Manchester City Council votes to approve Renaker skyscrapers

Of course MCC approved Renaker’s stuff. No pride in their own city and zero care for affordable housing provision – despite what all these councillors pledged in their election promises.

“Pushback” from councillors over affordable housing should be more than asking the odd performative question in Committee and then nodding it through anyway.
Perhaps savings in time and money could be made by replacing the Planning Committee with some sort of self-service vending machine, or an app for particularly favoured developers through which they can just validate their own applications, upload the docs to the Planning Portal, and then self-approve within the existing very broad parameters. Like the self-scan in supermarkets, a small and random sample could be flagged for checks to discourage too much funny business.
Money freed up by abolishing most of the Planning Dept and the Committee could then be invested in affordable housing.

Such a joyful day for Giant Skyscraper Fan

The most unsurprisingly decision in human history.

May as well just copy and paste the 100 odd comments from the last article and save everyone the time – there’s only one thing more repetitive than the narrative and well, we all know what that is…

This is excellent news, our first 70+ story tower in Manchester (hopefully one of three soon) and our first truly high restaurant.

Oh great news more of Simpson Haugh dullness ruining Manchester

I would like to live in one of these flats but I can’t afford it

Given that Andy Burnham had already agreed a huge,low interest loan for Renaker would we expect any other outcome.

The comments on here are bizarre…….how long have these applications been in the system……at least 6 months I think
Check on line and see how much info has been provided……interrogate the viability appraisals. Why do you think MCC would resist affordable housing if it could be provided……. your comments are pretty illogical

Absolutely brilliant news for the City of Manchester.
increase in population, increase in City spending,
These developments in Manchester City centre is putting this City on an equal par or even better than most major cities throughout the world.
Manchester must and will continue to build higher & bigger, this in turn will bring major companies with many jobs, in turn a huge increase in tourism and visitor numbers.

Renaker are a joke, only exceeded by manchester council, 2500 homes not 1 affordable, a complete disgrace, this guy can’t afford to build 10% affordable homes on site, stops him making super normal profits funded by public money loans, the whole development is an outrage

Great news! Can’t wait. Great scheme designed a local firm. Increasing long term housing supply will only help housing affordability.

It is the council’s job to provide affordable housing not Renaker’s

This is excellent news. I am watching the transformation of Manchester from Australia. Let’s hope Viadux 2 gets approved and the other 231-meter skyscraper down the road…in Salford, Manchester would look really cool with some giant office skyscrapers with illuminated logos and lighting displays, like what we see in Asia.

Furthermore, Manchester should distance itself from what is going on in London under the regime of Sadiq KHAN and welcome cars into the city center, abolish speed cameras, get rid of paid parking. This will encourage people into the city center and will help small business.

Finally, we need to stop the government overreach that is targeting smokers.

Have a nice day! 😊

Excellent news

I know people are complaining but I’m just happy Manchester is getting investment . I remember when it was just beetham tower now look a genuine skyline only which is incomparable to any skyline in the UK outside of london . The architecture could be better but compared to what was there before I’ll take it. The Skyline looks good at night.

I actually love the talls , and they are getting taller so thats a good thing. its the low level dross,the 2- 10 story infills that ‘modern architecture’ insists is the only answer that i’m not too keen on.

The only distinctive feature of this tower block is its height. Otherwise it’s just another pathetic looking building ruining Mcr sky line.

Just shocking news, the city should be developed on a human scale, not tower block’s that will in 20 to 30 years time be run down shacks. This is NOT the way to develop a city unless you want to replicate how the Chinese develope their cities. This is short term game with no thought or plan for the future.

We need to move away from construction being subject to political decision making.
Establish safety rules and design guidelines, then let builders build, and buyers buy.

More boxes, as long as it’s tall who cares right? Uninspiring designs, overpriced and probably be foreign owned by investors. No affordable housing? No problem! Cracking view of the Mancunian way though! Here’s more cash, build us another 10 please.

I can’t afford a house in Alderley Edge, why don’t they build an affordable house just for me?

I’m all for this, the taller the better… However I’d like to start seeing a little more creativity. It’s all copy/paste and is becoming a little dull.

My word this is dull a pants. Just cos it’s talk doesn’t make it cool. We could and should be doing better. I’ve looked at the appraisals, pure contrived nonsense. The lack on cohesive community and neighbourhood creation in and around these buildings is utterly appalling. It’s the same tall rubbish from the same people. There’s so much creativity in this city, so much art, culture yet all we get are grey renaker boxes. Comparing this to cities across Europe is laughable really. It’s utterly souless development purely for profit. It will eventually fail, I do hope I’m wrong. Maybe the next generation will still be in love with grey as much as this one. Who knows

Another addition to an anonymous Lego brick skyline

Why this obsession with affordable/ social housing in the city centre? If you need affordable housing why would you want to live in the city centre where the cost of living is much higher than the suburbs, where, incidentally, house prices are more affordable.

Disgraceful that the council is only interested in the city centre. No thought for residents waiting on the housing list who can’t afford these apartments. Bev Craig should be ashamed to be leader of the council.

No schools, doctors, clinics,places for youth clubs. More pressure on existing facilities when you already to get appointments or treatment

@August 30, 2024 at 9:05 am
By Dan

Yes. It’s interesting that in nearby Bolton, housing schemes like Deansgate Gardens are using streets-based gentle density. Same with Cheadle Square and Farnworth Green. Manchester is building unsustainable towers, Bolton sustainable streets.

I’m all for the density, I’d rather city centres full of towers than endless sprawl.

However, the designs are dull. I dread to think what Renaker-town will look like it 20 years.

All this boohooing about Renaker’s narrow profit margins is absurd. The company could afford to make a contribution to affordable housing. Especially when they receive money from public loans.

Can at least one of you experts please explain how a scheme that is only making 15% profit as independently assessed possibly provide affordable housing. If you genuinely know you must share it with MCC

All this tiresome and ill-informed back chat in the comments. Can you not see? There is a much higher demand for tower living than there is for social housing. That’s why we’re building the former, those requiring the latter can go move to North and East Manchester. It’s really not that difficult to understand how this city works.

‘I don’t like tall buildings they scare with their insistent thrustiness skyward and their willingness to attract wealth to the city centre instead of retirement bungalows which don’t . I demand they do things my way and bring in more of what makes the suburbs so great. Or I suppose I could just move to the suburbs. Also Bikes and parks, or bikes in parks for some reason, these too cause me to feel enraged. Well more slightly miffed really. To be honest I hardly care at all but I feel every one should know.

It appears that they’re getting built. Anyone who wants affordable housing will have to go to an area where housing is more affordable.

I think most people would be onboard if they’d forced the design to be improved. Lighthouse is the centrepiece, and it’s just more of the same. The Green… abysmal. Of course this was always going to be a district filled with skyscrapers, but c’mon, we could’ve and should’ve done so much better.

The Lighthouse hahaha. Only about 40 miles from the sea!

It actually *is* Renaker’s job to provide affordable housing, because that is part of the policy environment under which they are supposed to operate – the alternative might be a blanket Land Value Tax under which developers contribute something back of the uplift in values resulting from wider regeneration and public spending (they certainly wouldn’t like this).
It’s MCC’s job to ensure this happens, something it is entirely failing in, although there are perhaps too many people there hoping for private sector work down the line.
Providing affordable housing isn’t making developers give them away for free – they can be sold on to an RSL, to buyers as shared ownership or at a discount, or held onto and just rented out more cheaply. They can be the harder to shift ones on the lower floors. It’s just a small aspect where there won’t be a profit, which some developers seem to have a severe allergy to.
A commenter made the point about the City Centre being too expensive for poor people to get by. Regardless of the benefits of mixed communities, particularly at this extreme, there isn’t any contribution to off-site provision either, so we dont even get as far as that debate. There are savings for residents being close to a range of essential services, there are now budget supermarkets in the City Centre, and plenty of low-paid workers it would benefit to live nearer the places where they serve and run round after the people who will be making use of the on-site Mahjong Room and dog grooming lounge.

The jealous rage stinks in these comments

Dear SD: What? Refuse democratic political decison-makers any say on what is constructed, where, how, and what for? What to call it? Anarcho-Capitalism like USA or Dictatorial State Capitalism like China? But, you are right. Liberal Democracy is a silly idea.

Tower blocker seems to know his stuff……..so tell us how a scheme that has been independently been assessed as unviable can support affordable housing. All the papers are on the Council’s Web site for your perusal. Look forward to hearing from you

The affordable housing spat.rages on. I am afraid there will be no affordable housing anywhere in the centres of Manchester and Salford from now on. Seventy storey towers being built in a city,tell me ,something remarkable is happening in Manchester. It is like an unstoppable machine. There will soon be a 90 storey tower announced and then a 100 storey.

We have a Labour Council, a Labour dominated GT Manchester, a Labour Government. And yet, none of them seem able to develop a housing strategy that includes significant, as distinct from token, affordable, let alone social housing. But then if we can’t afford it we can’t have it so the skyscrapers go up as do the rents and the service charges whilst the developers and the BTL landlords seem able to have all they ask for by way of craven municipal and Governmental surrender to the Market.

Viability – what’s so hard to understand?

You start with a fixed Benchmark Land Value and increase the height of the buildings until the marginal costs of construction squeeze developer margins to the minimum acceptable level. Job done.

Giant skyscrapers…yaaay! and more to come. Looking forward to Manchester’s 1st 80 Storey in a few years.That should get the excitables chattering in the comments!

We have the highest towers, the highest levels levels of deprivation and the highest crime rate, y’all are jealous

The last thing we need is another ‘Hulme Crescent’ built and then demolished poorly built and poorly designed. Developers cannot take the responsibility of producing affordable housing – market forces dictates that they need to get their money back and showing a healthy profit in return. These skyscrapers are at least in a designated ‘skyscraper village’ and I think adds to the impressive city skyline. The images are better than I at first thought too.

Anon 3.59pm Friday – I’ll bite, without being too lengthy.
Viability isn’t independently assessed at all – it’s a report commissioned by the developer, who will be keen to keep getting work doing this and providing other professional services. The viability report even ends with a thumping great disclaimer about how it shouldn’t be relied upon. Same issue a big accountancy firms auditing companies they sell other services to.
Almost all the figures are based on standard assumptions, which can’t reflect the specific reality around land costs, finance costs, risk and perhaps where the developer is also the builder and so can make double bubble. Or that big PRS schemes like this are about developing a commodity to be traded around and refinanced in a way quite different to traditional resi, so the financial assumptions go out the window. Even the Build to Sell bits offer plenty of opportunities for a stable return.
As the viability assesment contains few if any of the real figures – commercial confidentiality isn’t a thing for council officers and councillors even though it is still often cited as a reason for withholding info – it’s really not possible to give it any more credence.
It was reported on PNW not long ago that another local developer had submitted a Viability Assessment claiming the scheme it had lined up might make a loss even without delivering any affordable, so it’s not as though the sector always helps itself.
The other issue is that there seems to be no political will in the Town Hall to challenge any of this in terms of individual schemes or at a policy level – if their hands are tied legally, why aren’t they making more of a noise if they aren’t entirely happy with the status quo?

MCC’s weak spot is not they let this stuff get built at market rate in the core it’s that their strategy for more inclusive housing on land they own outside the core doesn’t have more ambition and pace.

Thanks Tower Blocker but what you seem to have missed is that the council has the viability appraisal that is submitted by the developer independently assessed by another party

The question nobody seems willing or able to answer is why the council would not secure affordable housing from a scheme if it were viable? What would their motivation be.

Anon 8.19 – “Independent” assesment of viability for MCC is neither here nor there if nobody can see it, who wrote it, or query the methodology.
Planning Committee doesn’t get to see it, and not on the portal either.
Box ticking, but thanks for the debate, which isn’t going away other than perhaps on this thread.

Read the committee report tower blocker……..the key figures are presented to the Planning Committee in there ……….also anon 10,40 makes a really good point……..how would you respond to that?

So excited for these apartments which will be rented out at the same price as the monthly average wage