The minister’s call for buildings to be aesthetically pleasing is all very well, but nimbies and developers have other concerns
When Michael Gove says he wants new buildings to be more beautiful, who could possibly disagree? He calls for places to be created with “heart and soul”. He also hopes that opposition to new housing will diminish if there is “a general improvement in the standard of design”. Again, he has a point: who would want the site of Venice to be returned to the marshy islands it once was or the city of Bath removed so that it can once again be green rolling hills? But it may be harder to achieve these noble ends than he thinks. The typical objector to development is mostly motivated by other issues than architecture – an influx of other people, pressure on schools and roads – while beauty is not just a matter of look. It includes such things as the siting of buildings in the landscape, quality of materials and construction, ditto of planting and paving, internal and external layouts, the uses of light, shade and view.
These matters can affect housebuilders’ bottom lines, which is one reason why beauty is hard to find. And it’s easier for builders to make superficial gestures to aesthetics – a pediment here, a cornice there – than to do the harder work of good planning. Gove’s comments come in a foreword to a report by the architect Ike Ijeh for the conservative thinktank Policy Exchange, which calls for a “School of Place” that would train architects and planners. It’s a brief and sketchy document, but does at least say that beauty is more than a matter of style. The hard part will be putting these intentions into practice. Whether Gove has the necessary courage to take on vested interests – both housebuilders and nimbies – remains to be seen.
