather university facilities to one location, so university settlements began occupying specific locations. Yaylali-Yildiz et al (2013: 2) affirm that ‘with its inward-focused learning community and distinct spatial organization, this settlement was named campus (Neuman, 2003)’. Based on existing literature, there are numerous campus design strategies that can be identified and different authors use different typologies, depending on their research subject. Pearce (2001: 12-13), for example, identifies four distinct design strategies: the campus model (eg University of Sussex), the molecular campus (eg University of York), the concentrated model (eg University of East Anglia) and the civic urban model (eg De Montfort University). Merlin (2006: 184), however, argues that an outline of the relationships between the university and the city can 15

be proposed based on three models: the Mediaeval university (eg Bologna and Oxford), the American campus (eg The University of Virginia and Stanford University) and the European campus (eg Paris). Merlin (2006: 190) points out that in the United Kingdom, ‘… the Mediaeval universities … were complemented by the civic universities (established in cities such as Durham, London and Manchester)’, subcategorizing universities in the European campus typology into Medieval universities, civic universities and greenfield universities, hence overlapping with Pearce’s design strategies. Pearce’s (2001) civic urban model, while continuing the concentrated model’s interdisciplinary interest, challenges the isolation of university campuses by explicitly positioning the university as part of the city, which is the case of MMU. Merlin (2006:189) briefly discusses the implications of this; he mentions the possibility of utilizing previously abandoned buildings in the city, as well as the city centre’s pleasant and prestigious nature, hence reflecting the universities’ aim of an improved student and staff experience. Employment opportunities also tend to be more favorable in cities. However, civic universities face numerous social challenges, like community conflicts, since, in the words of Pearce (2001: 13), ‘… they have made the link between everyday life and the world of academic investigation and research a vital part of civic life’. Therefore, the urban setting of a campus defines physical types of relationships with the structures of the city, but also promotes or restricts their interactions on a social level (Pearce, 2001; van Heur, 2010). Merlin’s (2006) campus models somewhat overlap with Hoeger’s (2007) typologies; she identifies only two types of campuses, greenfield campuses and classical inner city campuses. Van den Berg and Russo (2004) then differentiate between two kinds of inner city campuses that define social types of relationships: a) formal, which possesses a conservative character and is physically separated from the urban environment, and b) informal, which refers to downtown settlements with abundant prospects for cultural cross and integration. Den Heijer (2008) on the other hand, addresses three types of campus settlements: a) Campus as a separate city, b) Campus as a gated community in the city (with or without actual gates) and c) Campus integrated with the city. A combination of Hoeger’s, Den Heijer’s and Van den Berg and Russo’s typologies will be adopted 16

for the purposes of this dissertation, as they are the ones most suitable in describing the physical and social relationships between the university and the city; see Figure 2.1. Pearce’s and Merlin’s typologies will also be used to an extent, since Pearce’s identification of the different modes of interaction between students, researchers and non-academic actors elaborated by van Heur, point to the ways in which the university interacts with its surroundings and in this case, the city, which is the key relationship expressed in Merlin’s models.

Figure 2.1: Diagram connecting the different views on campus categories and their physical and social relationships with the city

As previously illustrated via the literature, universities have always been an important influence on their host cities, irrespective of their exact location or campus type. The university campus model’s scale has changed radically over the years; from one single university building to enclosed campuses (eg University of Essex), to entire univerCITIES (eg Cambridge). The model has also changed in terms of its relationship with its host city; from greenfield universities located on the outskirts of towns and small cities, to civic urban universities, to universities dominating a city’s urban fabric. The more intertwined the two are, the greater the influence of the university on the city and its spatial development and vise versa; Baird (2012: 5) writes:

Universities and their host cities have enjoyed mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationships since the construction of the very first European academies. The deep connections between their physical forms - not just their functions - have endured throughout time.

The various architectural elements and the spatial relationships between a university and its host city can either make the university an entirely separate entity that has no relationship with its surroundings other than mutual economic benefits, or they can turn the university into a fully integrated part of the city that encourages mutually beneficial and meaningful relationships between the two. In cases where the campus is spread across the city (eg Bologna, Cambridge or Sheffield) and allows for the co-existence of university life and city life, the university directly affects the urban fabric of the city and the city affects that of the university; in the words of Hoeger (2007: 17) ‘… the city and the campus interact with each other, influencing each other’s development’. Manchester Metropolitan University is one of these cases and falls within the European university civic urban campus model typology. MMU came into existence due to the convergence of a number of tributary institutions; these institutions were already established and physically dispersed throughout Manchester and Cheshire, thus resulting in MMU becoming a multi-campus civic urban university.

Concluding his paper, Merlin (2006: 201) writes that ‘We must ensure this (partial) return of the university to the city centre and this reconciliation between university and city’. According to van Heur (2010: 1717) the civic urban model seems to become increasingly hegemonic in imagining the role of higher education and research in the 21st century knowledge economy and society. This is partly supported by Hoeger (2007: 13) who states that ‘current trends in campus design represent a major turnaround from the monofunctional and isolated greenfield campus, the prototypical model for university development in the 1960s and 70s’. Hoeger (2007: 13) also points out that classical inner-city universities are developing proposals to revive themselves in a manner that will also benefit their home cities. In line with this literature and under its 2020 Vision for the University, MMU is presently undergoing a programme of transformation, consolidation and reconfiguration of its existing estate. This programme envisages the reduction of the number of MMU sites from the previous seven down to just two centres by the academic year 2014/15. MMU’s current activities are drastically changing the university’s relationship with its host city. In the chapters following, I will be investigating this proposed and currently developing spatial relationship between MMU and the city of Manchester and how this relationship promotes or restricts meaningful interactions between the two. The proposed Birley Fields campus masterplan will be the focus of this analysis as it is a major example of how MMU is integrating its campus within the city, hence serving as a case study for the larger issue of how universities integrate with their surrounding areas, making themselves of the city rather than just in the city.

3.0 - A Brief History of Manchester Metropolitan University

3.0 - A Brief History of Manchester Metropolitan University Manchester Metropolitan University is presently one of the largest campus-based undergraduate universities in the UK; it is currently physically dispersed over five campuses (All Saints, Cheshire, Didsbury, Elizabeth Gaskell and Hollings), with sites stretching from central Manchester to southern Cheshire (MEN, 2014; TopUniversities, 2014). Why was Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) so physically dispersed in the first place though? The answer to this question lies in the universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s history; the modern MMU is the product of a series of mergers over the past 40 years. In 1970, three existing colleges - Manchester College of Art and Design and John Dalton College of Technology at All Saints, and the Manchester College of Commerce at Aytoun Street - merged to create Manchester Polytechnic (Williams, 1999). This meant that upon creation, Manchester Polytechnic, later on to become MMU, was already divided onto two campuses: All Saints and Aytoun. Manchester Polytechnic then merged with Didsbury College and Hollings College in 1977, COMANCHE (City of Manchester College of Higher Education), which was based on the Elizabeth Gaskell site, in 1983 and finally Crewe+Alsager College in 1992, the year MMU was awarded university status (Williams, 1999). As these colleges were already established and based on their own separate campuses, MMU initially had a total of seven campuses (All Saints, Alsager, Aytoun, Crewe, Didsbury, Elizabeth Gaskell and Hollings) throughout Manchester (see Figure 3.1) and Cheshire. Each of the seven campuses was home to different faculties and university departments (see Table 3.1) and they all varied greatly in size and facilities.

Figure 3.1: Map showing location of MMUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Manchester based campuses

Table 3.1: Table of all the MMU campuses and which faculties each campus contained

Campus Name

Faculties on Campus

All Saints

Contained three of the universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s seven faculties (Art and Design; Humanities and Social Science; Science and Engineering) together with central administration and three halls of residence (Cambridge Halls, Cavendish Hall and Loxford Hall)

Alsager

Occupied by 40% of the Crewe+Alsager Faculty, that came into existence following the two collegesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; merger in 1974

Aytoun

Occupied by the Faculty of Management and Business

Crewe

This was the administrative centre for the Crew+ALsager Faculty (formerly Crewe+Alsager College) and had a relatively large number of halls of residence on campus in comparison to the Manchester campuses, creating a more self-contained ambience

Didsbury

Accommodated most of the Faculty of Community Studies, Law and Education. It also contained a sports complex and two halls of residence (Broomhurst and Royal Ford Halls)

Elizabeth Gaskell

This formed the second campus of the Faculty of Community Studies, Law and Education. It also contained the Parrs Wood House, acquired in 1928, as student residence

Hollings

Occupied by the Hollings Faculty

As MMU’s structure and faculties changed and developed, the university began rationalizing its estate and is currently reducing its campuses from seven to two: the MMU Cheshire Campus and one central Manchester based campus, comprising of the existing and recently re-developed All Saints Campus and the new Birley Fields campus.

MMU is a great example of a multi-campus civic urban university. Based on literature and research (see Appendix 8.1), MMU’s current campuses are rather physically separated from their environments and are relatively formal. Even though they are in urban locations, they do not interact with these in any particular way, thus separating the university facilities from their surrounding areas. Den Heijer’s (2008) description of a campus as a gated community is appropriate for the majority of MMU’s campuses. Most of them have identifiable site boundaries, whether mental or physical, and do not encourage a meaningful integration of the campus into the urban fabric of the city. All Saints is more integrated into Manchester’s urban fabric, but still maintains a moderately formal character, hence restricting the actual integration of the university in the city. MMU’s relationship to the city is currently changing; the university is attempting to become of the city and ascertain itself an integrated part of Manchester via the Birley Fields development.

4.0 - Manchester Metropolitan Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Birley Fields Campus

4.1 - Manchester Metropolitan Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Estates Strategy Our 10-year, ÂŁ350 million plan to create an outstanding and inspiring learning environment started in 2004 with the planning for a range of new buildings to give our students the best learning and teaching experience possible. Financed entirely from existing resources, it represents one of the largest and most ambitious investment programmes of any UK university, and provides Manchester Metropolitan University with two outstanding university campuses, in central Manchester and Crewe, Cheshire. MMU, 2014a: online Following through with their ten-year plan, MMU has already constructed a number of new facilities for its students, the most recent ones being the MMU Business School and Student Hub building, shown in Figure 4.1, and the Manchester School of Art building, shown in Figure 4.2. The completed MMU investment projects can be found in Table 4.1.

Figure 4.1: MMUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Business School and Student Hub building, by Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios, is considered to be one of the greenest buildings in Manchester.

Figure 4.2: MMU’s School of Art and Design building, by Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios, along with the new Business School reflect Manchester Metropolitan University’s vision to become the UK’s leading university for world class professionals

Table 4.1: Table listing all the facilities already completed by MMU as part of their £350 million ten-year plan, which falls under MMU’s 2020 Vision for the university.

Cost of Project (£m)

Science and engineering complex

Student accommodation complex

Contemporary Arts Centre

MMU’s Institute for Biomedical Research into Human Movement and Health

Engineering block

Completion Date (Year)

Description

2005

Contains high specification teaching laboratories and research facilities including blood biochemistry, biomechanics, motor control, exercise performance laboratories, multimedia research laboratory and a computer games usability laboratory

2005

Consists of 799 en-suite bedrooms typically arranged in 7-bedroom flats each with a spacious communal kitchen and dining area. A 24-hour reception, secure parking and launderette are included within the complex. The accommodation is located within a short walk from the campus and leisure facilities

2009

Located in the MMU Cheshire campus, this professional complex includes six large well-equipped dance/theatre studios, specialist recording and postproduction music studios, music technology suite, concert performance space and rehearsal rooms equipped with pianos, electronic keyboards, percussion and amplification systems and an art gallery hosting touring exhibitions throughout the year

2010

Boasting 12 research professors, the Institute’s specialisms include genetics and cell biology, nutrition, orthopaedics, gerontology, exercise science and bioengineering

2010

Offers state-of-the-art facilities for research and teaching in surface engineering, materials, forensics, automotive engineering, dynamics and new technology

Exercise and Sport Science Centre

Manchester School of Art building

MMU Business School and Student Hub

2010

Located in the MMU Cheshire campus, this dedicated modern centre is fitted out with the latest testing and research equipment including a series of large laboratory spaces, an altitude training chamber, genetics and biochemistry laboratory, eight court sports hall, 50 station fitness zone, data analysis suite and sport injury clinic.

2012

Named the Benzie Building, it complements the School’s original 19th century buildings and provides classrooms, workshops and hybrid studios with multifunctional spaces, roof terraces and gallery spaces. Designed by Stirling Prize winning architects, Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios, the Art School provides exceptional working spaces for MMU’s art and design students

2012

This building provides a range of high specification learning environments and student support services and with its impeccable environmental sustainability credentials it is one of the greenest buildings in Manchester. The building has won multiple awards for design including the Prime Minister’s Award for Best Public Building 2013 at the British Construction Industry Awards

According to John McAslan + Partners (2009: no pagination): The University’s commitment to rationalise its estate into two versatile and sustainable campuses is part of a plan to improve efficiency and raise standards. Like many other universities, MMU has an estate that is not only increasingly

unsuitable,

undergraduates

and

but

also

postgraduate

less

attractive

researchers.

Modern,

potential flexible

accommodation is central to raising standards and improving the quality of the environment.

Within Manchester, the target has been to unify MMU into one central campus, by bringing the Didsbury, Hollings, Aytoun and Elizabeth Gaskell campuses together with the existing All Saints campus, in order to create one sustainable, central learning environment (MCC, 2013: 4). The reasons behind MMU wanting a centralized campus could be numerous. For example, the dispersed set of campuses previously used by the university might have presented problems associated with this type of campus model, such as lack of cohesion for the university staff and students, as well as a lack of unified identity for the university. There are numerous institutional papers and reports that describe the objective challenges experienced by multi-campus universities. These challenges include ‘…provision of equivalent, affordable and accessible facilities and resources across campuses … and the significant costs to students, staff and faculties of such teaching and administrative replication’ (Scott et al, 2007: 4). In the case of MMU, one could argue that resources and facilities, such as libraries, workshops, sports halls, etc, are evenly distributed and equally available in the All Saints and Didsbury campuses, but that Elizabeth Gaskell is significantly lacking in this aspect. Dean Luby, Project Manager at the Capital Projects office of MMU, confirmed that this rationalization of MMU’s estates is a consolidation exercise for the university, which will lead to avoiding the duplication of services, such as libraries. Another issue with the previously existing campuses discussed with Carla Nuttall, MMU’s Public Engagement Manager, was that students would attend open days at the more central and modern All Saints Campus and then realize they were based in an older and more isolated campus, such as Elizabeth Gaskell, and might feel as if they were victims of false marketing. 32

Birley Fields in Hulme represents the final stage of MMUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ÂŁ350m investment in new campus facilities and is the largest construction project in their ten year plan to consolidate from seven campus locations to two by 2014 (Brooks, 2014: online).

Figure 4.3: Diagrammatic map illustrating the existing MMU sites

Figure 4.4: Diagrammatic map illustrating the proposed consolidated MMU sites

4.2 - Birley Fields Masterplan Overview As discussed previously and illustrated in Figures 4.3 and 4.4, MMU’s existing campuses cover around 56 hectares on seven sites, making it one of the most widespread higher education institutions in Britain. During our interviews, Nuttall, MMU’s Public Engagement Manager, and Luby, Project Manager at MMU’s Capital Projects office, mentioned that the university always wanted to merge the Education faculty with the Health, Psychology and Social Care faculty; this had to be done through an expansion and expanding the Didsbury campus was met with hostility from the local community. The university therefore decided to merge the two faculties by relocating them onto a new site, Birley Fields. The new campus at Birley Fields enables the University to co-locate its Faculty of Health, Psychology and Social Care, together with the Institute of Education from their existing campuses, thus uniting education and training for teachers, nurses, social workers and other health care professionals onto a single site. The intention is to create a new campus on land that is adjacent to the All Saints campus, on the border with Hulme and Moss Side (see Figure 4.5), which will allow a linked campus to be built, thus providing a unique opportunity for the University to have all its Manchester provision in one campus area (Drivers Jonas Deloitte, 2011). The new campus on Birley Fields will incorporate: 22,000m2 of new academic teaching facilities contained within a new academic building for the collocated Faculty of Health, Psychology and Social Care and the Institute of Education, community uses and shared facilities, an Environmental Energy Centre, publicly accessible landscaped space at the heart of the new campus, a multi storey car park and a maximum of 1,200 purpose-built student accommodation units (Drivers Jonas Deloitte, 2011). The masterplan also contains proposals to create pedestrian and cycle links between All Saints and Birley Fields. The initial Birley Fields masterplan can be seen in Figure 4.6, whereas the current masterplan is shown in Figure 4.7.

Figure 4.5: Diagrammatic plan illustrating the sitesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; areas and dimensions. The total area for all the Birley Fields sites combined is 45,300m2, which is almost half the area of the All Saints campus.

Figure 4.6: The initial Birley Fields proposed masterplan promotes the idea of a new community orientated campus with significant high quality public open space, to be used as a unifying and connecting device for the campus users and the local community.

Figure 4.7: The current Birley Fields masterplan by Sheppard Robson is a development of John McAslan + Partnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; initial masterplan

As observed by Goddard et al (2011), a great deal has been written in higher education studies about more local civic engagement or community outreach and increasingly in planning and geography about the potential community regeneration effects of universities through their campus development practices. Freeland (2005: 2) states that universities should move from merely coexisting with their communities, or simply reaching out to them when they need something, to incorporating regional vitality into the universitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; planning for institutional growth. Bonfantini (2012: 2) states: The university as an urban transformation factor, in its economic, social and spatial organisation implications, is attributed a growing significance as an element affecting the development of the contemporary city (Perry, Wiewel 2005). MMU and Manchester City Council (MCC) are working in partnership on the Birley Fields masterplan to create a campus that will complement the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strategies for regeneration and public services. The Birley Fields proposals offer the opportunity to complete the regeneration of Hulme, which has been in motion since the early 1990s (MCC, 2009; John McAslan + Partners, 2009; Drivers Jonas Deloitte, 2011). According to MCC (2009), the development of the campus and the supporting social, economic, educational and environmental actions that will be taken by the university will ensure that there are major economic, education, social and community opportunities for Hulme and Moss Side residents. During our interview, Cath Keane, Hulme Ward co-coordinator and part of the Central Regeneration Team, stated that both MMU and MCC are confident that bringing this campus into Hulme will help, as it has the potential to create jobs and open up education and training opportunities, thus providing numerous spin-off benefits to Hulme and Moss Side. These arguments regarding the positive effects that the new campus can have on the local community and the universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s host city are supported by existing strands of literature, most of which, however, focus on the mutually beneficial economic relationships that can develop between the two, leaving the wider impact of such activities on the spatial relationship between them unclear. In the next section of this chapter, I will be looking into these spatial relationships, using 40

the example of Birley Fields. By analyzing the new campusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; overarching vision and its spatial and architectural qualities, I will explore how MMU is integrating itself within the city, hence trying to become a university of the city rather than simply remaining one essentially in the city.

4.3 - Birley Fields Masterplan Analysis 4.3.1 - The Site: Location and Vision According to Nuttall and Luby, the chosen Birley Fields site was acknowledged as a possible campus location by MMUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Vice Chancellor, Professor John Brookes, and in 2008, the university started discussions with the MCC, who owned the land, about potentially developing the site into MMUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s newest campus. MCC were keen from the beginning as this land was unused at the time and had been vacant for approximately 20 years. Located at a key gateway into Manchester (see Figures 4.8 and 4.9), the site is defined by existing roads - Stretford Road to the north, Royce Road / Old Birley Street to the west, Phoenix Way to the south and Princess Road to the east (see Figure 4.10). In the north-south direction it is split by Princess Road, a wide city thoroughfare leading towards the city centre, and in the east-west direction it is divided by Bonsall Street.

Figure 4.8: Map highlighting the Birley Fields site location

Figure 4.9: Diagram illustrating the location of the MMU Manchester-based campus in relation to its surrounding uses, emphasizing Birley Fieldsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; strategic position at a key gateway into Manchester.

Figure 4.10: Diagrammatic plan, illustrating in darker orange color the location of the existing MMU buildings of the redeveloped All Saints campus and in lighter orange color the proposed MMU sites identified for the new Birley Fields campus.

Due to its strategic location close to the city centre and on a main route serving the motorway network and airport, Birley Fields provides MMU with a number of opportunities, most of which can have a positive effect on the city as a whole (John McAslan + Partners, 2009). According to Maximova, Associate at Sheppard Robson, the site is visible from almost everywhere and therefore has the potential to make a strong statement by becoming a symbol, or even a landmark. Luby finds that the new campus’ location announces the university’s presence in the area when someone is approaching the city. Therefore, it has the potential to become an advertisement for the university and the city; most inner-city universities have limited and constrained sites, whereas Birley Fields is a unique opportunity for MMU, since it provides it with an already established, popular approach, drawing people in and hence ascertain itself as a vital part of the city, while promoting Manchester as a city of educational excellence. Luby, Nuttall and Keane all agreed that traditionally, Manchester’s city-centre based universities (University of Manchester and MMU) have generally turned their backs to the city and the community, and vise versa, while MMU had also turned its back on Hulme and its gateway. The Birley Fields campus aims to open up that east to west connection and break up the linear north-south Corridor Manchester investment area, extending it to include and promote Hulme. Birley Fields is marketed as a community campus, emphasizing the university’s aim to reinforce its presence within the community and make this relationship more visible. Luby and Nuttall acknowledged that the key to the success of this integration between the university and the city is the fact that the two faculties being relocated are the most community engaged faculties, as the nature of their taught courses requires students to work directly with, or be employed at, local schools and hospitals. Consequently, relocating these faculties in the heart of Hulme, surrounded by a number of schools and health care facilities (see Figure 4.11) was ideal for the university, since it can improve the students’ experience and employability, while at the same time establish the university’s position as an integrated part of the city.

Figure 4.11: Building uses around the Birley Fields Site. The predominant building use to the north and west of the proposed Hulme campus is residential and towards Oxford Road is educational, mainly associated with MMU and the University of Manchester.

However, as it is a campus proposed within an already established area, it faces a number of social challenges. Maximova and Nuttall both made reference to the local people’s opinionated nature; when the university first introduced their new proposals, they found the majority of local residents somewhat opposed to or unconvinced by the relocation ideas. Local residents were worried that the existing community feeling would fade away due to the increase in the area’s student population. People were also concerned about the negative effects associated with a large student population, such as increasing rented accommodation and land prices, lack of car parking and increase in traffic congestion, as well as noise, crime and anti-social behavior levels rising. These concerns were reasonably justified and the university soon realized that they had to work very closely with the community if the new campus is to be the integrated community campus they had envisaged. In order to assure people that the effects of the student population will not be as negative as the community expects, MMU promoted their overarching vision to the public; according to MCC (2009) their wish is: … to develop a campus that will provide facilities over and above their straightforward

academic

requirements,

creating

integrated

educational, and community location which has high quality environmental standards throughout in both the built form and public realm elements of the scheme.

By reducing the number of students living on the new campus and providing community facilities, MMU and MCC have taken into consideration the locals’ concerns and are attempting to obtain a good balance between MMU and the community. Nuttall hopes that the students in Birley Fields will act as ambassadors for the university, working in the local community and hence building relationships to benefit the students and the community alike. The new campus has the potential within a mix of accommodation to offer focal employment opportunities, local training and skills development, progression arrangements with local schools and colleges, shared library and leisure facilities, shared health care services and a boost for local businesses, especially the retail and service sectors. All interviewees seemed to agree that the positive effects of the new campus will eventually outweigh the negative ones. 47

Table 4.2: Table listing and explaining the urban design principles established by John McAslan + Partners and taken on by Sheppard Robson.

Urban Design Principle

Explanation / Vision

An open public space at the heart of the development

This space will be a point of entry into the campus, as well as to the buildings. It will be the meeting point of students and staff as well as providing a new amenity to local residents. It will have some of the existing trees in the site, new trees, areas of hard landscaping for gathering and areas of soft landscaping for relaxing.

Gateway to the campus along Stretford Road

The main pedestrian entrance to the campus will be along Stretford Road and will communicate directly to the main public space.

Active frontages where possible along Stretford Road

The buildings should provide a positive edge to the main street, contributing with active ground floor uses that will help animate the street.

Strong gateway presence to Princess Road

The scale of the road allows for civic scale buildings along its edge, marking the presence of the campus and contributing to the skyline side by side with the Hulme Arch.

Enhanced linkages

Enhanced linkages between the residential communities to the west, the educational precinct and Oxford Road to the east and Hulme District Centre to the South. In general, to promote linkages and permeability, across the campus, with its surroundings.

MMU and the masterplanners, initially John McAslan + Partners and then Sheppard Robson, established certain urban design principles that would guide the layout and distribution of buildings and open space on the site (see Table 4.2). Most of the already mentioned aspects of the masterplan are anchored in expectations. Van Heur (2010: 1714) explains that expectations are important in generating enthusiasm, mobilizing resources and bringing together diverse groups of actors in the pursuit of new projects. In the early phases of a project, expectations attract interest and foster investment, while at the same time raise questions about the potential risks and dangers involved. By promoting Birley Fields as an integrated, fully sustainable community campus, MMU has managed to gain the support of the Manchester City Council (and a number of other investors) and generate enthusiasm. The two faculties that are relocating are currently looking forward to moving to their new home and, according to Nuttall and Keane, the community seems to have become much more supportive of the scheme. Van Heur (2010: 1714) states that â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Typical for fields characterized by high expectations seems to be a recurring dynamic of hype and disappointmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, thus pointing out that sometimes the expectations are too high or too ambitious and are therefore not met, leading to disappointment, which in turn leads to disagreements and conflict between the involved actors. By further analyzing the architectural and spatial aspects of the new campus and how these are expected to transform the local area and create one integrated community campus, I will examine whether its architecture allows for the campus to meet its ambitious expectations, at the heart of which is making MMU a university truly of Manchester.

4.3.2 - Linkages and Movement Figure 4.12: Diagrammatic plan illustrating Birley Fieldsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; links and adjancies, based on its location.

As explained, the Birley Fields site is situated in a very strategic location and has a number of important connections; see Figure 4.12. The main linkage towards the existing All Saints campus is through Stretford Road; Grosvenor Square is only a short walk away from the area. Other east-west links are Bonsall Street and the pedestrian bridge south of Plot G leading to Booth Street West and Oxford Road. The site overlaps Princess Road and there are three bridges, two vehicular and one pedestrian, linking the two sides. Princess Road is the busiest route into Manchesterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s city centre and caters for significant numbers of vehicular movements every week. Linkages back to the city centre also utilize the underpass and the pedestrian link bridge across the Mancunian Way.

The Birley Fields site already benefits from good public transport links; there are 3 railway stations within reasonable walking distance (Oxford Road, Deansgate and Piccadilly) and 36 bus routes serving the area, a large number of which have stops within walking distance of the site (see Figure 4.13). Additionally, there are a number of on and off road cycle routes surrounding the Birley Fields site (see Figure 4.14). Keane, of MCC, commented that selecting a site with good transport links and improving alternative transport to the site, increases its connectivity, which is very important in making the new campus sustainable. A transport working group has been established to explore ways in which the MMU travel team, Transport for Greater Manchester and Manchester City Council can work together to deliver future transport and parking improvements for the area (MMU, 2014b: online).

Figure 4.13: Diagrammatic plan illustrating bus routes and bus stops serving the Birley Fields site.

Figure 4.14: Diagrammatic plan illustrating the on and off road cycle routes surrounding Birley Fields.

The previously mentioned urban design principles seem to have been implemented in the proposed Birley Fields masterplan, leading to an important series of east-west linkages between Hulme, the University, Oxford Road and beyond, which aim to ‘re-connect education with vibrant and innovative communities’ (John McAslan + Partners, 2009: no pagination). According to a number of sources, including all of the interviewees and Figure 4.15, the new campus is intended to be fully open and permeable; there will be no fences or physical boundaries and all of the public realm will be fully accessible not only to MMU’s students and staff, but also to the general public. This is one of the key aspects in making Birley Fields a community campus, since it allows for its physical integration into the urban fabric and the local community. Maximova, Sheppard Robson’s design team leader for Birley Fields, stated that the architects recognized pedestrian and cycling routes within the campus site, respecting the existing conditions in order to create an appropriate architectural response / solution. According to MMU (2014c: online), ‘these routes pick up key arrival points at the site perimeter and provide an arrival experience and excellent orientation to the wider campus’. The continuation of diagonal movement across the site allows current walking routes to be maintained and encourages access to the new university facilities. The bisecting routes guide people through the site and into the public square space. The primary routes into the key public space are clear in their character through tree-lined walkways. The fact that there are a number of different routes, both existing ones enhanced and new ones established, a person could take to either walk around or through the proposed campus, is meant to encourage usage of these paths and invite people into the new public realm, hence acknowledging the requirements of creating a community campus.

Figure 4.15: Current Birley Fields masterplan; the site is open as there are no physical boundaries separating the Birley Fields campus site from its surrounding area, hence merging the campus into the urban fabric of the city.

The relatively flat site and the various materials used to differentiate between vehicular, pedestrian and cycling routes, (see Figure 4.15) make mobility easier and circulation clearly defined, thus assist in navigation. Luby stated that the masterplan’s signage strategy picks up directional routes in and around the site. Keane also commented that signage making the connection between Birley Fields and All Saints explicit will promote the migration and movement from west to east. Navigation and orientation is also made easier by the strong visual connections maintained and promoted via the pedestrian links, such as the ones between Stretford Road and Bonsall Street that visually link one back to the All Saints campus. Maximova added that the new campus is closely linked to the existing All Saints campus due to its proximity and visual connections, therefore making it look and feel closer to the city centre than it actually is. Nuttall highlighted the importance of this direct link between the two campuses, created by the route via the new Manchester School of Art’s Benzie Building. Nuttall also stated that they are trying to punch through the urban fabric by creating two more obvious walking routes to the new campus from All Saints; one is via Stretford Road and one via Boundary Lane and onto Poynton Street. This emphasizes that Birley Fields is not a detached or standalone campus; it is part of MMU’s Manchester campus and works in conjunction with All Saints, while opening up and reinforcing the connection between Hulme and the city as a whole. Keane also commented that this connection to All Saints is an attempt to draw people into Hulme, as well as making the people of Hulme aware of what is available in All Saints in terms of what MMU has to offer to the community (libraries and sports facilities, etc), hence continuing the connection between the university and the city. By making the proposed campus fully permeable, creating a number of pathways and making the campus’ circulation, navigation and orientation uncomplicated, the masterplanners are attempting to open up the campus to the community and make it easy for them to use. The university wants an integrated community campus and the fact that there are no physical barriers separating the university facilities from its surrounding context can only be seen as a positive characteristic. These architectural aspects are expected to encourage local residents to use the campus grounds and not only familiarize themselves with it, but also invite them in and 56

make them feel welcome, turning it into a part of their community, therefore integrating the university grounds into the local area and the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban fabric. This is in line with the observations of Hoeger (2007), Merlin (2006) and van Heur (2010) that universities are currently trying to integrate themselves with their host cities. MMUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s masterplan seems to challenge the archetypal misconception that a university campus is a separate entity and a community of its own by not only positioning it in the heart of the local area, but also allowing public access to it, therefore removing any physical - and to an extent social - boundaries between the two bodies.

4.3.3 - Community Facilities and Public Realm As explained earlier, Birley Fields is a campus development within an established area, which aims to connect itself with its surroundings. MMU knew from the beginning that it would have to work on mitigating the negative effects of an incoming student population, in addition to providing the community with new facilities, offered to them via the new masterplan, in order to actually help the area and its residents. Maximova, of Sheppard Robson, explained that this ambitious approach to integrate the campus into the community influenced the functions and facilities provided by the campus buildings greatly. The masterplan incorporates a large number of facilities and spaces aimed at and open to the community, both within the new buildings and throughout its public realm, thus seeking to promote new businesses and provide employment opportunities, while at the same time draw the general public in the campus by giving them various destinations. All interviewees expressed the universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s wish for the campus to be as permeable as possible; there are meant to be no physical boundaries separating the site from its surroundings. The university, however, also wanted maximum permeability within the campus itself, so that local residents could use not only the external public spaces, but also any suitable parts of the academic building and the student residences; suitability for this is seen in relation to the safety and security that needs to be provided by the buildings to their users. As stated by Maximova, Luby and Nuttall, the campus is designed to be completely open to public use at ground floor level; the only non-accessible part of the campus is the area between the Energy Building and the Multi-Storey Car Park due to safety concerns. The academic buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interior functions are organized in a way that allows for the entire ground floor to be publicly accessible (see Figure 4.16); all public spaces are at that level. The ground floor accommodates various facilities that will be available for community booking for activities, therefore encouraging people to use the building and the campus, rather than viewing them as academic facilities. Nuttall and Luby, who were involved in deciding what facilities to include, stated that the university did not want to duplicate any facilities that already existed in the community, so as to avoid any potential competition and social tensions between 58

MMU and the local businesses. For example, the campus does not include a sports centre, since Moss Side Leisure Centre and Sugden Sports Centre are a relatively small distance away.

Figure 4.16: Birley Fields Academic Building floor plans

The academic building includes a number of lecture theatres, specialist teaching accommodation and social learning areas, mainly aimed at the students and staff, together with a drama studio, seminar rooms and meeting rooms, shops and retail units and a large cafeteria, all of which are aimed at encouraging people to come into, and use, the site and the building, by adding to the existing amenities around the site. Maximova explained that the multi-purpose hall at the back of the academic building can accommodate 200-250 people with its retractable seating and can be used to host a variety of activities, ranging from seminars to meetings and from drama performances to sports. This hall, along with the seminar rooms, meeting rooms and drama studio, is meant to be open to the community and can be booked out for people to use. Being the home of the Faculty of Health, Psychology and Social Care, the building also provides treatment rooms, again open to the public, that people can use at a reduced community rate. Community-orientated facilities are also provided within the cluster flats’ building fronting Stretford Road. The building’s ground floor will be used for commercial uses such as a convenience store, a delicatessen, etc. According to Luby and Nuttall, these retail spaces will further add to the existing amenities and attempt to promote new business aspects, filling in any gaps within the existing provision of retail on Hulme High Street. Keane finds that the retail units at ground floor level add to the site’s ground floor permeability and encourage the general public to use the site, while at the same time assisting in the campus’ aspiration of becoming an economic driver that will help local businesses. Apart from providing community orientated facilities within the new campus’ buildings, the success of the Birley Fields campus seems to revolve around its public realm design ambitions. As the community in Hulme was fond of the original Birley Fields site due to its greenery and biodiversity, MMU realized that retaining as much of the existing public realm as possible was integral, especially since it is aspiring to be the most sustainable campus in the UK. Maximova and Luby mentioned that one of the few parameters set out by MMU in their design brief to them, as masterplanners and academic building architects, was to keep as much open space as possible and to retain as many of the existing trees as they could. The community’s, as well as MMU’s, desire for the Birley Fields campus development to retain the existing trees wherever possible directly affected the 60

masterplanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s layout. The retained mature trees are integrated into the landscape to provide a setting for the new campus, in addition to providing a sense of scale and maturity to the new development. All interviewees seemed to agree, however, that the main advantage of retaining the tress is the good message it sends to the community. MMU is showing that they are not coming in their community and destroying one of their natural elements, but making it a better quality resource for a larger number of people, hence attempting to mitigate social tensions. Luby stated that MMU is replacing each existing tree taken down with two new ones, further reinforcing the green credentials of the campus. As part of the public realm, MMU is working with Hulme Community Garden Centre to create a small orchard of trees. Luby and Keane commented on how important this is in creating a positive link between the university and the community. It shows MMUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s presence in the community by working with local volunteers to deliver a beautiful natural element to the public. Maximova confirmed that the campus provides more than 20,000m2 of publicly accessible space and approximately 42,000m2 of open public realm space, (equal to 6 international football pitches) the majority of which is green space, hence promoting the concept of a sustainable community campus. The green space is intentionally open and uncluttered, making it as flexible as possible and aiding in the retention of the green aspect of the previous Birley Fields. The most significant and prominent public realm element established by the masterplan is the new major square at the heart of the campus, which is completely accessible to all parts of the local neighborhood. According to John McAslan + Partners (2009: no pagination): The concept of buildings surrounding a significant public square has been derived from the idea of making a new public and community focused space in Hulme. In many ways, the buildings themselves are the backdrop to the activity and setting of the proposed Hulme Square. Therefore the buildings have been placed to create a strong edge to the public space and respond to this gateway location within Manchester. The new Hulme Square is a hard open space to the west of the academic building and offers a flexible space that can be utilized by both the university and the 61

community for events. Luby believes that this new square will become a focal point for the development and will be very well populated by students and non-students alike, encouraging a variety of informal social interactions between the two, hence promoting a positive relationship. Nuttall stated that MMU wishes this new square to be more successful than the one in the All Saints campus, which is bounded by Oxford Road, the All Saints Library, the New Business School and the Hollings Faculty buildings. The All Saints square is enclosed by stone ledges and steel gates; these elements deter general public access, even though they remain open throughout the day. Regardless of the fact that the park is a public space, the people using it at the moment are predominantly MMU students and staff. Trying to learn from this admittedly unsuccessful public space, MMU is making the new Hulme Square as open and as permeable as possible. Nuttall and Keane revealed that in its attempt to animate the square and make it part of the local community, the university will urge various activities and events to take place in it. These are expected to draw people into the site and encourage public engagement; MMU wants to encourage people to use and walk through the space and avoid it turning into another All Saints park. Overall, the community facilities and the public realm proposals seem to have great potential in integrating the campus into the local area; they are providing Hulme with new assets while respecting what already exists in the area. These are expected to invite locals in and make them feel welcome to use the campus grounds, hence turning the new Birley Fields development into an integrated community campus.

4.3.4 - Built Forms and their Architecture As previously mentioned, MMU’s current vision is to become the UK’s leading university for world class professionals, providing some of the best teaching and learning facilities for their students in a world-class academic and social campus. According to Nuttall, the new Birley Fields development is an opportunity for the university to advertise itself and make its presence in the city and the local community more visible, making sure people are aware of the partnerships this scheme will promote. However, MMU did not wish to force itself upon the community as this would go against their overarching vision and the concepts that had gained the support of MCC and the local community. This meant that the architectural style, scale and massing of the new campus’ buildings, as well as their location and orientation, had to be considered very carefully, in order for the university to achieve its aim of creating an integrated, community-orientated campus. As most of these buildings are currently well under construction - and expected to open their doors to the public in September 2014 - they allow for a careful analysis of their architectural features, thus facilitating further exploration into how MMU is trying to integrate itself in the city and the changing spatial relationship between the university and its host city. The Birley Fields campus aims to become a powerful symbol and gateway for MMU’s community engagement, thus one of the urban design principles set out for the new campus was a strong gateway presence to Princess Road. The Birley Fields campus contains the following buildings: a new Academic Building, student accommodation, a multi-storey car park and the Energy Centre. The buildings’ location on the site, as dictated by the masterplan, is the result of careful consideration of what the campus is aiming to achieve. Maximova stated that the location of the car park and the energy building for example, was not in any way random. The energy building’s flues come out of the car park, which is not really visible from the residential and public areas of the site; consequently the negative visual connotation elements are relatively hidden away. These two buildings (see Figure 4.17) are also located in the south-east edge of the campus, set back from the academic and residential buildings, as they are mainly regarded as buildings servicing the campus and their position stops them from impeding with the

campus’ overall open community feeling. The location of the academic building on the other hand, announces the university’s presence in the area; it is at the heart of the site, surrounded by open green space, hence following the masterplan’s urban design principle that the new buildings should have a positive relationship with the green space. The student residences are located around the edges of the campus, therefore re-establishing the road frontages to Old Birley Street and Stretford Road, ‘knitting together existing development surrounding the site to create a coherent urban layout’ (MMU, 2014c: online). The orientation of the buildings is organized in a way that defines or encloses external space, aligning with primary pedestrian routes into the campus and central public space. These routes, made more prominent by the buildings, pick up key arrival points at the site perimeter and provide ‘an arrival experience and excellent orientation to the wider campus’ (MMU, 2014c: online).

Figure 4.17: Aerial view of the multi-storey car park and energy centre, dated January 2014.

MCCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Keane made it clear that even though a high quality development is needed on Birley Fields due to its key location, the vernacular of the site was very important when considering the new buildingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; architecture, in order for the community to welcome the new development. However, MCC has been more flexible and open-minded in terms of planning for this project, due to the aspirations of the campus and the community; they recognized that this is an ambitious development and welcomed its innovative nature. The immediate area surrounding Birley Fields is largely residential use, of mixed tenure and a range of housing types. The scale and height of buildings around the site is predominantly small to medium; the smaller buildings immediately around the site are four storeys (see Figure 4.18). Nevertheless, there are higher buildings in close proximity, such as the eight-storey residential development on the corner of Stretford Road and Old Birley Street and the thirteen-storey Hornchurch Court to the east. Even though the elevational treatment of existing buildings surrounding Birley Fields varies, the external material generally used is facing brickwork and render (MMU, 2012; MMU, 2014c).

Figure 4.18: Site Urban Grain diagrammatic plan illustrating the scale, height and materiality of buildings around the Birley Fields site.

As mentioned earlier, the new campus’ buildings in Birley Fields are: the new Academic Building, student accommodation, a multi-storey car park (MSCR) and the Energy Centre. While analyzing the buildings’ architectural qualities, I will mainly be looking into the new Academic Building, which will accommodate the Institute of Education and the Faculty of Health, Psychology and Social Care, and the student residences, which fall into two distinct types of accommodation: ensuite study bedrooms in cluster flat format and study bedroom accommodation in four storey townhouse format. Maximova and Luby both mentioned that the architectural team had thorough discussions with MMU regarding the university’s vision and how they wanted the new campus to be perceived and what came across was MMU’s desire to create another landmark academic building, hence building on what they had already achieved with the New Business School and the new Manchester School of Art’s Benzie building. However, the university made it clear that they did not wish for the new academic building to be as formal or as exclusive as the New Business School; they wanted it to allow and promote informal interactions between staff, students and local residents, therefore attempting to somehow integrate the building into the local community. As explained in the previous section, this is achieved by accommodating the various facilities that will be available for community booking on the ground floor of the academic building and making this level open to the public. The £60m academic building (see Figure 4.19) has aspirations to be one of the most sustainable buildings in the UK’s higher education sector, targeting a BREEAM ‘Excellent’ rating and was designed towards a zero carbon, waste and water strategy (Capita Symonds, 2012). It is a 21400m2, five storey building that features a high performance ‘Solar Veil’ façade, commonly referred to as ‘the Cloud’ by Sheppard Robson, whose design of the building at RIBA Stage E was taken further by Capita Symonds in 2012 (Architecture Today, 2012).

Figure 4.19: Photo of the Birley Fields academic building, dated March 10th, 2014.

Maximova, who was Sheppard Robson’s design team leader for the academic building, stated that the building’s façade and how the academic building would be perceived was very important to its design and the architects’ design intention is that the proposed façade blurs the boundary between public and private. Luby and Maximova both mentioned that the scale of the building was determined by the faculties it will accommodate; the faculties had to be combined so the building is compact and has a number of shared facilities, especially general teaching spaces, improving utilization of the university spaces. Due to its scale and modern architectural style, with its high quality material finishes and technological elements, the new academic building stands out in the area; its physical architectural features do not allow it to blend in. Its strong rectilinear form and distinctive façade treatment make it an iconic academic building. Maximova commented that it had to be a unique and recognizable MMU building and as intended, it is currently making a bold statement of the university’s presence, establishing itself as a new landmark of Hulme. At the same time, it is attempting to integrate itself in the community based on its permeable nature and the facilities provided within it, rather than its physical form and appearance.

In contrast to the new academic building, the student residences are more contextualized and responsive to the vernacular. According to MMU (2014c), the key objectives for the accommodation scheme were to provide accommodation: a) of appropriate style and quality, b) that supports the academic and social developments of students, c) which is affordable to students with low running costs and d) with improved performance standards and significantly reduced levels of energy and water use. Keane explained that in order to mitigate the adverse effects of a student population in the area, MMU and MCC took into consideration the local residents’ concerns and reduced the number of accommodation units to be provided, as well as the scale and overall massing of the accommodation buildings. The scheme currently provides a total of 1178 study bedrooms, in two distinct types of accommodation: en-suite study bedrooms in cluster flat format, with groups of eight sharing communal kitchen - dining - living areas, and study bedroom accommodation in four storey townhouse format, with groups of twelve sharing kitchen - dining - living space to the whole of the ground floor (MMU, 2014c). The massing of the residential accommodation is generally four to five storeys high and six storeys high along Streftord Road (MMU, 2012). The townhouse accommodation (see Figures 4.20 and 4.21) is located at the perimeter of the site and is organized in a manner that creates secure internal courtyard areas, directly accessible from each of the townhouses. These courtyards are secured by the four-storey townhouse frontages, continued by single-storey secure cycle and refuse stores, as well as screen walls (MMU, 2012; MMU, 2014c). The townhouse buildings are aligned with the diagonal geometry of the primary pedestrian routes, visually reinforcing these routes into the heart of the campus and the academic building. The external cladding material to the townhouses is brick throughout, even though there is a change in the color of the brick along the buildings’ elevations. Both Luby and Keane explained that the townhouses’ scale and architectural style (in terms of their external appearance) is more in line with the buildings in their immediate vicinity, thus blending in, emphasizing the campus’ vision of the university and the community living together.

Figure 4.20: Typical street front elevation of the townhouse accommodation.

Figure 4.21: Earlier stage CGI render of the townhouse accommodation courtyard space

The cluster flat accommodation (see Figure 4.22) is located at the northern edge of the site. The accommodation is provided in two buildings, one fronting Stretford Road and the other aligned with the main pedestrian route into the site from the north east and the All Saints campus. The buildings are six storeys high; ‘their height is increased at the entrance to the campus to reinforce the ‘gateway’ importance of the location’ (MMU, 2012: 16). Secure external courtyard space is formed within the campus to the south and east of the buildings and is associated with each cluster flat building. The external cladding materials are generally the same as those for the townhouses, with brickwork to the first three to four floors and then fine seam metal cladding above, to roof levels.

Figure 4.22: Six-storey cluster flat elevation facing Stretford Road.

According to MMU (2012), the new residential accommodation is designed to form a transition between the surrounding architecture and the iconic academic building and the associated car park and energy centre. All interviewees seemed to agree with this statement, commenting that the main academic building is a landmark building and then everything else scales down and is more subtle to blend in with the community. The academic building is justifiably making a statement, whereas the student accommodation buildings are trying to unify the campus with its surrounding context, hence integrating the university’s latest development into the city’s existing urban fabric. The architecture of the buildings seems to be genuinely derived from the university’s vision of making Birley Fields an integrated community campus and all of the above mentioned architectural expectations are currently pointing towards the success of this project.

5.0 - Conclusion

5.0 - Conclusion As Frank Cunningham observed, universities are often in the city but not of the city, suggesting that few interact in meaningful ways with their host cities. Klump and Bickl, 2012: 1 In this dissertation I have focused on Manchester Metropolitan University’s Birley Fields campus masterplan, as this is an example of how universities are trying to integrate themselves in their host cities. MMU’s overarching vision of Birley Fields as an integrated community campus is in line with various readings that suggest that universities are developing proposals to revive themselves in a manner that will also benefit their home cities in more substantial and meaningful ways (Merlin, 2006; Hoeger, 2007; van Heur, 2010; Baird, 2012). The Birley Fields masterplan appears to have great potential to achieve its aim of making MMU a university truly of the city of Manchester. By relocating its two most community engaged faculties to the heart of Hulme, an area in need of regeneration, MMU is trying to reinforce its presence and make its relationship with the community more visible, while at the same time assist in revitalizing the local area. The masterplan’s proposed retail units, community facilities and the public realm proposals are providing Hulme with new assets while respecting what already exists in the area. These are expected to invite locals in and make them feel welcome to use the campus grounds, instead of viewing the site as a purely academic development. Additionally, by making the proposed campus fully permeable, creating a number of pathways and making the campus’ circulation, navigation and orientation uncomplicated, MMU is not only positioning its campus in the heart of the local area, but it is also allowing public access to it, therefore removing any physical - and to an extent social boundaries between the two bodies. The campus’ new buildings are also attempting to integrate themselves in the community, either through their physical form and materiality, or through their permeable nature and the facilities provided within them. Most of the architectural characteristics and design aspirations of the overall campus point to Birley Fields’ success as an integrated community campus;

however, all of the aspects of the masterplan are currently based on expectations. Van Heur (2010: 1714) observes that ‘Typical for fields characterized by high expectations seems to be a recurring dynamic of hype and disappointment’, thus pointing out that sometimes the expectations are too high or too ambitious and are therefore not met. Even though a number of the Birley Fields campus’ expectations can technically be met, as the masterplan’s architecture promotes the integration of the campus in the city, the campus’ successful integration will be significantly dependent on post construction management and the mitigation of possible negative effects. For example, MMU is stating that there will be no physical boundaries separating the campus from its surroundings but, upon completion, will this be the case? Will the campus actually be fully permeable or will this be altered due to security reasons or safety concerns? Will the retail units be bought and utilized by local residents, hence increasing the area's business potential, or will they mainly address a student population? Will the new public square be the animated focal point it aspires to be or will it turn into another All Saints Park? Will the ‘landmark’ scale and style of the academic building inspire or frighten the local population and will its facilities be easy to book to encourage people to use them? Architecture is a very subjective matter. People view the same building / development / area, yet perceive it differently; where one person sees a permeable campus, another might see a gated community without actual gates. As this dissertation focuses on one example of how a university is trying to integrate itself in its host city, future research activities could investigate other urban civic universities; different design methods could be explored and even compared. A larger scale urban university could be analyzed, as well as a much smaller one; this would allow for a comparison. Does the scale of the university affect its integration to its surroundings? Is it easier for a small population of students to be accepted into a community? Numerous research papers and articles (eg Hoeger, 2007; Baird, 2012; Bonfantini, 2012) describe cities like Bologna and Oxford as university cities or campus cities; a very interesting research topic with regards to the spatial role of universities in cities would be to investigate at which point is a university considered to be dominating the city’s urban fabric. Possible future research topics are infinite since, as stated by 75

Bonfantini (2012: 4), ‘Though fascinating, the relationship between the universities and their surrounding territories is a theme that runs the risk of remaining indefinite’. Overall, the Birley Fields masterplan appears to have the potential to become an integrated campus and consequently make Manchester Metropolitan University a university more of the city. However, the effects of this campus on the relationship between MMU and Manchester can only be analyzed in the future, for example in 5-10 years, when students, staff and the general public have had time to adjust to it and the campus has somehow managed to prove itself an integrated community campus or not. Future research could investigate the effectiveness of the design aspirations. For example, quantitative data analysis of the number of people using the academic building and its facilities, which facilities are used most (cafeteria, multi-purpose hall, etc) and percentages of who uses them (categorized as students, staff, locals, etc) can illustrate whether the community has embraced the building’s facilities or not. During our interview, Cath Keane, of Manchester City Council, mentioned that MMU and MCC intend to assess the regenerative effect of the campus by producing an Economic Impact Assessment in 5-6 years and comparing it with the one produced in 2009. If proven successful, Birley Fields might somewhat reinforce the university’s role as a factor of urban re-composition, as well as become an innovative and strong architectural design precedent for other universities trying to design integrated campuses and in that manner interact with their host cities in much more meaningful ways.

6.0 - References

6.0 - References Main Text Architecture Today (2012) Two New Large Capita Symonds Buildings Planned for Manchester. Architecture Today website 2014. [Online] [Last accessed 15.04.2014] http://www.architecturetoday.co.uk/?p=26782 Baird G. (2012) ‘The Origins and Evolution of the Euro-American University Campus’, in supplement to Forschung Frankfurt: The University and the City. Frankfurt, 21-23 October 2010. Frankfurt: The President of Goethe University Frankfurt, pp. 5-7 Bonfantini, G. B. (2012) ‘The University as a Factor of Urban Re-Composition’. Planum. The Journal of Urbanism, 1(24), pp. 1-12 Brooks, J. (2014) Introduction from our Vice Chancellor. Manchester Metropolitan University Birley Fields website 2014. [Online] [Last accessed 20.04.2014] http://www.mmu.ac.uk/birleyfields/introduction.php Capita Symonds (2012) Capita Symonds Appointed to £60m MMU Project. Capita Symonds website 2014 [Online] [Last accessed 15.04.2014] http://capitasymonds.co.uk/news__opinion/latest_news/capita_symonds_appointe d_to_%C2%A36.aspx# Den Heijer, A. (2008) Managing the University Campus in an Urban Perspective: Theory, Challenges and Lessons from Dutch Practice. Paper presented at the Corporations and Cities: Envisioning Corporate Real Estate in the Urban Future, Brussels Drivers Jonas Deloitte (2011) Birley Fields Statement of Community Consultation. Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University Freeland, R. M., (2005) ‘Universities and Cities Need to Rethink Their Relationships’. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(36) pp. B20 (3 pages) Gertler M. (2012) ‘Universities and Cities: An Intimate Economic Relationship’, in supplement to Forschung Frankfurt: The University and the City. Frankfurt, 21-23 October 2010. Frankfurt: The President of Goethe University Frankfurt, pp. 8-9 80

Goddard J., Vallance, P. and Puukka, J. (2011) ‘Experience of Engagement Between Universities and Cities: Drivers and Barriers in Three European Cities’. Built Environment, 37(3) pp. 299-316 Hall P. (1996) ‘The University and the City’. GeoJournal, 41(4) pp. 301-309 Hoeger K. (2007) ‘Campus and the City - A Joint Venture?’, in Hoeger K. and Christiaanse K. (Eds.) Campus and the city: Urban design for the knowledge society. Zurich: gta Verlag, pp. 13-22 John McAslan + Partners (2009) Birley Fields Hulme Strategic Development Framework. Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University Klump R. and Bickl M. (2012) ‘A Symbiotic Relationship’, in supplement to Forschung Frankfurt: The University and the City. Frankfurt, 21-23 October 2010. Frankfurt: The President of Goethe University Frankfurt, p. 1 Manchester City Council (2009) Item 16: Manchester Metropolitan University Campus Development at Birley Fields, Hulme. [Online] [Last accessed 15.04.2014] http://www.manchester.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/974/executive Manchester City Council (2013) Item 11: The Rationalisation and Development of the Manchester Metropolitan University Estate. [Online] [Last accessed 15.04.2014] http://www.manchester.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/2034/executive Manchester Evening News (MEN) (2014) Manchester Metropolitan University. Manchester Evening News website 2014. [Online] [Last accessed 20.04.2014] http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/allabout/manchester%20metropolitan%20university Manchester Metropolitan University (2012) Birley Fields Campus Student Residential Accommodation Design & Access Statement. Issue 1. Publisher details not available. [Online] [Last accessed 20.04.2014] http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/Default1.aspx?10107 5-dsx-0001.pdf

Manchester Metropolitan University (2014a) £350 million investment. Manchester Metropolitan University website 2014. [Online] [Last accessed 21.01.2014] http://www2.mmu.ac.uk/about/investment/ Manchester Metropolitan University (2014b) Transport, Parking and Road Safety. Manchester Metropolitan University Birley Fields website 2014. [Online] [Last accessed 20.04.2014] http://www.mmu.ac.uk/birleyfields/transport.php Manchester Metropolitan University (2014c) Student Accommodation. Manchester Metropolitan University Birley Fields website 2014. [Online] [Last accessed 20.04.2014] http://www.mmu.ac.uk/birleyfields/student/plans.php Merlin, P. (2006) ‘The Campus or Back to the City? City-University Spatial Relationships’, in Bellet C. and Ganau J. (Eds.) City and University: University Cities and Urban Campuses. Lleida: Milenio, pp. 183-202 Pearce, M. (2001) University Builders. Chichester: Wiley-Academy Scott, G., Grebennikov, L. and Johnston, K. (2007) ‘Study of Australian MultiCampus Universities’. Journal of Institutional Research, 13(1) pp. 1-23 TopUniversities (2014) Manchester Metropolitan University. TopUniversities website 2014. [Online] [Last accessed 20.04.2014] http://www.topuniversities.com/universities/manchester-metropolitanuniversity/undergrad Van den Berg, L. and Russo, A. (2004) The Student City: Strategic Planning for Student Communities in EU cities. Rotterdam: Ashgate Van Heur, B. (2010) ‘The Built Environment of Higher Education and Research: Architecture and the Expectation of Innovation’. Geography Compass, 4(12) pp. 1713-1724 Williams, A. (1999) Buildings of the University. Manchester: The Manchester Metropolitan University

Yaylali-Yildiz, B., Czerkauer-Yamu, C. and Ҫil, E. (2013) ‘Exploring the Effects of Spatial and Social Segregation in University Campuses, IZTECH as a case study’. Urban Design International. Advance online publication: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1-19

Appendix 8.1 - The History of Manchester Metropolitan University Barta, J., Brown, A. B. and Foley, S. (2010) ‘One University Geographically Dispersed: Utah State University Regional Campus and Distance Education and New Opportunities for Students’. Distance Learning, 7(4) pp. 69-74 Drivers Jonas Deloitte (2011) Birley Fields Statement of Community Consultation. Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University The Guardian (2013) Guardian University Awards Winners. The Guardian website 2014. [Online] [Last accessed 15.04.2014] http://www.theguardian.com/highereducation-network/blog/2013/feb/27/guardian-university-awards-2013-winners Into (2014) Manchester Metropolitan University. Intro website 2014. [Online] [Last accessed 15.04.2014] http://www.intohigher.com/uk/en-gb/our-centres/intomanchester-in-partnership-with-manchester-metropolitanuniversity/studying/manchester-metropolitan-university.aspx Manchester City Council (2013) Item 11: The Rationalisation and Development of the Manchester Metropolitan University Estate. [Online] [Last accessed 15.04.2014] http://www.manchester.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/2034/executive Manchester Evening News (MEN) (2014) Manchester Metropolitan University. Manchester Evening News website 2014. [Online] [Last accessed 20.04.2014] http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/allabout/manchester%20metropolitan%20university Manchester Metropolitan University (2014c) Student Accommodation. Manchester Metropolitan University Birley Fields website 2014. [Online] [Last accessed 20.04.2014] http://www.mmu.ac.uk/birleyfields/student/plans.php

Manchester Metropolitan University (2014d) About Manchester Metropolitan University. Manchester Metropolitan University website 2014. [Online] [Last accessed 15.04.2014] http://www2.mmu.ac.uk/about/ McCall, A. (2005) ‘Manchester Metropolitan University: University Guide 2005’. The Sunday Times. 2nd October. [Online] [Last accessed 15.04.2014] http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.mmu.ac.uk/uk/legal/results/enhdocview.do?doc LinkInd=true&ersKey=23_T19754492265&format=GNBFULL&startDocNo=1&resu ltsUrlKey=0_T19754498570&backKey=20_T19754498571&csi=332263&docNo=2 &scrollToPosition=0 McCall, A. (2007) ‘Manchester Metropolitan University: University Guide 2007’. The Sunday Times. 23rd September. [Online] [Last accessed 15.04.2014] http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.mmu.ac.uk/uk/legal/results/enhdocview.do?doc LinkInd=true&ersKey=23_T19754616270&format=GNBFULL&startDocNo=0&resu ltsUrlKey=0_T19754616282&backKey=20_T19754616283&csi=332263&docNo=1 &scrollToPosition=0 Scott, G., Grebennikov, L. and Johnston, K. (2007) ‘Study of Australian MultiCampus Universities’. Journal of Institutional Research, 13(1) pp. 1-23 TopUniversities (2014) Manchester Metropolitan University. TopUniversities website 2014. [Online] [Last accessed 20.04.2014] http://www.topuniversities.com/universities/manchester-metropolitanuniversity/undergrad Williams, A. (1999) Buildings of the University. Manchester: The Manchester Metropolitan University

7.0 - Illustrations

7.1 - Figures Main Text Figure 2.1: Diagram connecting the different views on campus categories and their physical and social relationships with the city (Source: Redrawn from Flavia Curvelo Magdaniel’s research paper The university campus and its urban development in the context of the knowledge economy; no date) Figure 3.1: Map showing location of MMU’s Manchester based campuses (Source: Author’s own) Figure 4.1: MMU’s Business School and Student Hub building (Source: Dixon, D. (no date) Manchester Metropolitan University Business School. [Online image] [Last accessed 12.04.2014] http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3735423) Figure 4.2: MMU’s School of Art and Design Building (Source: Dezeen Magazine. (2014) Art School Extension. [Online image] [Last accessed 12.04.2014] http://www.dezeen.com/2014/01/10/manchester-school-of-art-extension-withwooden-stairs-and-bridges-by-feilden-clegg-bradley-studios/) Figure 4.3: ‘Existing MMU Sites’ [Image] in John McAslan + Partners 2009, Birley Fields Hulme Strategic Development Framework, Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University, no pagination Figure 4.4: ‘Consolidated MMU sites’ [Image] in John McAslan + Partners 2009, Birley Fields Hulme Strategic Development Framework, Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University, no pagination Figure 4.5: ‘The Site: Plots’ [Image] in John McAslan + Partners 2009, Birley Fields Hulme Strategic Development Framework, Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University, no pagination Figure 4.6: ‘Birley Fields Masterplan’ [Image] in John McAslan + Partners 2009, Birley Fields Hulme Strategic Development Framework, Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University, no pagination

Figure 4.7: Current Birley Fields masterplan (Source: Manchester Metropolitan University. (2014) Masterplan 02. [Online image] [Last accessed 20.04.2014] http://www.mmu.ac.uk/birleyfields/student/02_master_plan.pdf) Figure 4.8: Map highlighting the Birley Fields site location (Source: Manchester Metropolitan University. (2014) Existing Site North Direction. [Online image] [Last accessed 20.04.2014] http://www.mmu.ac.uk/birleyfields/student/01_location.pdf) Figure 4.9: ‘Context: Location’ [Image] in John McAslan + Partners 2009, Birley Fields Hulme Strategic Development Framework, Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University, no pagination Figure 4.10: ‘Location’ [Image] in John McAslan + Partners 2009, Birley Fields Hulme Strategic Development Framework, Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University, no pagination Figure 4.11: ‘Uses’ [Image] in John McAslan + Partners 2009, Birley Fields Hulme Strategic

Development

Framework,

Manchester:

Manchester

Metropolitan

University, no pagination Figure 4.12: ‘Context: Adjancies and Characteristics’ [Image] in John McAslan + Partners

2009,

Birley

Fields

Hulme

Strategic

Development

Framework,

Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University, no pagination Figure 4.13: ‘Bus Network’ [Image] in John McAslan + Partners 2009, Birley Fields Hulme Strategic Development Framework, Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University, no pagination Figure 4.14: ‘Cycle Network’ [Image] in John McAslan + Partners 2009, Birley Fields Hulme Strategic Development Framework, Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University, no pagination Figure 4.15: Current Birley Fields masterplan (Source: Manchester Metropolitan University. (2014) Masterplan 02. [Online image] [Last accessed 20.04.2014] http://www.mmu.ac.uk/birleyfields/student/02_master_plan.pdf)

Figure 4.16: Academic Building plans (Source: Scanned in versions of MMUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Presentation Board Birley Fields Building Plan, provided to the author by Dean Luby) Figure 4.17: Aerial view of the multi-storey car park and energy centre (Source: Airviews Photography & Co (2014) 023 Birley Fields January 2014. [Online image] [Last accessed 16.04.2014] http://www.airviews.info/birley_fields.html) Figure 4.18: Diagrammatic plan illustrating the scale, height and materiality of buildings around the Birley Fields site (Source: Manchester Metropolitan University (2012) Birley Fields Campus Student Residential Accommodation Design & Access

Statement,

[Online]

[Last

accessed

20.04.2014]

http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/Default1.aspx?10107 5-dsx-0001.pdf) Figure 4.19: Birley Fields academic building (Source: Skyscraper City, photo by GShutty (2014) Looking good in the sunshine. [Online image] [Last accessed 20.04.2014] http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=112126467) Figure 4.20: Townhouses accommodation elevation (Source: Manchester Metropolitan University (2014) Town Houses 05. [Online image] [Last accessed 20.04.2014] http://www.mmu.ac.uk/birleyfields/student/05_town_houses.pdf) Figure 4.21: Earlier stage CGI render of the townhouse accommodation courtyard space (Source: gwp Architecture (2014) [Online image] [Last accessed 20.04.2014]

http://gwp-arch.com/projects/birley-fields-student-residences-

manchester-metropolitan-university) Figure 4.22: Cluster flat elevation facing Stretford Road (Source: Manchester Metropolitan University (2014) Cluster Flats 06. [Online image] [Last accessed 20.04.2014] http://www.mmu.ac.uk/birleyfields/student/06_cluster_flat.pdf)

Appendix 8.1 - The History of Manchester Metropolitan University Figure 8.1: Map showing geographical location of Manchester Metropolitan University campuses (Source: Author’s own) Figure 8.2: Current MMU Cheshire campus (Source: Author’s own) Figure 8.3: The former Aytoun campus (Source: Author’s own) Figure 8.4: The former Hollings campus (Source: Author’s own) Figure 8.5: The current Didsbury campus (Source: Author’s own) Figure 8.6: The current Elizabeth Gaskell campus (Source: Author’s own) Figure 8.7: The All Saints campus, prior to the construction of the New Business School and the Benzie Building (Source: Author’s own)

7.2 - Tables Table 1.1: Summary of interviews Table 3.1: Table of all the MMU campuses and which faculties each campus contained; the table is based on information from Williams (1999). Table 4.1: Table of all facilities already completed by MMU, as part of their ÂŁ350 million ten-year plan; the table is based on material collected from MMU (2014a). Table 4.2: Table listing and explaining the urban design principles established by John McAslan + Partners and taken on by Sheppard Robson; the table is based on information from John McAslan + Partners (2009).

8.0 - Appendices

8.1 - The History of Manchester Metropolitan University

Manchester Metropolitan University views itself as a place-based and situated University, partnering on an equal basis with the communities in which it locates to mutual benefit. MMU believe that universities matter, that they can profoundly change the world for the better and that enabling the beneficial impact of its activities is a fundamental responsibility that it owes to society at large. Drivers Jonas Deloitte, 2011: 6 According to Manchester Evening News (2014) and TopUniversities (2014), Manchester Metropolitan University is, at present, one of the largest campusbased undergraduate universities in the UK, with a total student population of over 37,000. In 1999, it was the largest university in the country, apart from the Open University and the federal University of London (Williams, 1999: Introduction). It is currently also one of the most popular universities, ‘… as measured by undergraduate applications in the 2011 intake, receiving more than 56,000 applications this year’ (MMU, 2014d: online). In 2013, MMU won the inaugural Guardian University Award for the Best UK University for Student Experience (The Guardian, 2013: online). The university is currently physically dispersed over five campuses (these being All Saints, Cheshire, Didsbury, Elizabeth Gaskell and Hollings), with its sites stretching from central Manchester to southern Cheshire, approximately 58km apart; see Figure 8.1. Williams (1999: Introduction) explains that: Since the University’s creation, its premises have been rationalized by means of additions, adaptations and disposals, to ensure that it continues to meet the academic, social, residential and administrative needs of the institution.

Figure 8.1: Map showing geographical location of Manchester Metropolitan University campuses

Why was Manchester Metropolitan University so physically dispersed in the first place though? The answer to this question lies in the university’s history; MMU came into existence due to the convergence of a number of tributary institutions to form first Manchester Polytechnic and then the University. ‘The modern MMU is the product of a series of mergers over the past 40 years’ (McCall, 2005: online). MMU was awarded university status in 1992, but has a history of about 150 years, with its roots in the Manchester Mechanics’ Institution (1824) and the Manchester School of Design (1838). As written by Williams (1999: 1): The most significant year in the institution’s history was 1970, when three existing colleges - Manchester College of Art and Design and John Dalton College of Technology at All Saints, and the Manchester College of Commerce at Aytoun Street - were merged to create Manchester Polytechnic. It was intended to concentrate the new institution at All Saints, as a part of the Higher Education Precinct scheme, but this was never realised and development took a different form. This meant that upon creation, Manchester Polytechnic, later on to become MMU, was already divided onto two campuses: All Saints and Aytoun. Manchester Polytechnic merged with several other colleges throughout its 22 years of life. Didsbury College and Hollings College were the first ones, both in 1977, followed by COMANCHE (City of Manchester College of Higher Education), which was based on the Elizabeth Gaskell site, in 1983. The last one to join was Crewe+Alsager College in 1992, ‘…coincidentally just one month after Manchester Polytechnic changed its status and became the Manchester Metropolitan University’ (Williams, 1999: 1). As these colleges were already established and based on their own separate campuses, Manchester Metropolitan University initially had a total of seven campuses (All Saints, Alsager, Aytoun, Crewe, Didsbury, Elizabeth Gaskell and Hollings) throughout Manchester and Cheshire. Additionally, the university had halls of residence located off the campuses, mainly in south Manchester, as well as playing fields in Carrington (Williams, 1999). Each of the seven campuses was home to different faculties and university departments (see Table 3.1) and they all varied greatly in size and facilities; in land area, from 0.9 hectares in Aytoun to 98

22.5 at Alsager, and in building area, from 14,000m2 at Elizabeth Gaskell to 111,000m2 at All Saints. Figure 3.1 illustrates the location of MMU’s five Manchester based campuses.

Table 3.1: Table of all the MMU campuses and which faculties each campus contained.

Campus Name

Faculties on Campus

All Saints

Contained three of the university’s seven faculties (Art and Design; Humanities and Social Science; Science and Engineering) together with central administration and three halls of residence (Cambridge Halls, Cavendish Hall and Loxford Hall)

Alsager

Occupied by 40% of the Crewe+Alsager Faculty, that came into existence following the two colleges’ merger in 1974

Aytoun

Occupied by the Faculty of Management and Business

Crewe

Didsbury

Accommodated most of the Faculty of Community Studies, Law and Education. It also contained a sports complex and two halls of residence (Broomhurst and Royal Ford Halls)

Elizabeth Gaskell

This formed the second campus of the Faculty of Community Studies, Law and Education. It also contained the Parrs Wood House, acquired in 1928, as student residence

Hollings

Occupied by the Hollings Faculty

Figure 3.1: Map showing location of MMUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Manchester based campuses

100

The Crewe+Alsager Faculty has now been rebranded and renamed MMU Cheshire; staff and departments began being transferred from the Alsager Campus to the Crewe Campus in 2006 and the entire Alsager site is now closed. The Cheshire Campus (see Figure 8.2) is ‘… renowned for the excellence of its educational, dramatic and sporting programmes and facilities’ (Into, 2014: online). MMU’s campus in Crewe town ‘… offers a welcoming, relaxed, community feel and easy access to nearby towns and the surrounding countryside’ (Top Universities, 2014: online).

Figure 8.2: Current MMU Cheshire Campus

101

Aytoun Campus (see Figure 8.3) closed in 2012, following the opening of the new Business School in the All Saints Campus and is currently marked for redevelopment. According to MCC (2013: 5): This is a high profile site on the south east fringe of the City Centre, close to Piccadilly Rail Station and within a short walking distance of the prime retail and leisure core and main business districts. The siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strategic location, scale and physical attributes provide the opportunity for it to accommodate a wide range of end uses. The site should deliver a commercially led mixed use scheme and acceptable uses would include office accommodation, hotel uses and residential development, with supporting ancillary uses to encourage active ground floor use. Officers have been consulted on a detailed planning brief and, as part of these discussions, it has been agreed that student residential would not be appropriate in this location.

Figure 8.3: The former Aytoun Campus sits within a very urban context; it is mainly surrounded by commercial and leisure facilities, along with residential blocks. In its immediate context are also other educational facilities belonging to the Manchester College and the University of Manchester.

102

The Hollings Faculty and Campus (see Figure 8.4) have been relocated and now sit within the All Saints Campus. According to MCC (2013: 6-7): The Hollings Building is a Grade II listed building which sits on a 3.72 acres site. It will be vacated in the Autumn of 2013. The University are in discussion with the City Council and are in discussion with English Heritage to agree a development strategy for this asset. These discussions are ongoing. Given the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s listing, its condition and the challenges that it presents in respect of creating an economically viable development proposition for this building, consideration is currently being given to engaging the market to establish if there are other viable opportunities which could be considered.

Figure 8.4: The former Hollings Campus is nestled in a relatively green and residential area in Rusholme. It is located between the Manchester High School for Girls and Birchfields Park. The University of Manchesterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Ashburne halls of residence are also across the street, to the south side of the campus.

103

Didsbury Campus (see Figure 8.5) will also be closed in the near future, as their faculties and operations will be relocated to the new Birley Fields Campus, which is in close geographical proximity with and will form the newest part of the All Saints Campus. According to MCC (2013: 5) The University has three linked property assets at Didsbury: the main campus to the east of Wilmslow Road; the Broomhurst Halls of Residence to the west of Wilmslow Road; and the Simon Playing Fields (which lie to the west of the Halls of Residence). Taken together these assets cover some 16.75 acres. Within the main campus one building is Grade II* listed and a small number are Grade II listed. The playing fields are not suitable for development due to restrictive covenants and their position on the Mersey Flood Plain. Initial discussions with the University have indicated that a residential led scheme would be supported in this location.

Figure 8.5: The current Didsbury Campus sits within a more rural context; it is surrounded by typical residential areas in all directions and is in close proximity to the Barlow Medical Centre.

104

Similar to the MMU Campus in Didsbury, Elizabeth Gaskell Campus (see Figure 8.6) will also be closed in the near future, as their faculties and operations will be relocated to the new Birley Fields Campus, which is in close geographical proximity with and will form the newest part of the All Saints Campus. According to MCC (2013: 6): The Elizabeth Gaskell site is immediately adjacent to Central Manchester Hospital Trust’s hospital complex. It is a 5.4 acre site which can support a wide range of end uses that can add value to the City’s ambitions, offering the potential to support a range of end uses that could compliment the growth ambitions of the Corridor.

Figure 8.6: The current Elizabeth Gaskell Campus is located at the corner of Hathersage Road and Upper Brook Street, one of the main roads connecting Northern and Southern Manchester. It is also bounded by typical residential areas to its east, south and west, with the Central Manchester University Hospital’s NHS Foundation Trust to its north.

105

All Saints Campus (see Figure 8.7) along with the new Birley Fields site development will become the only MMU campus within Manchester, concentrating all the university facilities into one larger combined site. According to McCall (2005: online): MMU Cheshire and MMU Manchester are as alike as chalk and cheese; the former offers a traditional campus experience with about 5,000 (mainly education, sport science and performing arts) students on the two sites; the latter has the city of Manchester itself as a wider campus. Students are a force to be reckoned with and the city has the social, sporting, music and cultural facilities to match.

Figure 8.7: The All Saints campus, prior to the construction of the new Business School and the Benzie building. This is MMUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most urban campus, extending from Oxford Road west towards Hulme; it is surrounded by residential blocks to its north, more traditional residential areas to its west and mixed-use, yet mainly commercial buildings, to it east.

106

McCall (2007: online) wrote that the consolidation of the university on three sites (All Saints in the heart of Manchester, Didsbury in south Manchester and Crewe in Cheshire) is at the heart of MMU. Even though this vision has changed over the past few years to the consolidation of the university on two sites instead of three, it illustrates that the university has been intending to unite its campuses for a number of years now. Within Manchester, the target has been to unify MMU into one central campus, by bringing the Didsbury, Hollings, Aytoun and Elizabeth Gaskell campuses together with the existing All Saints campus, in order to create one sustainable, central learning environment (MCC 2013: 4). According to John McAslan + Partners (2009: no pagination): The University’s commitment to rationalise its estate into two versatile and sustainable campuses is part of a plan to improve efficiency and raise standards. Like many other universities, MMU has an estate that is not only increasingly unsuitable, but is also less attractive to potential undergraduates and postgraduate researchers. Modern, flexible accommodation is central to raising standards and improving the quality of the environment. The reasons behind MMU wanting a centralized campus could be numerous. For example, the dispersed set of campuses previously used by the university might have presented problems associated with this type of campus model, such as lack of cohesion for the university staff and students, as well as a lack of unified identity for the university. There are numerous institutional papers and reports that describe the objective challenges experienced by multi-campus universities. These challenges include ‘…provision of equivalent, affordable and accessible facilities and resources across campuses (Bundy, 1998; Crevald, 2001; Lynch, 2003); and the significant costs to students, staff and faculties of such teaching and administrative replication (Freeman, 1998; Naidoo, 2000)’ (Scott at al, 2007: 4). An example is the case of Utah State University (USU), a university described by its own President as “one university geographically dispersed”, where a major problem faced by its numerous campuses and sites was ensuring all students throughout USU have access to the same quality programs, resources and facilities (Barta et al, 2010). In the case of MMU, one could argue that resources and facilities, such as libraries, workshops, sports halls, etc, are fairly evenly 107

distributed and equally available in the All Saints and Didsbury campuses, but that the Elizabeth Gaskell campus is significantly lacking in this aspect. Dean Luby, Project Manager at the Capital Projects office of MMU, confirmed that this rationalization of MMU’s estates is a consolidation exercise for the university, which will lead to avoiding the duplication of services, such as libraries. Another issue with the previously existing campuses discussed with Carla Nuttall, MMU’s Public Engagement Manager since January 2012, was that students would attend open days at the more central and modern All Saints Campus and then, upon starting their courses at the university, realize they were based in an older and more isolated campus, such as Elizabeth Gaskell, and might feel as if they were victims of false marketing in a way. Students would feel as part of a faculty perhaps, but not of the university as a whole, since other faculties occupied different campuses, thus depriving students of one of the most important phases of the student experience: feeling part of something bigger. In line with MMU’s Birley Fields website, the new MMU Manchester campus will further enhance the student experience by providing ‘an attractive, highly sustainable place to live, study and relax’ (MMU, 2014c: online). MMU is a great example of a multi-campus civic urban university. Based on the literature and my research, MMU’s current campuses seem rather physically separated from their environments and are relatively formal. Even though they are in urban locations, they do not interact with these in any particular way, thus separating the university facilities from their surrounding areas. Den Heijer’s (2008) description of a campus as a gated community is appropriate for the majority of MMU’s campuses. Most of them have identifiable site boundaries, whether physical or psychological, and do not encourage a meaningful integration of the campus into the urban fabric of the city. All Saints is more integrated into Manchester’s urban fabric, but still maintains a moderately formal character, hence restricting the actual integration of the university in the city. MMU’s relationship to the city is currently changing; the university is attempting to become of the city and ascertain itself an integrated part of Manchester via the Birley Fields development.

108

8.2 - Interviews Interviewees 1. Cath Keane of Manchester City Council: Principal Regeneration Officer of the

Central

Regeneration

Team

and

Hulme

ward

co-coordinator.

Interviewed 10:00-11:30 on 14.04.2014, at the Manchester City Council Offices in Moss Side, Manchester.

2. Dean Luby of Capital Projects: Project Manager at the Capital Projects Office of Manchester Metropolitan University. Interviewed 14:00-15:00 on 13.03.2014, at the MMU’s New Business School cafeteria. 3. Natalia Maximova of Sheppard Robson: Associate at Sheppard Robson and Design Team Leader for the Birley Fields masterplan and academic building. Interviewd 11:30-12:30 on 13.03.2014, at Sheppard Robson’s offices in Manchester. 4. Carla Nuttall of Manchester Metropolitan University: MMU’s Public Engagement Manager since January 2012. Interviewed 15:30-16:30 on 10.03.2014, at MMU’s new Art and Design Benzie Building cafeteria. 5. Emily Cain of gwp Architecture: Associate and Architect at gwp Architecture, who are the designers of MMU’s Birley Fields student accommodation. We were unable to schedule an interview due to Mrs Cain’s busy schedule and the fact that she is not based in Manchester.

109