Despite financial pressures, Grosvenor’s massive £1bn redevelopment of Liverpool city centre is beginning to become visible. David Quinn reports

From a nearby roof top, the last few empty buildings on Paradise Street are dwarfed by the white, dusty presence of one of the largest building sites in Europe.

But Grosvenor’s £1bn redevelopment of central Liverpool’s retail core has recently been making headlines, and not because of its physical scale. Instead, all the talk has been about the financial burden it has created for its developer.

It was revealed last month that Grosvenor is to set aside between £50m and £90m in its annual accounts to support the development, which will eat directly into profits. Meanwhile, in Preston, fears are growing that the size of Liverpool One has reduced the company’s capacity to develop its proposed £450m Tithebarn scheme.

Grosvenor says it will absorb the financial hit in Liverpool itself, leaving the consortium of backers which include Hermes and Middle Eastern clients of Arlington Securities unscathed.

But with the scheme so much at the heart of Liverpool’s rejuvenation, and timed to coincide with the city’s coronation as Capital of Culture in 2008, the announcement has raised eyebrows locally.

In the meantime, however, the 42-acre development is moving forward at speed. The development site is scattered with 15 cranes, and the former bustle of Paradise Street has been replaced by a wide, open pathway populated by JCBs.

The core of what will be an Odeon cinema is taking shape. And the structures of John Lewis and Debenhams are in place.

It is certainly a complex project. Rather than slapping a big-box shopping mall on the site, Grosvenor is working with the existing streetscape.

In total, there are 30 new buildings at Liverpool One designed by 20 architects. “The idea from day one has been to create not a shopping mall but a series of buildings with their own character and architecture,” says Rod Holmes, project director at Grosvenor.

While some of the buildings have been completed, details of the majority of the scheme’s retail and leisure elements, and how they fit together, has sometimes been difficult to fathom.

Traditional shopping

Holmes says people in Liverpool have never really had a problem getting to grips with the design and layout, but others have.

“People locally realise that we are rebuilding a chunk of the city centre and that it fits in with the street pattern. It only becomes difficult when we start talking to people in the property industry who are used to dealing with traditional shopping centres,” he says.

The open-air nature of the scheme has had an upside, however. “Certain retailers welcome the fact that this is not ‘another shopping centre’. Some retailers who never take space in traditional shopping centres are interested, because it’s more like a high street,” says Holmes.

In fact, the scheme has five key retail elements (see map, p215) and is broken up into zones, which cater for different tastes and wallets.

John Lewis and Debenhams anchor the two western points of a triangle, which tapers towards the existing Marks & Spencer and the junction of Hanover Street with Church Street. South John Street and Paradise Street form linear retail pitches north to south, while Hanover Street, with more stores, forms the eastern barrier of the project. All this means the retail floorspace of central Liverpool will more than double.

“The different zones are based around real streets in Liverpool and so we have appropriate rents to reflect that,” explains Neil Barber, head of leasing at Grosvenor.

“For example, Hanover Street will be pitched at perhaps a third of the level of South John Street. We realise that different retailers can afford to pay different levels of rent, and we aren’t going to put in a couple of hundred shops at £300 per sq ft zone A. We want a different mix we don’t want a clone town.”

John Lewis, which has had a presence in Liverpool since 1940 and operates from a cramped outlet on Church Street, will be central to Liverpool One’s offer. Ann Humphries, director of retail development, says she is enthusiastic by the trading potential of the new store. “This store will be part of the biggest change to the centre of a city that we have been involved with,” she says.

“We’ve stayed committed to Liverpool. It’s fantastic that we are now getting a new critical mass of retailers as a magnet to bring people back into the city.”

So far, around 60% of the retail element of the scheme is let, with several high street names already confirmed and others rumoured (see box, p215). The next announcement on retailers is programmed for November, and this is likely to include several restaurant names. Holmes anticipates a further flurry of lettings activity next spring, after retailers have evaluated the Christmas 2006 trading figures.

Like the retail areas, the leisure offer will be broken down into zones. The park area will feature what Barber calls “fine dining”, with some of the units appearing to slot into the side of the sloping open parkland, with views of the River Mersey.

More casual dining will also feature here. No deals have yet been signed, but Wagamama, Strada and Gourmet Burger Kitchen are tipped to take space. North West-based ventures are likely to be strongly supported, with Manchester-based Croma and Sam’s Chop House, both favourites among property types, believed to be contenders for units.

Family dining

“These lettings tend to be the stuff you do in the last 12 months so that you can get the right mix and the latest thing, but we are now really beginning to crack into it,” says Barber. “Our advantage is that there aren’t many places in the UK where you can overlook a large park in the centre of a city.”

Other catering offers at the scheme will be family dining, especially close to the cinema, although Barber stresses this will not be a “food court”. The remaining offer will be “dotted around”, with a mix of “coffee stops tailored to particular districts”.

The retail element of the scheme will be completed in the first half of 2008, with some other sections, including 300 flats, being completed at the start of 2009. Holmes says discussions with potential development partners for the flats have been aborted, and Grosvenor will now finance and develop this element on its own.

In less than two years, if all goes to plan, Grosvenor’s complex scheme will push Liverpool firmly into the UK’s top-10 retail destinations. But for now, the clutch of cranes, the diggers and the dust remain.

Liverpool One composition

Paradise Street

Described as a “slick European boulevard”, the 82ft-wide street will be uncovered and have a similar volume and size to Church Street. It will feature a mix of trendy, urban fashion retailers. John Lewis anchors the street at the southern end.

Typical target retailers: Urban Outfitters, USC

Architects: BDP (London), Allies & Morrison, John McAslan, Glenn Howells, Haworth Tompkins

South John Street

The street linking Debenhams and John Lewis will be partly covered by a glass canopy and feature family-oriented multiples. The top level of the street will back on to the open park on the western side.

Typical target retailers: Borders

Architects: Groupe Six, BDP (Liverpool)

Peters Lane

Arguably the most architecturally surprising element of the scheme, Peters Lane will punch through from Church Street via a new entrance created by opening up the existing HMV store. The scheme’s only fully covered section, it will offer aspirational branded fashion and upmarket names.

Typical target retailers: Jigsaw, Space NK

Architects: Dixon Jones, Grieg & Stephenson, Stephenson Bell

Hanover Street

This zone at the eastern edge of the development features a number of larger shops aimed at homeware brands, partly to capitalise on the boom in residential development at nearby Ropewalks. Rents will be lower than those in the prime South John Street pitch. Hanover Street also houses the new BBC studios and landmark “Bling” building.

Typical target retailers: Habitat, Heal’s

Architects: CZWF, Page & Park, Brock Carmichael, Austin:Smith Lord, Owen Ellis

The Park

The hub of the development’s restaurant and catering offer, the 5-acre park will feature a series of terraces overlooking the River Mersey, with 2,000 car-parking spaces concealed beneath. The southern edge is flanked by the Cesar Pelli-designed flats and hotel blocks.

Typical target occupiers: Gourmet Burger Company, Strada, Wagamama

Architects: Cesar Pelli, BDP (Liverpool)

19/11/2005

On the rise Things are looking up for Ian Simpson Architects. David Quinn finds out about the firm’s role in the changing Manchester skyline

Ian Simpson is getting bored of being photographed from below. But, as the in-demand architect of so many of Manchester’s recent tall buildings, he must be getting used to it.

As Estates Gazette’s photographer explains, there are a limited number of ways of taking someone’s picture with the skyscraper they designed in the background. And composing the picture from underneath is probably the best way of going about it.

Until recently, Manchester was a bit short of iconic tall buildings. Aside from the ageing CIS Building and Piccadilly Plaza, the most notable point on the horizon was arguably the Victorian town hall. That has certainly changed in recent months, as work has accelerated at the 47-storey Beetham Tower on Deansgate, designed by Ian Simpson Architects.

If any architectural practice can be said to have been synonymous with Manchester regeneration during the past decade, it’s Ian Simpson Architects. The 65-strong practice, co-founded by Simpson and business partner Rachel Haugh in 1987, is behind the iconic Urbis and No 1 Deansgate developments, and played a major part in the redesign of the city centre retail pitch after the destruction caused by the IRA bomb explosion in 1996.

But its newest and most exciting project is the Beetham Tower, developed by the Liverpool-based Beetham Organisation.

At 561 ft, just 49 ft shorter than London’s 30 St Mary Axe – also known as the Gherkin, the skyscraper will be the tallest residential building in western Europe. It is claimed that, on a good day, Blackpool will be visible from the £3m top-floor penthouses, which have, like the rest of the flats in the scheme, already been sold. The building will also house a Hilton hotel spread over 23 of the lower floors.

After a compromise is reached on the photograph – Simpson seems happy with the “drama” of the composition – Haugh disappears, politely explaining that she prefers not to get involved in publicity. Simpson, on the other hand, seems comfortable talking at length about his motivations as an architect and about the practice’s impact on Manchester’s rejuvenation.

A reputation for tall buildings

He says that, despite his reputation for designing tall buildings — Simpson is also the architect behind Albany Assets’ planned 44-storey Albany Tower in Manchester’s Piccadilly, and Beetham’s proposed 47-storey skyscraper on Blackfriars Bridge in Southwark, London, and numerous other skyscrapers – he would never design one just for the sake of it.

“Not everything we design has to be a tall building,” he says. “We won’t suggest them where we don’t think it’s appropriate. We’ve become involved in tall buildings because, once you do one, you get a reputation for it and you tend to get good at it.”

For most people, the first thing likely to spring to mind when considering Ian Simpson’s designs, apart from their height, is glass – acres and acres of the stuff, in fact.

“We often use a large degree of glazing because I like natural light,” he says. “It’s not necessarily because I like the way glass looks on the outside of a building. But if you’re designing a small apartment, it makes sense to let as much light in as possible.”

Simpson has no problem with being labelled with an identifiable style: “I don’t think anyone needs to give apologies for that. You can spot a Rogers building or a Gehry building. That’s fine.”

In fairness, Ian Simpson Architects hasn’t always been focused on tall, glassy buildings. After Simpson and Haugh established the practice – initially without any work and supported by Simpson’s teaching at the University of Manchester – the company’s bread-and-butter was period industrial conversions in Castlefield and Ancoats. A breakthrough came in 1995 when the firm won a competition to design a site in Birmingham. The fee from that commission enabled Simpson and Haugh to splash out on some Apple computers for the first time.

The company began to grow, and Simpson formed a team of engineers and urban planners, including EDAW, to develop proposals for the redesign of Manchester city centre after the 1996 bombing. The consortium won.

Simpson’s concept for the redesign included the idea of extending St Ann’s Square towards the Corn Exchange and cathedral, breaking down barriers in the retail pitch to allow for the creation of what is now the Harvey Nichols-anchored Shambles West, the Marks & Spencer and Selfridges stores, Exchange Square and the Triangle – formerly the Corn Exchange.

“It all worked quite well,” says Simpson, with an element of understatement. “We shifted the retail core and, in the long run, that will help regeneration in the north of the city centre.”

As this project illustrates, Simpson is interested as much in the spaces around buildings, and how people interact with those spaces, as the buildings themselves. Another example is with Urbis, where, uniquely among architects who came up with designs for the scheme, Simpson suggested positioning the building at the eastern edge of the development site rather than in the middle.

“We wanted to create a quiet, contemplative space in contrast to Exchange Square,” he explains. “Architecture needs to be about creating space as well as creating buildings. Positioning Urbis on the edge of the space allowed views of the Corn Exchange and Cheetham’s music school, which wouldn’t have been possible any other way.”

Although Urbis has come in for criticism from some quarters, Simpson maintains that the building is ideal for its purpose. “It’s a flexible gallery, not a museum space,” he stresses. “There’s been change, and I welcome that. The building is robust enough to accommodate it.”

Urbis, like residential development No 1 Deansgate, is among the practice’s signature Manchester schemes. Simpson is undoubtedly enthused by Manchester as a city. “An individual can make a difference in a city like Manchester, but not in a city like London,” he says. “With that comes responsibility, particularly architecturally.”

He adds: “I’d like to see Manchester as a city of towers, but I’m not sure we ever will. We’re respectful of Victorian architecture but we need to move on, to see what comes next. It’s quite a challenge.”

Simpson says he is keen on the way the city does business and the way this benefits regeneration. “The thing I like about Manchester is that it’s all done on trust,” he says. “If you fail to deliver, you probably won’t get a second chance. There’s a strong sense of partnership – you can speak to people to make things happen. There’s an openness and a transparency that helps make things work. It’s very refreshing.”

To illustrate the point, Simpson says that he revealed initial sketches for the Beetham Tower to the council in 2003 and was on site within a year.

Most would agree that the architect’s buildings show a degree of flair. But Simpson says his practice is very much grounded in commercial realities.

“I want to build buildings, not just design buildings that can’t be delivered,” he says. “I think it’s important that architects get involved in commercial architecture and don’t just leave it to’commercial firms’.”

Simpson acknowledges that it would be good to get a “nice library” to work on, but says he is just as happy working on high-density residential schemes. “They are more significant,” he points out. “They become part of the fabric of our city.”

A unique style

Characteristically, Simpson’s residential schemes differ from most others. He dismisses as “big lumps” many of the red-brick canalside residential developments close to the firm’s offices in Castlefield. He says there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be possible to “create a marker for a place” when designing a residential building, and the practice’s spectacular design for the forthcoming residential scheme at 2-4 Chester Road should certainly do that.

Tellingly, Simpson retains a personal involvement in everything the practice does. He says the firm doesn’t “churn out work to service an office” and is pleased when he can get involved in a developer’s “special project”.

He says: “I’ve never done a B&Q or a petrol station. There are no skeletons in the closet. Even Foster churns out some commercial dross, but we don’t.

“Money was never the driving force of the practice – our aim is to respond to a client’s brief to create something exciting.”

In terms of further growth, Simpson admits that a move into Europe could be a possibility. A committed Europhile with a home in the French Alps, he was due to meet a group of developers from Bratislava the week after our meeting. But expanding the UK offices further could be troublesome, with the demands on Simpson’s personal attention already vast.

For now, Ian Simpson Architects will just go on designing buildings. And with the firm’s input, before long, Manchester really could be a city of towers.

Potential developers of tall buildings inLiverpool have a right to feel a little confused about the city’s rules on planning. Many in the property industry argue that recent episodes illustrate a lack of consistency over what is and what is not acceptable.

At the start the year, planners turned down Beetham Organisation’s plans for the 40-storey West Tower on Old Hall Street, but this decision was reversed in March when Beetham threatened a legal challenge to the refusal.

Now Maro Developments, which wants to build a 50-storey, Ian Simpson-designed tower at Brunswick Quay on the Liverpool waterfront, appears to be considering a similar approach to lever approval for its own scheme. Planners turned down its initial proposal in January but, in April, the developer resubmitted slightly revised plans featuring fewer flats and more commercial space. Its appeal against the council’s original decision will be heard in July 2006.

Some in the city suggest the council’s unpredictability on planning issues could repel potential developers and investors. “It doesn’t give a good impression of the city. There’s a confused message,” says Steve Moule, managing director of Liverpool developer Albany Assets, which is itself planning a 44-storey tower in central Manchester.

Chris Ives, development director of Maro, agrees. “The message is quite confused,” he says. “We know of arguments used to support the Beetham scheme, as well as Kings Waterfront, which have been rejected when used by us.”

In order to allay the confusion, the council is drawing up a policy document for the development of tall buildings in the city. The consultation process is now complete, and a final report is likely to go before the council’s executive board next month.

According to the draft document, there are three areas where skyscrapers will be most suitable. One is the commercial district of central Liverpool, another the so-called “southern approach” around the junction of Sefton Street and Parliament Street, and the third around Lime Street.

Importantly, however, the council says the policy document will not provide an automatic planning green light for all tower developments proposed in these areas. Each scheme will be examined on its own merits within the city’s wider planning framework.

This means Rumford Investments’ Unity scheme, under construction but arguably outside all three zones, would not necessarily be turned down under the new regime. Nor would Maro’s proposed scheme at Brunswick Quay. Conversely, Chieftain Construction’s proposed 32-storey mixed-use tower at the junction of Skelhorne Street and Bolton Street, adjacent to Lime Street, would not automatically be approved.

Planning application

As Peter Millea, the council’s executive member with responsibility for regeneration, puts it: “Each planning application will be treated separately. Some applications for tall buildings in these areas may not be acceptable and, conversely, others outside these areas may be approved in exceptional circumstances.”

Given these disclaimers, critics might query what the purpose of the policy document actually is. Others, however, believe that it is only right that some attempt at zoning is carried out. “The Liverpool skyline is revered, and rightly so,” says Steve Unwin, head of the Liverpool office of architect AFL, which is designing the 26-storey Alexandra Tower for Millennium Estates and the 20-storey City Lofts tower, both on the waterfront.

He continues: “There’s a lot of regeneration money coming into Liverpool, and it’s a difficult task making sure quality prevails. To zone things is a good philosophy. Sporadic development would not be good for the city.”

Developers, however, are slightly less enthusiastic in their support. Moule warns: “A policy document is a good idea, but it needs involvement from everyone, including developers. There needs to be a consensus.”

Ives adds: “I agree some strategy needs to be proposed, but it’s dangerous if you draw a red line and say tall buildings are only acceptable in certain areas. Each application needs to be judged on its merits.”

An added difficulty for policy makers comes from heritage body UNESCO, which is believed to be considering a ban on tower development in world heritage sites. Much of the waterfront and commercial core of Liverpool attained this status last year.

Unsurprisingly, developers and agents believe development should be allowed to go hand in hand with preserving Liverpool’s heritage. Ian Tomlinson, head of residential at Jones Lang LaSalle’s Manchester office, which is advising several clients on tower development in central Liverpool, says: “The World Heritage Site shouldn’t prohibit development per se. But it does mean that architectural quality needs to be raised above the normal level.”

Ives agrees. “Look at Berlin and Madrid,” he says. “A blend of old and new buildings can be achieved within a world heritage site as long as it’s well done.”

GRID

24/05/03

No 1 Spinningfields Square had to give a futuristic lead to office regeneration in Manchester. Architect Sheppard Robson was up to the task. David Quinn reports

On 15 June 1996, a bomb concealed in a van demolished a swathe of Manchester city centre, setting in motion a period of rebuilding and regeneration that is still proceeding. But the construction of retail schemes close to the site of the blast on Cross Street has largely been completed and has propelled Manchester into the superleague of UK shopping destinations.

Regeneration efforts have now switched to the provision of first-class offices to accommodate blue-chip occupiers, which are keen to expand into the revived city.

Spinningfields, a 3m sq ft, mixed-use scheme covering 50 acres between Deansgate, Quay Street, Bridge Street and the River Irwell in central Manchester, is one of the largest and most important development sites in the UK. As well as new public squares, restaurants and shops, the scheme will eventually boast 2m sq ft of offices.

Within the scheme, which was unveiled in 1999, the site of the building now known as No 1 Spinningfields Square is arguably the standout plot. Fronting Deansgate in a site adjacent to the Grade-1 listed John Rylands Library, it is highly visible and acts as a gateway to the scheme from Manchester’s existing business core.

However, construction could only begin once a prelet was achieved. This came at the end of 2001, when Royal Bank of Scotland agreed to take 470,000 sq ft at Spinningfields, including the 123,000 sq ft (11,430m2) building that became No 1 Spinningfields Square.

Concept architect Sheppard Robson was already working with RBS. The company’s Tim Evans, who oversaw preliminary aspects of the building’s design and construction, says the primary concern was finding a design which both the bank and developer Allied London would find acceptable. “We analysed the historical context of the site and, after speaking with English Heritage and the local planners, we decided to go with a design that was in contrast with John Rylands library,” he explains.

“The aim was to represent the future of Manchester, its international business aspect and to act as a foil to the surrounding history,” Evans adds.

Both RBS and Allied London were pleased with this approach and gave it the go-ahead, as did the planners.

Allied London, in particular, wanted the building to have high internal and external specifications. Chief executive Mike Ingall says that this is crucial to the company’s strategy for Spinningfields, in that a high quality building could act as an advertisement for the rest of the scheme.

Strategic view needed

He concedes that the same rent could probably have been achieved had the building been more “ordinary”. But he adds: “We have a wider development to consider and have the luxury of looking at things strategically. We are prepared to compromise on short-term profit to get better long-term value.”

The decisions made about the futuristic design and high specification of the building were to have a massive impact on the construction and would require a large amount of thought from Sheppard Robson as well as its appointed detailing architect, RHWL, and others involved in the project.

One of the most taxing construction issues that had to be confronted was the building’s huge glass facade. This feature was key to the architect’s vision to make No 1 stand out from its historical surroundings. Among the various problems was solar gain. A massive slab of glass such as this heats up the inside of a building, and could make life for its occupants uncomfortable.

The team’s solution draws upon the experience it has gained on other buildings, including the Helicon building in the City of London. There are two prongs to its approach, which transform the glass from being merely a very large window into a super-efficient triple-glazed “climate wall”.

One involves controlling the amount of light that enters the building through the glass by the use of louvers – similar to the slats of a Venetian blind – situated between the panes. These are linked to the computerised building management system.

The BMS is a complex piece of technology designed to improve the building’s efficiency. It is linked to external sensors that determine if the sun is out. It then automatically tilts the window louvers to an appropriate angle, minimizing solar gain for the time of day and time of year. The louver position is infinitely adjustable.

The shading of the climate wall by adjacent buildings has also been assessed. The louvers can remain open if the walls are in shade. The louvers can also be controlled manually, meaning the building has what Evans calls “both an active and passive facade”.

The alternative would have been traditional external louvers. But these can be costly to maintain and both birds and the microclimate can be a problem.

Graham Skinner, construction director for Allied London, says these issues have been avoided at No 1. “Internal adjustable blinds between the layers of glazing can be provided much more cost effectively in a climate wall than by the use of external shading, and the overall appearance of the building is better maintained,” he says.

The other important aspect to the climate wall is the capture of irradiated heat, which would otherwise have to be dealt with by the building’s cooling system. In this instance, hot air is captured within a 200mm-wide flue sandwiched between the two outer panes of glass and the single interior pane.

The cavity between the two skins is ventilated with “returned room air”, which is extracted from the interior of the building at the base of the glazing and returned back to the central air-handling unit via a duct at the top.

Says Skinner: “Since the cavity is ventilated with indoor air throughout the year, the inside surface temperature of the climate wall is close to room air temperature at all times, reducing downdraughts and the sensation of ‘cold radiation’ in winter, and reducing heat gains in summer.”

High specification

Although the climate wall is the building’s most impressive feature, the building’s specifications are high throughout, so its like has rarely been seen outside central London. It meets BCO best practice on issues such as optimum floorplate sizes, the availability of natural light and the suitability of materials and finishes. Sheppard Robson’s partner Mark Dillon confirms that BCO guidelines have been viewed as the minimum requirement in the construction.

Sustainability has also been taken seriously. Sheppard Robson has an in-house sustainability team which reviews all the buildings it is working on, and No1 went under its microscope. “The use of the triple-glazed facade and the overall choice of materials was informed by sustainability issues,” says Dillon.

The site is reclaimed, the basement is being reused and the high floor-to-ceiling height of 3m minimises the amount of artificial light required. All of this ticks the right boxes in terms of sustainability.

But with this high specification and the use of new technology haven’t a lot of things gone wrong? The short answer is no, because although, for example, the climate wall uses novel technology, its elements have been tried out in a limited number of buildings elsewhere, and the designers have picked up on problems that have arisen.

Cost of the climate wall

Another potentially troublesome matter is cost. Sheppard Robson will not say how much the climate wall cost but Evans admits that the capital investment needed for this building is “somewhat higher” than for a lower specification product. However, he counters this by saying that what is gained throughout the life of the building is “enormous”. “Where you need more sophisticated systems, obviously you need to spend more – but there are savings on running costs,” he claims.

As an example, if the internal window louvers were not in place, heavily tinted glass would need to be used. This would limit the amount of natural light that could enter the building, and increase the running costs for electric lighting. Similarly, if the flue within the glass void were not employed, more expensive mechanical air extraction would be needed elsewhere in the building.

Ingall’s view is that you get what you pay for. “It’s costing a lot of money but it will be the best building in Manchester. Both architecturally and in terms of specification, it matches anything in London,” he says.

No 1 Spinningfields Square is under construction and is expected to be completed next spring. Until then, work on the building can be followed via another hi-tech innovation. A webcam at www.spinningfields-manchester.com tracks progress and is updated regularly.