Middle-Class problem solving 22/11/20

 After almost 30 years, plans have finally been put in place to demolish the ‘Berlin Wall’ artwork in Manchester’s Piccadilly Gardens. Designed by Japanese architect Tadao Ando, in 1996 after the IRA bomb attack, it remains his only building anywhere in the UK, and a controversial one at that. 

The wall itself, whilst criticised by many as an unpleasant infringement on the aesthetics of the city centre, has Japanese architecture fanatics (and let’s face it, it is mainly us university students who would deign to engage in such a niche) revering its minimalism and signature in the city. 

Those that consider it to be a blemish on their beloved city, have suggested that it ‘provided too much camouflage for drug dealers lurking in the shadows’. I would question which drug dealers these critics are referring to, given that I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone, drug dealer or otherwise, walking around looking like grey cement. Maybe pressing themselves up against the ‘Berlin Wall’ like chameleon Randall Boggs in Monsters Inc, in order to avoid the feds. As far as hiding places go, if a child can master peek-a-boo, then surely a policeman would think of looking on the other side of a wall. 

I think perhaps the people seeing the wall as camouflage forget that camouflage is often used as a form of protection, much like many homeless people (for which undeniably Manchester is infamous) use the wall for shelter against the relentless rain and unpleasant weather, here in this gloriously grey Northern city.  Although I’m sure many wouldn’t hesitate to thoughtlessly equate the two (drug dealers and homeless people that is). 

Whilst I do understand that many people consider art to be something that should be aesthetically pleasing, or at the very least interesting, a lot of the time I think it’s easy to forget that this doesn’t mean art cannot be useful, or even re-purposed to become functional. Surely the resident of a city whose symbol is literally a worker-bee would understand the importance of practicality. 

Does it not then perhaps show a higher level of historical and cultural awareness as well as a greater sense of inclusivity within Manchester, to re-purpose art as a means of shelter. In fact, why can’t it be both? If the council is so desperate to spend money on something, why not on actual shelter and support for homeless people to get them off the streets around Piccadilly Gardens. Certainly it might restore some credibility to the city after it transformed homeless community ‘Arc’ into the bougie, overpriced and over gentrified ‘Hatch’ box-park. Where a gin and tonic is the same price as a night in a hostel.

That being said, I think Manchester by and large, despite its undeniably high levels of homelessness, does seem to be aware of its problem and trying to find solutions and minimise hostility towards homelessness as much as possible, such as when the council and Manchester public did combat ‘anti-homeless spikes’ put outside of Private Grade 11 - listed building Pall Mall Court in Marsden Street, by covering the era with pillows and cushions. Of course, we’d ideally be placing those pillows and cushions in actual indoor, heated accommodation for people, alongside regular hot meals and washing facilities etc, but, the heart of the Manchester public is definitely in the right place. 

Through the wall’s demolition, many are hoping for a sort of restoration to the ‘1950s splendour’ of the gardens in the days of yore. Certainly there is no denying Piccadilly Gardens did possess a certain idyllic beauty. Although in illustrations from that period, what is most apparent to me is what the city lacks, rather than what’s depicted. For example I see no trams, I see no buskers and I definitely see no homeless people. It is then, a picturesque rather than an accurate capturing of what makes the gardens not only a correct representation of the city, but a fully functioning urban space.

I’m not sure what the demolishers are trying to achieve exactly, certainly even with the destruction and removal of the offending wall, I don’t see Manchester’s city centre ever being anywhere near the sort of aesthetic of 18th and 19th century London’s ‘Pleasure Gardens’, such as Vauxhall or Ranelagh. Which themselves were of course symbols of the ‘urban middle class rising incomes’ and elite, regency society. 

It seems to me to be a painfully middle class concept that eradicating a large block of cement will somehow transform Piccadilly Gardens into a moral utopia, as if piece by piece the so-called corruptive underclasses will be removed with it. Perhaps we’re forgetting that the ‘Pleasure Gardens’ were themselves havens for male sexual predators of the upper classes to take young women into the ‘dark alleys’ and secluded corners between impeccably pruned hedgerows, and have their way with them. In Vauxhall particularly, ‘the well-dressed prostitute was associated with the garden to the extent that London printshops sold images with titles like The Vauxhall Demi-Rep’, showing beguiling ladies in expensive but revealing clothing.’

The conclusion that the demolition would actually go ahead has taken some time to come to fruition, with Manchester council suggesting earlier this year that a cheaper alternative could be to ‘disguise it with greenery’. Maybe I’m just being overscrupulous, but this does seem perhaps a little inappropriate; last time I checked, the actual Berlin wall in Germany it’s meant to replicate, wasn’t adorned with ivy trellises and artistic flower arrangements. But you know what they say, nothing screams conflict and fascism like decorative botany. 

Of course as we all know, the only thing worse than the middle class, many of us being of this society ourselves, is the generation of hipster middle class students. What with our obsession for plant aesthetics and creative instagram backgrounds. Frankly, I’m surprised Ando’s structure hasn’t yet been taken over and transformed into an overpriced coffee hot spot. 

In another example of a middle-class framework this year, the Manchester Opera House have promised free tickets to NHS staff for the opening night of the Christmas pantomime, ‘Sleeping Beauty’. I understand what they’re trying to do, and it is a lovely festive gesture. Christmas being for many people the last shred of joy they’re clinging on to. Although probably the last thing NHS staff need right now is to see a depiction of several instances of health and safety breaches in one performance. As if the anxiety induced from leaving a spinning wheel dangerously lying around wasn’t bad enough, the distress of a minor bleed resulting in a 100 year coma is sure to send their poor, overworked nerves over the edge.  

I am by no means in any serious terms condemning the Christmas pantomime. God knows we need something to lighten us up this year. However, it seems to be yet another example of the middle class ignorant prioritisation of leisure, as being as important as necessities like food and mental health support. 

Of course it’s important to enjoy time with your friends and family in order to destress and relax, especially around Christmas time. All I’m saying is, when I’ve ever had a down day, not once has the idea of sitting in a dark theatre and shouting ‘He’s behind you’ at oddly dressed strangers imbued me with an immediate sense of joy. Much like the nationwide clap for the NHS earlier this year, which was really just an excuse to have a bit neb at your neighbours and make sure Barbara down the road’s old ticker was still going, we appreciate the effort Manchester Opera House, but ultimately, one night of socially distanced entertainment hardly makes up for almost a full year of being overworked, underappreciated and underpaid.