Scan barcode
amphitritedreams's review against another edition
challenging
funny
informative
reflective
sad
slow-paced
4.0
The book takes us on an architectural tour of mostly English cities as a lens through with to examine aesthetic and political trends of the last several decades. The effect is sometimes sad, sometimes insightful, sometimes half-baked, always snarky and often (if not always intentionally) funny.
Perhaps the most interesting and urgent observation is of what amounts to a new round of enclosure, this time privatising and replacing masses of social housing and shared urban space with physically and socially isolated 'luxury developments' or just big holes in the ground.
There is some related discussion of why some of this stems from the doctrine that massive concrete tower blocks are inherently horrible dystopian experiences, and the author very reasonably points out that we sell 'luxury flats' in massive concrete towers with half the living space, minimal daylight and few or none of the social amenities of the structures being torn down. In other words, that the blight is perceptual and more classist and racist than intrinsic. Personally, I accept the point without sharing the author's enthusiasm for any pile of concrete as long as it has an overhead walkway.
The Guide also excoriates, at length, the cowardly and pedestrian design prevalent in these new developments, with special venom for the work coming out of the various quangos set up under the Blair regime. Whether or not a reader's ideals coincide with the author's, Hatherley does a good job of calling out some of the stylistic elements that make up the current trends as well as their limitations. Hatherley also provides some counter examples of more interesting buildings and some arguments around appropriate sources of inspiration when building in an urban context, in a largely urban and industrial nation.
It is a book that assumes some familiarity with 20th century design in general, and with some of the older, now vanished, buildings in particular. I wound up doing a fair bit of research as I read, especially as the illustrative photos in the book often give only a very idiosyncratic sense of a space. Fortunately I enjoy these sorts of side quests.
The Guide was written in the wake of the 2008 crash, so some projects have moved on, and some of the political commentary feels a bit surreal. Yet, the underlying issues remain relevant in 2024. One need not share the author's retro-futuristic aesthetics (or anything else) to find _A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain_ interesting and thought provoking.
There is some related discussion of why some of this stems from the doctrine that massive concrete tower blocks are inherently horrible dystopian experiences, and the author very reasonably points out that we sell 'luxury flats' in massive concrete towers with half the living space, minimal daylight and few or none of the social amenities of the structures being torn down. In other words, that the blight is perceptual and more classist and racist than intrinsic. Personally, I accept the point without sharing the author's enthusiasm for any pile of concrete as long as it has an overhead walkway.
The Guide also excoriates, at length, the cowardly and pedestrian design prevalent in these new developments, with special venom for the work coming out of the various quangos set up under the Blair regime. Whether or not a reader's ideals coincide with the author's, Hatherley does a good job of calling out some of the stylistic elements that make up the current trends as well as their limitations. Hatherley also provides some counter examples of more interesting buildings and some arguments around appropriate sources of inspiration when building in an urban context, in a largely urban and industrial nation.
It is a book that assumes some familiarity with 20th century design in general, and with some of the older, now vanished, buildings in particular. I wound up doing a fair bit of research as I read, especially as the illustrative photos in the book often give only a very idiosyncratic sense of a space. Fortunately I enjoy these sorts of side quests.
The Guide was written in the wake of the 2008 crash, so some projects have moved on, and some of the political commentary feels a bit surreal. Yet, the underlying issues remain relevant in 2024. One need not share the author's retro-futuristic aesthetics (or anything else) to find _A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain_ interesting and thought provoking.
hollyzone's review against another edition
3.0
Fairly early on in this book I hit a chapter which completely upended by entire experience of reading it. Specifically, it was the chapter on Manchester. This chapter made the rest of the book very difficult to read.
The book takes the form of a tour of the UK, stopping in at various cities to examine the way the socialist architecture of urban areas, often brutalist and functional, has been attacked by a wave of late c20th/early c21st building which is excluding the poor and shaving away character from cities. It's well written and engaging, managing to make a repetitive format not feel repetitive to read.
But...
Of the places in the book, there are two I know well enough to be able to comment on - Manchester and Liverpool. The Manchester chapter arrives fairly early in the book and was a huge problem for me as a reader. Put simply, two-thirds of the chapter is insightful and incisive on the issues I see around me in a city which is regenerating but also pushing out many of its residents. It is accurate and necessary writing which should be widely read, and describes situations which haven't changed much in the seven years since publication. Unfortunately the other third of the chapter is a load of complete bollocks which the author could only have written if he'd never spoken to an actual Mancunian in his life. The Beetham Tower viewed positively and with pride by locals? What?! Srsly!? Has the author never asked a Manc where the best views in the city are cos the answer is usually "From the Beetham Tower, cos then you can't see the tower itself".
And from that early point on it became hard to know what to make of the rest of the book. Were the places I didn't know being accurately described or was it all nonsense? By later in the book I had concluded that probably most of it was accurate, if only because the author seemed to betray an undeclared but clearly influential dislike for Manchester above all other cities - fair enough, but don't let it lead you to inaccuracy and do at least declare it more obviously early on! By the time I reached the last chapter on Liverpool - accurate and interesting - I was glad I'd read it, but it was not the easiest thing to do when I was having to actively suspend my cynicism at times.
It's probably best to read the chapter of the city you are most familiar with first, to gauge whether you find it accurate. I sincerely hope the rest of the book is accurate cos it would be a shame for such a well written piece to be unreliable.
The book takes the form of a tour of the UK, stopping in at various cities to examine the way the socialist architecture of urban areas, often brutalist and functional, has been attacked by a wave of late c20th/early c21st building which is excluding the poor and shaving away character from cities. It's well written and engaging, managing to make a repetitive format not feel repetitive to read.
But...
Of the places in the book, there are two I know well enough to be able to comment on - Manchester and Liverpool. The Manchester chapter arrives fairly early in the book and was a huge problem for me as a reader. Put simply, two-thirds of the chapter is insightful and incisive on the issues I see around me in a city which is regenerating but also pushing out many of its residents. It is accurate and necessary writing which should be widely read, and describes situations which haven't changed much in the seven years since publication. Unfortunately the other third of the chapter is a load of complete bollocks which the author could only have written if he'd never spoken to an actual Mancunian in his life. The Beetham Tower viewed positively and with pride by locals? What?! Srsly!? Has the author never asked a Manc where the best views in the city are cos the answer is usually "From the Beetham Tower, cos then you can't see the tower itself".
And from that early point on it became hard to know what to make of the rest of the book. Were the places I didn't know being accurately described or was it all nonsense? By later in the book I had concluded that probably most of it was accurate, if only because the author seemed to betray an undeclared but clearly influential dislike for Manchester above all other cities - fair enough, but don't let it lead you to inaccuracy and do at least declare it more obviously early on! By the time I reached the last chapter on Liverpool - accurate and interesting - I was glad I'd read it, but it was not the easiest thing to do when I was having to actively suspend my cynicism at times.
It's probably best to read the chapter of the city you are most familiar with first, to gauge whether you find it accurate. I sincerely hope the rest of the book is accurate cos it would be a shame for such a well written piece to be unreliable.
rogerb's review against another edition
3.0
I enjoyed this, but it's one of those where you pay close attention to the bits you really know (Leeds/Sheffield/Greenwich), while the detail of the other learned chapters passed me by. Because I'm not a trained or practicing architect.
Odd book in some ways - many good & useful pictures, all BW. It's in the manner of Defoe, but rather more overtly political. he's not a fan of the right, centre, or centre-left :-).
So if all the chapters had been on my home towns, more stars.
Odd book in some ways - many good & useful pictures, all BW. It's in the manner of Defoe, but rather more overtly political. he's not a fan of the right, centre, or centre-left :-).
So if all the chapters had been on my home towns, more stars.
More...