By Adam Prince & Loz Kaye
The release of the Gay Village and Portland Street SRF has been controversial. The petition has reached over eleven thousand signatures who express discontent, worry, upset and disagreement with how the plans and processes have been reached in this document. The original text of this petition is here: https://www.change.org/p/demanding-the-scrapping-and-rewriting-of-the-portland-street-gay-village-srf. The change of two final versions caused much confusions, where the first SRF clearly used the terms “Portland Village” twice and “Portland Street Village” twice. The petition has been signed worldwide and by renown figures. We would like to reiterate in 2013 a survey of 406 people was sent to the elected Councillors, Planners and Gay Leads in the city. This survey of five years ago was completed ignored by all but the opposition and MP and would have had some basic though important information to contribute to the formation of what people would have liked to have seen in the development of the Gay Village area. At the time, only 7% were satisfied with the long-term approach to the Gay Village. By ignoring data and widespread voices such as this, concerns were never addressed. In our survey from this March of 290 people, likewise, only 5% of people felt the long-term approach towards the Gay Village has been sufficient from the main elected officials and local authority in Manchester. In terms of percentage of those surveyed, out of a 100% rating, there was only a 16% rating of ‘satisfaction with this consultation and the communications of the plans with all stakeholders impacted by the SRF. Likewise, only a score of 13% was given as to how well people felt the LGBTQ community in Manchester had dealt with in this process and consultation. Only 21% felt that the way the information was presented was user-friendly and accessible. Clearly, there are grave concerns about the approach to the varied and diverse stakeholders of the area, suggesting a detailed research approach and change in Council strategy is an urgent one, that could be greatly improved. A typical comment to these first questions about the SRF and process said “It is clear that these plans have been developed without the involvement of the LGBTQ community in Manchester. A community which provides huge economic benefits to Manchester, and a community which is treated with contempt by the council”. The full summary data can be found at this link here.
What people want Simply, by asking for three adjectives or short descriptions, the pictorial representation of a word cloud is plain to see. It not only includes as a sense of identity, branding, the type of development, but the values the respondents held close. The top five words are inclusive, vibrant, community, LGBTQ/ Gay and safe. Many of the words about identity and history, about an exciting and vibrant vision, about the survival of nightlife and the celebratory nature of the area. The words about design are about vibrancy, heritage, the inspiring, cosmopolitan and unique character of the area. Only 26% out of a possible 100%, felt that the SRF showed images of architecture and design as being of a high quality. The aspirational words are for the area to be colourful, diverse, inclusive, celebratory, modern, public, green, cultural and open. There are so many opportunities to pioneer with the excitement and passion of design these adjectives represent for this unique area.
What people do not want to see The main words of the three responses of what people did not want to see, were further simplified and summarised for this word cloud. Thematically, though a sample of the 290 people, the theme of “heteronormalizing” the area, was the greatest concern. People had significant concerns about gentrification, exclusionary private spaces, unaffordable spaces or the area becoming commercialised, executive, luxury, corporate or too expensive. In terms of design, people clearly are rejecting skyscrapers and high-rises, bland concrete materials, steel or glass or identikit ‘ugly’ grey design. We also see the concerns for the area are in rejecting the idea of a new multi-storey carpark (carparks are mentioned in SRF 54 times, including the proposal for a new over ground carpark), a casino (indicated in the SRF 4 times). People worry about the area becoming taken over by offices or aspects that infringe on the culture of the area, be it commercial chains, damage to the nightlife. There are clear worries about safety, crime, too much alcohol, mirroring the concerns there are not enough community infrastructure, and areas that heighten anti-social behaviour in terms of businesses and design.
The summary of key conceptual ideas of neighbourhood hopes and functions desirability
The most important message in the survey, where that people wanted to keep the Gay Village as an LGBTQ nightlife area. The weighted average was the 91%. The next most desirable choices were for, Community Space (83%), Opportunity for a small permanent LGBTQ History of Manchester Exhibition (83%), Historical figures and local history commemorated in the designs (79%), Community centre with inclusive programme (78%), Distinct public realm and street furniture (75%), Home for the aged or LGBTQ nursing home for Manchester (74%) and Art, sculpture and local artists images integrated into design and architecture (70%). People least wanted to see a Casino (9%), Creating New Overground carparking or multi-storey (19%), Luxury High End exclusivity apartments only (24%), Offices (25%), Supermarkets (37%) or Takeaways (43%).
Needs and function meeting style, design and aspirations
First to be noted is that 82% of people wanted “Buildings that do not negate nearby street level and heritage�. Clearly there is a greater support for low rise (70%), than mid-rise (39%) or skyscrapers (9%), though further research could ascertain where, and it would seem in the comments, the greater concerns are for Bloom Street and ensuring that area is not lost, imposed upon or overshadowed. Several comments indicate the desire to keep the Gay Village area free from unnatural heights compared to businesses and the natural street level of those historical buildings, having clear design implications for future development. Taking this with the unpopular view of demolishing one multi-storey carpark for another, suggests parking could be underground or the refurbishment of the existing bus station would be beneficial. 87% of respondents are against such a new over ground carpark. The area is already surrounded by multiple carparks and it seems wasteful for the prime real estate. To build more over ground carparking infrastructure, will not only harm the neighbourhood but have green impacts and seem regressive for a 21st century city. 86% say the development has a priority is to be cycling, pedestrian and disabled friendly and many are concerned about the impact on traffic in congested and difficult roads. The New Manchester Square site has underground parking and modern cities have many solutions for maximising that space underground. A good example of something progressive in terms of parking would include solutions such as this space saving parking underground https://www.dezeen.com/2015/11/20/largest-automated-robotic-car-parkeurope-lodige-industries-below-library-schmidt-hammer-lassen-aarhus-denmark/. We spoke to local business in the existing carpark who said they have not been visited or advised about this SRF process, which is worrying indeed. Businesses should be rehoused elsewhere in the Gay Village if they wish this. Worryingly have been many closures recently, which are often then taken as future property speculation or for luxury property. 82% of respondents felt that these businesses needed to be rehoused if there is a demolition and 80% have feared for the Bloom Street businesses being impacted, many comments suggesting they think that row may be demolished next. In terms of long-term failure in policy and the concerns of the lack of long term infrastructure been put into the area by the Council, 82% think that businesses in the wider area need to be supported with business rate reductions to ensure their survival. 89% believe that the opportunities considered for the area need to be independent and aligned with the LGBTQ community above all else. 89% believe the developer should offer at least one specific LGBTQ function for the Gay Village with MCC supporting with historic business rates and finances.
Our Pinterest board considers examples a variety of styles and aspirations in design, style, density, mass, and what may be inspirational for the area. Over 240 Pins can be found here at https://www.pinterest.co.uk/mcrshield/gayvillage-portland-street-srf-style-ideas-needs/ The style question is an essential yet easy one to ask in future consultations. 82% of respondents felt that the style should be inspired by local heritage or sympathetic to it. Significant ‘nearby’ listed heritage of 58 Richmond was left off the SRF, which could have been used for community spaces is in a long deteriorating, but in salvable condition. Taking this into consideration with the needs of desired public space, possible temporary event spaces and the density people prefer, this is a collage that considers different approaches to this question and thoughts on styles. Here we show active streets frontage examples, which was important to 87% of people. A good example is the use of upper level public and leisure or business spaces, inviting and warm architecture in others. Lower of upper roof gardens would also alleviate the concerns 93% have that Pride and Sparkle, as well as other festivals will be damaged, requesting space remains to some extent. We believe there are creative and exciting ways this might be achieved. Some of these examples show undercover spaces, that certainly would suit our climate. Most importantly, the warmth and invitingness at street level could retain a village feel closer to Bloom Street, perhaps as development increases in height towards Portland Street.
Green architecture always tops the research consultations in terms of people’s aspirations for a sight. In our often grey and concrete city, 82% as a joint highest concern would like to see green architecture. Solutions are green roof gardens which might be for leisure businesses, residents or have public functions. These may be internal green gardens or lower level public realm, mixed with street furniture and happy active streets. There may be a chance for urban farms, green walls and there would be many ways to integrate green into the architecture and design.
Colourful and vibrant architecture offers the Gay Village much branding and excitement for the area, which 79% find desirable. There are some incredible examples of using colour in design, from the subtle to the integral. Be it glass, cladding, tiles, colour reveal window frames, to neon, diochromatic or even photovoltaic glass or green ways to enhance colour in the design. From Aarhus famous rainbow walkway rooftop, the vibrancy people want to see was not within the SRF.
73% of people would like to see “exciting, fresh, unique” architecture and design with, 71% wanting to see a range of materials, shapes & textures. This collage offers an exciting variety of ideas for shape, detailing, colour and perhaps for the rooftop silhouettes. That only 25% found the few images available in the report as being of high enough quality, suggests there is much to challenge against what the top choices in a word cloud of what people did not want, ‘bland’, ‘grey’ or ‘identikit’.
Similarly, this collage looks at options in the cladding. These examples range from historical figures printed in the glass to tell stories, to add pop art lights, or subtle external glazed terracotta, mixing woods and brick, with printed glass facades (which could embody history of figures the area or art ambitions), to striking holographic tiles, rich golden textures, bright colour stained glass with a modern twist or living walls integrated into the architecture. The choices to match the hunger for somewhere reflecting vibrancy must be considered.
The desire to see interactive, unusual and unique public space and street furniture had an average rating of 74%. This collage shows simple ideas, from roof top sculpture to add unique vandal proof street art, to flower streetlight benches, light public realm and furniture, nightlights, planters, pop-up spaces to use and glazed water features. The perception is Manchester can be bland, uninviting and the public realm or even those meeting with businesses, leisure and street frontage, are uninspiring and drab. Many ideas would enliven the area and that could come from direct community engagement, artists, or competitions. 70% wanted to see art, public sculpture, local artists images integrated into design and architecture. The limitation is imagination, so let’s, for once have some fun!
Other Comments The consultation process has been inadequate and upsetting for many people. We feel after this basic research there is a duty to exceed and consult with the community and stakeholders, extensively and proactively. The demographics were not consulted in a way which has intrinsic biases and prejudices via institutions and this could lead to a fatality for the future of the area. The document, communication and consideration of people’s voices have been declared inadequate by those 11,000 who have supported the petition. For examples, the types of housing and demographics that will be represented need to be addressed beyond luxury or exclusive apartments. The concerns about affordability, aging, assisting those in the community who need a community around them or even for a variety of accommodation choices in a nightlife and LGBTQ area are not addressed. For a neighbourhood to survive and thrive, ideas from and to represent unique demographics are essential research. This goes for many distinct neighbourhoods across Manchester facing Blandifcation. The sense is overriding, that these plans are not only not ambitious enough, but they are also ill-prepared and damaging to the wider Gay Village or users of this unique area. Towards Portland Street, the drab architecture is characterless, which seems to be a great part of objections we have researched. Where the bus station might be relocated to with the city, has not been clearly thought through, no absence of the impact removing or rebuilding over ground carparks would have or where this would be best relocated in a changing city, with changing transport infrastructure needs in different wards. It also seems incredibly wasteful and damaging to consider more over ground carparking. It seems the architecture and space must consider businesses and people that represent the nightlife area. Also, there may be tangible solutions to retain some space to enable Pride or festival events. The concern of chains, wiping out the ethos of the area concerns many and there are ways to be mutually inspiring and diverse, even
if not fully LGBTQ. For example, with the recently granted Watch This Space family houses on Richmond Street, 87% felt that this was unsuited to that road and location, which shows criticism of recent planning policy. With a weighted average of 15% felt MCC had effectively made a policy to deal with noise complaints. This needs to be factored into any designs or architecture, their glazing, soundproofing and design. Each road and location are different, but the impact must be to retain and enhance the area for all, especially the minority that LGBTQ feels under threat, especially in terms of nightlife and acceptable noise from venues. Only 15% feel the SRF enhances to an overall vision of a thriving, valued and evolving Gay Village and with the concerns of closures, extensive business rates and inadequate long-term reinvestment into fair infrastructure into the area. The criticism of the Council and elected leaders is clear, with only a 22% satisfaction rating with elected officials. We need to find uses to inspire entrepreneurial, inspiring, fair and enriching with community, arts and community business spaces. For character full new businesses that make a good fit in the area, rather than homogenise a place people wanted to value or felt safe in. The long sense is little has been given back, and much has been forced out or to close. Many comments say they feel the property takeover has been intentional. If not, that pace must be stopped, and contingencies made to protect the area. It is now time to do better for the future of the city and show responsive design, architecture, placemaking and valuing diversity within the city, not excluding it through obtuse, unscrutinised and failing processes. A comment to conclude with in our survey is: “The SRF appears to be the 1st steps to gentrifying the area. I welcome regeneration of the area (The Kampus scheme fits perfectly with the area & there have been great levels of social engagement on this) but MCC seems to be alienating the public and LGBTQ+ community with these proposals. This is aggressive development, that is insensitive, damaging and bland�. We hope that these plans are not only researched extensively, but the processes are active, vibrant, ambitious and responsive, not exclusionary and a failure of elected representation and by public sector civil servants. This research feedback suggests it is a widespread feeling this urban planning must be better for a cities future, evolution and communities respect and integrity.
Some typical open comments from our research respondents