HERNE BAY REGENERATION IN KENT BY CLAGUE ARCHITECTS FOR DENNE AND COPLAN ESTATES

This might well be a perfectly reasonable, anodyne, mixed-use masterplan. But the images are just so, so depressing. They've bothered to make jaunty colours for the awnings and parasols, complete with a highlight showing the merciless sun beating down on the North Kent coast as if it were the Costa del Sol. But they couldn't really be bothered to make any decisions about materials or detail for the buildings.

This is the kind of thing you do when you don't want anyone to think the buildings are going to be too good, because the developer might then actually have to build something of high quality.

"Keep it vague lads, and stick a hot air balloon in it - that always makes people feel like we're down with whole seasidey, public space vibe."

The fucking wavy roofs are just embarrassing, as is the likely justification for these pointlessly jaunty forms. They look like waves. The sea is nearby. Ergo, the building is contextual. You sorry, sorry bastards.

Loving the vision and subtlety in the paving proposal, too.

ROCHDALE TOWN CENTRE MASTERPLAN, BY ROCHDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

The image above, referred to as a 'masterplan' by Rochdale council, is the city fathers' compelling vision of how they will turn the space around Rochdale town hall into one of Europe's biggest public spaces. I tell you this in case you were labouring under the impression that said image was created by a child in a remedial class with only three felt tips to choose from: puce, flesh and powder blue.
If you will permit me to take a quote completely out of context, council leader Alan Taylor knows it shit but added: "We make no apologies for this." Well, thanks Alan.
You might think that this schematic is a little light on use and programme (beyond the visionary 'water features' that multiply offensively across the Stalin-style steppe that constitutes the new public space), but you'd be wrong. Look at the visualisation below:
They've thought hard about an innovative mix of 'cafe' on the ground floor with outdoor seating next to a dual carriageway, with 'mixed-use' space above it. Helpfully, they have placed two people in the 'mixed-use' space, presumably doing a mix of things. So you can really feel that mix happening.
Finally a key plank of revitalising the city centre will be to plant some trees, and then spray paint them purple:

Can anyone from Rochdale shed any light on this amateurish nonsense?

With many thanks to a contributor for this one...

BLAR MHOR HOUSING IN CAOL, FORT WILLIAM BY ARCHIAL FOR LORNE DEVELOPMENTS

Regular readers will be aware of what I consider to be just about the most prolific bad architect in the UK. Step forward Archial, the conglomerate that will be shitting out something awful in your neighbourhood very soon. I've had reason to think that they read this blog before, but now I know they do. Imagine the scene.
"Lads, we have a 300-home masterplan to do in Scotland, but we're shite at masterplanning. What shall we do?"
"I can't remember where I saw it, but whoever it is who made those great drawings of the Leyland Bus site has got real talent - we should hire him/her."
And they obviously did. This masterplan is much, much worse, though, with an even bigger array of Brookside Close moments, and a truly flagrant disregard for any existing geographical or architectural features of the place. Councils! You can have better than this! Just commission a good architect (there are other websites with some of those on them) rather than an utterly shit one who will transplant an urban and architectural language from out of their arse into your town.
One helpful rule of thumb, from Nairn to you. When someone presents a masterplan with a perimeter of a line of trees, it means they're trying to hide something. Do not trust these people.


And the housing itself? Mush. Just mush.

LEYLAND BUS REDEVELOPMENT, LEYLAND BY STEVEN ABBOTT ASSOCIATES AND TAYLOR YOUNG

Urban design in Britain must be about the worst in the civilised world. This masterplan shows why, with a variety of autumnal shades used to demonstrate how little clue we have about making real streets, real neighbourhoods or real connections with the fabric of the city. Look at the perimeter, to start with. The site is almost entirely removed from any engagement with its context by lines of trees. Look at the shared surfaces at the road junctions - a shitty brown colour picks out the spaces that no kids will play on (still too dangerous) but that will cause maximum annoyance to motorists. Look at the sub-Brookside close in the bottom left. This is town planning done at the developer's behest, with no regard to what makes a town work. There's no real public space, just the semi-private kind masquerading. Look at the small blue spots - these denote what the architect refers to as 'garden squares'. They look more like car parks to me. Urban planning in this country has assimilated the propaganda about placemaking from bodies like CABE, and carried on doing the same old crap the housebuilders always wanted from its pathetically pliant consultants. Here are some of the houses:

Oceans of indeterminate watercoloured green space and some sketchy housing helpfully obscured by the trees. A party wall (to the left) left white because they don't know what to fucking do with it. That's a problem that English architecture has had for 300 years, and the designers of this scheme don't even try to dignify the problem.

So, why are these houses so awful? Roger Lomas of Taylor Young can enlighten us: "The objective of the proposals was to create homes not houses, places not spaces and a community rather than an estate." I wonder how they're measuring such scientific metrics?

Urban designers in this country talk crap all the time, government-approved crap that reassures planners while pulling the wool over their eyes time and again.
The elevations? You'll be sorry you asked...