Introduction

1On the outskirts of Manchester, a city once nicknamed ‘Cottonopolis’, for it was the epicentre of the cotton industry (Rose, Falconer, and Holder 2011), Ancoats stood out as the first industrial suburb in the world. As it contained an aggregation of early steam-driven mills, it was considered as ‘the first industrial landscape based on steam-power’ (Rose, Falconer, and Holder 2011: 1). Despite industrial decline in the Twentieth Century, which led to the dereliction and demolition of several buildings, parts of the industrial landscape of Ancoats remain. Its regeneration was based on the conservation and re-use of buildings and infrastructures inherited from its industrial past, and on the transformation of Ancoats into an ‘urban village’, a concept that emerged in Britain in the late 1980s. This model was promoted on a national scale to deliver mixed-use urban development with a more human scale and high-quality urban design (DoE 1997: 4). This concept initially guided the urban renewal of Ancoats from the late 1990s until the early 2000s.

2This paper examines the mutation of Ancoats up to the late 2010s, from its fortuitous development during the Industrial Revolution to its rebirth as an urban village. The rise, decline and rediscovery of this pioneering experiment in industry-led urbanisation will be analysed. Unlike a model industrial settlement such as Saltaire, which came into being thanks to the vision of a single industrialist, Ancoats was not the result of a concerted effort to create an industrial suburb. However, long after the demise of industry, its revalued industrial heritage was reshaped according to a set of principles defined by agents of regeneration. One may wonder whether the urban village concept was an idealised vision of regeneration that was not fully compatible with the industrial identity of Ancoats. This latest mutation will be assessed before shedding light on the creation of an idiosyncratic post-industrial public realm, which hints at a departure from the original urban village experiment.

An early experiment in urban planning

3Once a rural hamlet on the edge of Manchester, Ancoats became an industrial suburb dominated by a high concentration of steam-powered mills, factories, workshops, and workers housing (Oxford Archaeology 2015). Its chaotic development explains the relative absence of architectural uniformity in the area and the palimpsestic character of an industrial landscape marked by successive transformations. Ancoats thus differs from planned and integrated industrial ensembles created during the Victorian era, such as Saltaire, a mill town built on the outskirts of Bradford between 1851 and 1876. Indeed, this industrial village came to represent an important stage in the development of modern urbanism and efficient urban design, whereas industrial cities developed in a more haphazard manner, often as a result of building speculation (Siméon 2014: 27). Moreover, whilst both textile mills and the non-productive buildings of Saltaire (the church, public amenities, the school and workers’ dwellings) were – and still are – characterised by an architectural unity that was sought after by the owner Titus Salt, no such vision guided the creation of Ancoats.

4Yet, despite being seen as ‘a textbook example of a town built in a hurry’ (MRHR 1993: 4), this largely unplanned industrial and residential area was built around a dense grid pattern of streets and plots of land which had been designed prior to the construction of the mills at the end of the 1790s (McNeil and George 2002). This land pattern suggests an anticipation of future urban and industrial growth, at a time when demand for housing was on the rise in Manchester and steam-powered textile mills were being developed (ABPT). Manufacturers knew a canal was to be built in the eastern part of Manchester around 1765; the presence of water made it possible to build steam-powered mills in this area and facilitated the transportation of goods (McNeil and George 2002: 12). This led to building speculation and to Ancoats becoming a densely populated inner-city industrial district (McNeil and George 2002: 33), until it turned into a slum ‘epitomiz[ing] all the ills derived from rapid and unplanned urban development’ (Hartwell 2001: 6). Because Ancoats was a testing ground for an urban expansion created mainly by, and for, the textile industry, from the end of the Eighteenth Century onwards, it played a key role in Manchester’s becoming a classic industrial city. Yet the absence of a town hall and a market was also an indication that Ancoats had grown piecemeal and remained an edge-of-town suburb lacking autonomy (MRHR 1993: 4). Regardless of these shortcomings, there were already more dwellings in Ancoats in 1815 than in Manchester per se (Hartwell 2001: 6); by the 1880s, almost 50,000 people lived in less than 400 acres (Whittaker 1989). It was therefore in this part of Manchester that the first municipal housing was created – a tenement block completed in 1894 called Victoria Square – in order to tackle slum housing (Stratton 2000).

5Ancoats started to change when slum clearances were implemented throughout the country in the 1960s, which led to the demolition of back-to-back houses and the exodus of inhabitants relocated in other suburban areas (Knox 2012: 24). Although this process accelerated the decline of Ancoats, cotton spinning had already come to an end following a slump in the cotton industry in the 1930s and the collapse of British textile manufacturing; mills were either left empty or they were rented by small business owners (Rose, Falconer, and Holder 2011). New uses for the mills did not avert the closure of the remaining shops, the school nor the church (Knox 2012, 24). As a result of deindustrialisation and slum clearances, Ancoats lost 60% of its population between 1951 and 2001 and the area fell into disrepair (Luke and Kaika 2019).

6Its historic character remained largely ignored by decision-makers until a conservation area was designated in 1989, which corresponded roughly to the Ancoats Industrial and Commercial Improvement Area defined in a report written in 1980 in an attempt to set forth a regeneration process (Parnell 1980: 1). Whilst there were few residential properties in Ancoats in the 1980s, there was still an economic activity revolving around manufacturing, wholesaling, warehousing and service. According to the report, run-down industrial buildings were ‘inadequate’ and the ‘pattern of land use [was] unsuited to modern needs’ (Parnell 1980: 2). Decline was exacerbated by technical innovation which induced a change in the way goods were handled, and by the use of new delivery vehicles better suited to single storey buildings, as opposed to multi-storey premises such as mills and warehouses with poor road accessibility (MCC 1984: 4). The obsolescence of industrial buildings was highlighted but no recommendations were made as to what could be done to solve that issue.

9However, the destruction of historic buildings in Ancoats lasted well into the 1990s. This unchecked process was decried by local industrial archaeologists such as Steve Little, who warned of its consequences in 1993: ‘[…] this process of demolition, if continued in a piecemeal and unplanned fashion, will mean that the remaining fabric of this historic area must reach a point of no return’ (Little 1993: 103). Concerns about the future of Ancoats aside, what this comment suggests is that the demolition of some buildings needs not be systematically prevented by all means, yet regulations should be defined and implemented to avoid irretrievable loss. A 1993 report by the Manchester Conservation Areas and Historic Buildings Panel identified Ancoats as one of the city’s ‘undervalued peripheral areas’ despite the fact that it ‘[…] retains some remarkably intact sections of the world’s first purpose-created industrial city’ (p. 3). The Manchester Region History Review also published a special issue putting to the fore Ancoats’s industrial heritage in 1993, the year Manchester failed to host the Olympic Games for the second time. As the eastern part of the city had been expected to benefit from urban redevelopment ahead of the 2000 Olympic Games, many historic buildings within Ancoats were bought in the hope that regeneration would ensue. This is why after the city’s Olympic bid failed in 1993, the mills stayed empty and deteriorated. According to industrial archaeologist Michael Stratton, because of their state of dereliction, ‘[m]any saw them as merely an embarrassment and an impediment to Manchester's attempt to find a new post-industrial role which the Olympic bid offered [...]’, which may explain a subsequent lack of investment in the area (Stratton 2000: 74). It thus became urgent to ‘stop the rot’ and take action.

From dereliction to regeneration: an attempt to turn an industrial suburb into an urban village

Advocating a post-industrial public realm: moving away from the urban village experiment?

14The disengagement from the urban village experiment came about as a result of the strict vision supported by the Prince of Wales, as Lyn Fenton, head of AUVC, explains: ‘Prince Charles had a representative on the board of AUVC, who was meant to provide guidance, but the problem is that they had a very rigid idea of what an urban village should be. So after a period of being on the board, he withdrew’ (Fenton 2016). Indeed, AUVC prioritised the ‘urban’ character of Ancoats over the rural characteristics pertaining to a ‘village’. For example, when a decision had to be made regarding the design of the public realm, a hard landscape (e.g. paved surfaces, walls, steps) was preferred over a soft landscape (e.g. trees, grass, plants), when the urban village concept favours green open spaces (Aldous 1992: 56). Whilst this decision was mostly motivated by practical reasons, it also stemmed from the realisation that the injection of greenery would compromise the industrial landscape. A hard landscape is in line with historical Ancoats: indeed, the absence of green spaces was originally due to the effects of smoke pollution (Mosley 2008: 5).

15However, UVG’s recommendation to create a public square was followed, even though there did not use to be one in Ancoats and its creation required the demolition of buildings which were not listed. According to Lyn Fenton, this decision was justified, regardless of the resulting alteration of the dense industrial landscape: ‘When we looked at buildings we were going to demolish, the question came that in the conservation area, if you knock down a building, you should put one back. But in an area that used to be industrial and that is to become commercial and residential, shouldn’t we actually give the area a bit of space?’ (Fenton 2016).

16The Urban Task Force advised for the provision in neighbourhoods of urban open spaces, such as a square used as an outdoor room catering for various activities (UTF 1999: 57). In cities undergoing regeneration, the creation of open spaces was considered as a means to attract people and investment, which was likely to benefit the local economy (HC 1999). AUVC intended to create a public square for people to congregate which was to become ‘the focal point of public activity within the area’ (AUVC 1999: 19). This was partly influenced by what Professor of Urban Studies and Planning Claire Colomb describes as an ideal vision of urban planning as seen in some urban squares of continental Europe, where social interaction is thought to occur in a village-like environment (Colomb 2006: 22). Whilst the initial design for the heart of Ancoats was a ‘piazza’ commemorating its Italian community, AUVC opted for an innovative contemporary design inspired by local industrial heritage. The simple design of the vast paved sunken outdoor room created next to St Peter’s Church is counterbalanced by the presence of multiple seats in the shape of cotton bales, subtle reminders that the area used to be dominated by the textile industry. It is a type of street furniture which can ‘[…] strengthen the distinctive identity of the urban village’ (Aldous 1992: 84).

17The creation of Cutting Room Square ex nihilo was an opportunity to experiment with more cutting-edge design demonstrating that Ancoats was not stuck in the past, without shunning the latter altogether. It was brought to light by concrete monoliths displaying photographic images – which are lit up at night – taken by resident artist Dan Dubowitz inside the cutting rooms of the derelict textile mills (Dubowitz 2011: 2). As suggested by the Urban Village Group, public art can be used to foster a sense of place (Aldous 1992: 14), even more since, in the case of this public square, the name of the location itself evokes an industrial past. Likewise, street names – such as Jersey Street, Cotton Street, and Loom Street – allude to the area’s former raison d’être, which is revealing of the deceptiveness that characterises the renaming of the district for marketing purposes.

19As the character of Ancoats derives partly from the sturdy, blocky appearance of its mills, continuity was achieved without inducing pastiche or precluding change by allowing for the construction of new buildings reproducing a similar scale. The overall appearance of Ancoats thus reflects a desire to foreground an identity which builds on industrial heritage whilst looking forward, rather than to conform to a restrictive urban planning ideal that is too disconnected from the historic, cultural and architectural legacy of the area.

Conclusion

20The mutation of Ancoats is not dissimilar to that of other former manufacturing districts which were reintegrated into the urban fabric of cities hit by deindustrialisation, and where disused industrial buildings were given a new lease of life. The idiosyncrasy of Ancoats, however, lies both in the genesis and largely haphazard development of the world’s first industrial suburb, and in its programmed renaissance as an urban village. The latter came into being through the repurposing of buildings which symbolised the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. Although the conservation and reuse of industrial heritage were central to the planned regeneration of Ancoats, there was a risk of neglecting its industrial character by applying all of the urban planning principles defined by the Urban Village Group. Therefore, whilst the provision of green open spaces was expected within urban villages, only one open space was planned in Ancoats. Moreover, AUVC prioritised hard landscaping throughout the area with a focus on a post-industrial urban design that was more in keeping with the district’s origins. It allowed for a degree of change – in regards to uses, architecture and public space – whilst conveying a sense of place and continuity derived from the historic built environment, the retention of the original street layout and the incorporation of commemorative public art.

21By contrast, the urban village concept was not considered for the redevelopment of an adjacent area located between the Rochdale and Ashton Canals, which is historically set in Ancoats. The creation of New Islington – a geographical renaming which sets it apart from its neighbour – is a regeneration initiative that emerged out of New East Manchester Limited, an Urban Regeneration Company established in 2000. Initially led by Manchester-based property developer Urban Splash, this project revolved around several experiments, such as the creation of a waterside redevelopment and an urban eco-park (the Marina and Cotton Field Park), and it incorporates contemporary architecture and terraced housing (Punter 2009: 63). Regardless of the fact that Ancoats and New Islington became two distinctive areas, they are referred to as a single “neighbourhood” in the Ancoats and New Islington Neighbourhood Development Framework published in 2014 (and updated in 2016 and 2020). Whilst suggesting a merging of these districts, the choice of words in this title also implies the articulation of a common vision for the area which was hardly compatible with the continuation of the urban village ethos on the whole.