ABSTRACT
Oh for 'at least one hideous house to relieve good taste' (quoted by Parr, (1965). William H. White's plea echoes a desire widely felt but rarely articulated for fear of being labelled philistine. Currently an anti-plan backlash is gathering strength. In Britain it speaks through architectural troubleshooters like Reyner Banham and Cedric Price. 'Non-plan' is a reaction against overplan. The question Banham et al. (1969) pose is, 'Why don't we dare trust the choices that would evolve if we let them?' The recommended answer is, 'physical planning . . . should consist at most of setting up frameworks for decision, within which as much objective information as possible can be fitted.' The paper concludes: 'We seem so afraid of freedom . . . why should only the under-sevens be allowed their bright materials, their gay constructions, their wind-up Daleks?' Coming through the whole paper is a clear assumption of where such freedom would lead. The environment would become transformed with all the things which planners and architects now keep at bay in the interests of sophistication and good taste. A particular kind of aesthetic is being imposed on cities which, it is argued, comprises a perceptual starvation diet.
