I’ve been watching this excellent series from the BBC, where television legend David Dimbleby travels around the British Isles, taking a walk through architectural history as he goes.
The series is captivating for an ignoramus on the subject such as myself, it’s amazing to see architecture on all scales from down the years, all over the country, and to witness a taster of the evolution of architecture in the UK.However, one thing that saddens me as I watch it, from our own experiences as well as anecdotal tales of others, is that so many of the amazing, trailblazing houses the documentary features would probably stand a cat’s hope in hell of being built in Today’s apparent climate of bureaucracy and planning application systems by numbers.
I can only imagine, in the future, what a dull and lifeless period for domestic architecture and construction it will be to look back on, from maybe the 1950s onwards in the UK. Especially from the 1970s to the present day, where cram-em-in build-em-quick housing, almost completely devoid of character and lacking any regional variation seems the norm.
Who’s fault is this though? Is it the architects all playing it safe? Is it the big building companies who don’t want to take risks and will do the minimum required to get as many houses built and sold as fast as possible? Or is it our fault, the general public, for accepting, even embracing the architectural status quo we seem to be stuck in.
Maybe it’s those retrospective rose tinted glasses at work again, but it does seem that the countries rich tapestry of buildings with character and styles each of their own, certainly at the lower end of the scale, will never be as lush and varied as it once was. But who knows, maybe more people will wish to break the mould and do their own thing, maybe developments like the previously mentioned Oxley Woods will sell like hot cakes and planners and builders will grow enough balls to push the envelope a little more each time, to be more adventurous.
Maybe it’s just me, but I do wish there were more variety, more daring in the habitats we’re creating at such an alarming rate, surely that would be a good thing for everyone, from the frustrated talented architects right through to the construction workers seeking a new challenge, and certainly the occupants looking for a place to call home?
Or maybe people actually like the bland, they seem to be lapping it up just now?
Just for the record, what we see of Britian’s architectural heritage, particularly in vernacular building has very little to do with what one could call the building of labouring folk. By far the majority of pretty cottages we see now were built as the homes of at least the yeoman classes. If labouring families did live in them it was when they became unfashionable and then were often sub-divided to house multiple families. The housing of the ordinary working people rarely survives, it was little more than hovel quality. I do get so frustrated when people see quaint little cottages and assume that this was the quality of housing for the many. By the time ordinary labouring families got to live in them they were little more than hovels themselves. It is only because of the superior build quality of the timber framing or stone build that kept the places upright that these wonderful buildings have surivived for us to enjoy today. Yes, the majority of today’s architecture is not going to survive the test of time, but should we deny people a decent place to live just because we would want to preserve the country’s architectural heritage? There will be enough left for our ancestors to enjoy. As long as those we call afford it and who have the vision to leave architecturally sound and aesthetically pleasing structures which reflect current fashion and ability we will do OK. And of course thanks to the stringent planning laws the current crop of ancient buildings on the whole will remain relatively safe.