Warehouse 32 Portland Street and Charlotte Street Manchester

THREE MANCHESTER BUILDINGS – A Manchester warehouse is a very different thing from what is called a warehouse in the outer darkness of Liverpool or London. In such places by a warehouse is meant a dark gloomy massive structure, often impressive enough in its way, in which merchandise is stored in bulk. By a Manchester warehouse we mean a building where sales take place, or we hope they do, all day long. It is, therefore, a series of showrooms for samples rather than a storehouse. Really it is a great shop where the privileged purchaser buys in thousands what the man in the street buys elsewhere in single articles. As only these privileged folk have the entrée to it, the building is not required to attract the passer-by by any display in its windows. The problem for the architect, then, is much simplified. It is to provide a light and convenient interior and to express on the exterior the dignity of the firm or firms who occupy it. This is a much easier problem than that of a large retail shop, which today is one of trying to make a good building out of a series of showcases.

These remarks are called forth by the new premises in Portland Street designed by Mr Swain* (sic) for Messrs A and S Henry. When we look at the plinth of three storeys on which the pilasters of this new building in Portland Street stand, and remember the void of glass which takes its place in the retail premises in Market Street for a similarly named firm we not only see the advantage to the architect in the former, but another evidence of the supposed greater dignity of the wholesale than of retail trade. In this particular building this base for the superstructure is well conceived and articulated with its long continuous horizontal lines. The real doubt is whether the superstructure is worthy of the base. In spite of the strong plain canted corner it looks overcrowded. The pilasters are almost lost in the mass of small windows; indeed except for the end piers, these pilasters, not very big and commanding in themselves, provide the only unbroken wall surface. If one contrasts this new building in all its original whiteness, with the older Victorian warehouse on the opposite corner of Charlotte Street, we see at once the advantage the old has over the new in its greater wall surface, and consequently its greater apparent strength. We are comparing, of course a building derived from the later Italian Renaissance with one derived from the earlier, and one with seven storeys with one with five. We are comparing too the spacious manner of our fathers with our own more cramped conditions, which to obtain a fair return on our expenditure, we have to put up with lower storey heights and a closer packing of the interior. Still admitting this, and even because of it, it might have been better if in our new commercial buildings, such as this new warehouse, we followed some simpler disposition of parts. If we take the main façade of the older building we see a very simple grouping of windows, one over the other, and only on the top floor, to give the effect of a continuous frieze round the building, do we find three windows over the lower pairs. This simple arrangement is repeated five times. That is the whole composition as regards fenestration. Now in the new building we have a pair of windows on the ground floor over the basement ones, then a reduction to a single big one, and then an expansion to three in the floors above. In addition to this complication of window units there is super-added the classical scheme of pilasters and entablature. Now if these latter are used at all they should dominate the building. With all these windows crammed in between them the poor pilasters can hardly assert themselves. Instead the rather complicate the issue. I hear certain members of the Architecture Club in London a calling for a close time for columns and pilasters. There is something to be said for this for ordinary buildings. One cannot help feeling that they should be kept for our greater efforts. If we use them in every warehouse an office building what have we left for our public ones?

Apart however, from this crowding in the upper part of the building, with its consequent lack of scale and repose, there are some very good points about this new warehouse. The canted corner here is well managed. Its plain strength accords well with the three lower storeys and the strong cornice. It is interesting to notice how the architect has softened its effect against the sky by making the upper part, including the cornice, concave, while the lower storeys remain a plain rectilinear face at 45 degrees. There has been some skilful “cooking” here, though all “cooking” in architecture, however skilful, is not to be recommended. [Manchester Guardian 24 September 1923]

In 1920 A and S Henry acquired property adjoining the Manchester warehouse, thereby giving access to four streets. As soon as the existing tenants’ leases expired the accommodation was to be taken to meet the increasing business of the firm. [Manchester Guardian 8 February 1921 page 11]

The building was severely damaged by enemy action in 1940. In 1947 the company, after long negotiations, was finally granted a “Cost of Works” claim by the War Damages Commission. However, the Manchester Corporation gave notice that the site was required for improvements and consequently permission to rebuild would not be given. [Manchester Guardian 15 April 1947 page 6]

Reference    Builder 15 December 1922 Page 937 – notes
Reference    Manchester Guardian 24 September 1923 page 4 Three Manchester Buildings
Reference    Manchester Guardian 26 September 1923 page 5 – confirmation of architect.

* In the Manchester Guardian article of 24 September 1923 the architect was given as Swain. A coorection was issued on 26 September 1923 confirming the architect as Alexander Thompson Heathcote