If Poundbury is a game, it is one that has become a good deal more convincing over time. For years derided as a feudal Disneyland, where Prince Charles could play at being planner like Marie Antoinette with her toy hamlet in Versailles, this supposed ghost town feels increasingly like a real place...[Strip] away the fancy dress and you find a plan that far exceeds the sophistication achieved by any modern housebuilder. — Olly Wainwright | the Guardian
“We are engaged in creating a convincing fake,” [Ben Pentreath, an architect who has worked in Poundbury] says. “All architecture is essentially wallpaper: underneath, it’s all the same stuff.”
More New Urbanism:
104 Comments
"All architecture is essentially wallpaper: underneath, it’s all the same stuff."
Um, no. I fundamentally disagree.
The quote Donna disagrees with is incorrectly attributed to Krier here in Archinect. The linked article in The Guardian clearly attributes it to architect Ben Pentreath ...
"Krier professes truth to materials, but Pentreath is frank. 'We are engaged in creating a convincing fake,' he says. 'All architecture is essentially wallpaper: underneath, it’s all the same stuff.'"
Thanks for the note Everyday. Corrected.
I totally disagree Donna. Although I don't agree w/ Ben Pentreath either.
Do you think that successful classical, modern, post-modern or contemporary spaces succeed because they are styled in their respective manners, or because they have qualities that make the spaces harmonize with our innate aesthetic disposition to proportion, rhythm, perspective, voyeurism, and shiny? I tend towards the latter.
How architecture achieves that is not a function of but could be influenced by style i suppose.
"All architecture is essentially wallpaper" is plausible if you also think of brain surgery as essentially tweaking wires on a motherboard!
I often think architecture is much more similar to cosmetic surgery! You prep the patient, nip/tuck here, lift there, apply chemicals and hey presto you're in a different time! :)
That's a really myopic and unfortunate quote by Pentreath, in my opinion. What he says is literally true from a building structures point of view. These buildings at Poundbury are built of the same kind of stuff that most modernist architecture are. But the philosophical differences are enormous, and those are the differences that really count.
I'm kind of stunned that a fellow like Pentreath considers what he is doing to be a "convincing fake". I guarantee you Krier doesn't look at it that way. Krier doesn't care one bit whether a visitor thinks Poundbury was built in 1730 or today. He's not the least interested in faking anything. The point for him is in the power of the planning principles and the language of the architecture to make good villages and cities, to make people happy and make their lives better.
To concentrate on Pentreath's quote is really to miss the point of the article, one that is uncomfortable to many architects: Poundbury is turning out to be popular with residents and visitors, and its design philosophy is proving to have been successful.
The Guardian is not exactly a Prince Charles booster club. They are typically highly critical of anything he does. That this article was published speaks volumes about the success of Poundbury. Of course they have to include lots of snark, but even The Guardian has to acknowledge that it's working.
Donna,
If architecture is more than the cladding, why aren't you talking about it?
And why aren't you degrading all those brainy London hipsters who bought into this that they are living in Disney land? What's paper thin are the arguments that keep more of this from happening. Good on the Guardian.
What do you want me to say, Thayer? You seem to have my arguments pre-written for me, and I'm actually on deadline this week, so would you mind saving me time and just doing the post for me? Kthxbye.
You're welcome and good luck with your deadline.
I don't get it. If that is such a happening place, why does it look so dead?
I was just checking it out on a map. There is a 24 hour McDonalds there.
It is interesting how with some cultures that make a strong point to emphasize tradition and elegance, they only do it part time. In the American South, for example, I'll encounter people who have very beautiful traditional homes filled with antiques, but the homeowners might be in the kitchen eating some super-unhealthy biscuit sandwich with a giant styrofoam cup full of sweet tea, and they are very dependent on their cars.
And on the other hand, in a place like Brooklyn, I'll encounter people who live in modest apartments with Artek stools and herman miller chairs, rarely wear formal attire, but who are immersed in art and design culture, and care deeply about the quality and origins of their food and drink, and they bike and walk a lot.
Has anyone else noticed this same pattern of high culture/low culture? Is it a real pattern, or am I just projecting? I wonder if "old money" traditionalists tend to be consumers of culture, and therefore have a less intimate understanding of the quality and meaning behind architecture and design. While the folks who make art, design, and architecture, and who live in neighborhoods with many other artists and designers, have a more complete understanding of the goals and ethics behind art and design culture.
quondam,
This website, my computer, the internet, my job title, the laws on in my city, are all defined by artificial parameters.
If you care about culture, or history, you probably care about the choices and decisions made by others, as well as the ethics and reasoning behind the choices.
Can someone please explain to me why this stuff needs to be explained in a forum of designers?
I think, all too often, people in the architecture and design professions get a little perplexed when "common people" show a preference for something traditional, especially if it is not a pure or authentic traditional interpretation. But the thing is we do have new materials and technology that make things better, better by reducing cost or improving durability, so I don't think it is fair to look down on the fiberglass ornament as fake, if the Victorians had injection molding and fiberglass I bet they would have used it to some surprising effect.
I think the proposed modernist town mentioned in the article will fail where this more traditional planned community will do well. it is not that the design intent and concepts of modern/contemporary architecture are not good, it is just that is doesn't fit the cultural definition of what a home or a village square is. It would be nice to open up the planned village to some more variety in design but people keep coming back to past traditions and there probably is a good underlying reason for this.
I am very happy that Poundbury is doing well, a walk-able mixed use mixed income community that has a low carbon foot print is a good thing even if the domes are silly and the Iron trim made of fiberglass.
Over and OUT
Peter N
Peter, what I'm perplexed by is that "common people" love their iPhones and Teslas and wicking activewear but somehow get scared around buildings that don't look "cozy".
Donna,
At a conference last summer with a bunch of very bright European intellectuals I heard the same confusion. I don't think its scared as much as those buildings don't say anything to them. A home, for better or worst is an extension of our selves. An Iphone want's to feel cool and logical. A house, not as often. Also, we don't think of our domiciles as disposable objects, or at least I wish more of us didn't, for the sake of our environment.
Donna it might be that the I phone the Tesla and those push button instead of key ignition cars have not been around long enough to be imprinted on the collective cultural notion of what those things are or should be. Also a building is expected to still be functional for several decades not several months. Think of your own home how many versions of a stove have you had vs. phones or TVs. Art and architecture has to ground us in a time and place while nudging us forward to a better version or image of our current selves. Change is disquieting, cultural familiarity (selectively applied) often can seem like a heavy handed burden we designers have to deal with but it is an anchor or a point of reference people crave in a rapidly changing world.
I agree that it limits innovation but maybe if we looked at it as a set of props to perform with we can find room to innovate. F.L.Wright used a fireplace or hearth as a key element in nearly all of his homes but still managed to find a lot of room for innovation and design exploration without stepping too far from key elements of domestic design.
Peter N
In what delusional world is Prince Charles considered "common"? Tacky isn't common. Plenty of very wealthy people are tacky. For some reason "common" has come to refer to ugly/dumb/anti-intellectual. Trump isn't common, and his average supporter is wealthier than Hillary's average supporter. Drop pushing the mythical correlation between common people and garish symbols of status, wealth, and tradition.
Peter, While I agree with your overall conclusion, but there are some assumptions in your answer that I don't know if I follow.
1: Art and architecture has to ground us in a time and place...Why? and doesn't it happen whether we like it or not?
2: I agree that it (cultural familiarity) limits innovation...It does? Necessity is the mother of invention, but is it necessary to innovate to be great?
She came from Greece she had a thirst for knowledge
She studied sculpture at Saint Martin's College, that's where I caught her eye.
She told me that her Dad was loaded
I said in that case I'll have a rum and coke-cola.
She said fine and in thirty seconds time she said, I want to live like common people
I want to do whatever common people do, I want to sleep with common people
I want to sleep with common people like you.
Well what else could I do - I said I'll see what I can do.
I took her to a supermarket
I don't know why but I had to start it somewhere, so it started there.
I said pretend you've got no money, she just laughed and said oh you're so funny.
I said yeah? Well I can't see anyone else smiling in here.
Are you sure you want to live like common people
You want to see whatever common people see
You want to sleep with common people,
you want to sleep with common people like me.
But she didn't understand, she just smiled and held my hand.
Rent a flat above a shop, cut your hair and get a job.
Smoke some fags and play some pool, pretend you never went to school.
But still you'll never get it right
'cos when you're laid in bed at night watching roaches climb the wall
If you call your Dad he could stop it all.
You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view, and dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do.
is more what I mean by common people. HRH just happens to in the case of his planned town hit on something the common people seem to like.
The fatal flaw with Poundbury is that the buildings (each one) seem to be half modern and half traditional and fail on both levels. They could have designed buildings with a traditional exterior but have modern interior features. This part of Bath looks much more appealing and timeless as opposed to dated.
Peter, Modern buildings have been around since the 1920s, has that not been long enough to collectively imprint on us? The iPhone is only like ten years old...
And Thayer, everyone using the Nest to change the temperature from work and remote cameras to spy on the nanny and setting up the IoT so their refrigerator places an order for milk when it runs low, are those people all living in MCM homes, or Tudor-esque McMansions in the burbs? They want their house to *act* cool and logical but be dressed like a Williamsburg role player.
No, that is not long enough.
The app for a Nest is to modulate indoor air temperature.
The app for residential architecture is to serve as a home. Not a unit. Not a flat. A home. Home's are meant to feel secure, welcoming, and ( GASP!) cozy.
That's what people like. Only people that go through art / arch school, or care about being perceived as cool find cozy things to be childish and unworthy.
Still pounding that monarch cock?
Well, where had you rather live, Poundbury or Bath?
Donna, I suspect those people who want a computer to order them some milk when it gets low live any and everywhere. But let's take your dilemma. Should 'modern man' listen to techno instead of bluegrass or eat gmo industrial agriculture instead of local organic?
My point is, doesn't being modern mean you get to make the choice yourself without the weight of 'cultural familiarity" force you to update your whole life every time Madison avenue want's you to buy the latest thing? My definition of modern has more to do with the freedom of choice rather than which choice we make.
people are conditioned that classical architecture is beautiful. modern is interesting/edgy/cool. but most people want beauty in their lives.
i also wonder if it's nostalgia, like "making american great again" that people seem to prefer classical architecture over striped down sleek buildings and complex geometrical forms.
Giving you a choice between Bath and Poundbury is hardly trying to control anything. I was just pointing out the beautifully maintained classical Bath is much more attractive to most people than the traditional-modern (on the outside) hybrid Poundbury.
I have never been to Poundbury, but from what I have seen, it seems like a lovely place to live. But I would choose Bath in a heartbeat. I don't think I have ever been to a more beautiful, coherent urban environment.
Because I live in Los Angeles.
In the states the governing factor is price/ sf and access to amenities (especially primary education).
People DO care whether they live in a nice looking modern house or a historic (not faux-historic) pre-WWII home, but they wont pay a huge premium for the aesthetics. My parents are a great example - do they love their split-level suburban tract home? No, they don't. They would prefer either of the above examples, but when it is double or more per sf of space, what can you do?
Historic pre-WWII home:
Faux-historic home:
Whatever, Q. I have no idea what you are driving at, or what kind of trap you think you made me step into. I could live in Bath if I chose to. I could afford to live there. There are hundreds of reasons why, even though I think Bath is a wonderful place, I choose to live in LA.
Maybe someday I will move there. Or Paris.
"that's why most people don't what modern. Ha!"
Most people? What evidence is there for this claim? Poundbury has a population of 2,500.
The Stuyvesant Town- Peter Cooper Village complex alone in Manhattan has a population of 25,000.
I have seen more attractive maximum-security federal prisons.
Volunteer,
You're proving my point. That the superficial ways that we judge architecture through images online, does not reflect much of the reality of Architecture.
I'm surprised that new urbanism is even a memory anymore. Wasn't it forgotten when we noticed there are more interesting problems for architects to take on? The last two biennale in Venice, by Rem and then by Aravena, offer a completely different agenda for us that kind of makes the idea of Poundbury less interesting by the nature of what it was trying to resolve. I imagine the consensus of the current generation of architects is with Quondam, nobody needs to care what people chose for when it comes to superficial things like building style...we've moved on.
Will, you are aware that new urbanism is urbanism, right? I guess there's nothing to learn from humane settlement patterns. Time to 'move on' to the next thing, which is Rem?
didn't the two most recent bienniale's focus on social housing with aravena and building elements with rem? these topics don't prescribe a style so who cares what the exterior looks like. pluralism should reign. pull from any era. just make sure the everyday background buildings have doors, windows, and ceilings, preferably built with permanence in mind.
and what are the more interesting problems for architects to take on? are these new issues not sometimes solved as a beneficial byproduct of proper city building? i'm not a huge fan of plastic disney-esque new urbanism, but I am in favor of some of the underlying formal principles.
I think people don't want their homes to resemble iPhones because then they are easily dated. Who wants to spend 100,000's on something that will be irrelevant in a year or so? This is what people tell me is all.
"I think people don't want their homes to resemble iPhones because then they are easily dated. Who wants to spend 100,000's on something that will be irrelevant in a year or so?"
Bingo.
An architecture that is designed to be, above all, "of its time", is obsolete the moment it is minted. Just like your iPhone.
Can someone please give an example of a house with "dated" architecture?
I think this is about as dated as it gets. And as ugly too!
Yea, it is kind of ugly. But I would expect something that is "dated" to have more evidence of a time period. Isn't "dated" something entirely separate from beauty or lack of beauty?
Screams 1949 to me.
"I am in favor of some of the underlying formal principles."
you just advocated for "pluralism" in the same post.
as for architecture of it's time becoming dated. queen anne buildings are dated, the villa savoye is dated.
architectural styles are driven by "taste" not knowledge of architectural history. HGTV, Dwell, etc, are about "taste" which is not the same as caring about "the discourse" of buildings. Hence, most people do not want to live in a house designed by Massimiliano Fuksas.
So we should spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a thing that will never become IRrelevant because it was never relevant in any meaningful way from the day it was conceived?
Thank you McMansion Hell.
You could ski off that roof! I just think people want buildings to provide a backdrop and not be overly stylized or iconic. I like plain, boxy buildings with good siting, and big windows myself.
Timeless....
Glamour...
for your basic background buildings - apartments, stores, restaurants - pluralism of style...not pluralism of basic city making principles i.e. build to the street, respect your neighbors in height in most cases, human scaled, rhythm proportion blah blah blah
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.