IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rppexx/v30y2015i1p95-128.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Urban contrast and neo-Toryism: on the social and political symbolism of The Architectural Review 's Townscape campaign

Author

Listed:
  • Anthony Raynsford

Abstract

Using archival evidence from Hastings' unpublished writings, as well as from representative Townscape publications, this essay chronologically traces the genesis and development of Townscape as social and political project within the history of British planning theory. Revising recent scholarship on Townscape, the article posits that Townscape embraced a conservative project, in many ways resistant to the emerging welfare state and to the dominant government consensus for regionalist principles of post-war reconstruction. It argues that Townscape posited an anti-collectivist model of society, bound together, not through a consensus of aims or viewpoints, but through a composite ecology of individualizing difference, developed according to one's unique cultural role or 'bias'. Paralleling conservative British political discourses of the period, Townscape aestheticized and naturalized such differences through a tri-partite model of social types and a metaphorical construction of society as nature. Understanding the central significance of this social and political symbolism allows for new understanding of Townscape's construction of social complexity, as well as its use of organic analogies to describe social difference.

Suggested Citation

  • Anthony Raynsford, 2015. "Urban contrast and neo-Toryism: on the social and political symbolism of The Architectural Review 's Townscape campaign," Planning Perspectives, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 95-128, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rppexx:v:30:y:2015:i:1:p:95-128
    DOI: 10.1080/02665433.2014.918861
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02665433.2014.918861
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/02665433.2014.918861?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rppexx:v:30:y:2015:i:1:p:95-128. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rppe20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.