Welcome to Manchester Confidential
Reset Password
News
You are here: Manchester Confidential › News.
First Street, Home Arts Centre, Visualised Intimately
It's beginning to shape up in southside city centre
First Street is beginning to become something.
We don't want it to feel like a half-completed scheme, we want it to have immediate impact
Yes, we've been sceptical about part of the development, mainly the name Home, the title of the arts venue soon to fit out, that brings together the Cornerhouse and Library Theatre. After all, who goes out to go home?
But these visualisations are perking us up.
First Street, south of the railway line, north of the Mancunian Way, opens in April 2015 and it's going to come together in a flurry.
"It'll be opening all at the same time. Home, the Innside Hotel, the restaurants. We don't want it to feel like a half-completed scheme, we want it to have immediate impact," says John Hughes, the Managing Director of Ask Real Estate Limited.
Alongside the 60,000 sq ft Home, there'll be the 208 bed Innside Hotel and at least nine new restaurants plus upmarket student accommodation at Vita. These will join the hundreds of Autotrader staff already working on the First Street site.
From a food and drink point of view, it will be interesting to see who occupies the first floor restaurant with the huge balcony and outdoor area in the pointy Ian Simpson Architects building, that introduces First Street to people walking down from Lower Mosley Street.
"The restaurants will include some major national names - three or so -but also include independents. We know this is what many of the audience for Home will want and we agree. We want to ensure First Street attracts the same variety of people both the Cornerhouse and First Street attract," says Leon Guyett at Ask.
One piece of good news, which is sad in its own way too, is that First Street's public realm will be maintained privately, it will not be cleaned, planted and maintained by the council. This means there will be no replacement of lost cobbles with drab tarmac, lawns will be mown and flowers tended.
Anyway, here are the visualisations.
First Street as it might look in April 2015
First Street as it might look in April 2015
First Street as it might look in April 2015
First Street as it might look in April 2015
First Street as it is now
Like what you see? Enter your email to sign up for our newsletters which are chock-a-block with more great reviews, news, deals and savings.
130 comments so far, continue the conversation, write a comment.
Latest Rants
Repeating,without any evidence the same point that socialism = public services is hardly…
Read moreYou absolutely right,I hate all these bloody nimbys stopping development and progress.Of course if…
Read moreManchester's size and climate isn't dissimilar to Rotterdam or Dusseldorf but the city is held back…
Read moreStraying off the point again David, which is that investing in public services is socialist but as…
Read more
Explore The Site
Content
About Us
© Mark Garner t/a Confidential Direct 2017
Privacy | Careers | Website by: Planet Code | SEO by The eWord
Crap.
Is it really? What would you do differently? Looks pretty good to me
It looks awful. The cladding on the car park doesn't even reach to the top of the building - WHY? The service cores on the car park are completely unadorned - WHY? The cladding on on side of the car park is completely different to that on the Whitworth St facing side - again WHY other than for reasons of corner cutting, penny pinching and profiteering on behalf of the developers and contractors. And what is this wonder material they are cladding this multi-storey monolith in? Will it look half as good as materials used on buildings surrounding the current venues?
Looks alright to me.
A mish-mash of 1980s & 90s architectural rot! Such developments use to happen in other UK cities too, but most of them have got their act together these days (And are all looking much better for it.) Not Manchester though - Leese & Bernstein's "uglification" of the city simply continues.
It's what has become the norm in this city; bland, corporate 'anyplace' off-the-peg architecture by lazy architects employed by developers who only care about the bottom line, given an easy ride by Leese/Bernstein - I don't think the planners have much say, to be frank. Like the laughably named 'green quarter' and much of Spinningfields. But like the latter it will probably work because of good 'public realm' and a pleasant vibe.
The staff are from Ford and not Barclays
Has the Ford letting been confirmed yet?
Feel it is a white elephant. Money would have been far better distributed across different centres. What will happen to the old Cornerhouse? Demolition, abandonment or flats no doubt! It is more impressive than I thought, but in a time of austerity is hardly a priority. It also has to be the worst ever advertising campaign I have ever seen. So patronising aligning art, 'business and merging the two in some glib logos like "Work play Home" . It has something quite Millennium Dome about it and less character, a little to carbuncle. A friends first impression was returning to Manchester from London 'what the hell is that'? And yes, a horrid name. But better than 'nothing' I guess. Even if it did cost £25 million from the Council's tight pocket.
I thought they (Conerhouse) spent the money very wisely and efficiently. I thought there is a re-development plan around Oxford Rd Station and Oxford Rd? So the current Cinema 1 need to be closed down anyway..? I thought the name HOME was decided after a long and good discussions between multiple groups. It sounds good, though. Let's be positive, non?
There's a big question mark in your post to be fair Anon, anon. The uncertain future (publicly) of the Cornerhouse. Also when so many notable buildings that could of been saved and housed this project (if the Council could do an effectively CPO with public research, choice and legally binding contracts - e.g. LRFS) then a building could of been saved and not a new one, of questionable 'architectural merit, built. I'm also keener to see all areas of the city centre getting fairer shares of arts and www.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/…/First-Street-Home-Arts-Centre-Visualised-Intimately… and do not think that to monopolise and equate art to business is either appealing or desirable. That 25 million could have gone further I believe, IMO.
It won't be a white elephant. The people who supported the Library Theatre and Cornerhouse will come here. In a time of austerity it is precisely the kind of development the city needs. It supports the city's art offerings to visitors and makes the city a more attractive place to invest in. A city with great art institutions is far more attractive a place to invest in than one with little in the way of this. Not sure how it's all been funded but it is money well spent in providing first class facilities for two much loved Manchester institutions and giving the poor Library Theatre a stable base after a period of wandering about the city. I'm not keen on the name. HOME sounds like an out of town furniture retail shed. In fact I believe there is such a company in the States. I hope they are prepared for people to turn up and try and buy the sofas....
"We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us" as someone famous once said. A substantial part of what made the Library and Cornerhouse such well loved and successful institutions was the characteristics of the location and buildings they operated from. On almost every score: location, the place making, the quality of architecture, accessibility, branding; all this is vastly inferior to what went before. Sure they have more room and more modern facilities to use but its almost as though the quantity surveyors and accountants have been allowed to dictate the whole process to the detriment of less tangible but crucial qualities such as character. I genuinely fear for the future of the Library / Cornerhouse once they make the move.
You are absolutely right about absent characteristics. The architecture for that money is hardly what anyone could call inspiring, more 90s shopping centre. Me too, I fear it will receive as much support as the business and political 'guru's' thought. It would be fine for a Odeon in a shopping centre, but the uniqueness, style and classic feel has permanently shifted away from what these place were about. Too much beauty being lost in our city from eras that will never come again. This would be just too easy to 'imitate' if it is 'style'.
Looks good.
You are all very negative, it looks brilliant and I am sure it will be a success, our city is great place and we should be proud of these new inspiring developments.
Any city anywhere architecture .... landscaping a bit flat and dull. Could be Spinning fields. Local authority vanity project based on the same investment/development model done to death over the past 25 years. Hopefully Mr Bernstein will retire after this one.
Reg sticking his oar in..
Love these 100% anons! Clearly heavily involved in the project as developer, PR or Council. The positivism 'accept everything' argument.
A state funded conspiracy?
Could be Soinningfields? Well if it is it will be an immensely successful part of the city where people want to do in droves. Spinningfields is a great success and an asset to the city. Let's have more like it. First Street....NOMA.... Greengate.....
I think Mr Anon is a bit aggressive in his/her rather glib positive spin. These sights are an invitation for people to discuss and debate. I take great exception to the opening comment, 'Reg sticking his oar in..'. This is the first time I have engaged with debates/discussions on this site. As an opening gambit the inference is that Anon is a bit of a marketing Pr hatchet man/woman.
The second anon is me I have no idea who the first one is. I used to use a name to make comments but if you do you do tend to attract some strange people. I was the one who thought Spinningfields has been successful not the 'sticking his oar in' one. I don't go in for personal attacks on people. Cheers...
All these anonymous people, well I never, very Orwell. It depends how you measure success and that is particularly pertinent when it comes to modelling cultural/arts developments. The art comes first not the building. Homeless seems to be driven by rather dubious arts/development buzz words indicative of 80's90's style 'regenerist' thinking basically led by Tourism and destinationalism and back of a fag packet economics. Tourism and destinationalism are part of the cultural imperatives for a City wishing to compete nationally and internationally but we have two commercial theatres and the Lowry (a complex that dances in both commercial and public camps) they should be able to deliver that, publicly funded arts and culture is quite a different matter and doesn't really fit comfortably amongst the glass and steel financial imperatives of such schemes. I'm afraid Spinningfields might be a success by commercial measurements but I'm afraid I find it a soulless corporate anywhere space, however, as it houses the financial geniuses that have led us to such dizzy heights of moral and public spirited values maybe thats Ok - The isle of dogs is grotesque too. This kind of architecture doesn't inspire the creation of great art fro everyone, just great commerce for well developers and landlords resale
'resale' should read 'really'- intuitive technology is a bit of a do
Spinningfields is one of the most attractive, popular parts of the city. It's attractive and well designed and successful. People like going there. What's not to like?
People also like going to the Trafford Centre, Anon. Popularity does not equate to quality, in any matter.
a lot of people would say the the Trafford Centre IS quality though
But they're the sort of people that think fibre-glass urns, frescos of the Whittaker family, plastic dolphin fountains and diamanté encrusted chandeliers make the place 'classy'; the style over substance crowd. It's a mere shopping centre at the end of the day. Important cultural institutions such as the Library theatre and the Cornerhouse deserve better than cheap Las Vegas fakery of the Trafford Centre or the bland commercialism of Spinningfields.
Anon re Trafford Centre - that's exactly my point.
The Trafford Centre is what it is . A great Roman palace/renaissance cathedral dedicated to consumerism. It's brash, kitsch and the only building in Manchester that approaches Las Vegan excess. It's great fun to visit and is ideal on a wet, cold day. It's immensely successful. As is Spinningfields which could have been a disaster but is saved by an iconic building and some first class public realm which they seem to be determined to keep looking good. People like both places. They are successful as pieces of architecture because they work well. What's wrong with that? It remains to be seen if First Street can pull this off. Personally I think the nine restaurant spaces might struggle unless they can get some destination restaurants to open there. I don't think there are that make restaurants along Shaftesbury Avenue and that street has many well established theatres to support them. The are could be dead in the day.
@obollox... The Trafford Centre is a quality of its type. Just because your personal preference doesn't run to it does not mean it's bad. Other people may enjoy it. It's certainly not bland.
@reginald...you may find Spinningfields soulless, other people don't and find it an attractive environment in which to work and socialise. If I had to get rid of any building in that area it would be those tacky faux Georgian house/offices on the Quay St edge. The glass and steel corporate towers nearby are so much better than those. If they were real Georgian I would lie in front of any bulldozer trying to demolish them. Or do a Miley Cyrus on a wreaking ball. Now there's a nasty image for you...
But the point remains: is the brash tackiness of the Trafford Centre or the slick but bland corporate look of Spinningfields, however popular, the right model for the creation of a place that will be home to cultural institutions of the standing of Library/Cornerhouse? I would say no, never.
For comparison, look at the quality and setting of the Bridewater Hall and associated commercial development just up the road. Almost 20 years on and it still looks good and feels like a place where commercial, cultural and public interests coexist in harmony, resulting in a place with a strong identity and which works for many different groups of people. I'm not sure the same will be said of this scheme.
I agree with the comment just above. The architecture of Spinningfields and the Trafford Centre is fine for their representative uses and work well. Cultural buildings need to be iconic, to stand out, many of the worlds best do that be they theatres, art galleries etc. The HOME building is hidden among taller buildings and seems to have no distinctive features at all. If it was built in some smaller town or some suburb of the city we might be raving about it. but as a leading cultural institution in the city centre it is a failure.
Metrolink is good though and the development of St Peter's Square.
There you go you see, a negative and then a positive
The largest building there is the multi-story car-park, it was decided like all projects in Manchester, behind closed doors. I was told some time ago, the land was not available to build the new MMU campus, because it was not in Ask Developments master-plan. So, it is not the council in charge of development but the developers, at a cost to tax-payers.
As is Spinningfields. It's basically commercial with a arty space.
Agree Spence. Commercial Art. Very apt for a Council that wants to dominate everything.
The original plan was to welcome BBC there. But it did not happen, then the developer gave a good offer to the the Cornerhouse and Library Theatre (and concil) who were looking for their new 'home'.
It's not where the BBC might have ended up.
That would have been an ideal spot for MMU.
don't you think that all the buildings are just to close together?
No.
You mean "too" and no they aren't too close. Come and look round.
Pedantic Ali
Pedantry has its uses Ken; Possibly it was only a typo but 'to close' and 'too close' have completely different meanings. And having just gone and had a look round, I agree with Ali McG completely.
Home is a great name and the site has been derelict for years so it's good to see something happening. It might not be perfect but what is? And the old corner house is a prime location for a new bar. Doubt either space will be empty for long
It'll probably become another Pizza Express...
HOME is a very silly name....
Anonymous isn't exactly a sensible name is it? You're entitled to your opinion BUT you're wrong
@rinkydink....it's a very silly name, I have a home already, it's a semi in the suburbs, this isn't it....as someone else on here said it sounds like an out of town retail furniture shed...
You're quite a fan of saying things are silly aren't you? And taking things quite literally. I've just walked past The Grapes pub near Spinningfields. Oh wait - The Grapes! Silly name! It isn't a bunch of grapes! Your argument doesn't really wash. Manchester House isn't a house it's in an old office tower! And so on and so forth...
It's a very silly name because it says nothing about what goes on inside. No one goes HOME to watching cutting edge drama, cinema or looking at cutting edge art. It's all part of that end of Millennium nonsense that gave us places like URBIS. What was that about? Who knows? And we'll never know because it closed down. There is a long tradition of giving pubs unusual names, it's part of their character. Plus there is a convention for using the word 'house' after the name of a commercial building. But HOME is just a silly name given for goodness knows what reason. Your argument doesn't hold water @rinkydink and is silly.
Does the Grapes say anything about what goes on inside? Does the Crown and Anchor? And if House is a convention, how about Home being the start of a new convention? Your arguments are redundant
@rinkydink...you have lost the argument and are getting increasingly desperate. HOME will never be a convention for an arts centre. It is, however, a good convention for a semi in the suburb or a retail business selling cheap furniture. It's not really a silly name, it's a stupid name to be honest. So let's dump HOME and give it a sensible name so we know what it actually does. Has anyone else agreed with you on this thread? No. But there are plenty who think it's a daft name which, of course, it is. You're the one with the dodgy arguments which, of course, you know. End of conversation....
And rinkydink is a pretty stupid name as well. What's that about?
Is rinkydink the kind of person who just likes to say the opposite of everyone else just for some sort of effect?
Does everything need an indication as to what it does in the name? Does The Cornerhouse tell us it's an arty bar, restaurant and cinema? Does Gorilla tell us it's a gin bar, restaurant, club and live music venue? Does Matt & Phreds tell us it's a jazz club? I'm fairly sure people might eventually figure out that it's not their home, despite the "misleading" name.
Of course all this debate about the name is redundant. The name has been decided. All this debate about various other venues in the city gets nobody anywhere. HOME smacks of that end of millennium New Labour vibe, like URBIS, and none of that ended well did it? As for HOME, I've been trying to think of a dafter name but have failed. I must try harder...
I agree that the debate is redundant. We were having this argument two frigging years ago. I don't like it much, but it was decided a looong time ago. People need to get over it. Move on to something useful, like having a conversation about what is going to happen with the Cornerhouse building.
I hope it gets used for something interesting. Hate to see it tiring into another bar, restaurant, apartment block. I suspect that they won't want a rival arts destination though.
To be honest I'd be happy if it was a bar, as it works so well as one at the moment. Perfect location. What might work better?
Am at a loss to think of anything. Bars seem to be struggling along that stretch of Oxford Road since the BBC moved and Manchester does seem to be well served with them at the moment.
Well actually the MEN Arena has changed it's name a number of times as has the City of Manchester Stadium, all be it for commercial/sponsorship reasons-Maybe it can happen to Homeless too- given that everything in the public realm is up for commercial grabs- The DFS Cultural Development Centre or for the more high brow Home of Heals Arts Centre.
As if I care whether anyone agrees you dumb ass. I'm not a sheep
Home and away
Home and Stayaway fro me if it is anything like the picture. How do you get to it anyway? By car I assume
Spence, it is a short walk from the tram stop, railway station and numerous bus stops, so is well placed for those needing to travel into the city. There is also taxis available should the performance end late. That is before you start to think about the many city centre dwellers that can walk to the area.
I suspect it will not have all those little people around it, even on a day like to today. And a Tesco (hidden) doesn't promise well at the moment. Although it isn't it feels miles away ....
Looks good shame they have got rid of the greenery.
Looks busier than Market Street on the first Saturday after payday in December! I hope it feels as spacious as it looks, I fear planning will allow a big monolith to block the sun on the south side, and we need all the suntraps we can get. With luck, this -with the Renaker twin towers next door - should kicksart the River Street development and all that wasteland between City Road and Cheser Road - expanding the central core by a massive degree.
Nah that will end up like the backside of Castlefield.
PICCADILLY GARDENS MK II. Cheap architecture and a piss poor effort at place making with the dominant element being a grim metal-clad multistorey car park looming over what will be a lifeless oddly shaped plaza. Comparing the above images to previous visuals reveal how the developer / contractor team have value engineered the scheme, removing any quality and flair these cheap blocks may have had with multiple changes to the cladding and detailing. And to think this scheme has effectively been de-risked by the public sector as anchor tenant and part funder. Where is the oversight? Who is working with the developer / contractor team to ensure they deliver the best possible scheme and maximise value for money? Like so many recent developments you suspect the main objective is commercial property development rather than architectural or cultural excellence. Another missed opportunity - Piccadilly Gardens Mrk II.
Number One Piccadilly Gardens looks like one of those office blocks they use to build alongside motorways, on airport business parks etc, back in the 1990s. Now its clones are popping up all over Manchester city centre. Is Manchester becoming the Milton Keynes of the North - is that the plan?
In a word, no
Sad that a massive car park has to be built to attract people to a relocated theatre and cinema when people just went to those venues with a car parks next door before.
I think it looks good. Just wonder if they'll struggle to fill all that restaurant space given the amount of interesting units there are in more proven parts of the city centre now (and more soon with Triangle redevelopment), and fact that several of the spaces are very close to a busy junction which might not lend well for a lovely outdoor view. Have any spots been pre-let? One flagship operation might drive others there.
Would love HOME to be rebranded HOMEMCR to give it real identity. Just calling it HOME is far too bland for my liking. It could be anywhere.. Anyone else feel the same?
Leese named it. Therefore against any public protest it remains. Sad but true.
You're telling me Sir Richard Leese doesn't listen!!!!!!!!!
Mr Leese being so well placed to determine the cultural direction of the city. Has anyone ever tried to find the 'theatre' space in Abraham Moss. Has anyone seen the state of the Old Library in Cheetham Hill, ideally placed with car park behind and a number of well proportioned event spaces, now empty and derelict, a symbol of leeses lack of respect and ambition for the cultural life of the citizens he represents North of the City. Has anyone seen the state of the Old Gallery in Queens Park, closed for years bars at the window a discreet conservation and store for Manchester City Galleries. Mr Leese is probably one of the most culturally unambitious cllrs I have ever met with an appalling sense of cultural entitlement....and he's a labour man....ugggg
Did Leese ever take any responsibility, whatsoever, for the "big mess" Manchester made of the 2008 UEFA Cup Final? No wonder such events are unlikely to ever return here now. The sheer brazenness of Manchester's "out of touch" Town Hall, simply defies belief.
@Anon 3, probably not, considering he wasn't responsible for it.
^^^ Any responsibility, whatsoever, I asked Obollox.
Pardon? Can you try that again, as a proper sentence?
Not proper? Oh dear. You'll have to explain why the sentence in my previous post isn't proper Obollox. Then I'll willingly get back to you and once again let you know why your response to my original post was somewhat silly. Thanks.
It fails to use word order and punctuation in a coherent enough manner to convey the intended meaning of the sentence. In other words, "You what?"
"Leese named it. Therefore against any public protest it remains. Sad but true."- haha, if you believe that, you'll believe anything. Another conspiracy theory for the gullible.
I can't believe the arty types from the Cornerhouse or the Library Theatre have called it HOME.
I suspect that the name Home has been chosen to lull the masses into a false sense of security. When at home, we are often at our most relaxed and our defenses are down; we are wide open to cultural indoctrination and programming.An art centre is not your home. But to get the message across, whatever that message may be, it helps if people are at ' home' and feel at home. The Orwellian (mis)use of language is a powerful tool used by manipulators and elites.
Ahahahaha, oh Mark Fuller, look at yourself. I'm sure Orwell would have HATED the idea of people deliberately setting out to make the arts welcoming and accessible to working class people. Except, wait... no he wouldn't.
Are you feeling okay Mark? Have you been spending too much time in the sun? Or maybe not enough?
Anon. I live closer to Liverpool than Manchester and visit the Tate Modern from time to time. It's only very rarely that I see anything ' accessible to the working class' or designed to make people feel at home in the world. Knowing quite a few avent- garde people over the years, it's long been obvious to me that many of them , despite surface appearances, despise the working class,( they haven't delivered the revolution that Marx promised they would), and would be horrified if their art appealed to the working class. Home will be a home for those who want their left-liberal holier than thou prejudices confirmed, which they then inflict on the rest of us via the education system, mainstream media and of course, the arts. The working class , will not feel at home in such a place and will avoid it. And by the the way, although Orwell was a 'Democratic Socialist'(possible oxymoron), he hated the left-liberal elite for despising their own country, so I'm in good company.
Can I point out that Central Library is still standing!
So far but do you like the inside? Found anything?
Skipping past the group therapy session that is the usual moaning in the ManCon comments section, I have to give kudos the the developers for this moving along so quickly. I can't wait to be booking my first theatre tickets for next April. It's going to be a fantastic new part of town that will really enliven a pretty dull area at present.
*Fingers in ears, lalalalalalalalalalalalalala, not listening, not listening.
Official release from the Albert Sq Politburo
Hmm, that sort of attitude will definitely help dispel those criticisms that you're arrogant, won't it Kevin? The old maxim of 'If you can't say anything nice...' is a pretty good guide for elected members.
Oh, your actually in Manchester for once?
What about that other council backed development by the COOP Kevin?.Would you like to tell us your views on that or are you still pretending you had nothing to do with the COOP?
"Dull area" Cheers Kevin, some people actually live round that area and if the council could have "enlivened" it earlier on and not left it to become scruffy.
There is a lot of moronic once-sided criticism of the council and certain councillors on here. Anyone looking objectively at how the city has developed would say they have been very successful in drawing in investment and creating jobs with quite limited means. Having said that, there is something unsettling about Cllr Peel's contribution here that speaks volumes of the council's attitude to shaping our city. Namely, a complacent 'anything will do' approach that prioritises the needs of developers over communities. In terms of commercial property development it's fine. The scale and form of the buildings is good too. But complacency and design-illiteracy is evident here in the cheap materials and the lack of a real sense of place for what should be a flagship cultural building. For Manchester's cultural credentials and identity this could turn out to be a bit of an embarrassment. For HOME, see also Arndale Centre North, Piccadilly Gardens, Urbis, Ancoats Dispensary, Twisted Wheel, the Hacienda, innumerable delapidated buildings and littered spaces and the many dismal strip-malls and lifeless housing estates that litter the city. A new approach is needed, not one stuck in the late 90s / 2000s.
Home? Home Bargains, Home & Away, Homebase? The names rubbish imo, but it's not as bad as the design. As people have mentioned above its cheap, samey, old hat, could be anywhere type of looking. I wish we had someone in charge of these things who had some sort of idea and had the ambition to want more for Manchester.
You don't like 'Home' but have called yourself 'Me' - oh the irony
And you call yourself Rinkydink! Apologies if that's the name your parents actually saddled you with.
Architecture is always "of an age". Hence you get the same old shit across an entire country... Be that in Victorian times or indeed now. So you probably won't get something that is just "Manchester" unless you find an incredible architect and have some cash to splash. Otherwise, you will simply end up with a design that does enough to satisfy planning regs but won't blow your front door knockers off.
Anonymous my dear, I do hope you're being ironic
My first reaction is 'not too bad, almost any development of derelict land better than none', but I know we can do better.... but I'm not exactly sure how likely how. I'd be interested to know of recent large-area commercial redevelopment schemes in the UK that are better than this. I rather like the wider area around Cabot Circus shopping centre in Bristol... attractive mix of old and inventive new build. Other examples please!
Seems like the kind of hideous architecture that has ruined Dutch cities. I think they will have to bus school children in. I am against closing the Cornerhouse and Library Theatre both nicely situated next to public transport. another Bernstein
If you check the new location you'll see it's around one to two minutes from Deansgate-Castlefield tram stop. I think we will cope.
A much better place for all of this would be the old BBC site on Oxford Road in a busy part of the city people want to go to. First Street is too far away from the centre of things. It might be busy in the evenings but will be dead in the day as there's no passing trade like on Oxford Road. Far too late to do anything now of course but if it had been properly thought out this could have been a brilliant venture. Not too late to do something about the daft name though...
@Anon above, you're right it would have been an ideal site, but considering it's a temporary/permanent carpark now, and First Street had the space for a huge multi-storey carpark, I'm sure it's obvious that 'Car is King' in Manchester.
Don't mind the name as much as others, the corner house bit will still be called corner house right? but dear god it's pug ugly. Does the fact that the pretend restaurant in the photos is called "Myron" mean it may be Byron going in somewhere or is that too obvious?!
Yes, the image suggests it will be beside the Zeezzo - my fav!!!
It's actually Pizza Express.
Shame really, it looks like Liverpool One.
If you're Homeless can you use the facilities at Home
I don't understand the boggle-eyed semantic confusion over the name Home, only a few years ago people seemed to be fine wrapping their minds around the nightclub on Ducie St with the same name. It's not as if "Cornerhouse" isn't similarly nondescript, if you don't want to support them & the Library Theatre in their new home (literally minutes walk from their previous locations) for whatever reason, be it axe to grind with the council, first year architecture opinions or in Mr. Fuller's case some woefully outdated fake revolutionary prada-meinhoff politics then don't. Stay at your home with your smug self satisfaction of sticking it to the non-existent "Man". I'm gonna suck up any minor misgivings about what buildings they're in and watch some weird foreign films & have a drink with some arty ponces, which I'm sure is what these two fine Manchester institutions will continue to providein their new "Home" (see what I did there *winks & finger guns*).
Go home.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
I think 'Home' needs a new 'Haçienda' for some late night action, rather than just a lot of upscale restaurants that no doubt will be very expensive
I though there were supposed to be a space, sort of like the Printworks There was some talk of an application for planning for it the other day May be it's by Tesco (very suitable)
By the way what is the security risks on the development. 'Home' I fear won't attract VAST crowds at night or even the 'little people' shown in the picture. Should I bring my baseball bat under my jacket.