วีดีโอ

th-cam.com/video/XfonhlM6I7w/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=TheAestheticCity Compare it to Le Plessis Robinson

Thoughtful and well presented.

Give the town some time and it will become a lovely place because it is built for people to feel good, not like the square cold new centers. I do love the whole concept!

Perhaps you need to do some research. Poundbury was NOT built all at once. In fact, it has grown over time. Not a fan of your dismissive elitist attitude. You're really young to have such hardening of the attitudes and one wonders why you are working in a creative field...

I prefer “fake” but beautiful town…full of order and matching colour schemes and architecture..than real but ugly town full of chaos and annoying signs, markings, commercials and stickers everywhere..and constantly having some sort of ugly noisy construction going on around you… I prefer Poundbury, wish I could afford to live there!

I suspect your comments about the very liveable town of Poundbury are because the Prince dared to stand up architectural mafia, (which presumably you hope to join one day).

It seems to me your opinion is rather biased. If you were architect trained that is probably why you agree with that group of typically ego maniacs.

Wonderful video... I'm suscribing..

Vacuous video. Ask residents what they think of the place. Get out of your head.

Extremely insightful, I don't know why this only has 150 likes.

Comparing Poundbury to Dorchester high street is like a 1983 Lamborghini to a 2023 model. It’s irrelevant. I’d love to see a complete empty canvas of this country designed by 1000 architects now. God it would look a mess and 900 of them would hate it. A camel is a horse designed by committee as they say.

Well done nipper ! Twas nice me hansome.

90% of people don't want to live in a dump surrounded by graffiti and litter. People who can afford to spend one or two million pounds have a choice about where they live and in Poundbury not only do they choose to live next door to social housing tenants but they pay 30% per sqm to do so compared to the prices elsewhere in Dorchester. Perhaps it is the architects and planners who are wrong? Perhaps we the people are sick and tired of the horrible crap that people like you build and then sneer down your noses at the plebs who think your eyesores are ugly?

I stayed in Poundbury for 2 weeks at a friends. Enjoyed it. Really lovely. I ignore the architects who denigrate it, as do most. Any place has it's issues but so what. The comments here are showing you that you're out of step with most people's opinions.

Very interesting video

You're so wrong, modern architecture is dead, the world is sick of it. Inhabitants will fill this area over time. I wish I could

this was a great video, especially with the comparison to the train set. I think what poundbury gets wrong is it that it focuses on designing a beautiful place to live a life (as you said, not letting anyone play with the train set), instead of focusing on providing a space where people can live their own beautiful lives. No access to transport, tight regulations on personalisation... its more a trainset than a neighbourhood.

why do he speak like that?

Beautifully expressed and well done. We found your words rich, insightful and thoughtful.

I fundamentally hate fifties and sixties concrete box and plate glass ugliness. No hope in those at all, just unhappiness. How can Poundberry “terrify” anybody?

"It feels from walking around that 70% of all the available flats are empty". Hey man, this place isn't your cup of tea, we get it. Instead of talking straight out of your 4ss without checking the data about actually how many people are living there - you can just say "I didn't like it, thats how I feel". Thats perfectly fair. You say that the buildings aren't honest as old towns because the inhabitants didn't build them - do your homework. Most European old towns were built by workers that worked under conditions we would call today slavery. Is that the 'sense of home' you are referring that Poundbury is missing? Poundbury does deserve sharp criticism, so the next iteration of such things evolves. You on the other hand did not give any of the kind. The fact that it feels to you like a place for a crime movie set, tells more about you as a consumer of TV entertainment, stereotypes from Hollywood, and other BS. Our greed driven world economy is producing brutalist heartless concrete cubes as storage for human livestock by the masses. Someone like Leon Krier is trying to make a change, it might not be a perfect attempt, but it's a vector in a different direction for once. I bet my money you grew up in a nice British cottage house with a flower garden and a conservatory. Had you been growing up in a concrete soviet row building, you wouldn't be spending all this time editing this video to make a point out of a taste based opinion, that could've very well come from the English aristocracy.

It lacks trees and shops. Some of the brick buildings are nice, but it just doesn't work as well as Letchworth or other planned towns.

It's looks like Portmeirion a bit. It would be a good place for a psychological thriller to be set in.

One of my favorite writers wrote, "Ours is a tragic age, so we refuse to take it tragically," and that's what I'm reminded of when I look at this site. It seems to me an honest attempt to hearken back to an age that's quite decisively gone.

It's sad that the architects and designers of today are discouraged from creating "traditional" buildings. Poundbury is a beautiful place that I would be happy to live in. It does not seem like a "giant train set" to me. This guy seems jealous that Poundbury is so beloved and admired.

I honestly can’t stand the hubris of people that hate traditional organic architecture

I wanted to point out that all the designers make the (now electronic) model, even of the single apartment complex in a city "deprived of order". It's not the inhabitants who do it: it's the designers, based on the indications of the construction companies. Therefore, whether a prince is behind it or not, there is always someone who is not the end user (unless it is a single-family house, designed directly following the indications of those who will live there). So, the real question is: is seeking the picturesque a bad thing? Must buildings necessarily respond solely to utilitarian reasons?

Good for building dams and tunnels, but if I had to sleep in that concrete box you call a hotel room, I'd look for somewhere I could buy a tent 😄

I love Poundbury and apparently lots of other people do as well.🙂🙂❤

I think the reason it feels so fake is that since the Prince had a big hand in it, it wants it to be perfect. Like, people being able to paint their own doors would be nice, like in Dublin, alot of the houses are the same, but the colorful doors make it unique. Alot of the houses don't have pretty flowers and aren't a little roughed up like some other houses in other towns. Other things, like no stop signs, or stop lights, or street markings make it feel like a movie set, but if they were there it would feel like a really real town, even though it is.

All the architects who admire crap like what you have shown here require a high velocity encounter with concrete

I think we might conclude that perfectionism isn't better! 🤭 It reminded me of a filmset! I loved this short documentary!🥰

You are very talented. I really enjoyed your video and narration...

Are there parks? I didn't see any in your video

Poundbury is beautiful. It's like a town with an hoa. I'd be upset if I spent 1mil+ on a home and had a neighbor move in next door and ruin the place.

Charles was waaaay ahead of the curve with his organic Highgrove. Remember how much hell he caught for that? EVERYONE thought it silly. Well. Maybe he's ahead of the curve here too. Maybe we're all too impressed with our unquestioned beliefs and opinions to recognize that we might be totally wrong 40 years from now.

Brilliant I really enjoyed that. We are off to the Scillies again this week and your headline comments on each island really articulated how I felt. Exactly the same!

Like millions of Brits, I grew up in a Victorian red-brick townhouse, and still live in one. I simply cannot live in some new build box with fking beige beige beige everywhere and plastic door handles. I want to see wooden floorboards, a proper wooden staircase and bannister, nice coving details, little brass latches on windows. I want to live in a place filled with others’ memories and contributions. Modern architecture has completely forgotten the human, and replaced it with profit.

When I was training to be an architect, the lecturers were very closed minded. I felt I was being brainwashed to only design buildings in a certain way. The average person often chooses a certain type of architecture, and you’ll find that most of the time, if they can afford it, it is older architecture. Unfortunately, most will only ever be able to afford the boring boxes we see being built everywhere. What is it about older buildings that we love? It’s a question I often ask myself, but one thing is for sure, architecture is important to help improve peoples mental health, as well as nurture communities. Unfortunately, it seems many architects are only interested in making a statement for themselves, regardless of how their building sits with its surroundings.

Regarding the issue of choice and expression of personality, Prince Charles has expressed both of those things in the form of Poundbury, and the people who criticise him ironically criticise that his vision forbids others expressing their individual tastes while they don't want him to express his ideas. It is actually fairly common even in modern architecture to have some rules about what windows you can use and how tall a building should be. Modernist architecture allows free expression of ideas until those ideas are traditionalist. Sorry, but that does seem to be the case.

While I appreciate the love and care that's actually been put into this development and I love older houses, I feel a little cold looking at them all? Whereas other older houses really have something to them, these don't so much? I'm sure it's different if you were to actually be there but I don't know

If one had to choose between living in a Soviet Apartment block and poundbury, it would be a clear choice for everyone not chronically masochistic.

Best video I have seen on the Scillys. Well done.

i really don’t understand why we don’t build like other euro countries

I think a balance needs to be struck, because there's a lot that Poundbury does correctly. Why? Well, in *general* terms, the wider public seems to prefer traditional architecture. Are there exceptions? Absolutely, and there is a whole list of post WW2 buildings that are fantastic to look at or behold. Structures such as the shard or London Eye divide public opinion, but so did the Eiffeltower in its day and there's no doubt that they all have eventually become an integral part of London (or Paris') skyline. My personal favourites actually happen to be traditional buildings that have been cleverly integrated or extended with modern structures, such as St. Pancras Intl. or Kings Cross stations. Also, taking an absolutist stance against all modern architecture denies a part of human development. We should not erase all mentions of it, since that denies a part of our history and therefore of who we are. THAT SAID, in the same way that we have slowly come to recognise that redesigning cities after WW2 around cars was a big mistake and that walkable neighbourhoods (with the addition of new forms of public transport and more bike infrastructure) are preferable, I think we have also collectively come to recognise that much of what was experimented in the way of modern architecture doesn't tend to make people feel at ease and generally means those places are perceived as ugly by most people. I mean, for every pretty or stunning modern building, there's at least ten examples of drab, soul-crushing tower blocks or mundane office buildings, and in most cities across Europe, it's rarely the areas built after WW2 that are highly sought after by tourists and residents. So, to cut a long story short, I think there is some sense in trying to shift away from pure "function over form" architecture and reconsider how buildings that are perceived by a majority to be ugly or that are not well integrated into the rest of the city landscape can indeed have a damaging effect on its residents. A bit like how good interior design can boost productivity and happiness, the same ought to be true for city design, where first of all a lot of practical considerations (such as job opportunities, walkability, public transport, good availability of shops, bars, cafes, cultural venues, community centres etc.) have to be made, but aesthetic considerations also play a role. In that sense, I think it's a question of balance. I think newer development should take a lot of Poundbury's ideas onboard, but in the same way that modernism went too far in denouncing traditional architecture, here the pendulum seems to have swung too far the other way. Human history is really a series of overcorrections, as they say. What I don't like about Poundbury are essentially the things you pointed out: -it's too sterile and "tidy". There should be more public squares, green areas and community centres that are left for residents to design and flesh out over time. At present it looks too American for my taste, actually. It's probably the cleanly cut lawn that gives me slight "aristocrat chills”. Really not my cup of tea. Imperfection is very much human, so the odd crooked fence or overgrown bush would make it seem less alien. Plus the town is still dominated by cars rather than people, which again sucks some of the life out of it. -I also think not allowing any modern structures *per se* is stupid. Of course it's fine to regulate general height and require that any new buildings should more or less fit into the aesthetics of the town, since those are key criteria that today, often for the sake of profit, are completely ignored. But I think it's way better to merely set the tone for a new development, rather than to micromanage every little detail. The former ensures that the development is pleasant to the eye, but not dull and devoid of life. This lack of balance has the issue that it will tend to attract older residents, since, on average, younger people will prefer to live somewhere devoid of beauty but full of life, whereas older people probably prefer the opposite. A balance between both is what really makes a great town/city though, in my opinion. -I think your point at 8:26 is very reasonable. Humans do need some contrast. We consider old city centres to be so strikingly beautiful, not just because they draw inspiration from nature in their ornamental features and more traditional materials, but also because they're set against parts of town that are hellishly ugly. I don't think there have to be ugly elements in this development, that would rather defeat the purpose. But there should be more space for experimental designs and deviations from the norm. It's a difficult balance to strike, but I think it can be done. -good public transport links are key. Even with the best of intentions, in a town this size, walkability is simply not feasible and the number of cars parked around the town clearly shows this. This also gives it that "American small town" feel. Better public transport options would help, but one thing that should have been done from the start is heavily restrict parking in the town center (with exceptions for disabled users and deliveries) and instead have a number of parking areas on the outskirts of the town. Given its size, walking to the center should be no issue. When hopefully more shops move in and the pedestrianised town squares and parks become more vibrant and pleasant places to be, there's a chance more outsiders will take the car (or the bus) to Poundbury and walk around the town, giving it more life. Poundbury is very pretty, but it lacks the human element and that comes partly by there being more imperfections and partly by their being more life in the streets, as is the case in Dorchester. I have to say though, comparing it to Dorchester isn't fair, since that is essentially comparing a long established town more than 10x the size to a new development. More appropriate would be to compare it to a different new development of similar size. And here, I wouldn't be surprised if you came to the conclusion that many new housing developments suffer from exactly the same issues that Poundbury does, but with none of the upsides.

I loved the isles but it's getting to expensive to go . Last time I was there was 1987 and I went twice in 1986 to work in higher town . Miss the place

Having lived previously in Poundbury, I feel you haven’t quite understood the concept of it. You are wrong to compare it to a town centre, a place where people are forced into a few streets of commercialism. Perhaps compare it to a typical Barrett estate. Nothing much architecturally would change over several years on those. People in Poundbury use the businesses and facilities at a more relaxed pace. It’s deceptively convenient. It is a housing estate with character and services to hand. People live their lives normally and are free to add individuality inside and in the garden much the same as any other home in a different area. There are plenty of quintessential villages in England with the same vibe. There isn’t anything soulless about buildings with style. They are a lot more pleasing to the eye than a modern home designed for maximum profit and minimal materials.

Seems to me it just needs to be lived in for a bit. As the population grows and adds a human touch to the town it will begin to feel more organic.

great little vlog Paul, like the commentary too. I'll be in Hugh Town in three weeks, to see what they are all about. keep up the vlogs.

Don’t make it too complicated. The town is fully admired by its inhabitants, so why bother?! This town is a chance to wind the time back and create something which normal cities don’t have. This town is like the your music of great composers, a today’s rarity.