Read on Twitter
In yet another example of government tying itself in knots over the need to build housing, it now introduces further measures to inhibit the ‘wrong sort’ of development. Difficult to see how this is anything but a huge drain on already stretched council resources.
Things that design codes can cover:
- height
- massing
- privacy & overlooking
- access to daylight
- frontages
- private amenity space
- orientation & outlook
Things that design codes should not cover:
- ‘beauty’, as defined by an aesthetically prejudiced yet vocal minority
- height
- massing
- privacy & overlooking
- access to daylight
- frontages
- private amenity space
- orientation & outlook
Things that design codes should not cover:
- ‘beauty’, as defined by an aesthetically prejudiced yet vocal minority
Many beautiful places are such because the buildings in them are varied and diverse, with each generation adding layers of their own, contributing to a diverse patchwork illustrating how our lives and societies have evolved over time.
Locking in a particular style from an arbitrary point in time will reflect badly on us when future historians come to assess our legacy and understand how we lived.
There’s no question many buildings erected today will not last that long—being poorly conceived or built, inflexible to changing needs—so let’s instead talk about achieving better quality in our built environment, rather than worrying about subjective interpretations of beauty.
Is this beautiful? Yes, of course it is. (via @31_44)
What about this? Also yes. (via @Carl_Works)
Or this? (via @OfficeSandM)
Would this pass the beauty test? (via @denizenworks)
All extraordinary contributions to our collective architectural history.
