Prince Charles and the SPAB...

[Lime]

It would actually be easier to chuck the baby out with the bath water and scrub the whole place, but what would be lost can never be regained.

and

It is all too easy to strip a building back to its bones, but the inevitable result will be a ‘restored’ building which is only a crude caricature of the original.

How often have we all seen such things happen?

Much too often IME.
SPAB contribute to it with their attitude.

 

[Gervase]

Absolute twaddle.
To cast SPAB as the villains is completely absurd.
You'll rarely find better-distilled sense than the society's advice to look before you leap.

 

[Penners]

I would have thought that most members of this site would agree with 90% of what Prince Charles wrote

HRH and I have a rocky relationship. I find myself agreeing with a considerable amount (but certainly not all) of what he has said about modern architecture, over the years. What I'm uncomfortable about is the fact that his views attract wide media attention, not because he has any particular training, qualification, skill, etc. in this field, but because of who he is.

On that principle, he should also be allowed to make comments, criticisms and recommendations on the propulsion system for the space shuttle, the analysis of the fruit bat genome, the CERN particle accelerator and the colour of my sitting room walls.

He has yet to let me know whether he agrees with my views on anything. But I'm expecting the call any day now.

Meanwhile, I note that SPAB lacks a Patron - I may put myself forward. I can be pretty damned patronising.

 

[biffvernon]

I've just had one of his biscuits with my afternoon cuppa. Very nice. And yes, I guess I agree with 90% of what he writes. It's that other 10% that's a bit irksome, so I'm sticking with SPAB at well over 90%.

 

[Lime]

I'd be interested to hear what this 10% is.

 

[biffvernon]

I'd be interested to hear what this 10% is.

I guess that

‘Honest’ repairs or ‘frankly modern’ alterations to historic buildings too often diminish them. So, too, the desire to ‘create a contrast with’ or ‘avoid archaeological confusion’ between new and old can have a disastrous outcome for the old building, resulting in a crude and dissonant collision.

is about 10%. It was open to an interpretation that would clash with SPAB policy so it would have been polite for the patron to leave it out.

 

[Flyfisher]

Ah Penners, I'm glad you mentioned the fruit bat genome because when I last saw HRH he was showing a keen interest in some rare breeds of pigs, which, as you may know, are genetically-related to the fruit bat and . . . (cont'd on p94)

 

[robgil]

does charlie actually know what he is talking about? does he have any architectural training what so ever? or is he just a popular/recognised face that spab wanted to use in order to sell books?

if we are taking sides here , i am no expert but id say spab do a lot more for the preservation of old buildings than someone who sees it as more of a hobby than a profession.

 

[Flyfisher]

does charlie actually know what he is talking about? does he have any architectural training what so ever?

Of course he does; it's his opinion.
Why does anyone need 'architectural training' in order to decide what they like or dislike about our built environment?

 

[Lime]

I'd be interested to hear what this 10% is.

I guess that

‘Honest’ repairs or ‘frankly modern’ alterations to historic buildings too often diminish them. So, too, the desire to ‘create a contrast with’ or ‘avoid archaeological confusion’ between new and old can have a disastrous outcome for the old building, resulting in a crude and dissonant collision.

is about 10%. It was open to an interpretation that would clash with SPAB policy so it would have been polite for the patron to leave it out.

This country is almost overflowing with examples of bad design and horrid construction masquerading as and under the cloak of "modern".

I think Charles is exactly right.
What a pity he wasn't in a position to make his voice heard in the 60s when abortions of concrete were created as "modern" and forward thinking architecture by bumptious twits with qualifications and egos the size of Wales.

What a crap time that was (architecturally speaking)... and they said exactly what the "experts" are saying now.

 

[CHRIS]

My father who is over from NZ for a summer break has started to do some family research and last week went to visit an old Cousin in Rutland who had some pictures of the old family from 1920s in a place called Emma St in Hackney (Not there now due to the Luaftwaffe), It is near an area that is very posh and expensive now and is now a conservation area. The photos shocked me to see the conditions these people lived in, they all looked very thin and under nourished but the thing that shocked me was it was from 1920 not 1820.

The house was your traditional terrace of that era but the conditions looked awful with many people to 1 house, I can see why people who grew up in these places did want to move out to a place in Romford, Becontree or even Harlow in the 60s. You got a bathroom, central heating, a garden, unregulated landlords, and most important away from the pollution of the City. After the war the quickest way to build was on mass with concrete as the timber supplies were very low and as half of London (as every other major city was) needed houses this was the best way at the time. It is easy to see the errors of our ways but at the time that was the way to get people into a safe and clean environment. It did not take long for the dream to turn to a nightmare due to shoddy construction - massive backhanders to builders and councilors and pest infestation.

We all love these smart streets around East London now as they are full of trendy cafes and Banksey art galleries but 80 years ago it was poor and a slum and I bet people then never considered that these rows of brick terraces would be so desirable.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3087005

 

[Lime]

It's easy to forget that photos are often taken to tell a story, to support a view, and that they may not give a true picture of how things were.
Black and white photography give a slant to it all too.
Just take some photos in black and white of your now wealthy street and immediately poverty appears to have set in!
Take pictures of parts that are not so nice, uncared for or in need of repair and it makes the street appear even worse.
Old family photos nearly always go through a metamorphosis wherein the subject (people usually) becomes less important than the background which was often not thought about at all when they were taken.

The general acclaimed message of quote, "Back-to-back housing had no damp courses, its walls cracked and crumbled owing to inadequate foundations, the roofs often leaked, and many were infected with parasites", was used to sell high rise flats to the public.

Much of what was said then about older housing may be said of some of the property YOU are living in today.

After all, most period properties today have cracked walls, inadequate foundations, perhaps roofs that leak and many other "problems" too.
The truth is that period property, if neglected, is not nice to live in.
(Modern housing exposed to the same treatment would be in a far worse state.)
Add overcrowding (caused by poverty) and the old houses are horrible to live in.... but the houses were not at fault, it was neglect and overcrowding causing the trouble.
Had money and time been spent on the slums the majority would still be useful housing today.

 

[CHRIS]

Oh no I agree, but you can see how people were made to feel that it was good move (DG salesmen spring to mind). It is the same mindset that lots of young families have when given the chance to move into a 4 bed new build with en-suite and garden from a small 2up 2 down terrace in the centre of anytownUK! Its only a few who care for and enjoy period properties (amount of people who come around and love our house but love going home to a modern house).

My main point is that the 1960s buildings were built for a reason and at the time people accepted it and it was only after a few years the problems started. (Like most new builds now).

I just dont buy the people were happier back then attitude as life was tough (2 of the people in the photos died before 22nd birthday by a disease curable today). I thank my lucky stars to have had the opportunities that I have had and the places I have been to, along with a nice house (Warm and dry), family and a job I enjoy. All within a country that you will not starve and be left untreated outside a hospital due to lack of money.

 

[Lime]

I just dont buy the people were happier back then attitude as life was tough (2 of the people in the photos died before 22nd birthday by a disease curable today). I thank my lucky stars to have had the opportunities that I have had and the places I have been to, along with a nice house (Warm and dry), family and a job I enjoy. All within a country that you will not starve and be left untreated outside a hospital due to lack of money.

I don't disagree.
However I think people back then were more content with their lot, perhaps resigned also, and as a consequence they were less unhappy because they were prepared to make the best of what they had.
Their expectations were much lower which produced less disappointment and a greater (easier) sense of achievement.
Also there is nothing like death all around you to make you value your life.
Society today treats death as unusual, almost unnatural.
It isn't.

 

[CHRIS]

Their expectations were much lower which produced less disappointment and a greater (easier) sense of achievement.

Sounds like my school report!

"Christopher sets low standards which he still fails to reach" signed Mr Weeks

 

[Schoolmarm]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[skier-hughes]

Was that in comprehension, "sprinklers" ????????????

 

[CHRIS]

Was that in comprehension, "sprinklers" ????????????

OK OK very funny

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Sounds like my school report!

"Christopher sets low standards which he still fails to reach" signed Mr Weeks

I had a Mr Weekes too - he wrote "The work Robin completes is of an acceptable standard". You have to read between the lines to see what he really meant! Unfortunately he explained clearly to my parents at open evening...

 

[Lime]

Their expectations were much lower which produced less disappointment and a greater (easier) sense of achievement.

Sounds like my school report!

Joking apart, I think "expectation" is what sets us apart from the past.
Back then it was not expected that our social position would change rather that the status quo would remain static.
Now every child is encourage to believe that they will become whatever they dream to be... a recipe for disappointment for many surely?

Then there is the "growth" thing where growth is good, no growth is bad.
Back in the past, stability was valued above all else.