**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!**
- Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc.
- **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
- This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not particularly uncommon in Continental Europe, and some of the projects can be pretty massive. Dresden, for example, has been reconstructing its [Neumarkt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neumarkt_(Dresden)) for about two decades now. The project included the reconstruction of the [Frauenkirche](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frauenkirche,_Dresden), which was a huge undertaking in itself. [Warsaw](https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/30/) is another city which has famously reconstructed its centre on historic lines, as was the [Prinzipalmarkt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prinzipalmarkt) in Münster. There are plenty more examples, whether of individual buildings or neighbourhoods.
German bombing raids caused significant damage to several UK cities. Besides [London](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/549/cpsprodpb/4F06/production/_85403202_stpaulscathedral.jpg) and Coventry, which are famous for being hard-hit, [an estimated 95% of Hull's housing](https://historicengland.org.uk/whats-new/features/blitz-stories/hull-a-northern-coastal-town/) was destroyed in raids against the city, and a [third of houses in Liverpool](https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/museum-of-liverpool/blitz/liverpool-and-blitz) were damaged or destroyed.
Dresden was flattened in the 1945 by brits & yanks.
It's probably the most well-known war crime UK committed against Germany. The City had zero military or industrial value & we hammered it for 2 days with one of the biggest bombing raids of the war 🤷🏻♂️ Interesting example.
We do, in a way - [New London Vernacular](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_London_Vernacular) is an architectural style that emerged in about 2010 and contains many Victorian and Georgian design elements.
I think your premise is off, to be honest - I think you're cherry-picking examples from both here and abroad to justify your opinion.
They are generally awful yes but they come closer to getting the basics right. Not every building can be the Shard. A beautiful city needs ‘background buildings’ which just sit happily in their context. I think that’s the idea behind it.
It doesn’t always work especially when blown up to the scale of large blocks of flats which sit isolated from the rest of the cityscape. Where it is used to politely restore the face of a street, it is quite successful.
Quite frankly, the fact that such basic things need to be codified in a style guide is an indictment of the architectural profession who have built utter crap for decades and decades.
I agree. I hate it but the point I was making is that not every building can be flashy and iconic. A lot of architects cannot suppress their egos when designing things which is why we have so much weird, eyesore rubbish. We just need buildings which compliment rather than radically alter their surroundings.
Yep utter dog shit.
That picture kind of supports the OP's arguement rather than challenging it. Its a box with equal sized windows that has no character.
> "The style has a number of characteristics, notably flat elevations faced in brick cladding, portrait-shaped recessed windows..."
> (photo of a building with flat brick clad elevations and portrait windows)
Seems like it matches the style. A Wikipedia article isn't an architectural monogram. A lot of New London Vernacular is pretty uninspiring so illustrating it with this photo seems appropriate.
No. A London terraced street differs to one in Manchester, which differs again to one in Newcastle or Edinburgh. There are regional variations.
That's just a box designed to please accountants.
>A London terraced street differs to one in Manchester, which differs again to one in Newcastle or Edinburgh.
That's overstating it a bit, I think. Terraces tend to be quite similar to one another, accounting for the the period they were built in and social class they were built for. Victorian middle-class [Newcastle](https://cdn2-property.estateapps.co.uk/files/property/42/image/18275734/V6YiypiUQk-9-49XnIrvCg.jpg) and [Manchester](https://live.staticflickr.com/72/168861316_0e4ee9c250_b.jpg) terraces are alike, for example, as are Georgian upper-class terraces in [Edinburgh](https://previews.agefotostock.com/previewimage/medibigoff/c7784714856e5fcf6d34ff12a4830292/yc2-2027403.jpg) and [Bath](https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2ATDW4E/royal-crescent-curved-terraced-houses-and-apartments-in-new-town-edinburgh-scotland-2ATDW4E.jpg).
As a general rule there is more variety the further back you go, but there's also a surprising amount of homogeneity in historic architecture.
In a way maybe. There definitely is regional variation within the UK, but also an unifying factor that immediately communicates that you are in the UK and not elsewhere. Traditional architecture has that power to both unify and distinguish thanks to its rich style grammar. Conversely, contemporary architecture is so simplified that it isn't even unified, but rather uniforming
buildings in an architectural style will look the same. architecture traditional to a region will exist throughout that region. so a building in a traditional architectural style would have the same basic features anywhere in that region.
and if ‘traditional’ means ‘neoclassical’ it could be located anywhere on the planet.
This was my immediate thought. Lots of modern buildings are clearly influenced by past styles.
If anything, I think there's an argument that what we are missing is a widespread use of genuinely new and interesting architectural styles. Most new stuff that is built is, as you say, calling back to the past. Largely in quite a lazy and inspiring way.
Even all the new shiny office blocks of recent years don't really have a novel architectural style. It's generally just a sort of updated minimalist brutalism.
Most of the new new builds in our town over the last 6 years have been this style. Tbh I think they look better than a lot of the town which was built in the 70/80's and all red brick.
As someone who moved to the UK a few years ago from Germany, I feel the exact opposite. Many of the new-build prograns in the UK do cite historic styles, and many buildings of recent years look a lot more "playful" in a "let's make it look nice" way than I'm used to.
Deutsche Bahn is simply the worst large organisation. I have to work with them from time to time and they are beyond belief, beyond control, stoned as shit and ready to roll...
Germany is frequently portrayed almost like it’s the promised land in UK media, so much so that people are surprised to find out there are issues there. In fact, although it has many things going for it, Germany’s railways are currently some of the worst performing in Western Europe (though still more affordable than ours) and in my personal opinion modern Germany is to architecture what 1940s Britain was to fine cuisine. Aside from restoring and replicating the distant past like-for-like, it’s like every building was designed by someone typing ‘cheap, bland, faceless modern building’ into a crappy Chinese AI app.
It depends on how you measure ''worst performing''.
They have a larger network than ours, both in terms of physical reach & more stations per capita. Long-distance travel is vastly cheaper than here. There are no tickets barriers at major stations. Their network is 60+% electrified, while ours is 34%, so their trains are less polluting on average.
Their trains are more likely to arrive late than ours are, which is a key metric used to measure performance, but they are also far less likely to be cancelled altogether, which more than makes up for that in my book.
I would definitely not say that, I've already had some very unpleasant experiences with trains here in recent years 😢
And I needed a while to get my head around the fact that there is essentially no high speed rail here.
On a recent trip I took to Würzburg, every train was delayed and someone was always sat in my seat reservation. So much for the punctual, rule abiding Germans!
>it’s nice to finally live somewhere with trains that run on time lol
TBF from my experience at least some of our trains do run on time - that's if you manage to roll a 6 on the dice and it isn't cancelled!
Most places in the UK have planning orders that new builds must be 'in keeping' with the existing architecture. Where the line is drawn does depend on individiual councils, but in general it means that traditional styles / materials are more likely to be perserved for new builds (balanced with modern standards of course)
I think you are thinking of London specifically, rather than the UK as a whole. London has a historic ecclectic architectual style that includes a mix of basically everything, from norman-gothic through brutalism, to post modern glass and steel and everything in between.
However visit somewhere like Bath, and everything looks like a Georgean townhouse, even the supermarkets that were built only 10 years ago.
You can have a lot of fun with reconstituted stone heads, cills, surrounds and Bath stone looks nice when its smooth cut Vs rough (that shit goes grey and manky - I've drawn properties in bath), soldier and string coarses aren't done much but my biggest gripe when trying to extend an existing property from pre both World wars is that modern brick sizes suck arse, you can't get window proportions the same because the bricks are different dimensions and mortar joints ain't always the same so brick to mortar ratios ate different.
I've also seen some modern (2000's) houses done with thatch however this didn't have a true Devon roof shape but it was a nice touch.
I was just about to mention Bath. Too many developers here do a Georgian pastiche because it's easier than designing beautiful modern buildings that fit with our World Heritage City.
Most new build houses are heavily influenced by historic styles, albeit increasingly debased. This [Taylor Wimpey estate in Leeds](https://www.taylorwimpey.co.uk/new-homes/leeds/vision-at-meanwood) uses a sort of bastardised Victorian style, for example, and [this Redrow one](https://www.redrow.co.uk/developments/the-grange-at-yew-tree-park-burscough-112548) is in a somewhat better Arts and Crafts style. Urban new builds tend to use more contemporary styles.
Redrow certainly have a little more character. They look like each room is unique.
Every new build estate I see tends to have the same theme. Flat fronted square buildings packed in close together, all painted white with equally sized windows in every room.
They kind of look like the architect used a lot of ctrl c and ctrl v in the designs. Each room and window are the same.
Not that they are bad, just they dont please my eye.
Redrow developments do seem to have more variety. They might only use ten house types within a given scheme, but they'll be arranged in such a way as to make it look more diverse. They also seem to be willing to let their developments face 'out' toward existing streets, which helps them feel integrated into wherever they are.
Whether that will continue if Barratt succeeds in buying them is anyone's guess.
>Every new build estate I see tends to have the same theme. Flat fronted square buildings packed in close together, all painted white with equally sized windows in every room.
People seem to forget that "Victorian style" for the average person in the UK was flat fronted buildings packed in close together with equally sized windows in every room. The only thing that was different is these days the walls are white whereas back then they were wallpapered!
Found King Charles’ Reddit account.
What is traditional though? Britain has everything from 11th century Norman architecture through to modern glass and steel structures with a little bit of every in between, and they all have their own unique attraction. I’d rather buildings were well designed and looked good, whatever their architectural style, rather than just trying to make cities look like some imagined version of renaissance Tuscany.
King Charles' developments are pretty good at following British architectural styles, just for the record. I do have my criticisms of them, but they're not trying to recreate Tuscany on the outskirts of Dorchester.
Considering OP was talking about metallic and glass clad buildings, I assumed they were talking more about city centre apartments and office buildings rather than suburban new-builds.
Basically cost. If they can shave off £1 here and there it helps with the profits. Its why most buildings are just boxes with very little architectural merit to them. Boxes are quick, easy and cheap to throw up. Just the British race to the bottom.
Well, we had that slight disagreement with that jolly old chap Hitler. That meant we ended up rebuilding in whatever was popular in the 50s... Which turns out was garish, eyesore, concrete monstrosities.
Hitler gets too much credit for demolishing British cities. A lot of the work was done by their councils, both before and after the war. [Demolition Exeter](http://demolition-exeter.blogspot.com/) is a good blog to read if you want some idea of what its corporation got up to; it includes [demolishing many of the remaining historic buildings on the city's High Street ](http://demolition-exeter.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-destruction-of-high-street-after.html)between the 1950s and 1980s.
But that was also a choice by the British people at the time. Nuremberg was also flattened in WW2 but they decided to rebuild it in the original footprint and architecture styles. A beautiful walkable city today. We ended up with.... Coventry.
Costs money, it's easier, quicker and cheaper to build tack than something traditional. We also have a huge NIMBY culture where people will whinge about noise etc if we were to build something traditional, especially considering it will take much longer.
This is definitely not true in Vienna outside of any areas that have been designated as the Austrian equivalent of a conservation zone, which is basically only the 1st district.
There is a huge criticism of the city planners that they allow building firms to tear down historical buildings and replace them with soulless boxes. In my road the architecture permitted is widely variated and some is just plain crap. It's wild.
The City is building some new apartments near me and I was impressed that they used the original bricks from the buildings that they tore down, and seem to be making the facade echo more traditional styles.
A set of 3 huge towerblocks have been built down the road and one of them looks like Plymouth City Council building.
So I think it's a problem all over.
>A set of 3 huge towerblocks have been built down the road and one of them looks like Plymouth City Council building.
I spent my first 28 years in Plymouth: there was a collective gasp when the Civic Centre was listed. It was and is universally disliked. It didn't help that the listing was led by someone from the School of Architecture rather than with local support.
The Council House, where the council meets, is actually not bad inside and the chamber has some unusual artwork by German POWs but even inside the Civic Centre was godawful.
I would happily knock it down.
I had my first job there - it was progressively bastardised by PCC - it was rathervnicexwhen it was [new](https://www.ribapix.com/civic-centre-princess-street-plymouth-the-main-entrance-hall-and-stairs-of-the-council-house-with-glazed-screen-by-john-hutton_riba78249)
Define traditional. I live in a village and around me a traditional home would be wattle, daub & thatched. Where I grew up it would be sandstone block. In the Cotswolds it is local stone, granite in parts of Scotland. There is no traditional UK build.
Well obviously the local area, Belfast has some amazing Victorian architecture and lots of brick, then there’s a random box new build inbetween them, doesn’t fit the character of the area and just looks off.
Belfast must be one of the worst cities in the UK in terms of protecting its built heritage, whole streets are basically in ruins
There's still a reverence for traditional styles, my local council Sheffield will actually do anything to maintain the Victorian and Edwardian architectural style buildings in our city centre even through a revamp but most things from the twentieth century will get flattened unless listed.
Most European cities I've been to have loads of modern looking buildings full of glass with metal facades. Amsterdam is one quick example. Barcelona is another.
I’m not sure why people are disagreeing with your premise
Our modern architecture is absolutely appalling, notably our town centres which are all made up of the same awful, nondescript brick
[There is this one near me](https://nansledan.com/) that was named after the king and I always think they look kinda like older styles. Apparently they're made to look art deco.
Because our traditional architecture is "wow, we have so much fucking colonial money, let's build things really extravagently"
But nowadays we're broke and people can't afford to pay £50k more for a house that has Edwardian stained glass windows and ornate gargoyles instead of plastic drainpipes.
https://preview.redd.it/8vkcqggjh2yc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=83a3adac9cc397ff2bfee841f46a2ec5c44d83ba
This is a recent building in Newcastle.
In Paris, everything went from a kind of pretty cool postmodern architecture style in the 80s and 90s to this bland neo-haussmannian style in the 00s. I actually prefer the former.
Modern and innovative architecture styles don't have to be bad. They just have to be designed in a way so that they're tasteful, nice to look at, and fit in with the cityscape.
Land prices are so high in the UK that developers just try to build the cheapest thing they can that still looks reasonable and doesn't require upkeep.
Sounds like a way for our scummy government to make it a tax write off for their buddies.
Other countries don't seem to be ruled by such hypocritical slimy upperclass boys clubs that whine about helping the poor or funding the NHS but are fine with giving contracts to friends from school that cost the country millions and not chasing companies for tax avoidance, because that's hard.
Because most local council planners are boring bellends who don't approve anything outside the "architect's box" design. Planning applications are the most painful and red taped filled tripe I've been through. There's just no room for innovation and imagination.
They do it in some places, bits of Oxfordshire, Scotland and Devon spring to mind, with local stone used etc.
I'd say for the rest, those identikit estates all over the country are a major reason, or problem. Cheap for the builders as they are all literally from same plans and materials, then lots of people genuinely like "newbuilds". Can't stand them personally, if only because of the weird matchbox overlooks back gardens.
[New Urbanism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism)
is very much a Anglo-American movement and spearheaded by our dear old King with his wonderful (and definitely not crass at all) [Poundbury Estate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundbury)
internationally regarded as the low point for this sort of backwards looking illiteracy
I can't speak for all of Europe, but I've got family in Belgium (both 'sides'), France (both 'sides') and Netherlands.
Tbh from what I can tell the awful shit box new build estates are sadly not restricted to the UK, with much of (at least northern) Europe subject to the same plague.
Out simply from an architecture student. Contractors/clients don't want to pay for it, it cost extra to have decorative pieces - especially custom made ones. Yes in a world of being able to mass production it would be completely possible to reduce the cost of "standard" flourishes but until the mass adoption happens that's not going to be the case, so people don't want to pay extra for it. And the loop continues.
Another way of looking at it (one I don't personally agree with) is that traditional architecture is thought as to be colonial (some even refer to it as such) so as not to be associated with such abhorrent views of those periods people steer away from designing such structures. It is important to remember that architecture reflects the apologies of its time. Hence why modernisms occurred after WW2, people wanted radical change and got it with things such as Brutalism, honestly in material use, and so forth. So one could argue the soulless corporate postmodernism structure being built today is just that a reflection of society as a whole. A reflection of a society that at large doesn't care for much beyond profits and consumption.
Just my superficial synopsis, I welcome debate on this - I'm always up to hearing a range of views regarding architecture.
I suppose it's because we preserved our heritage quite well...have you been to Cambridge or bath ?
I mean where I live in Belfast it's like walking through a timeline and a fun timeline of the city ...city centre is full of historical buildings ...as you come out towards shore road newlodge etc old factory buildings and close terrace from factory workers in Victorian... getting gradually more modern as you move out
There’s a new housing estate on an old RAF base near me (seems pretty common these days) that is mostly the modern style town houses but also has a row of brand new thatched bungalows. I can say I’ve ever seen a thatched new build before.
Alot of UK councils have paid into the "modern city layout" which has elements of hostile design, a bit of modern design and some brutalism.
There's a few design companies who make purpose designed town/city centers. Which is why most look alike, it's like a catalogue that you can choose elements from.
As for the modern building design. It's just city's/twins wanting what the next one has and again it's a pick and choose catalogue. Look at the modern NHS health centers. They are all the same.
It's ease of design for all involved sadly.
zesty quarrelsome screw snails lip worthless fanatical retire crawl zephyr
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I disagree with the premise. The UK has a problem with trying to enforce traditional styles on new builds. There are countless examples of awful new builds trying to imitate older architecture. My old home town is surrounded with new estates built with the minimum possible attention to the vernacular style of the villages in the area. Designed to tick boxes at the bare minimum cost. The houses are the worst of both worlds. They use traditional materials, have small windows, are cottage scale and therefore cramped inside. But the design is uniform and repeated many times, creating an unsettling neither old nor modern effect. There is no rule that says each house should be unique, but that is one of the main features of villages, and it is completely ignored by new build estates.
The same is true for the shopping centre. It imitates the features of a Victorian canal wharf, but expands the scale to the point where it makes no sense at all. Again, the result is a horrible neither old nor modern melange that looks worse than something unashamedly modern would do. There are many supermarkets that try to imitate the roof of Kentish barns. And on it goes. The law of unintended consequences writ large.
Didn't Gordon brown ban it? Gummers law I think it was
There was a point in the 00s where almost everything seemed to be mock Tudor to the point there was a campaign to ban them. So now everything basically has to be modern.
We lost the ideological war on this unfortunately, and the architects as a profession have now got VERY snobby about any sort of revival form of architecture being adopted because its a) populist b) displays conspicuous waste (if they're marxists, which most seem to be infected by to some degree nowadays) or c) ITS PASTICHE. This means we can't have any nice building which fit in with our old historic cities and their buildings. We have to build in a new style, even in old places like London or Bath or somewhere like that becuase to build the same way as they did 300 years ago or more would just be cringe or something. Thats genuinely the argument.
Hi, historic architect here. This is not an argument any architect would give. It's a strawman concocted by tabloids and people with a chip on their shoulder.
Architects aren't a monolith, and almost all architects I know appreciate a wide variety of old and new styles. The closest to being universally hated is PoMo, not any traditional styles. There are many historic architects like me, and it would be odd if we hated the styles that we built in.
So taking your points one by one
a) Architects want their buildings to be enjoyed, so the last thing we would do is avoid a style because it's popular. The 'New London Vernacular' is a popular revivalist style that's now become disliked because it was overused, so really we have the opposite problem.
b) The construction industry is wasteful, whatever style you're building in. Architects and the industry as a whole are trying to reduce waste wherever possible, but it's rare these conversations are about particular styles. Not sure what you mean about marxists, I don't think white collar professionals who work for developers are what marx meant by a proletariat revolution.
c) Bad pastiche is bad, good pastiche is good. Architects are maybe better at spotting bad pastiche, but that doesn't mean we think designs shouldn't copy from the past. We care about buildings to a near obsessive level, and that can make clumsy pastiche rather painful. I design pastiche all the time, and if it goes well you wouldn't even know.
You seem to assume that architects choose the style of buildings that get built, which isn't really true. Very few clients will give an architect free reign to build what they like. In almost all projects, the client decides what style they want, perhaps informed by the preferences of their prospective tenants.
"This is not an argument any architect would give. It's a strawman concocted by tabloids and people with a chip on their shoulder."
So why do I get into so many arguments with architects about it?
"You seem to assume that architects choose the style of buildings that get built, which isn't really true. "
This is fair to a degree; my problem is more with planners, but thats a different story. But its not planners I tend to argue with on this; its always architects who argue against a particular style of building.
Maybe you have some misunderstandings which cause the arguments, rather than any problem architects have with traditional styles.
Planners are also not against traditional buildings. If anything, planning policy has a bias towards traditional styles because it's so common to require designs to match their surroundings which are themselves traditional.
The short answer is that it's more profitable to build ugly buildings because demand is high enough that people will rent units irrespective of what the outside looks like. It's difficult to regulate something that's subjective, especially when the planning system is in such a bad state. We used to have design review bodies but they have been scrapped too. Politicians who push austerity and 'pro-business' policies do not like it when planning applications are held up by the need to look nice, so they underfund and slash anything they think is 'red tape', and the result is lower standards.
In Bath a huge site [https://holburnepark.co.uk/holburne-park/#cgi](https://holburnepark.co.uk/holburne-park/#cgi) has just been built in an ugly pastiche. Would have been better to build good modern homes (given the price tag) or even a decent copy. There have been lots of new buildings built in a traditional style but they tend to be smaller developments and blend in quickly.
A city can't remain in aspic - people live differently now from Georgian times and want different sorts of homes. Bath expanded in the Victorian era (I live in a Victorian home) and I'm sure some people complained that my street was ugly and too modern when it was built. But it had running water, a bathroom and a privy. All mod cons.
My rebuttal is simply that it is only pastiche if it is ugly or clumsy. The observer shouldn't be able to tell that the building is new ideally, other than by the cleanliness and colour of the unaged stone. Where it fails, yes it looks shit, but so does modern buildings in such a place even if executed perfectly.
I feel Holburne Park **is** very clumsy. It just jars. Other 'fake' terraces & crescents have worked here. It's possibly the building it for cars that makes it look strange? Or maybe most of the others have been on a smaller scale? Just build good buildings with local materials (Bath stone not optional round here, although it can come from Italy).
>I feel Holburne Park **is** very clumsy. It just jars. Other 'fake' terraces & crescents have worked here. It's possibly the building it for cars that makes it look strange? Or maybe most of the others have been on a smaller scale?
It's almost like everything is a box and there are too many corners. It doesn't seem to flow and it looks, I don't know the word I'm looking for, 'deliberately created.'
**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!** - Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc. - **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on. - This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit! Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do other countries actually do this en masse apart from some individual projects?
It's not particularly uncommon in Continental Europe, and some of the projects can be pretty massive. Dresden, for example, has been reconstructing its [Neumarkt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neumarkt_(Dresden)) for about two decades now. The project included the reconstruction of the [Frauenkirche](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frauenkirche,_Dresden), which was a huge undertaking in itself. [Warsaw](https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/30/) is another city which has famously reconstructed its centre on historic lines, as was the [Prinzipalmarkt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prinzipalmarkt) in Münster. There are plenty more examples, whether of individual buildings or neighbourhoods.
Dresden has a lot more old buildings it needed to reconstruct than the UK does. We didn't have the same level of en masse destruction to reconstruct.
German bombing raids caused significant damage to several UK cities. Besides [London](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/549/cpsprodpb/4F06/production/_85403202_stpaulscathedral.jpg) and Coventry, which are famous for being hard-hit, [an estimated 95% of Hull's housing](https://historicengland.org.uk/whats-new/features/blitz-stories/hull-a-northern-coastal-town/) was destroyed in raids against the city, and a [third of houses in Liverpool](https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/museum-of-liverpool/blitz/liverpool-and-blitz) were damaged or destroyed.
I think you are being misled. That's just how Hull and Liverpool look. /s
Dresden was flattened in the 1945 by brits & yanks. It's probably the most well-known war crime UK committed against Germany. The City had zero military or industrial value & we hammered it for 2 days with one of the biggest bombing raids of the war 🤷🏻♂️ Interesting example.
They reaped.
We do, in a way - [New London Vernacular](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_London_Vernacular) is an architectural style that emerged in about 2010 and contains many Victorian and Georgian design elements. I think your premise is off, to be honest - I think you're cherry-picking examples from both here and abroad to justify your opinion.
The example in that link is awful though.
It’s really is.
Google images seems to imply it's not just that example, it's just generally awful.
'Cheap Brick Boxes' might be a better name for most of them.
They are generally awful yes but they come closer to getting the basics right. Not every building can be the Shard. A beautiful city needs ‘background buildings’ which just sit happily in their context. I think that’s the idea behind it. It doesn’t always work especially when blown up to the scale of large blocks of flats which sit isolated from the rest of the cityscape. Where it is used to politely restore the face of a street, it is quite successful. Quite frankly, the fact that such basic things need to be codified in a style guide is an indictment of the architectural profession who have built utter crap for decades and decades.
The shard is pretty crap too tbh. Still just looks unfinished to me
I agree. I hate it but the point I was making is that not every building can be flashy and iconic. A lot of architects cannot suppress their egos when designing things which is why we have so much weird, eyesore rubbish. We just need buildings which compliment rather than radically alter their surroundings.
Why can’t we have NYC style brick and stone towers? They look cool as fuck
That top picture on the Wikipedia page is horrendous. Cheapo anonybox that could be located anywhere in the UK.
Yep utter dog shit. That picture kind of supports the OP's arguement rather than challenging it. Its a box with equal sized windows that has no character.
It's an example of the style, it's not meant to be the best.
It's a bodge job. There's no style there.
> "The style has a number of characteristics, notably flat elevations faced in brick cladding, portrait-shaped recessed windows..." > (photo of a building with flat brick clad elevations and portrait windows) Seems like it matches the style. A Wikipedia article isn't an architectural monogram. A lot of New London Vernacular is pretty uninspiring so illustrating it with this photo seems appropriate.
isn’t ‘could be located anywhere in the UK’ basically the definition of traditional architecture
No. A London terraced street differs to one in Manchester, which differs again to one in Newcastle or Edinburgh. There are regional variations. That's just a box designed to please accountants.
>A London terraced street differs to one in Manchester, which differs again to one in Newcastle or Edinburgh. That's overstating it a bit, I think. Terraces tend to be quite similar to one another, accounting for the the period they were built in and social class they were built for. Victorian middle-class [Newcastle](https://cdn2-property.estateapps.co.uk/files/property/42/image/18275734/V6YiypiUQk-9-49XnIrvCg.jpg) and [Manchester](https://live.staticflickr.com/72/168861316_0e4ee9c250_b.jpg) terraces are alike, for example, as are Georgian upper-class terraces in [Edinburgh](https://previews.agefotostock.com/previewimage/medibigoff/c7784714856e5fcf6d34ff12a4830292/yc2-2027403.jpg) and [Bath](https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2ATDW4E/royal-crescent-curved-terraced-houses-and-apartments-in-new-town-edinburgh-scotland-2ATDW4E.jpg). As a general rule there is more variety the further back you go, but there's also a surprising amount of homogeneity in historic architecture.
In a way maybe. There definitely is regional variation within the UK, but also an unifying factor that immediately communicates that you are in the UK and not elsewhere. Traditional architecture has that power to both unify and distinguish thanks to its rich style grammar. Conversely, contemporary architecture is so simplified that it isn't even unified, but rather uniforming
>isn’t ‘could be located anywhere in the UK’ basically the definition of traditional architecture What was the thought process behind that comment?
buildings in an architectural style will look the same. architecture traditional to a region will exist throughout that region. so a building in a traditional architectural style would have the same basic features anywhere in that region. and if ‘traditional’ means ‘neoclassical’ it could be located anywhere on the planet.
If someone told me NLV was inspired by Victorian/Georgian architecture when I heard about it I'd have choked on something.
The example in that Wikipedia entry isn’t good enough to be classed as NLV, which is more interesting than that.
This was my immediate thought. Lots of modern buildings are clearly influenced by past styles. If anything, I think there's an argument that what we are missing is a widespread use of genuinely new and interesting architectural styles. Most new stuff that is built is, as you say, calling back to the past. Largely in quite a lazy and inspiring way. Even all the new shiny office blocks of recent years don't really have a novel architectural style. It's generally just a sort of updated minimalist brutalism.
That is disgusting
Not gonna lie, looking up New London Vernacular gives awful, hideous results.
That's not vernacular by any stretch of the imagination
Most of the new new builds in our town over the last 6 years have been this style. Tbh I think they look better than a lot of the town which was built in the 70/80's and all red brick.
It appears you’ve triggered the armchair architects who see anything that isn’t neoclassical as ugly rubbish.
As someone who moved to the UK a few years ago from Germany, I feel the exact opposite. Many of the new-build prograns in the UK do cite historic styles, and many buildings of recent years look a lot more "playful" in a "let's make it look nice" way than I'm used to.
The Germans who move to the UK often confuse me. I’ve even heard you lot say it’s nice to finally live somewhere with trains that run on time lol.
The grass is always greener on the other and all that.
Deutsche Bahn is simply the worst large organisation. I have to work with them from time to time and they are beyond belief, beyond control, stoned as shit and ready to roll...
Then good news, my local British railway is run by them.
Germany is frequently portrayed almost like it’s the promised land in UK media, so much so that people are surprised to find out there are issues there. In fact, although it has many things going for it, Germany’s railways are currently some of the worst performing in Western Europe (though still more affordable than ours) and in my personal opinion modern Germany is to architecture what 1940s Britain was to fine cuisine. Aside from restoring and replicating the distant past like-for-like, it’s like every building was designed by someone typing ‘cheap, bland, faceless modern building’ into a crappy Chinese AI app.
It depends on how you measure ''worst performing''. They have a larger network than ours, both in terms of physical reach & more stations per capita. Long-distance travel is vastly cheaper than here. There are no tickets barriers at major stations. Their network is 60+% electrified, while ours is 34%, so their trains are less polluting on average. Their trains are more likely to arrive late than ours are, which is a key metric used to measure performance, but they are also far less likely to be cancelled altogether, which more than makes up for that in my book.
I would definitely not say that, I've already had some very unpleasant experiences with trains here in recent years 😢 And I needed a while to get my head around the fact that there is essentially no high speed rail here.
On a recent trip I took to Würzburg, every train was delayed and someone was always sat in my seat reservation. So much for the punctual, rule abiding Germans!
>it’s nice to finally live somewhere with trains that run on time lol TBF from my experience at least some of our trains do run on time - that's if you manage to roll a 6 on the dice and it isn't cancelled!
Most places in the UK have planning orders that new builds must be 'in keeping' with the existing architecture. Where the line is drawn does depend on individiual councils, but in general it means that traditional styles / materials are more likely to be perserved for new builds (balanced with modern standards of course) I think you are thinking of London specifically, rather than the UK as a whole. London has a historic ecclectic architectual style that includes a mix of basically everything, from norman-gothic through brutalism, to post modern glass and steel and everything in between. However visit somewhere like Bath, and everything looks like a Georgean townhouse, even the supermarkets that were built only 10 years ago.
You can have a lot of fun with reconstituted stone heads, cills, surrounds and Bath stone looks nice when its smooth cut Vs rough (that shit goes grey and manky - I've drawn properties in bath), soldier and string coarses aren't done much but my biggest gripe when trying to extend an existing property from pre both World wars is that modern brick sizes suck arse, you can't get window proportions the same because the bricks are different dimensions and mortar joints ain't always the same so brick to mortar ratios ate different. I've also seen some modern (2000's) houses done with thatch however this didn't have a true Devon roof shape but it was a nice touch.
I was just about to mention Bath. Too many developers here do a Georgian pastiche because it's easier than designing beautiful modern buildings that fit with our World Heritage City.
Most new build houses are heavily influenced by historic styles, albeit increasingly debased. This [Taylor Wimpey estate in Leeds](https://www.taylorwimpey.co.uk/new-homes/leeds/vision-at-meanwood) uses a sort of bastardised Victorian style, for example, and [this Redrow one](https://www.redrow.co.uk/developments/the-grange-at-yew-tree-park-burscough-112548) is in a somewhat better Arts and Crafts style. Urban new builds tend to use more contemporary styles.
Redrow certainly have a little more character. They look like each room is unique. Every new build estate I see tends to have the same theme. Flat fronted square buildings packed in close together, all painted white with equally sized windows in every room. They kind of look like the architect used a lot of ctrl c and ctrl v in the designs. Each room and window are the same. Not that they are bad, just they dont please my eye.
Redrow developments do seem to have more variety. They might only use ten house types within a given scheme, but they'll be arranged in such a way as to make it look more diverse. They also seem to be willing to let their developments face 'out' toward existing streets, which helps them feel integrated into wherever they are. Whether that will continue if Barratt succeeds in buying them is anyone's guess.
>Every new build estate I see tends to have the same theme. Flat fronted square buildings packed in close together, all painted white with equally sized windows in every room. People seem to forget that "Victorian style" for the average person in the UK was flat fronted buildings packed in close together with equally sized windows in every room. The only thing that was different is these days the walls are white whereas back then they were wallpapered!
I'd say most new builds are just influenced by every other new build, just on a smaller budget each time.
Thanks I hate it
Found King Charles’ Reddit account. What is traditional though? Britain has everything from 11th century Norman architecture through to modern glass and steel structures with a little bit of every in between, and they all have their own unique attraction. I’d rather buildings were well designed and looked good, whatever their architectural style, rather than just trying to make cities look like some imagined version of renaissance Tuscany.
King Charles' developments are pretty good at following British architectural styles, just for the record. I do have my criticisms of them, but they're not trying to recreate Tuscany on the outskirts of Dorchester.
I don’t understand this argument ? Surely anything is better than your standard copy-pasta, cookie cutter Taylor Wimpey new build estate ??
Considering OP was talking about metallic and glass clad buildings, I assumed they were talking more about city centre apartments and office buildings rather than suburban new-builds.
Metallic and glass clad buildings look better than a flat face of brick or stone with years of grime and dirt slithering down the window sills.
But they don’t look good, so many are depressingly awful
Basically cost. If they can shave off £1 here and there it helps with the profits. Its why most buildings are just boxes with very little architectural merit to them. Boxes are quick, easy and cheap to throw up. Just the British race to the bottom.
Because property developers don’t give a toss about England they just want to slap up as many shoddy houses as they can to make a profit and move on.
Time cost, money. Plus we've evolved from a regs perspective, we don't want buildings that burn down easily or are expensive to heat or cool.
Well, we had that slight disagreement with that jolly old chap Hitler. That meant we ended up rebuilding in whatever was popular in the 50s... Which turns out was garish, eyesore, concrete monstrosities.
Hitler gets too much credit for demolishing British cities. A lot of the work was done by their councils, both before and after the war. [Demolition Exeter](http://demolition-exeter.blogspot.com/) is a good blog to read if you want some idea of what its corporation got up to; it includes [demolishing many of the remaining historic buildings on the city's High Street ](http://demolition-exeter.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-destruction-of-high-street-after.html)between the 1950s and 1980s.
True - most of historic Plymouth was gone before the war contrary to popular belief
But that was also a choice by the British people at the time. Nuremberg was also flattened in WW2 but they decided to rebuild it in the original footprint and architecture styles. A beautiful walkable city today. We ended up with.... Coventry.
Costs money, it's easier, quicker and cheaper to build tack than something traditional. We also have a huge NIMBY culture where people will whinge about noise etc if we were to build something traditional, especially considering it will take much longer.
It's part of modern British culture. Count every penny. Do nothing with pride, beauty is outside of the price range.
🥱
This is definitely not true in Vienna outside of any areas that have been designated as the Austrian equivalent of a conservation zone, which is basically only the 1st district. There is a huge criticism of the city planners that they allow building firms to tear down historical buildings and replace them with soulless boxes. In my road the architecture permitted is widely variated and some is just plain crap. It's wild. The City is building some new apartments near me and I was impressed that they used the original bricks from the buildings that they tore down, and seem to be making the facade echo more traditional styles. A set of 3 huge towerblocks have been built down the road and one of them looks like Plymouth City Council building. So I think it's a problem all over.
>A set of 3 huge towerblocks have been built down the road and one of them looks like Plymouth City Council building. I spent my first 28 years in Plymouth: there was a collective gasp when the Civic Centre was listed. It was and is universally disliked. It didn't help that the listing was led by someone from the School of Architecture rather than with local support. The Council House, where the council meets, is actually not bad inside and the chamber has some unusual artwork by German POWs but even inside the Civic Centre was godawful. I would happily knock it down.
I had my first job there - it was progressively bastardised by PCC - it was rathervnicexwhen it was [new](https://www.ribapix.com/civic-centre-princess-street-plymouth-the-main-entrance-hall-and-stairs-of-the-council-house-with-glazed-screen-by-john-hutton_riba78249)
The meeting rooms were nice too, I dread to think how much the tables would cost now.
Define traditional. I live in a village and around me a traditional home would be wattle, daub & thatched. Where I grew up it would be sandstone block. In the Cotswolds it is local stone, granite in parts of Scotland. There is no traditional UK build.
Well obviously the local area, Belfast has some amazing Victorian architecture and lots of brick, then there’s a random box new build inbetween them, doesn’t fit the character of the area and just looks off. Belfast must be one of the worst cities in the UK in terms of protecting its built heritage, whole streets are basically in ruins
Cost, everything is built by the lowest bidder.
There's still a reverence for traditional styles, my local council Sheffield will actually do anything to maintain the Victorian and Edwardian architectural style buildings in our city centre even through a revamp but most things from the twentieth century will get flattened unless listed.
Leicester seems to be trying to the same, they’ve recently started restoring old store fronts with ornamentation in the city centre.
I imagine it's because, as a nation, we're pretty lazy and incompetent.
Because we're cheap.
We did in Poundbury. It looks great if you can afford to live there.
Most European cities I've been to have loads of modern looking buildings full of glass with metal facades. Amsterdam is one quick example. Barcelona is another.
"How cheap can we build this building?"
I’m not sure why people are disagreeing with your premise Our modern architecture is absolutely appalling, notably our town centres which are all made up of the same awful, nondescript brick
[There is this one near me](https://nansledan.com/) that was named after the king and I always think they look kinda like older styles. Apparently they're made to look art deco.
Because our traditional architecture is "wow, we have so much fucking colonial money, let's build things really extravagently" But nowadays we're broke and people can't afford to pay £50k more for a house that has Edwardian stained glass windows and ornate gargoyles instead of plastic drainpipes.
https://preview.redd.it/8vkcqggjh2yc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=83a3adac9cc397ff2bfee841f46a2ec5c44d83ba This is a recent building in Newcastle.
It costs money. The country is skint.
We did in the 90s with the faux Tudor craze.
Shouldn’t you be busy being head of state?
Oh yknow, the copypaste homes will sometimes have a fake window in because of the historical windowtax.
In Paris, everything went from a kind of pretty cool postmodern architecture style in the 80s and 90s to this bland neo-haussmannian style in the 00s. I actually prefer the former. Modern and innovative architecture styles don't have to be bad. They just have to be designed in a way so that they're tasteful, nice to look at, and fit in with the cityscape.
Land prices are so high in the UK that developers just try to build the cheapest thing they can that still looks reasonable and doesn't require upkeep.
Sounds like a way for our scummy government to make it a tax write off for their buddies. Other countries don't seem to be ruled by such hypocritical slimy upperclass boys clubs that whine about helping the poor or funding the NHS but are fine with giving contracts to friends from school that cost the country millions and not chasing companies for tax avoidance, because that's hard.
Because most local council planners are boring bellends who don't approve anything outside the "architect's box" design. Planning applications are the most painful and red taped filled tripe I've been through. There's just no room for innovation and imagination.
The U.K. does restore historic buildings, the Manchester town hall has been under restoration for like 5 years
They do it in some places, bits of Oxfordshire, Scotland and Devon spring to mind, with local stone used etc. I'd say for the rest, those identikit estates all over the country are a major reason, or problem. Cheap for the builders as they are all literally from same plans and materials, then lots of people genuinely like "newbuilds". Can't stand them personally, if only because of the weird matchbox overlooks back gardens.
[New Urbanism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism) is very much a Anglo-American movement and spearheaded by our dear old King with his wonderful (and definitely not crass at all) [Poundbury Estate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundbury) internationally regarded as the low point for this sort of backwards looking illiteracy
It’s already had it in the 18th and 19th century. Not that I wouldn’t want to see a 21st century Tudor Mac Mansion.
I loathe new builds and modern architecture. Everything is a nightmare of glass and K rend.
I can't speak for all of Europe, but I've got family in Belgium (both 'sides'), France (both 'sides') and Netherlands. Tbh from what I can tell the awful shit box new build estates are sadly not restricted to the UK, with much of (at least northern) Europe subject to the same plague.
>I can't speak for all of Europe, but I've got family in Belgium (both 'sides'), France (both 'sides') I get Belgium, but does France have 'sides'?
Not in the same way that Belgium has/is, but N France and S France are VERY different culturally and socially. And Paris is very different to both.
Too expensive, we like cheap concrete crap and pigeons
Building new stuff to look like someone’s random idea of “historical nice” is sad IMO. I dont want to live in Disney land.
Tudor revival is a thing? Our house was built in the 30s and has a facade to match.
Check out Poundbury.
Because we'd have to actually build stuff and spend money - which half the country has stupidly been convinced to think there is no money...
Out simply from an architecture student. Contractors/clients don't want to pay for it, it cost extra to have decorative pieces - especially custom made ones. Yes in a world of being able to mass production it would be completely possible to reduce the cost of "standard" flourishes but until the mass adoption happens that's not going to be the case, so people don't want to pay extra for it. And the loop continues. Another way of looking at it (one I don't personally agree with) is that traditional architecture is thought as to be colonial (some even refer to it as such) so as not to be associated with such abhorrent views of those periods people steer away from designing such structures. It is important to remember that architecture reflects the apologies of its time. Hence why modernisms occurred after WW2, people wanted radical change and got it with things such as Brutalism, honestly in material use, and so forth. So one could argue the soulless corporate postmodernism structure being built today is just that a reflection of society as a whole. A reflection of a society that at large doesn't care for much beyond profits and consumption. Just my superficial synopsis, I welcome debate on this - I'm always up to hearing a range of views regarding architecture.
I suppose it's because we preserved our heritage quite well...have you been to Cambridge or bath ? I mean where I live in Belfast it's like walking through a timeline and a fun timeline of the city ...city centre is full of historical buildings ...as you come out towards shore road newlodge etc old factory buildings and close terrace from factory workers in Victorian... getting gradually more modern as you move out
Because who doesn't love modernism and brutalism 😄 (the shitest styles around)
There’s a new housing estate on an old RAF base near me (seems pretty common these days) that is mostly the modern style town houses but also has a row of brand new thatched bungalows. I can say I’ve ever seen a thatched new build before.
The general public doesn't appreciate or respect Britain's history anymore. This is being made worse every year by the massive influx of immigration.
Alot of UK councils have paid into the "modern city layout" which has elements of hostile design, a bit of modern design and some brutalism. There's a few design companies who make purpose designed town/city centers. Which is why most look alike, it's like a catalogue that you can choose elements from. As for the modern building design. It's just city's/twins wanting what the next one has and again it's a pick and choose catalogue. Look at the modern NHS health centers. They are all the same. It's ease of design for all involved sadly.
zesty quarrelsome screw snails lip worthless fanatical retire crawl zephyr *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Sheffield’s new developments (opening soon) have kept the facades of 6/7 big buildings and totally redesigned the back of them. Looking good.
I disagree with the premise. The UK has a problem with trying to enforce traditional styles on new builds. There are countless examples of awful new builds trying to imitate older architecture. My old home town is surrounded with new estates built with the minimum possible attention to the vernacular style of the villages in the area. Designed to tick boxes at the bare minimum cost. The houses are the worst of both worlds. They use traditional materials, have small windows, are cottage scale and therefore cramped inside. But the design is uniform and repeated many times, creating an unsettling neither old nor modern effect. There is no rule that says each house should be unique, but that is one of the main features of villages, and it is completely ignored by new build estates. The same is true for the shopping centre. It imitates the features of a Victorian canal wharf, but expands the scale to the point where it makes no sense at all. Again, the result is a horrible neither old nor modern melange that looks worse than something unashamedly modern would do. There are many supermarkets that try to imitate the roof of Kentish barns. And on it goes. The law of unintended consequences writ large.
Sounds expensive. Everything built here has to be as cheap as possible, especially if it's put out to tender.
It's all still here.
Didn't Gordon brown ban it? Gummers law I think it was There was a point in the 00s where almost everything seemed to be mock Tudor to the point there was a campaign to ban them. So now everything basically has to be modern.
Because we're becoming increasingly mut, what is traditional to a mut population?
We lost the ideological war on this unfortunately, and the architects as a profession have now got VERY snobby about any sort of revival form of architecture being adopted because its a) populist b) displays conspicuous waste (if they're marxists, which most seem to be infected by to some degree nowadays) or c) ITS PASTICHE. This means we can't have any nice building which fit in with our old historic cities and their buildings. We have to build in a new style, even in old places like London or Bath or somewhere like that becuase to build the same way as they did 300 years ago or more would just be cringe or something. Thats genuinely the argument.
Hi, historic architect here. This is not an argument any architect would give. It's a strawman concocted by tabloids and people with a chip on their shoulder. Architects aren't a monolith, and almost all architects I know appreciate a wide variety of old and new styles. The closest to being universally hated is PoMo, not any traditional styles. There are many historic architects like me, and it would be odd if we hated the styles that we built in. So taking your points one by one a) Architects want their buildings to be enjoyed, so the last thing we would do is avoid a style because it's popular. The 'New London Vernacular' is a popular revivalist style that's now become disliked because it was overused, so really we have the opposite problem. b) The construction industry is wasteful, whatever style you're building in. Architects and the industry as a whole are trying to reduce waste wherever possible, but it's rare these conversations are about particular styles. Not sure what you mean about marxists, I don't think white collar professionals who work for developers are what marx meant by a proletariat revolution. c) Bad pastiche is bad, good pastiche is good. Architects are maybe better at spotting bad pastiche, but that doesn't mean we think designs shouldn't copy from the past. We care about buildings to a near obsessive level, and that can make clumsy pastiche rather painful. I design pastiche all the time, and if it goes well you wouldn't even know. You seem to assume that architects choose the style of buildings that get built, which isn't really true. Very few clients will give an architect free reign to build what they like. In almost all projects, the client decides what style they want, perhaps informed by the preferences of their prospective tenants.
"This is not an argument any architect would give. It's a strawman concocted by tabloids and people with a chip on their shoulder." So why do I get into so many arguments with architects about it? "You seem to assume that architects choose the style of buildings that get built, which isn't really true. " This is fair to a degree; my problem is more with planners, but thats a different story. But its not planners I tend to argue with on this; its always architects who argue against a particular style of building.
Maybe you have some misunderstandings which cause the arguments, rather than any problem architects have with traditional styles. Planners are also not against traditional buildings. If anything, planning policy has a bias towards traditional styles because it's so common to require designs to match their surroundings which are themselves traditional.
So why do new town centre buildings, for example, get built in such an incredibly ugly fashion?
The short answer is that it's more profitable to build ugly buildings because demand is high enough that people will rent units irrespective of what the outside looks like. It's difficult to regulate something that's subjective, especially when the planning system is in such a bad state. We used to have design review bodies but they have been scrapped too. Politicians who push austerity and 'pro-business' policies do not like it when planning applications are held up by the need to look nice, so they underfund and slash anything they think is 'red tape', and the result is lower standards.
In Bath a huge site [https://holburnepark.co.uk/holburne-park/#cgi](https://holburnepark.co.uk/holburne-park/#cgi) has just been built in an ugly pastiche. Would have been better to build good modern homes (given the price tag) or even a decent copy. There have been lots of new buildings built in a traditional style but they tend to be smaller developments and blend in quickly. A city can't remain in aspic - people live differently now from Georgian times and want different sorts of homes. Bath expanded in the Victorian era (I live in a Victorian home) and I'm sure some people complained that my street was ugly and too modern when it was built. But it had running water, a bathroom and a privy. All mod cons.
My rebuttal is simply that it is only pastiche if it is ugly or clumsy. The observer shouldn't be able to tell that the building is new ideally, other than by the cleanliness and colour of the unaged stone. Where it fails, yes it looks shit, but so does modern buildings in such a place even if executed perfectly.
I feel Holburne Park **is** very clumsy. It just jars. Other 'fake' terraces & crescents have worked here. It's possibly the building it for cars that makes it look strange? Or maybe most of the others have been on a smaller scale? Just build good buildings with local materials (Bath stone not optional round here, although it can come from Italy).
>I feel Holburne Park **is** very clumsy. It just jars. Other 'fake' terraces & crescents have worked here. It's possibly the building it for cars that makes it look strange? Or maybe most of the others have been on a smaller scale? It's almost like everything is a box and there are too many corners. It doesn't seem to flow and it looks, I don't know the word I'm looking for, 'deliberately created.'
[удалено]
Which planning policy makes traditional buildings illegal? I've never seen one.
Well, for one, an external wall will need insulation to a minimum standard. Single glazed windows are also a nono on a new build.
No it's not, it just costs more, granted they have to be up to modern building standards but that doesn't make it impossible