PDA

View Full Version : Poundbury



ablarc
July 8th, 2003, 04:57 PM
POUNDBURY


http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-000.jpg

The Duchy of Cornwall is noted for its rural beauty. Like most such places, it is threatened by car-based suburban development: parking lots, strip centers, subdivisions, the humdrum stuff familiar to us all. This stuff takes up a lot of room, mostly to store cars; wherever it goes the country vanishes, and with it most significant evidence of where we are. Roadside Florida looks very much like roadside Cornwall, except for the trees in the planter strips.

Consequently, the architecture of the buildings in these places doesn’t matter very much, either; a roadside convenience store in England looks pretty much the same as it does in Massachusetts: interchangeable architecture for interchangeable places. There is no ‘there’ there.

People are beginning to worry about this and many other consequences of suburban development and the zoning that underpins it--consequences as diverse as global warming, obesity, loss of community, ugliness and boredom, loss of farmland, wilderness and urbanity--all more or less referred to as sprawl (not “urban sprawl”, please; that is an oxymoron.). You know that you are in an urban place if where you are does not sprawl.

The Duke of Cornwall, aka Prince Charles, is also concerned about all this. He is doing something about it in developing his bailiwick in Cornwall. Here is his project, the town of Poundbury.

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-001.jpg

Poundbury is the western extension of the ancient town of Dorchester. It grew from the kernel traced by the red line. There is a sharp delineation visible in this map between town and country. Charles intends to keep this abrupt boundary by omitting the suburban sprawl that exiles the countryside to a distance accessible only by car. To accomplish this, he enlisted the great Leon Krier, who drew this plan. The extent of Charles’ contemplated *enlargement of Dorchester is shown by the heavy line. The first phase and core of Poundbury has been built and is shown in red. It covers an area of 35 acres, less than the size of many a mall’s parking lot.

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-002.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-003.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-004.jpg

The center of Poundbury is a covered market surmounted by the municipal meeting hall.

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-007.jpg

Surrounding it are shops, including a pub inaugurated by Charles himself, designated British beer drinker of the year.

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-008.jpg

Peaceful residential enclaves radiate from here.

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-009.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-010.jpg

Streets are narrow and lacking sidewalks. They belong to the people on foot, though cars are permitted.

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-011.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-012.jpg

Where *excessive stretches of straight street occur, obstructionist trees discourage speeding. Cars here circulate at about 6 mph, as they do in similarly-planned Seaside, Florida. Note the garage doors.

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-013.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-014.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-015.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-016.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-017.jpg

Some alleys are too narrow for cars:

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-018.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-019.jpg

Some streets carry enough traffic to spawn sidewalks:

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-020.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-021.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-022.jpg

The market spills onto the Market Square:

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-023.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-024.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-025.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-026.jpg

It even spills across the street and tucks under the terrace of a house. Public and private are never far apart at Poundbury. Buffers? Never heard of them.

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-027.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-028.jpg

Public amenity:

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-029.jpg

Precincts are marked by gateways:

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-030.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-031.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-032.jpg

The public realm is not threatening; no front yards are needed to keep strangers at bay:

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-033.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-034.jpg

Backyards are walled and private.

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-035.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-036.jpg

You can imagine that in Poundbury people know each other; “neighborhood” here is not a realtor’s marketing term.

And the country is still there, 18 inches away:

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-037.jpg

People also work in Poundbury, in factories, some of which require small parking areas for those who live elsewhere:

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-038.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-039.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-040.jpg

They also work in offices:

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-041.jpg

House types vary in style and material, just as in any other real place that developed incrementally. Not everyone wants the same house.

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-042.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-043.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-044.jpg

There are no sideyards, even though most houses are free-standing, as at Williamsburg.

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-046.jpg

Altogether, a livable place, though not perhaps for everybody. Whether or not one chooses to live in such a place, the government has no business making it illegal through zoning.

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-047.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-048.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-049.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-050.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-059.jpg

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-060.jpg

The developer:

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-061.jpg

The consequently undeveloped:

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-063.jpg

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/news/poundburypub.html

http://www.princes-foundation.org/foundation/projdir-uep-poundbury.html

http://www.inro.tno.nl/transland/cases_nonprio/POUNDBURY.PDF



(Edited by ablarc at 5:09 pm on July 8, 2003)


(Edited by ablarc at 5:10 pm on July 8, 2003)


(Edited by ablarc at 5:24 pm on July 8, 2003)

NYatKNIGHT
July 9th, 2003, 05:34 PM
So this is that that Prince Charles project, I saw a blurb on cable....This sort of town planning is all the latest buzz among planners. Close knit, community oriented, close to downtown, all surrounded by vast open spaces. Are these your pictures ablarc? Nice shots. It looks a little like a movie set or some too-clean Disney lot, you know, not real. It's hard to imagine what it's like there, what kind of sense of community is there? It will be interesting to see how this community grows over the years, time will tell how successful it is.

Very nice job putting this together, thanks for sharing.

ablarc
July 10th, 2003, 09:52 PM
In some places reality is clean. Have you been to Seaside, Florida? You may have seen it in The Truman Show with Jim Carey.

Photos are by a Norwegian enthusiast.

MidnightRambler
July 27th, 2003, 04:52 AM
It may not be great, but in the age of corporations, it's a lot better than this...

http://www.emagazine.com/images/0502curr_sprawl.jpg

Freedom Tower
July 30th, 2003, 04:35 PM
Wow, that looks really authentic. What kind of look would that be considered? European? Whatever it is... it looks good to me

ablarc
November 11th, 2004, 04:22 PM
America’s best architecture critic weighs in…


Getting it right (maybe a little too right) in well-behaved England

Critique

By Robert Campbell, FAIA

Think of this column as a letter to a friend about a recent trip to England.

I was tagging along with the Seaside Pienza Institute, which is an informal gang of mostly American architects, educators, and developers all of whom subscribe, more or less, to the principles of the so-called New Urbanism. They agree, at least, that they prefer walkable towns to car-culture sprawl.

Sprawl is something you certainly don't see much of in rural England. It's amazing to an American: no roadside Dairy Queens, motels, billboards, used- car dealerships, suburban malls, or scattered single-family houses. Beautiful as it is, it's possible to get bored. The endless green countryside, unviolated by trade or commerce, bespeaks the heavy hand of a ruling bureaucracy, as it once spoke of a ruling aristocracy. Where, you ask yourself, is the insurgent who breaks the rules? Where is the bubbling up of private initiative that makes life irrational and interesting? Can I buy some fireworks, please?

They don't let sprawl happen. We talked to several government officials who told us there is a greenbelt around every city, town, and village. You can't develop anything in that belt unless you can prove to government planners that (a) there's a need and (b) there's no capacity for growth on existing sites inside the town limits. The "thrill of walking from the town into the country," as one speaker put it, is preserved by government fiat.

I'm certainly in favor of a sharp line between town and country. But with this same group, I toured Tuscany last year. There we discovered that the equally bucolic Italian farm landscape is uneconomic and survives only because it's considered historic and is subsidized by the European Union [RECORD, October 2003, page 67]. England has similar problems, its agriculture now threatened by cheaper overseas imports. One group is addressing that problem with the pleasingly named "Eat the View" initiative, trying to get town dwellers to buy fresh produce grown in the immediate scenic surroundings.

Logical there; heretical in U.S.

Planning happens on a big scale, too. We learned that the government has identified four national corridors where growth will be encouraged. The major one lies along the new rail link to mainland Europe. It's a proposal as logical there as it would be heretical in the U.S.

We visited Poundbury, the new town sponsored by the Prince of Wales and planned by New Urbanist guru Leon Krier, who met us there. He said architects should imitate rather than invent, and noted that "nobody has proposed an anticlassical Chianti." He also said, in a sentence worth thinking about, that "architecture should be divorced from art history."

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/poundbury/333.jpg
Sponsored by Prince Charles, Poundbury follows New Urbanist planning rules.

Poundbury obeys the principles of Jane Jacobs and the New Urbanism. It's mixed-use and dense. The houses don't float on wasteful green lawns; they butt up against one another in traditional rows. Streets wander around as unpredictably as in a medieval village, in a way that's maybe too self-consciously picturesque. Parks are banished to the perimenter, so that the town itself can remain compact and walkable. Cars are tucked semi-visibly in parking courts. It's a real town, not just a bedroom burb, with commerce and light manufacturing.

I have to admit I was amused to learn that although Poundbury is only one-fifth built, the serpent of Nimbyism has already raised its hissing head. A group has been formed that calls itself PROD: Poundbury Residents Opposed to Density. At the time of our visit, PROD had just succeeded in getting planning authorities to deny permission for a modest new apartment building. These are guys who chose to live in a traditionally dense, compact settlement, and who paid a premium to do so (Poundbury has been a marketing success). They then turn around to protest the very qualities that, presumably, attracted them in the first place. Although I think PROD is selfish and absurd, it's somehow reassuring to know that contrariness can still flourish in a model community. Krier, as usual, gets it right. When you do a new development, he says, "You must build the noxious uses first or the residents will prevent them." They love to talk about architecture in England. George Ferguson, the current president of the Royal Institute of British Architects, has proposed an X rating for works of architecture. He hasn't explained the details, but the idea is that really terrible buildings would be given the X in the hope that, labeled with such a stigma, they might be demolished. Perhaps the government could subsidize the demolition, or perhaps it could refuse needed permissions or benefits. One delights in imagining the star-chamber gathering of taste police who would meet to award the X listing. Alas, it probably won't happen.

The hottest argument at the moment is over a government policy that says, or seems to say—the wording is the usual bureaucratic fog—that traditional styles of architecture are now banned in the British countryside. The law formerly banned any large new house in open countryside, since the government policy, as noted above, is to keep development in towns. But it was modified—with backstage pressure, everyone thinks but can't prove, from Norman Foster— to permit houses that are "truly outstanding and groundbreaking" and reflect "the highest standards in contemporary architecture."

Architects who practice in traditional modes believe this is a deliberate prohibition of historic styles, and they're up in arms, as are Americans like Andres Duany. A member of Prince Charles's staff suggested to me that if you were to ban architecture that imitates the architecture of some previous era, you'd have to demolish half of London. Gothic Revival? Palladian? Even a landmark like Tower Bridge is merely thick clothes of traditional stone over a modern steel frame.

Speaking of Foster, his office courteously arranged a private tour of the master's new office tower in the financial district of London, the so-called Gherkin. (Taciturn Americans lack the gift for nick- names that come so easily in the
more verbal culture of the Brits.) A gherkin is a pickled cucumber, and Foster's tower does indeed look like a pickle or a fat cigar standing on end [RECORD, May 2004, page 2181. I loved and hated it. From an urban point of view, it's remarkably unsocial. It wraps itself haughtily in its glass cloak, like an operatic diva, ignoring everything around it. The architecture tells you this is a generic building that could be sited anywhere. It offers nothing to the life of the street. The ground floor, which is tiny, as befits the end of a gherkin, contains only an elevator lobby.
A vertical cul-de-sac

Upstairs, though, if you're privileged to go there (the whole building is occupied by a single Swiss insurance company), the place is remarkable. Glass atriums spiral up the exterior, offering fresh air to every occupant. At the top are a restaurant and bar with spectacular views over the city, at least until the next tower blocks them. In a talk at Poundbury, the ever-quotable Krier fulminated about skyscrapers. They are, he said, "network disrupters" and "catastrophic social isolators." A skyscraper is a "vertical cul-de-sac" - cul-de-sac being, probably, the most vicious insult a New Urbanist can utter.

And indeed, the Gherkin functions more like an elitist club than a connected piece of the city. But it's an elegant work of architecture. Four days after my visit, when the Gherkin opened briefly to the public, the queue went around the block. Television crews were present to record the event. It's hard to imagine that kind of interest in a work of commercial architecture in the U.S.

Incidentally, architectural techies should check out the window-washing system at the Gherkin. Cleaning a building of this shape is a challenge, to say the least. Foster and consultants had to invent an elaborate crane and boom that climbs around the exterior like a giant spider. Let's hope it works. As every architect knows, in architecture you don't get to build, test, and improve a prototype before going on to the production model. You have to get it right the first time.


--Architectural Record

Bob
November 11th, 2004, 05:10 PM
Very nice architecture. Unique... a Portmerion II. How appropriate, that it's championed by #2!

thomasjfletcher
November 11th, 2004, 05:23 PM
Looks grim.

ablarc
January 8th, 2005, 11:25 AM
Looks grim.

What's grim about it?

.

Mikewill53
January 8th, 2005, 01:29 PM
Nice pictures, does look like the worlds most boring place though

thomasjfletcher
January 10th, 2005, 09:15 AM
I agree. I think spatially it's close and mean. The houses are cramped. The streetscape is dull. It looks like a completely forgettable market town. They could have taken more from European precedents.
There is one reference to European design though---
that gate.

http://www.ablarchitecture.com/images/tom/poundbury/poundbury-031.jpg

http://members.aol.com/thovrn/auschwitz/gate.jpeg

ZippyTheChimp
January 10th, 2005, 10:41 AM
^
Whoa!
That was a bit harsh.

thomasjfletcher
January 10th, 2005, 10:46 AM
Quite right and I apologise for my flippancy.
I actually shouldn't comment on Poundbury for as an Australian I have (for some unknown bizarre reason) a hatred for the British built environment. So I will withdraw...

ablarc
June 19th, 2009, 10:20 AM
Old vs. new

Designing Britain: Is Charles in charge?

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/charles/charles.jpg

Britain's leading architect cries constitutional crisis as the Prince quashes his plans for a modern neighbourhood

By Doug Saunders

London — From Wednesday's Globe and Mail, Thursday, Jun. 18, 2009 03:44AM EDT

Lord Richard Rogers is the architect who brightened Europe's cities with such landmarks as the Lloyd's Building and the Millennium Dome in London, the Pompidou Centre in Paris and the new Madrid airport terminal. Until this week, he was to design London's newest and greenest housing project.

Prince Charles is the son of Britain's head of state. He is a sworn enemy of contemporary architecture, the head and founder of an architectural organization and a man known for sending long, handwritten letters to cabinet ministers and fellow monarchs in order to get his way.

When this unstoppable force of architecture and urban planning collided with this immovable face of hereditary rule this week, something resembling a constitutional crisis exploded over London.

It was revealed Tuesday that Lord Rogers, who has spent 21/2-years designing a $6-billion neighbourhood of condominiums and affordable-housing apartments on the site of the Chelsea Barracks in West London, had been booted off the project after the Prince lobbied Sheik Hamad bin Jaber Jassim al-Thani, the project's financier and a member of the Qatari royal family.

The Prince, furthermore, has suggested that his housing organization and his favoured architect design the project themselves in the conservative, neo-Georgian style he has had built all over Britain, described as “dreary” and “kitschy” by architecture critics.
This has provoked Lord Rogers to level charges that the Prince has overstepped his constitutional bounds by meddling in political affairs.

“I think there is a dangerous precedent which the Prince has entered into,” he said Tuesday. “In my opinion, anyone who uses his power due to birth breaks a constitutional understanding and a trust we have within our society about the role of people who received power in that manner.”

He called for a parliamentary inquiry into the Prince's use of his hereditary powers to impose his tastes – and, increasingly often, his own financially successful organizations – on the public projects of Britain.

It is not an idle threat from an architect who is highly respected at the top levels of government. Lord Rogers was appointed to oversee design for the 2012 London Olympic Games, and was chairman in the 1990s of Prime Minister Tony Blair's urban taskforce, which replaced the country's ugly public-housing projects with more neighbourly, humane and ecological structures.

Politicians have become increasingly worried about Prince Charles's attempts to influence legislation on subjects as diverse as agriculture policy, vaccination and medical policy in recent years; many complain privately about “black spider” lobbying letters they receive from the prince, in his characteristic looping handwriting.

Former housing minister Nick Raynsford was one of several politicians to issue direct threats Tuesday to the monarchy.

“It is not sensible in the long-term interests of the monarchy for members of the Royal Family to be engaged in an almost feudal way in discussions with members of royal families overseas about outcomes that should be determined by the normal democratic process,” the MP said in a statement.

It is the height of a 25-year battle between the Prince and the architect, one that has reshaped the appearance of Britain's cities and towns.

It was almost exactly 25 years ago, in 1983, that a much younger Prince of Wales surprised his country by giving a blistering speech that denounced the architecture of the time. He focused on a planned extension to London's National Gallery, calling it a “carbuncle” and calling for a neoclassical design.

The designer of that extension was Richard Rogers. As a result of the Prince's plan, it too was scrapped at the 11th hour, the first of at least four of his designs to be scuppered by the Prince.

In the 1980s, modern architecture was unpopular among Britons, after cheap housing projects in the postwar years and windowless poured-concrete styles led to a profusion of bland, crumbling cubes.

So the Prince's original speech proved popular with the politicians of the day, and inspired a following. His organization, the Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment, was hired to design houses, neighbourhoods and entire towns in traditional styles.

But by the 1990s, the mood had changed. With more money spent on buildings and the world's leading architectural minds flooding into London, the country's urban skylines began to fill with exciting new buildings and the public fell in love with such structures as Norman Foster's Gherkin, Birmingham's Selfridge's building and Newcastle's dramatic Quayside development.

In that atmosphere, the Prince's proclamations began sounding anachronistic and bizarre, as he lashed out against increasingly popular and well-liked designs.

His views also seemed to present a conflict of interest. While the Prince's foundations, including his architecture foundation, are officially non-profit or charitable, they pay high salaries, including a total of $32-million to the Prince himself last year, up from $24-million in 2005.

After the Prince succeeded in killing the project this weekend, Lord Rogers reacted with fury.

“Are we going to have royalty dictating to us on modern art? Are we going to have royalty dictating our taste in music? Are we going to have royalty dictating their taste in medicine, modern or not,” he said Tuesday, in a veiled reference to the prince's political advocacy of homeopathic cures.

“No, they're not experts in those fields, but more important still it's not constitutional for them to enter into fields which are political, where they're protected and we're not protected.”

Fabrizio
June 19th, 2009, 11:02 AM
I love those shots of Poundbury. Well tailored ...and beautifully bleak.

(globalism is a bore)

ablarc
June 19th, 2009, 01:06 PM
(globalism is a bore)
Where's the globalism?

Fabrizio
June 19th, 2009, 01:13 PM
^That was not a comment on Poundbury but on so much else we have today: polyglot. Nice to see developments like this that are so tied to the place. This looks different than the developments you posted from Italy and France in that the materials and building methods look 100% genuine. I mentioned before that these type of developments aren't much accepted in Italy but I think when it's done on this level it's great to see.

--

Jasonik
June 19th, 2009, 04:46 PM
Thought provoking writing on "Artistic Sovereignty" here (http://www.e-flux.com/journal/view/70).

...such critiques pitted the jury against a purportedly uniform culture of aesthetic judgment that was both government-sponsored and nationalist in its orientation.

Alonzo-ny
June 19th, 2009, 07:24 PM
I think in terms or urban planning Poundbury is great but the buildings can afford to be modern they dont all have to be traditional. You can have traditional forms with modern design.

A traditional form, modern design by Reiach and Hall:

http://www.museumsgalleriesscotland.org.uk/site/uploads/news/a866849d51e6359042a4c79c2300dad6.JPG

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/o/q/n/pierartscentre04H_c_IoanaMarinescuWeb1.jpg

ablarc
June 20th, 2009, 08:20 AM
HARRY PHIBBS: Lord Rogers is as mad as a hornet - Prince Charles is right to speak out against his barracks project

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/charles/rogers.jpg
Chelsea Barracks project by Lord Richard Rogers.

17th June 2009

From The Daily Mail

One of the remarkable features of the Prince of Wales has been his willingness to defend ordinary people against establishment special interests.

There are plenty of examples of this, but the outstanding one has been his challenge to the modernist consensus in architecture. His critique has not been a passing fad. Nor has it been a residual grumble.

In 1984 he faced the enemy. He stood before the Royal Institute of British Architects and told them the proposed National Gallery extension was 'a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend.'

A quarter of a century later Prince Charles had a victory last week with developers withdrawing a brutalist design for the Chelsea Barracks site after he had described it as 'unsuitable'.

The architect responsible for it, Lord Rogers, is as mad as a hornet. He huffs that the Prince has set 'a dangerous precedent' and broken the 'constitutional understanding' governing the role of the monarchy.

This is nonsense. The constitutional convention is that the Prince avoids party politics but while architecture is an important and controversial subject, it is certainly not party political.

With breathtaking audacity Rogers continued: 'The Prince is not willing to debate. If the Prince does not debate there must be a question over why he can participate in political situations.'

A debate is the last thing the modernist architects want. They want the Prince of Wales - and the rest of us - to shut up and defer to their 'expertise'.

It is not just Lord Rogers. His fellows in the architectural establishment have rallied round with a letter to The Guardian demanding silence from Prince Charles.

But as Kit Malthouse, a member of the London Assembly and leading critic of the Chelsea Barracks plans, responded: 'This is a standard tactic deployed by that elite club when the public doesn't like their work.

'Their other tactic is to gather together and award each other prizes. In their letter those self-proclaimed luminaries state that the planning system is "open and democratic"

'It is nothing of the sort. Negotiations between developers and planning officers take place behind closed doors, the public has little formal say, and the final arbiter in all cases is a man in a suit from the planning inspectorate in Bristol, who may not even visit the site before deciding its future.

'For the poor old local councillor, planning has become a high-stakes game of poker where councils are forced to compromise over mediocre architecture for fear of getting something worse.'

For the Prince of Wales, this hasn't just been about impotent grumbling in the manner of Victor Meldrew. He has sought to show the positive alternative.

Just as with food we have had the Grocer Prince and his Duchy Originals organic range, so with architecture we have the Builder Prince and the success story of Poundbury which shows that new classical architecture is viable.

But while Poundbury may be the best known example there are others. The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment has been established to provide an alternative source of expertise to the brutalism of the modernist school.

If anything, the Royal Family has been too soft on the modernist architectural mafia allowing them a closed shop on honours. Hence we have Lord Rogers and Lord Foster while Quinlan Terry, a 72-year-old neo-classical architect whose array of commissions have brought immense public approval remains Mister.

The greatest hypocrisy is that the modernist architects refuse to live in the hideous constructions they arrogantly pronounce are good enough for the rest of us.
Earlier this year HRH adressed RIBA again.

He said: 'The other day an architect friend of mine asked: "How many Pritzker prizewinners are not living in beautiful classical homes?" and we all know what he was getting at.

'Surely architects flock in such numbers to live in these lovely old houses - many from the 18th century, often in the last remaining conservation areas of our towns and cities that haven't yet been destroyed - because, deep down, they do respond to the natural patterns and rhythms I have been talking about.'

He makes the point with customary gentleness. I put it more strongly.

If Lord Rogers expects the rest of us to take him seriously, let him move out of his Georgian house and stop trying to suppress his foremost critic.

Troyeth
June 20th, 2009, 01:32 PM
A traditional form, modern design by Reiach and Hall

This modern, prefabricated residence is only a caricature of the handsome, ancient, hand-crafted buildings adjacent to it.

The particular building you have introduced into discussion is certainly a quality piece of modern architecture, but without human-handcrafted decorative work it can only be reminiscent of the gable fronted form of the antique structures; nothing more, nothing deeper.

While it is better than no effort, I cannot understand claims that this type of design is a superior replacement to classical or revived vernacular traditions, or why a mixture is necessary.

Poundbury is as emblematic of our times as any architectural mixture.

ablarc
June 20th, 2009, 02:00 PM
I cannot understand claims that this type of design is a superior replacement to classical or revived vernacular traditions, or why a mixture is necessary.
It's Zeitgeist theory. You can't escape it for a minute if you're in architecture school. You get it drummed into your head by the profs.


Poundbury is as emblematic of our times as any architectural mixture.
Yes it is. In fact, anything that is built is emblematic of its times. By definition.

And it's invariably recognized as such in hindsight by historians; their job is to describe what happened rather than prognosticate about the future ... or cluck about the morality of choices in the present.

ablarc
June 20th, 2009, 04:40 PM
This modern, prefabricated residence is only a caricature of the handsome, ancient, hand-crafted buildings adjacent to it.

The particular building you have introduced into discussion is certainly a quality piece of modern architecture, but without human-handcrafted decorative work it can only be reminiscent of the gable fronted form of the antique structures; nothing more, nothing deeper.

While it is better than no effort, I cannot understand claims that this type of design is a superior replacement to classical or revived vernacular traditions, or why a mixture is necessary.

Poundbury is as emblematic of our times as any architectural mixture.

Materials and workmanship at Poundbury:

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/poundbury/0010.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/poundbury/0020.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/poundbury/0030.jpg
Gothick.

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/poundbury/0040.jpg
Market Building/Town Hall by Mr. (not Lord!) John Simpson.

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/poundbury/0050.jpg
Where the market stalls are set up.

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/poundbury/0060.jpg
The Meeting Room above the market (wheelchair accessible).

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/poundbury/0070.jpg
A building with a lot of presence. Prehistoric?

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/poundbury/0080.jpg
The new fire station.

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/poundbury/0090.jpg

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 21st, 2009, 08:41 AM
What's grim about it?

.

The fact that in England, if you arent in London, you arent anywhere (in most Londoner's minds). These areas are losing their youth to the London lights and the whole country is in a London or Broke frenzy.

Its like the Londoners I talk to who say "OI dont TORK TOW POIPLE from the North"

ablarc
June 21st, 2009, 09:51 AM
It looks a little like a movie set or some too-clean Disney lot, you know, not real. It's hard to imagine what it's like there, what kind of sense of community is there? It will be interesting to see how this community grows over the years, time will tell how successful it is.


I love those shots of Poundbury. Well tailored ...and beautifully bleak.
As an antidote to all those Sunday morning photos, here is Poundbury with its usual complement of cars…

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/poundbury/700.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/poundbury/701.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/poundbury/702.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/poundbury/703.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/poundbury/704.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/poundbury/705.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/poundbury/706.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/poundbury/707.jpg

ZippyTheChimp
June 21st, 2009, 09:55 AM
HA HA.

I was just about to ask if there were any "settled" views.

Fabrizio
June 21st, 2009, 04:47 PM
Cars vs. no cars:

It's a tough issue: Access to all cars? Restricted access, only to residents? Vast parking lots on the outside of town?

I don't drive and prefer no cars at all, but even restricted access does have negative effects as well as the positive: businesses and shops can suffer, it might be harder to attract workers from outside of town etc.

Sometimes a mix with a car free area (like a center square with some surrounding streets) combined with unrestricted access in other areas can work best.

In the photos above, I like the way the cars are parked half way on the sidewalk. Gives the place a Mediterranean flair...

--

ablarc
June 21st, 2009, 06:16 PM
^ Yeah, but you know it's not even really a sidewalk; there's no curb.

People walk in the middle of the street. You find the same condition at Seaside and many places in Europe.

Ebryan
June 24th, 2009, 05:03 PM
This modern, prefabricated residence is only a caricature of the handsome, ancient, hand-crafted buildings adjacent to it.

The particular building you have introduced into discussion is certainly a quality piece of modern architecture, but without human-handcrafted decorative work it can only be reminiscent of the gable fronted form of the antique structures; nothing more, nothing deeper.

While it is better than no effort, I cannot understand claims that this type of design is a superior replacement to classical or revived vernacular traditions, or why a mixture is necessary.



Seaside does it better, or the best perhaps. Modern interpretations on classical forms that may in fact actually be superior replacements to their vernacular traditions. It proves that it is not impossible.

Troyeth
June 26th, 2009, 12:55 AM
I am a fan of Seaside for reaffirming the popularity of attractive urban spaces in a sprawling United States, and admire the high quality of its modern design and layout.

However, it was used as the set for the Truman Show. What does that suggest about its architecture and construction?

Certainly no Quinlan & Francis Terry structure could ever used as a set for such a film.

Ebryan
June 26th, 2009, 09:46 AM
Had the Truman Show been set in 18th Century England a Quinlan & Francis Terry structure would certainly qualify.

ablarc
June 28th, 2009, 12:19 PM
Nice to see developments like this that are so tied to the place. This looks different than the developments you posted from Italy and France in that the materials and building methods look 100% genuine. I mentioned before that these type of developments aren't much accepted in Italy but I think when it's done on this level it's great to see.


I cannot understand claims that ... a mixture is necessary.

Poundbury is as emblematic of our times as any architectural mixture.


I am a fan of Seaside for reaffirming the popularity of attractive urban spaces in a sprawling United States, and admire the high quality of its modern design and layout.

However, it was used as the set for the Truman Show. What does that suggest about its architecture and construction?

Certainly no Quinlan & Francis Terry structure could ever used as a set for such a film.


Had the Truman Show been set in 18th Century England a Quinlan & Francis Terry structure would certainly qualify.

Quinlan and FrancisTerry commercial building in downtown Williamsburg, 2003:

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/quinlanterry/01.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/quinlanterry/02.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/quinlanterry/03.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/quinlanterry/04.jpg

Quinlan Terry commercial building in Cambridge, England, 1989:

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/quinlanterry/05.jpg

.

Ebryan
June 29th, 2009, 02:33 PM
The Palladian building you've pictured at Colonial Williamsburg is one handsome structure.

ablarc
June 29th, 2009, 04:22 PM
It is, but which one are you referring to? They're all three Palladian, arren't they?

You could say --if you were arch-- that Palladio was the greatest English architect.

scumonkey
June 29th, 2009, 04:48 PM
Nice- but compare to the real thing...Those bottom windows don't look right?
More like something that Robert Stern would use
Benefit St. Prov. R.I. One mile of original historic colonial buildings
http://www.providence.edu/mcs/tat/images/benefit.jpg

Alonzo-ny
June 29th, 2009, 04:57 PM
Im a huge fan of US colonial architecture. More from an urban planning viewpoint than individual buildings. I love the way there is no pavement in front of these buildings. The outdoor realm is on one level and comes right up to your door.

http://www.bandbwilliamsburg.com/images/colonialwilliamsburg.jpg

http://user.pix.epodunk.com/VA/Knockoutsmiley_4516.jpg

ablarc
June 30th, 2009, 09:08 AM
Nice- but compare to the real thing...Those bottom windows don't look right?
Those are shop windows at the ground floor of the Terry building.

The Providence examples are residential.

Different function, different form.

Ebryan
June 30th, 2009, 09:51 AM
It is, but which one are you referring to? They're all three Palladian, arren't they?

You could say --if you were arch-- that Palladio was the greatest English architect.

You are right , they are. I was referring to the far right structure w/ sandstone. Upon closer look though, the building with the real stage presence here is the brick corner building with the chimneys. Or maybe it is that they are equal in beauty and proportion. Hats off to the architects.

scumonkey
June 30th, 2009, 12:39 PM
Well these are shops- period originals (also from Providence)
and the windows still don't look like those.
http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/090413-providence-hmed-11a.hmedium.jpg

ablarc
June 30th, 2009, 01:56 PM
Well these are shops- period originals (also from Providence)
and the windows still don't look like those.
OK, so your point is that things should look exactly as they did one time in Providence?

I share your love of authenticity, but authenticity comes in many flavors.

scumonkey
June 30th, 2009, 02:20 PM
OK, so your point is that things should look exactly as they did one time in Providence?No, My point is- for the type of building they built (Looks residential- whether it supposed to be or not), the windows they used don't look right.
I have lived in Prov., Boston, and Philli- NEVER seen those types of windows , on that type of structure. It looks "fine" just not "authentic".

Jasonik
June 30th, 2009, 02:56 PM
One needn't go all the way back to the colonial era to find examples of honest humane urban architecture.

This is Portland Maine:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/Jasonik/DSC00843.jpg

Belfast Maine:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/Jasonik/DSC00846.jpg

Ebryan
June 30th, 2009, 03:24 PM
No, My point is- for the type of building they built (Looks residential- whether it supposed to be or not), the windows they used don't look right.
I have lived in Prov., Boston, and Philli- NEVER seen those types of windows , on that type of structure. It looks "fine" just not "authentic".

I've seen plenty of weatherboard structures with similar looking windows.

http://3547.voxcdn.com/photos/0/8/39758_l.jpg
Rockport, MA

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/16/a4/81/marblehead.jpg
Marblehead, MA

scumonkey
June 30th, 2009, 04:47 PM
I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it (the building looks fine) but...
And being a weatherboard (clapboard) structure has nothing to do with it, (no windows quite like it in any of your photos either).
MY problem with that one particular structure is:
It's in Williamsburg Va.- which is supposed to be known
for it's historical accuracy. The building shown looks extremely accurate (if it were to be residential).
That's why I posted the photo of a real colonial residential. They are almost indistinguishable-
except for those two bottom windows-and the way the wall is built out underneath them.
I've never seen one on the other.
Anywhere else,I never would have even brought it up-It looks more like some kind of marriage -To me.
rather a romanticized (Hollywood set)version instead of a truly accurate reproduction-
which is what Williamsburg is supposedly all about.;)

Jasonik- Nice Pics- I truly love the first one of the red brick in Maine- beautiful!

Jasonik
June 30th, 2009, 06:31 PM
http://66.230.220.70/images/post/quinlanterry/03.jpg

scumonkey, I thought you were disputing the number of lites per sash, hence the info below, but this last post clarifies you mean the projecting bays which I've not seen on other colonial architecture either (with brick foundations?! :rolleyes:).

The standard window sash was typically different depending on the region, with Providence obviously being twelve-over-twelve, and Williamsburg apparently six-over-six or six-over-nine.

Usually, the older the structure, the smaller the lites, but in terms of availability in colonial America, strictly speaking, cost was the limiting factor with 18x24, 20x28, and even larger available to the extravagant spender. Thrifty (and presumably virtuous) New England Puritans could choose from 4x5, 5x7, 6x8, 7x9, 10x12, and 12x14 as well as the larger sizes previously mentioned. The premium demanded by Virginian tobacco probably allowed the transatlantic return trip to be stocked with larger more expensive glass (as well as being free from the prudish and judgmental busy-body Yankees).

For the longest time, windows were sized by the glass size and the number of lites with finished sash dimensions depending on the local or regional millwork profiles for muntons and sash rails. This system became mostly standardized in the Victorian era to 3 regional styles (http://books.google.com/books?id=PGGPbEACpGUC&pg=PA59&dq=historic+window+layout+table&client=safari).

scumonkey
June 30th, 2009, 07:29 PM
you mean the projecting bays
Exactly!
I really do need to learn to communicate better without my
hands, or the use of sketches! :)

Luca
July 1st, 2009, 07:55 AM
One needn't go all the way back to the colonial era to find examples of honest humane urban architecture.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/Jasonik/DSC00843.jpg


I could not agree more. To me the building shown above is VERY tough to beat. It's flexible in potential use. Human-scale yet not twee or tiny. Solid. Affordable. With a few basic variations in trim, you could ahve wqhoels treets of buildigns like these and not get tired of them. So the rhetorical question arises again: why is it practically impossible to build like this without the self-serving c#@&s in the arch establishment telling me I need something like this instead

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ZwqMDORuWAg/SktOX2MKmZI/AAAAAAAAAkc/GlcNXAobgHw/hammersmith1.jpg

Jasonik
July 1st, 2009, 09:41 AM
It actually just struck me how absurd these six-over-nine windows are. With an arched brick header there can be no pocket in which to stow the lower sash -- completely defeating the purpose!

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/quinlanterry/02.jpg

Contrast the above with an example (http://www.flickr.com/photos/costi-londra/1205077444/in/pool-english_windows) from early 18th century London.

*edit* Though it can be done (http://www.flickr.com/photos/costi-londra/630835152/in/pool-english_windows) with the help of a stone band course, so I may have been too hasty with my judgement, and concede that possibly the (faux C-bonded) arch header and above are one brick thick to the cornice. (Maybe there are detail sections available somewhere.)

ablarc
July 1st, 2009, 10:28 AM
Jasonik, I appreciate your refined and informed commentaries. I have no doubt that if he were a reader of Wired New York, so would Quinlan Terry.

You're talking about architecture, and so is he.

Jasonik
July 1st, 2009, 12:06 PM
Thanks ablarc, but scumonkey wins the prize for a good eye.

From an excellent and informative article (http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Autumn03/merchant.cfm) with a few images of planning and design dwgs and construction:

Next door to the north is a much smaller five-bay wooden building. It might be easily mistaken for an 1800 house in almost any Virginia town, except that Terry employed faceted window bays, an English vernacular technique for increasing light and visibility without recourse to traditional shop windows. The two sources combine seamlessly.

The inspiration for the brick structure was the kitchen (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://image09.webshots.com/9/2/42/11/122024211qAdpwp_fs.jpg&imgrefurl=http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1122024211045988911qAdpwp&usg=__M4erIz5U3FH3GA0OWei7zwIcvb8=&h=1536&w=2048&sz=584&hl=en&start=11&um=1&tbnid=XPuy3lH3rmoQqM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3DShirley%2Bplantation%2Bkitchen%26hl%3 Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DG%26um%3D1 ) and outbuildings from Shirley Plantation (http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/virginia/charlescity/shirley/shirley2.html).

The third building, at the northwest corner, is more emphatically English, though it, too, has connections with the Chesapeake region. It resembles a substantial two-story brick house with sizable shop windows facing west and north. The long walls are framed by tall brick pilasters at the corners, rising to carry a cornice that, on the street side, is beautifully made of the specially molded and cut brick that Raymond Cannetti lays with knife-blade joints. A recessed niche constructed of the same material punctuates the middle of the wall and breaks through the cornice.
So the orangey bricks are specially molded or gauged (http://www.brickmaster.co.uk/Gauged%20Brickwork.htm)... the arched heads could be any thickness specified. :cool:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/Jasonik/QuinlanWindow.jpg

Though judging from the inset of the windows full thickness would work.

http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Summer04/images/bldg_weatherboard.jpg

Six-over-nine windows on the East alley side of the building use stone heads.

http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Summer04/images/bldg_southeast.jpg

http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Autumn03/images/merch_college5.jpg...http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Autumn03/images/merch_College_Corner.jpg

More excellent photos here. (http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Summer04/arch.cfm)

Luca
July 2nd, 2009, 01:05 PM
They might be single-hung, anyhow.

Having lived for 10 years with sash windwos now, I can tell you that the extra maintenance, etc. relative to properly framed casement windows is a bit fo a pain in the ass. I like them for sentimental/historical reasons but.. jeez.

195Broadway
July 2nd, 2009, 03:13 PM
Back to Poundbury for a bit, ( I recently looked at this thread for the first time) are the interiors of the homes as interesting as the exteriors?