Oh, look! Modern architecture doesn't HAVE to be ugly!
Today's New York Times on the single greatest thing about King Charles
From The New York Times:
From the article:
“[F]or one very important man — King Charles III, Britain’s new monarch — Poundbury is what British towns should look like.”
“Poundbury is relatively new — construction on it began in the 1990s and is not scheduled to finish for several years — but it is built in a range of architectural styles that had their heyday at least 100 years ago. There are no concrete buildings, as are found in many British city centers, or glass towers with floor-to-ceiling windows. …”
“The town is governed by some rules that seem to come straight from feudal times. Nobody is allowed to paint their home a new color “without the consent of His Royal Highness,” for example. Other regulations are more modern: Residents aren’t allowed a TV antenna or satellite dish, and they need royal permission to park a motor home outside their properties. This year, a Poundbury resident was ordered to remove almost 100 potted plants from outside her home.”
I had no idea it was even possible to build beautiful buildings anymore. Wouldn’t it be nice if all new buildings were as pleasing as these?
“Charles, who studied history at university, said in a 2009 speech that his interest in architecture had emerged as a teenager when he “became profoundly aware of the brutal destruction that was being wrought” on Britain’s towns and cities by modernist developers with their concrete designs.”
Nope, sorry plebeians! You’ll only get buildings that look like prisons —
Sadly, the Times notes: “Charles, as king, is constrained by tradition from speaking out, and he will have to keep his opinions to himself.”
Can’t he make an exception before the entire world is covered in ugliness?