It feels like modern architecture today was designed so developers could spend as little money as possible, and not care a knats wing what the public thinks about i, from birmingham to coventry to london, cheap , unoriginal and profiteering structures get plonked down wherever a developer can get away with it, some of coventries new developments strongly resemble plastic sheds and look like they will fall down in 15 years, there is no care whatsoever put into these buildings, Have they really thought about the facade bar ‘those pannels look cheap, lets plonk them on’?. There is nothing to catch a pedestrians eye, nothing to make an experience in the city pleasant, facades aren’t designed at all, the interior is designed and then the façade gets stuck on last minute. Victorian architecture is an event, an experiance, every single part of the buildings face to the outside world was thought about, the landmark buildings like the town halls, stations and churches were almost allways grand, but even shops, hospitals, schools, mental aslumns, factories and prisons could sometimes look like palaces. Im not saying its realistic to go to those efforts again, but when new town halls look like this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corby\_Cube#/media/File:Corby\_Cube.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corby_Cube#/media/File:Corby_Cube.jpg)
there needs to be a conversation about quality control. If developers want to build something, then they need to pay for it by making it of reasonable quality. If they want it look like brick then its made of brick, and surely with new technology its becoming easier to include a few decorative elements? Not to mentions that these buildings have a habit of being deffective, the corby cubes ceiling, for example started dripping after heavy rains and cost 47 million pounds! for a shiny box that looks straight out of a miserable industrial complex.
​
the streets of any public enviroment belong, morally speaking to the people, and we need more say in what gets built, because development doesn’t happen for us, it happens to us and developers get the profit. We need to build places where people want to linger again, not just buy stuff and then get the hell out. The reason why people object to new developments so often is at least in part lack of quality, would it really harm a developers precious profits so much if they went the extra 3 yards? Im being idealistic i know, but i think everyone deserves to live in an area they’re proud of, but in places all over the country, the majority of the new buildings and those which were built in the last 70 years were obviously not built with that in mind (perhaps with some notable exceptions) sometimes they don’t seem concerned if the building actualy does its job, instead making sure that the pockets of the city council and those of the developers are improperly lined.
by blackbirdinabowler
32 comments
I completely agree, and it seems to be getting worse. Every architects drawing of some new development boils down to “box with plaza”. Zero ornamentation, zero aesthetics, no attempt to blend in with traditional architecture around it. Our cities now resemble a box of Lego tipped out into the floor.
architecture went really utilitarian after ww1 but only became dominant in style after ww2. then got cheapocrappoed by the greedy developers
[built in 1938](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Town_Hall_%2C_Chesterfield_%283659529763%29.jpg)
[built in 1932 .](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9c/f7/e9/9cf7e96aeb3af7a58ed810bc4d802ab6.jpg)
​
architects love some of these buildings but to the public who have no understanding of the history or care about striking architecture, can seem alienating or soulless
​
Kensington Library was built in a neo-Georgian style and completed in 1960. [Students protested it](https://rbkclocalstudies.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/ugly-protest-against-library-by-town-hall.jpg)
​
[This is the ugly building they were protesting it](https://infolass.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/img_0943.jpg). Rather inoffensive compared to many ugly buidlings of the 1960s.
​
Some will say it’s all due to how old the buildings are, but Art Deco seems much more loved than Brutalism, despite being seperated only by a few decades. People like ordered complexity, organic-looking materials, sense of place, etc.
​
My suggestion would be to build stuff like this. [Modern and also traditional at the same time.](https://darkroom.ribaj.com/800/78615267eb0f2b7abe876253952ac010:55c12d875905fb3df1b182140ead75ab)
I’m not saying I don’t agree with you, because I do. The construction industry is in dire need of change in this country (and the world over). But developer’s sole function is to make a profit. That’s what their funders and investors expect. Yes, they can develop while being a force of good for community, but when your client is “Conglomerate ABC” the appetite just isn’t there.
>Victorian architecture is an event, an experience, every single part of the buildings face to the outside world was thought about
Victorian architecture is also prohibitively expensive to recreate. The bricklaying, stonework and ornate detailing costs an incredible amount. It worked back then because the biggest cost was the material. Now labour is no longer cheap, so more efficient, modular façade systems have been developed. Hence why most façades these days are panelised glazing or precast units.
Ultimately, I think the blame lays with the government. They’ve allowed a race to the bottom in the construction industry, where every single corner from safety to quality control has been cut. The only thing that hasn’t been cut is profits, but the developers are all in bed the right politicians so it’s unlikely to change anytime soon.
Reject modernity, embrace traditional architecture
At the moment it is very hard to make development profitable at all. Margins are low and costs very high so there isn’t any money left over for bells and whistles. I’m not talking about the Bovis Homes of the world but for most developers there isn’t the massive profit people think there is.
The construction industry is (and has been for a long time) in a difficult position.
Any economic uncertainty, and people postpone or cancel projects.
They delay moving house. They opt not to have that new extension. Etc.
And it takes a long time for confidence to be restored.
The construction industry is one of the first sectors to suffer from economic downturn, and one of the last to recover.
Hit hard and fast on the downturn, and slow recovery on the up.
Doing anything above and beyond the minimum is asking for cashflow problems and bankruptcy.
This is what the planning system is designed to do, partly. National and Local Planning policies have visual design criteria, and large developments often have their own design codes which are more detailed than the generic policies. But the planning system also (quite rightly) makes developers do a whole shit tonne of other stuff they’d also rather not do, which eats away at their profits and so I guess that high quality design and materials are one of the first things to go.
Also there is statutory public consultation with every single planning application. No it doesn’t give the public much power but I have worked as a planning officer in an area where people are very engaged with the process and have influenced results. And besides, give people too much power in the process and you’re just empowering nimbys and nothing will ever get built.
Oh, and bonus points for the classic “council are corrupt” comment.
I would actually disagree with you.
All mid priced new builds around me are beautiful, and a MASSIVE step up from the new builds of the 90s and early 2000s, in all their mock tudor glory.
You’ve also got to make a decision between cost and appearance. On one hand we want affordable housing, on the other foot we want beautiful housing. You could have the most beautiful buildings in the world if you had an unlimited budget, and you could have a very cheap house made of concrete slabs. There is a sliding scale somwhere in the middle.
There are four million missing homes in this country, creating a massive shortage that means that millions of people are paying huge amounts of rent, millions have given up on the hope of ownership and hundreds of thousands of teenagers are sharing bedrooms with opposite gender siblings or even parents.
I’d like prettier houses too but that barely rates next to the real housing challenge our country faces.
The comfortably housed are often able to successfully object to new housing, on all sorts of grounds. They object tooth and nail to private developments and new social housing alike. Which is one of the reasons it’s so hard to build that much needed new housing.
>”the lack of say in what gets built in our towns and cities”
This is completely wrong. Construction in the UK is relatively expensive in part because there is so much consultation.
https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/education/2023/09/26/the-real-reason-the-uk-is-so-bad-at-infrastructure/
Plus NIMBYism is throttling how much can be built.
The US builds with the idea that the structure will hopefully last 50 years. That’s it. They’re cheaply thrown together and it shows. It sounds like what you have as well.
It ***would*** be nice to have input that is actually considered. In the US, there are sometimes windows of time to provide public comment….but unless you’re constantly monitoring, who would know??!!
Only commenting to say, I used to live near Corby and that fucking cube is horrendous although it does contain a library and theatre. It’s right opposite the swimming pool which could have been Olympic sized if they’d added a few metres and also a fat fucking Primark. About 5 minutes from a less than perfect housing estate (see: Corby kingswood estate) Gotta love Corby. 💀
I can’t stand modern architecture, not the style, but what’s being built right now. Everything is so soulless and ugly, I’ve started browsing for houses over the past year and there really isn’t anything from after the idk 50s maybe that I like, it’s all terrible brown speckled walls or panels, can’t stand it.
if you dont like the way someone else’s building looks, buy it off them, demolish it and build something very pretty. if they were able to get planning permission for that ugly monstrosity then you should have no trouble with doing the same for its replacement.
You cannot be more wrong. People have way too much say in everything, NIMBYism in the UK is simply ridiculous and is the main reason why British infrastructure sucks big time.
Disagree, there are millions of NIMBYs causing problems in this country whenever there are proposals for new, much needed housing.
Still remember after the 2019 election a girl at work saying her and her family changed their minds last minute on Labour and went for Greens instead simply because Labour in our town had proposed building new houses across from where they lived, where there was plenty of land suitable for new housing.
She said it as though it was completely normal to switch voting intentions on that, knowing full well what a mess the Tories had created in the previous 9 years and knowing a vote for the Greens in our town would just end up being a vote for the Tories. Deranged.
Check out what this victorian [sewage pumping station](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossness_Pumping_Station#/media/File:Crossness_Pumping_Station,_Belvedere,_Kent_-_geograph-2280114-by-Christine-Matthews.jpg) looked like.
Unfortunately what you’re saying seems to apply to every aspect of our society (not that things were exactly great for most people in victorian times lol), everything for short term profit, no care for quality, for the people that live here or the future and the country is basically being looted from all angles. Right now the trick with building seems to be to increase the demand as much as possible with immigration and then build masses of sub par cheap blocks of city centre flats that will be knocked down again in 25 years.
you have a say, you have a say at policy stage, you have a say at design stage, you have a say at a local community level with the opportunity to create a local neighbourhood plan, you have a say when you elect local councillors to vote on applications.
Most people dont both and bitch when they get development they dont like, but to say you dont have a say….thats just plain ridiculous.
there is no area of public policy where you have more opportunities to not only have a say, but to actually shape and create policy.
I am in full agreement and have spent time thinking about this issue. If you have a general interest in this topic, I would highly recommend this channel which covers many aspects of design of the built environment. He covers a good range of topics and brings forward ideas that you may have thought but not fully condensed.
https://m.youtube.com/@the_aesthetic_city
Personally, I believe that there are some good example of modern architecture and areas where they are necessary but these are rather the exception than the rule.
A more beautiful development should be much more organic and mirror traditional design. In current architectural circles, ornamentation ( adding detail and making stuff actually look interesting/nice ) is seen as a old fashioned much like in modern art.
In my opinion, architecture should belong more to the beaux arts (things that look traditionally pretty) as greater proportion of people like this as opposed to contemporary minimal design. As architecture is a civic and public art that affects everyone, where people can have choice with galleries and inside their homes.
I understand that money, time and general clunkiness contribute to favouring of contemporary designs but I do think about how pretty the world could have been if we valued the beaux arts in society much more. It does make sad seeing the disjointed urban fabric and poor state of heritage buildings.
Wild take, OP.
NIMBYism (AKA, having as say) is one of the biggest things stunting our country at the moment when it comes to infrastructure projects, whether it’s something big like HS2, or something small like my mate who has been trying to build a house for 3 years without breaking ground yet.
Old buildings are beautiful because of survivorship bias, they tore down all the ugly ones.
I think one issue is that local people have way too much say in blocking developments, so almost everything is blocked, so proper companies who care and want to do great work fail and only the most miserly survive.
If more building was allowed more great buildings would get built and it would be easier to tear down ugly stuff and try again.
An anaemic starved building industry being weak at what it does is not a good reason to starve it further.
They look like every pennies been counted and that they cost as little as possible while still performing the function, but the tragic thing is they often cost the exact same or more than traditional alternatives.
The same can be said for new housing. Forget quality, forget room, forget open space or local amenities. Just a quota of how many individual addresses can we create on a once green belt piece of land. Everything is “economic” in terms of living space or usefulness, there are no parks, play areas for kids, amenities… just more and more houses on rabbit warren estates because they’re what makes some fat cat the big bucks.
All your arguments are based around the fact that you prefer the appearance or victorian buildings over modern ones. This is totally subjective and personal to you.
Who is paying for all the additional ornamentation you would like to see? Who gets to decide what is deemed ‘high quality’ and what isn’t?
Construction projects are expensive and fraught with risk, margins are thin. An architects job is not to be an artist but to deliver to their clients brief.
You come across as knowing very little about how developments are funded, designed and built.
The focus needs to be on delivering safe, modern and energy efficient buildings – this is where the money is being spent.
You are talking utter none sense. Currently the UK had sone of the most extensive consultation processes in the world. It’s a massive drawback and has led to ballooning costs, massively wait times to projects, projects being killed and of course put us into the current housing and infastructure crisis.
We should be reducing planning requirements and consultations as right now it’s utterly strangling development.
And by the way roger scrutin already did the build it beautiful paper.
Nothing you’ve said is original and a bare few minutes of googling would tell you that. Embarrassing.
Am I the only person on this thread who’s literally never walked past a building and thought “Wow, that’s ugly, I want to dedicate thought and effort and hours of my valuable time toward ensuring buildings like that don’t get built again”? It’s not that I _like_ the Southbank Centre per se. I just don’t really give a shit.
This country has a lot of problems, but the _prettiness of its buildings_ wouldn’t even fall in my personal top 100.
Nig3l farage
….Leaving would mean that we would be taking back control. That those we elect as MPs would be the ones who make and decide our laws,…
Seems the problem is choosing who we vote for..
I thought one problem with upgrading your electrical grid is that every council, town and village can veto new pylons on their patch? Everything I read points to amazing levels of local control over deevlopment
I have long been of the conviction that planning should be devolved to the adjacent properties; they have more at stake, and more immediate expertise, than some fellow goodness knows how far away who will hem and haw over planning permission.
In the matter of buildings of a non-residential nature directly facing the street, it may be well that consultation of the local public regarding new developments be enjoined.
I have to agree modern day architecture is dreadful in the uk, it’s all cheap small boxed in rubbish.
It’s weird to see someone argue *in favor* of “not in my backyard” politics
Could you create a petition for people to sign? Start it on here and spread on social media. I’ll sign it.
Isn’t it 100,000 signatures and then it needs to be discussed in parliament?