Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Katherine Shonfield

  • Comment

An odd similarity looks set to emerge between now and the 1930s. The legacy of that period of mass building stays with us in the suburban form of the privately financed single family house which is spreading over the remaining gaps in south-east England. Despite an era of more sophisticated government posturing, the sole cause of any substantive change between the '30s and the present day is successful penny-pinching by the mass housebuilders.

At the same time, there are signs within the enthusiasms of the profession itself - from the end-of-the-year student shows to the work of the Peabody Trust - that the forms of experimental mass housing have once again become a preoccupation. And it is this conjunction, between an experimenting profession working on the sidelines and an indifferent, privately-based housing industry, that is so typical of the 1930s.

What is different, however, is that architects then had not been through the perceived failure of mass housing design in the postwar period. It is depressing that housebuilders have learnt almost nothing from the past half century. But it would be more depressing if we, as a profession starting to think we can really contribute to the everyday, domestic world, were to imagine we need do nothing but pop back in time to a Modernism cleansed of post-war guilt.

Another feature of the '30s was a disingenuous belief in the inherent value of innovative design, meaning:

The public does not know what is good for it and has to be educated to understand what is so wonderful about what we are offering.

Inhabited architecture should never be revisited except to be utterly condemned or entirely celebrated. Specific lessons should never be learnt.

The poor are a legitimate playground for experimentation by the rich, meaning us.

Still sound familiar?

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.