Cartmel Priory: Interior and Monuments

On the demolition of THE CENOTAPH

Dear Sirs

I write concerning the proposed demolition and relocation of the Cenotaph in St. Peter's Square, Manchester and the consequent negative impact on this important public space.

My objections are twofold, both to the proposed demolition and to the proposed resiting. 

Firstly the position of the Cenotaph, an important piece of design in its own right, was clearly intended to give the monument added significance beyond St. Peter's Square, appearing prominently in vistas along Mosley Street and Lower Mosley Street, Oxford Street and Peter Street. It is also an important feature in the unfolding public pedestrian route of Library Walk, a unique piece of Manchester's townscape which is threatened by another similarly ill-advised proposal. The placing of the Cenotaph and its subsequent embellishment was intended to dignify the civic realm of a city which had been badly affected by the two World Wars and sought to turn those tragedies to public good through a commemorative space. Despite the encroachment of tram lines and platforms this important piece of urban spatial composition survives, and the relationship between the Cenotaph and the nearly contemporaneous Central Library is salvageable. The proposed removal suggests that this history is now regarded as a public embarrassment, and is better tidied away to a less prominent location.

Proposals for the initial St. Peter's Square design competition simply relocated the platforms and canopies so the original relationship could be reinstated. In removing those platforms though, the present application has rather needlessly removed the Cenotaph as well. The excuse for this treatment is the projected increase in tram traffic which will be created by the new metrolink line intended to run down Princess Street and join the existing line at Mosley Street, precisely the area where it is planned to relocate the Cenotaph. 

Which brings me to my second objection. The relocated Cenotaph has little defined relationship to its surrounding buildings and streets. A tentative relationship to Lloyd Street could be observed, but the view along Fountain Street and towards the gable of the Town Hall Extension has been ignored. An axial relationship to the often closed rear entrance to the Town Hall is established but is relatively weak in its treatment.

The most telling omission from the images which accompany the present application are the new tramlines, junctions and attendant uprights to support cables and lights which will seriously compromise the new Cenotaph and surround it on the Princess Street and Mosley Street sides. If the purpose of this expensive proposal is to remove the Cenotaph from the negative proximity to the metrolink then it clearly fails, and the Cenotaph should stay in the honoured position it currently holds. The years of neglect to which it has been subject, through harmful neighbouring construction and inappropriate cleaning can be rectified by a careful though overdue restoration of the memorial in its intended location.

Yours faithfully

Eamonn Canniffe
Programme Leader, MA Architecture + Urbanism
Manchester School of Architecture

Madonna del Terremoto, Mantua (1754)

Cartmel Priory: Exterior

Palazzo Vescovile, Mantua (1776-86)

Formerly Palazzo Bianchi

Temperance Hall, Kirkby Stephen (1856)

The Architectural Consequences of Determinism

Just published as the thirteenth volume in the Ashgate Studies in Architecture series edited by Eamonn Canniffe

Architect Knows Best: Environmental Determinism in Architecture Culture from 1956 to the Present by Dr. Simon Richards (University of Leicester)

The idea that buildings could be used to reform human behaviour and improve society was fundamental to the 'modernist' architecture and planning of people like Walter Gropius, Le Corbusier and Jose Luis Sert in the first half of the 20th century. Their proposals for functional zoning, multi-level transport, high-rise living, and machine-inspired aesthetics came under attack from the 1950s onwards, and many alternative approaches to architecture and planning emerged. It was thought that the environmental determinist strand of the discourse was killed off at this time as well. This book argues that it was not, but on the contrary, that it has deepened and diversified. Many of the most prominent architect-planners continue to design with a view to improving the behaviour of individual people and of society at large. By looking at - and interviewing - major figures and movements of recent years in Britain, Europe and America, including Leon Krier, Peter Eisenman, Andres Duany, Jane Jacobs, Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown, it demonstrates the myriad ways that architect-planners seek to shape human behaviour through buildings. In doing so, the book raises awareness of this strand within the discourse and examines its different purposes and manifestations. It questions whether it is an ineradicable and beneficial part of architecture and planning, or a regrettable throwback to a more authoritarian phase, discusses why is it seldom acknowledged directly and whether it could be handled more responsibly and with greater understanding. Richards does not provide any simple solutions but in conclusion, is critical of architect-planners who abuse the rhetoric of social reform simply to leverage their attempts to secure building commissions, while being more sympathetic towards those who appear to have a sincere desire to improve society through their buildings.