Civil Justice Centre - most significant modern building for years?

[aidanorourke]

I've done an article on the Civil Justice Centre, which in early 2007 is nearing completion.

In my opinion it's one of the most impressive buildings I've seen for years and in some respects, much superior to the Beetham Hilton Tower, though not in height!

Read http://www.aidan.co.uk/article_civil_justice_centre.htm

[mr angry]

Sorry, but I think it is possibly the ugliest building in the entire universe, with the possible exception of that PC world on Ashton New Road at the lights where Great Ancoats Street crosses it.

That looks like something made out of a kit by a six year old who has'nt worked out how to do it properly and just sticks bits on at random

[aidanorourke]

No that's fine, I'm very glad you responded, I thought nobody was interested! The Civil Justice Centre provokes conflicting responses. People either love it or hate it. The PC World store - which I've also photographed - is another case in point! Which are your favourite buildings in Manchester then?

[Sparkly]

The civil justice building is growing on me, although initially i didn't like it much, it makes me smile when I walk or drive past. I'm waiting for a local wit to give it a suitably Manc name . Not been inside, but I'd be interested in some views on how it is to work in.

[mr angry]

Aidan,

I like virtually everything built before about 1955-60 ish, from then on it gets a little selective. I did'nt like the CIS at first but it sort of grew on me now I think it is a kind of dramatic entry to the city from Cheetham Hill Road, especially at night.

To be fair, some from the late '70s and early/mid 80s are OK, they were brick and match the surroundings, two good examples are the brick office buildings opposite the town hall, in Albert Square, they are neat and complement the victorian architecture which surrounds them and if more of this had been done I think the city would now truly be a very attractive place

Moving on to the recent building boom, I HATE glass boxes with a passion. They are just ugly and obtrusive and I actually think they are even worse than the concrete monstrosities of the early 60s. recent stuff, there are very few which I like, the only tones which I think are OK areThe Bridgewater Hall and the hotel near Piccadilly Station which was added onto the old Joshua Hoyle building

[samorost]

I generally dislike glass buildings, but have to admit I love the Filing Cabinet. It seems to fit well where it is, and is a beautiful building.

[future_architect]

Originally Posted by mr angry

Aidan,

I like virtually everything built before about 1955-60 ish, from then on it gets a little selective. I did'nt like the CIS at first but it sort of grew on me now I think it is a kind of dramatic entry to the city from Cheetham Hill Road, especially at night.

To be fair, some from the late '70s and early/mid 80s are OK, they were brick and match the surroundings, two good examples are the brick office buildings opposite the town hall, in Albert Square, they are neat and complement the victorian architecture which surrounds them and if more of this had been done I think the city would now truly be a very attractive place

Moving on to the recent building boom, I HATE glass boxes with a passion. They are just ugly and obtrusive and I actually think they are even worse than the concrete monstrosities of the early 60s. recent stuff, there are very few which I like, the only tones which I think are OK areThe Bridgewater Hall and the hotel near Piccadilly Station which was added onto the old Joshua Hoyle building

in response to mr angry,

architects have always used the materials that have been aviliable to them, from early historty, this has been plants and trees, mud bricks, stone the romans used concrete (but where not the first people to use it) clay brick, steel and now glass.

beauty is in the eye of the beholder but it is wrong to say that architects today do not now how to produce atractive buildings is wrong. styles and requirements have changed. buildings of the victorian era needed to have certain requirements, buildings of today need to fit our requirements. one of those requirements is a desire for open space and natural light, buildings made of glass allow one to connect with the outside.

the victorians loved glass, just look at the crystal palace and the great railway staions. if they could have made good quality glass as cheaply as we could today, they all would have been using it, look up Oriel Chambers in liverpool, built in 1864, it was one of the first steel framed buildings in britian and it caused a stir because of its large windows, something unusual at the time.

i am currently about half way through the 7 years of training that is needed to become an architect and i am a strong beliver that buildings should reflect the aspirations of the present, which is something that the civil justice centre does excedingly well.

i can see why it challenges opinion, but i find it shocking that you think that architects should design buildings to 'match' other buildings. at one time, brick was modern and cutting edge. if architects always matched there surrounings, we would still be living in buildings made of wattle an daub.

the brick buildings adjacent to the town hall are shocking, they are from an era when there was not much money to create somthing unique and they are boring, ugly, and have no charachter. they are from an era when the aspirations where so low, architects had to copy the past and 'play it safe' in order to get things built. i have it on good authority that there days are numbered, it will be interesting to see what replaces them.

not that there is anything wrong with brick, brick wan be used in new and inovative ways.

the civil justice centre is a marvelous building because it makes a statement about its use. its saying 'we dont need to be tucked away in a shady little cupboard to do justice', 'why do buildings need corners?' and 'we have the technology to do the unconventional, lets do it'. its very democratic.

the justice centre is not all show either, the feedback from its users, the public and the legal profession has been 100% positive. the leagal people who use it think that it makes there jobs easier and allows them to give a better service to their clients. the interiour is a marvel too, i suggest that you go inside one day and experience its catherdal like qualities for yourself.

[aidanorourke]

Very glad to see discussion about architecture and the Civil Justice Centre, but can I throw a spanner in the works and say that I think the two brick buildings on Albert Square built in the seventies - which replaced some magnificent older facades, I think - are actually quite effective.

Here's a view from under one of the arches. Interested to hear they might be demolished.



I do think the Civil Justice Centre is an amazing building, and I love how it has 'Manchester Civil Justice Centre' over the entrance.

[mr angry]

Aidan,

Thanks for a bit of support! Also I did'nt know about the suggestion that the buildngs may be due for demolition. As a result I am going to contact English Heritage and propose that they are listed. Not because they are of particular architectural merit but because I fear that Albert Square would be ruined by some monstrosity if they were replaced and I think it is one of the most attractive city squares I have ever seen as it is in its current format.

I don't see the logic of where architects are coming from they seem to think along the lines of "If you can't create something attractive in its own right build something ugly instead as opposed to something which is pleasant and unobtrusive"

[future_architect]

Originally Posted by mr angry

I don't see the logic of where architects are coming from they seem to think along the lines of "If you can't create something attractive in its own right build something ugly instead as opposed to something which is pleasant and unobtrusive"

Mr Angry

this statement is incorrect on so many levels:

1: most architects would never build anything that they see as ugly. ugly is not something which can be measured, ugly is an opinon.
we live in an industrial age and have more matterials availiable to build with than ever before, so why should we stick to the ones that where modern 150 years ago? we should not.

the thing that drives human civilisation is the advancement of technology.
from the invention of the stone axe thousands of years ago, to the discovery of bronze, to the invention of the computer, its been part of the human psyce to want to advance, not to stay in the same place. you wouldnt trust your doctor if he or she said that he could cure your illness by doing a bit of blood letting? we wouldnt take the vote away from women because 'thats how it was in the olden days' and i'm sure you wouldnt take your childern out of school to send them up chimneys all day?

architecture has always been about making best use of the matterials you had access to.

our ideas move on in all other areas of life, so why shouldnt they in architecture, especialy since people have differnt needs and we are not as constrained by technology as we used to be?

2: i (and many of my peers) personaly think that there should be a contrast between old and new buildings, including ones that are adjacent to each other. creating contrasts helps people to distinguish between what is ancient and what is modern and helps to amplify the differnces. There is nothing worse than not being able to tell how old something is. fashions come and go. You don't seem to like anything 'modern', but i can find 100 people that do.

by the way, the proposal to get rid of heron house (opposite the town hall) is no where near finalised, infact it may be put off indefinately or untill the tennants start moving out to better designed buildings. like many buildings from that period, it is not very nice to work in, crammped and stuffy and not very well equiped for modern IT. its days are numbered, but its not going just yet.

it takes 7 years to become an architect in this country (more in some others) and a lot of hard work goes into designing any building, hundreds of things need to be cosidered. architects are amongst the most pasionate professionals that i can think of. thats why i make rants like these to people, because i realy care about what i do and feel the need to educate people when i hear inacurate comments.

for this reason i would prefer it if the admins of this website did not edit/ censor my posts. i know you own the place but his isnt North Korea. if you want to encourage debate then you cant use censorship.

and by the way, i cant remember what manchester was like in the 1970's because i wasnt born then! but i can remember what the city centre was like the the early 1990's. its improved 1 000 000%. there are more shops, more people working and more peolple living here adding to the vibrancy, just like a city should be.
it gives me great pleasure to walk arround our great city see that in less that 40 years, it has come from some backwater of a gloried mill town, to the most exciting city outside of London.