Post by Patrick on Jan 9, 2011 15:17:37 GMT
Book I'm reading at the moment is a trip taken down the Great Central Line - or what remained of it, on foot some thirty years ago. It isn't all railway stuff, the author has taken the trouble to turn it into a travel guide, including information about local history and buildings of note etc. This was partially the book's downfall though, because when he was trying to get in published originally, railway publishers told him that it was too much of a travel book and travel publishers told him it was too much of a railway book! So it took 30 years before nostalgia came along and deemed it worth publishing.
EEEeeennnyyyywaaayy. (To coin a phrase). I was following the author's footsteps on Google Earth and Street View when I came across an area near a station that was being redeveloped with the promise of spectacular new housing, there was one building left on the site which mirrored in red brick Victorian fineness the other houses in the street, and curious as to whether this was to be spared I went searching for the planning application.
I couldn't find the answer, so the building has probably just been kept to act as the (eventual) sales office. I couldn't find any details of the sale of the subsequent new build either, so with planning having gone through in July 2009 - perhaps they gave up on the idea. What I did find though (and the point of all this) was some glorious examples of confusing "Planning Speak" which in context is understandable, but as a piece of English is incomprehensible, as all these things teng to be.
Buildings that aspire to be copies of earlier styles are seldom successful as they serve to confuse the interpretation of the relationship and detract from the true value of the original.
It's almost poetic. Here's the beginning of the paragraph just to make the above complete - Sort of:
The issue is whether the architectural treatment given to the facades respects the context of the site, including the setting and character of the adjacent station. It is a policy requirement that design recognises local distinctiveness. However, it not necessarily appropriate that this involves copying a past architectural style, rather that its fundamental characteristics are recognised and re-expressed in a modern interpretation.
Buildings that aspire to be copies of earlier styles are seldom successful as they serve to confuse the interpretation of the relationship and detract from the true value of the original.
One wonders - with literacy standards dropping, whether there are still people around with the skills to word these planning applications like this any more, could it be a dying art?
EEEeeennnyyyywaaayy. (To coin a phrase). I was following the author's footsteps on Google Earth and Street View when I came across an area near a station that was being redeveloped with the promise of spectacular new housing, there was one building left on the site which mirrored in red brick Victorian fineness the other houses in the street, and curious as to whether this was to be spared I went searching for the planning application.
I couldn't find the answer, so the building has probably just been kept to act as the (eventual) sales office. I couldn't find any details of the sale of the subsequent new build either, so with planning having gone through in July 2009 - perhaps they gave up on the idea. What I did find though (and the point of all this) was some glorious examples of confusing "Planning Speak" which in context is understandable, but as a piece of English is incomprehensible, as all these things teng to be.
Buildings that aspire to be copies of earlier styles are seldom successful as they serve to confuse the interpretation of the relationship and detract from the true value of the original.
It's almost poetic. Here's the beginning of the paragraph just to make the above complete - Sort of:
The issue is whether the architectural treatment given to the facades respects the context of the site, including the setting and character of the adjacent station. It is a policy requirement that design recognises local distinctiveness. However, it not necessarily appropriate that this involves copying a past architectural style, rather that its fundamental characteristics are recognised and re-expressed in a modern interpretation.
Buildings that aspire to be copies of earlier styles are seldom successful as they serve to confuse the interpretation of the relationship and detract from the true value of the original.
One wonders - with literacy standards dropping, whether there are still people around with the skills to word these planning applications like this any more, could it be a dying art?