Chair, HTA Design LLP, designers and placemakers in the built environment. Past President, RIBA. President, London Forum of Amenity & Civic Societies. Commissioner, Historic England. All views expressed are my own.
Despite the protestations of some, a piece this week in Housing Today clarifies the new Government's position on 'Beauty': 'Helpfully, if a little unusually, the ministry published a “tracked changes” copy of the original (NPPF) document to demonstrate the extent of the alterations. So, Housing Today has sifted through the polished-up framework, and the associated consultation documents, to find out what is now in and what is out. OUT: ‘Beauty’ and the ‘beautiful’ Some things really stick out when you share “tracked changes”, and one of those is when someone has combed through a whole document to remove every instance of a word. Keir Starmer had been sounding almost Govian in the run-up to the general election, with his talk of building new towns replete with Georgian-style townhouses. But, when the new NPPF document dropped, one of the starkest amendments was the removal of all references to “beauty” or the “beautiful”, which consequently triggered outrage from some on the (now much depleted) Conservative benches. Speaking on BBC Radio 2, Rayner defended the decision, describing the inclusion of “beauty” in the NPPF as “ridiculous” and “subjective”. She explained: “Beautiful means nothing really, it means one thing to one person and another thing to another […] all that wording was doing was preventing and blocking development and that’s why we think it is too subjective.” My own piece in this august organ from last November, entitled "Notions of 'beauty' should not be too prominent in our planning system" put it that, 'Unfortunately, the ultimately simplistic notion that the planning system can be based on an institutional interpretation of what is beautiful, and what is not, has led inevitably to an utterly meaningless polarisation over the issue. Both I, and the architectural profession which at one time I represented as its [RIBA] president, have been accused of ‘not liking beauty’ and ‘not caring what buildings look like’. For the record, neither I, nor any architect I have ever known can be accused of that! Of course we love beauty – only as one of a number of attributes. More than two millennia ago, the Roman architect and engineer, Vitruvius asserted all buildings should not only manifest beauty (venustas) but also two other attributes: strength (firmitas) and utility, (utilitas). That we should wish for a beautiful built environment is unarguable, but as a premise for decision-making in planning, it is clearly inadequate on its own.'
Dinah Bornat
3mo
There’s an over simplification in this tug of war though I fear. Whilst I saw the B word as a smoke and mirrors exercise of ‘giving the neighbours what they want’, I was frustrated that it meant we never could give the development what everyone *needed*, as that was too complex a challenge and required us to look hard at ‘other’ people and god forbid they live nearby and do the weird things they do. From my area of interest if you like, it’s go outside and play, make a bit of a mess and look tall and threatening in groups. The B word ran over the top of that and couldn’t engage with those issues. So when I saw the recent Duchy scheme in Kent I threw up my hands in despair. No doorstep play, but there’s a cricket green (don’t even start me on that), which presumably looked beautiful to some but beneath that lurked a whole heap of values. Anyway, now we’ve thrown the BBB out with the bathwater, we’ve lost the the simple hook for local people to engage with. And don’t start me on the 15 minute city, as I’m sorry but it doesn’t work for kids, despite it’s good adult intentions. I’m still waiting for the call from government as I have all the housing design evidence they’d need to think about the *35%*…
Vanessa Gregory
3mo
I had a problem with 'high quality'. You can have high quality ingredients, but it doesn't necessarily make a tasty dish. In St Albans a development which involved co design with the community and an Architect was highly praised by the community, even by those who hadn't taken part in the charrette. I can't really imagine any building built today being as highly appreciated as those left standing from Roman times or many built in the 20th century or indeed this century. What I do highly value is adaptability and in sympathy with the setting. Unfortunately many claim their developments are, but are not. Enter design codes....
Paul Iddon
3mo
Ben Derbyshire PPRIBA FRSA HonAIA Good points but it does seem a little worrying that the Honourable Member for Ashton -under-Lyne (the constituency next door to mine) seems a little dismissive and doesn't not seem to understand the cultural significance of architecture to society. I suspect that this will come back to bite. Maybe she could start by looking around in her own constituency.....ahem.
Giuseppe Di Leo
3mo
" “Beautiful means nothing really ...," actually it means what the planning case officer, or committee, chooses it to mean, neither more nor less. It should mean what the building owner chooses it to mean. Perhaps.
Estate Director (Hatfield Park) at Gascoyne Estates
3moMeanwhile, whilst the architectural profession argues about the relevance of beauty, and who is best qualified to judge either an individual building, or a wider development’s merits, the rest of society are left to reflect and actually live with the mediocre and often substandard offerings dished up by volume house builders and short term developers. Yes, beauty was a clumsy term, highly subjective, and in those regards unhelpful but most people realised that the real objective was to raise the bar on design and execution… Let us see where this next chapter leads us…