# Manchester - Development of Canal Street/The Village...



## lillia (Sep 20, 2006)

As a newbie, I'm not sure if this has been posted - I've done a search and can't see anything, but sorry if this is a repeat!

There are currently plans for re-development of Canal St ('The Village  ').
The new development being proposed will have a 24 storey glass tower, an 11 storey hotel and a big office block. The developers (and this may be a vicious rumour - so Allegedly) may be looking to buy up local businesses (i.e bars/clubs etc) which they think would 'lower the tone' of the new development.  

If you want more info on meetings or anything pm me.. or if there's much interest I can always post up on here...

Just thought a few peeps on here may be interested...


----------



## Part 2 (Sep 25, 2006)

Does Wookey know anything about this?


----------



## chio (Sep 25, 2006)

I was going to ask something similar - if anyone knows about this it'll be him.

To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## Wookey (Sep 26, 2006)

Yeah, I think it's a dreadful idea, this is supposed to be a conservation area, the size of these buildings could be huge - they plan glass bridges over the canal I understand linking the car park site with a redeveloped New Union site...

Here's the story I published on it back in August. I haven't worked on anything since then. Quite a few replies from readers, most of them thought the redevelopment was a bad idea for the integrity of the area and it's history.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/220/220829_gay_village_plans_divide_community.html

A public meeting back in the summer got a lot of interest, and people hadn't seen the plans then. I'll try and get an update from newsdesk if there is one.


----------



## chio (Sep 27, 2006)

Oh, if it's that shoddy old car park they can do what they like with it, there's no need for a car park there and it drags the area down. However, they can leave the New Union alone - and I'm not over-enamoured with the idea of _yet another_ bloody glass tower block. Have they no imagination?

My biggest concern about the whole thing is that if said phallic glass object is filled with offices, the bars down Canal Street will end up full of suits.


----------



## moose (Sep 27, 2006)

At least the thieving cunts who manage to rob at least one of my party every time I go down there might be more obvious.


----------



## Wookey (Sep 27, 2006)

chio said:
			
		

> Oh, if it's that shoddy old car park they can do what they like with it, there's no need for a car park there and it drags the area down. However, they can leave the New Union alone - and I'm not over-enamoured with the idea of _yet another_ bloody glass tower block. Have they no imagination?
> 
> My biggest concern about the whole thing is that if said phallic glass object is filled with offices, the bars down Canal Street will end up full of suits.



The chances of you getting to pick and choose which elements of the build you want to see are slim, tbh Chio. 

It bothers me that in an area which is meant to serve the very varied gay community, these apartments will almost certainly be targeted at high-earning executives with the money to afford £250,000 mortgages.

Where is the commitment to mixed housing? As an urban community in the making there's a chance here to base the make-up of the neighbourhood on the principles of variety, tolerance and equality that have informed the gay community for many years. Sadly, I don't think those principles will be uppermost in these developers' minds.

Likewise, the 'leisure units' which are included in the plans will be straight-owned - and we've seen in other areas of the Village how quickly the supposed allegiance to the gay community can be dissolved by straight businesses when they have overheads to meet, etc.


----------



## lillia (Sep 27, 2006)

Wookey said:
			
		

> Where is the commitment to mixed housing? As an urban community in the making there's a chance here to base the make-up of the neighbourhood on the principles of variety, tolerance and equality that have informed the gay community for many years. Sadly, I don't think those principles will be uppermost in these developers' minds.
> 
> Likewise, the 'leisure units' which are included in the plans will be straight-owned - and we've seen in other areas of the Village how quickly the supposed allegiance to the gay community can be dissolved by straight businesses when they have overheads to meet, etc.



This seems to be true as far as I can tell - the plans so far have encompassed a 24 storey tower - apartments as far as I know - and also a hotel. 

Manchester will lose a huge part of it's identity if Canal Street is turned into another faceless Deansgate Locks or summat - I have friends from all over the country who visit to have a night out there. I'm not trying to go down the 'We fear change' route, but as Wookey has pointed out as soon as money comes in developers will have little concern over the wishes of the community or having another area of the city exactly the same as other recent developments   I'll stop rambling now as mostly I want to say...

^^^ What he said!  ^^^ 

There are meetings and stuff going on, so if anyone's interested let me know...


----------



## lenny101 (Sep 27, 2006)

I think this is what they have been building opposite picadilly station for the last year or so. Or maybe I am wrong but it sounds pretty similar. Whats the source for this story?


----------



## Wookey (Sep 28, 2006)

lenny101 said:
			
		

> Whats the source for this story?



Your source is the Manchester Evening News, the story was written by Brian Lashley, he attended a public meeting at the Town Hall, which was organised by the Planning Committee.


----------



## AnMarie (Sep 28, 2006)

lillia said:
			
		

> There are currently plans for re-development of Canal St ('The Village  ').
> The new development being proposed will have a 24 storey glass tower, an 11 storey hotel and a big office block. The developers (and this may be a vicious rumour - so Allegedly) may be looking to buy up local businesses (i.e bars/clubs etc) which they think would 'lower the tone' of the new development.



Thats total shite!!!


----------



## lillia (Sep 29, 2006)

lenny101 said:
			
		

> I think this is what they have been building opposite picadilly station for the last year or so. Or maybe I am wrong but it sounds pretty similar. Whats the source for this story?



It's actually the Princess Street/Brazil Street end of Canal Street - not the Piccadilly end that they're looking at developing. There are local residents' meetings etc. going on - there's one tomorrow at the Town hall iirc - I need to check up that's it's still going ahead... if I find out I'll post up times etc...


----------



## Wookey (Oct 12, 2006)

*The proposed new building opposite Canal Street.*

SEE news update on this story....


----------



## lillia (Oct 12, 2006)

Wookey said:
			
		

> That picture just made me think their tagline could be...
> "West Properties - straightening up Canal Street for Manchester "
> 
> (The couple in the corner made me laugh!!)
> ...


----------



## Wookey (Oct 12, 2006)

> (The couple in the corner made me laugh!!)



Crossed my mind too.


----------



## Chorlton (Oct 12, 2006)

aside from the 'newly out' student population does the gay village really matter anyway?

it (in my time admittedly) has already been a horrible coporate version of the once vibrant 'gay ghetto' that spawned fabulous shows and acts as well as wonderfully seedy clubs - all it is now to my mind is a series of corpro-bars for inclusion of infight magazines to service the needs of in-denial businessmen intown looking for adventure.

The gay village is (please correct me if i'm wrong) one of, if not the most, violent place in manchester and a place where you need to be constantly on your guard - since the horrendous mash and air (if not before, but thats when i realised it) it has always been a place to avoid as a diaggio owned hell-hole in the same way as time-square or las vegas are shadows of their once wonderful selves?


----------



## moose (Oct 13, 2006)

Yes to all of that. ^
Many of my gay friends don't go there any more - there are far nicer places to go out, and they argue whther there's a need for a 'gay village' any more anyway.


----------



## Wookey (Oct 14, 2006)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> aside from the 'newly out' student population does the gay village really matter anyway?
> 
> it (in my time admittedly) has already been a horrible coporate version of the once vibrant 'gay ghetto' that spawned fabulous shows and acts as well as wonderfully seedy clubs - all it is now to my mind is a series of corpro-bars for inclusion of infight magazines to service the needs of in-denial businessmen intown looking for adventure.
> 
> The gay village is (please correct me if i'm wrong) one of, if not the most, violent place in manchester and a place where you need to be constantly on your guard - since the horrendous mash and air (if not before, but thats when i realised it) it has always been a place to avoid as a diaggio owned hell-hole in the same way as time-square or las vegas are shadows of their once wonderful selves?



To be honest, I think you're comparing some halcyon sterotype that never was, with a contemporary stereotype that isn't either.

I've been going to the village for about 16 years, since Cruz and Paradise and Mantos were the latest places to open. It's never been a highly violent place compared with other city centre areas, although it has it's moments.

Places like New York, New York, the Union, Rems, etc, are still under the same management, while new places like the Showbar are gay owned and run caberet as traditional as a New York bathhouse stageshow! There's trad gay male places like Legends which never existed before, dyke bar Vanilla was never there before, the Albert Kennedy Trust and the Gay Centre weren't there before...

Admittedly, if you narrow your night out to about five or six Canal front bars like Eden, Velvet, Via Fosse, etc, you're getting a fairly MOR mixed night out, dodging a few hen nights etc. But some people like that. 

For a mixed night with good beer, I like Gaia, and for teeny-bopping I like Queer and then onto Essentials - again, you couldn't do that ten years ago, it was Cruz, Cruz, or an early night home.

We didn't have Clone Zone, Fucky Crop Shop et al ten years ago either, or a Village Business Association which runs a very succesful Pride year after year, one of the biggest gay fund-raisers in the country...

When I started out on the Village it was often dangerous, rairly if ever policed, and very limited choice. It's grown up a lot, and is a lot more commercial to boot. I think some of the better experimental gay places like Garlands would be fab in the Village, but someone is going to have to try and open them rather than sit and wait for someone else to do it.

I have some gay mates who've outgrown going to the Village - but then, they've been caning it for 15 years, they've outgrown going out full stop, a lot of them! 

You only have to take a look inside Queer or Essentials on a Friday night to see wall to wall gay 18 year olds to see that the Village is as thumping and vibrant for young people as it ever was - far more so than when I was 18 in fact. And here I am aged 31, still able to go to Naps or Legends or the Rem or the Union or one of the other back-street bars and find an older bear crowd.

The Village has it's own police duo now, it's own voice in council meetings, it's own gay-owned publications, it's own festival - we could ditch all that by accepting whatever the corporate developers want, as though it isn't wiorth protecting. I happen to owe the village a lot, and I think it's worth more than just kissing it goodbye - especially when you consider that it really, really has  never been so good.

I'm not saying it's perfect, of course not, but it's the only gay scene in Manchester, and it never was perfect, tbh.


----------

