黑洞社区

The government is quite clear in the new National Planning Policy Framework: 鈥淧lanning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles ..鈥�  In fact, versions of this have been in government policies for decades. For some time, however, radical architects feel they have been victims of a public taste for tradition when they come up against the planning system, so they lobby to get a special note. And sure enough, after this clear statement about style they managed to persuade the civil servants to put in note especially for them: 鈥減olicies and decisions 鈥� should not stifle innovation, originality and initiative鈥�.

Architects know that 鈥渋nnovation鈥� and 鈥渙riginality鈥� are code words for Modernism; maybe the civil servants didn鈥檛.  That鈥檚 the clever thing about code words.

When you look further you find the same thing in local policies and guidance. Take two important historic cities: Winchester and Chester. Winchester has a policy that says: 鈥渘ew development should complement but not seek to mimic existing development and should be of its time. The council will encourage a contemporary approach to new designs ..鈥�   Chester even has a 鈥淢anifesto for Contemporary Design鈥� that says: 鈥渢he boldest and most successful designs are those which clearly express the ethos to which they relate, and do not refer to the language of earlier periods.鈥�

The use of code words for style cleverly disguises their intention from government inspectors and innocent members of the public.

This has even spread to heritage protection, the one place where traditional design might be understood. English Heritage said in a recent consultation in an historic city that: 鈥渢he architectural design 鈥� is in a very mixed historicist style and we believe in principle that an opportunity to create something more contemporary and of a high design quality 鈥� has been lost.鈥�  A conservation officer in Bath regrets that a proposal is a traditional design, describing it as 鈥渉ybrid鈥�, and says that 鈥渉igh quality contemporary architecture would be appropriate.鈥�

Solihull has policies for the historic environment that say that the town 鈥渄oes not expect a pastiche of existing designs and actively welcomes good examples of contemporary design鈥�. Even rural Ayrshire is not free from the style diktats of planning. The council is looking for 鈥済ood quality contemporary solutions鈥� and doesn鈥檛 鈥減romote proposals that are pastiche .. but promote[s] architecture of its time.鈥�

I could go on. The same code words appear again and again. 鈥淐ontemporary鈥� has two definitions, 鈥渘ow鈥� or a style; if it means 鈥渘ow鈥� then it鈥檚 impossible to be anything else, so unless it is meaningless it must mean a style. The same goes for 鈥渙f its time鈥�.  鈥淚nnovative鈥� and 鈥渙riginal鈥� are just ways of saying 鈥渄ifferent鈥� or 鈥渦nusual鈥� and are meant as a contrast to traditional architecture that is, by definition, a continuation of the 鈥渓anguage of an earlier period鈥� and which can pejoratively be described as 鈥渕imicry鈥� or, worse, 鈥減astiche鈥�.

The use of code words for style cleverly disguises their intention from government inspectors and innocent members of the public. 鈥淢imicry鈥� sounds parrot-like and 鈥減astiche鈥� is worse 鈥� like a bad pastry. These are contrasted with positive-sounding 鈥渙f its time鈥� and, better, 鈥渋nnovative鈥� 鈥� which is what manufacturers are constantly chided to do. It all seems to be just about positive design but - in this context and to anyone in the planning and architectural professions - the meanings are very clear: traditional bad - Modernism good. And traditional and modernist architecture are clearly distinguishable and identifiable; they are styles.

This is all part of the creeping institutionalisation of Modernism. For half a century it has been the style of the architectural establishment. It is now becoming the style of the bureaucrats. The irony of the institutionalisation of what still claims to be radical seems to have escaped practitioners.  Maybe, like established classicism in the 30s, institutionalisation heralds the end. Perhaps it is the traditionalists that now need the special clause: 鈥減olicies and decisions should not prevent continuity, retrospection and tradition.鈥�

Robert Adam is a director of ADAM Architecture