BUILD BACK BEAUTIFUL:

Speaking at Policy Exchange last month, Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick formally announced the National Model Design Code with a vow to end the 'culture of mediocrity' plaguing housebuilding. Eradicating 'ugly' architecture is now the mandate of the newly launched Office for Place, intended to drive up beauty standards through a review of locally produced design codes alongside updated national policy.

As an aspiration, and a philosophy underpinned by earlier findings of Sir Roger Scruton's Building Better Building Beautiful Commission, the Government's idea of what's 'attractive' appears heavily influenced by a desire to return to the past. Traditional architecture and the old ways of placemaking are both 'provably popular' and 'good for the soul', combining joined-up Victorian terraces and gentle intensification with tree-lined streets and green spaces.

While no one would argue with the contention that what we build must be 'beautiful', aesthetic alone does not create a sense of place and wellbeing. Responsive design which prioritises style over substance risks putting the visuals of a community before its amenities. Especially in urban areas where the Government still wants to maximise the delivery of new housing, the challenge is to reconcile 'pretty' design with what's practical and socially valuable from a resident's or occupant's perspective.

Given that policymakers today are looking to Victorian Britain as a hallmark of quality placemaking, we should be considering why the typologies of the past were conceived in the first place. It definitely wasn't because beauty was the preference over good quality and healthy spaces: Victorian Britain was cleaved by deep inequalities across wealth and social class which demanded an overhaul in attitudes towards public health. 'Beauty' was the byproduct of a social value approach to urban planning.

Tweet   @brothersjudd