This book is about the making of London in the period 1660-1720. This period saw the beginnings of a new understanding of built form and a transitional stage in the transmission and articulation of that form in design procedures. The book discusses the processes and methods by which the development of the city was financed and organized. It considers the leading developers and questions to what extent the traditional model which attributes responsibility for the development of London to aristocratic landlords is a viable one. The book looks at the structure of the building industry and assesses how it was adapted to meet the demands of the production of speculative housing on a scale and at a pace never previously experienced. It outlines how concepts concerning the form of the new terraces were communicated and transmitted through the building chain and finally realized in the built product. The book focuses on the discipline of architectural history and is primarily concerned with architectural and urban design issues. It talks about drawings as the sum of an architect's oeuvre, rather than the buildings, or the drawings and the buildings together. The book provides information on the style and layout of the new developments and explores the extent to which they can be categorized as a 'modernizing' phenomenon.
Constructing Classicism: architecture in an age of commerce
done through drawings or
were traditional non-drawn design methods still used? And how important
was the growing architectural literature in the spread of the new
housing type? The final chapters focus on the style and layout of the
new developments and ask to what extent they can be categorized, as they
have often been, as a ‘modernizing’ phenomenon.
The core of the book is therefore concerned with
, Elias and Weber there is an implicit suggestion that the formation of self-restraint is a uniquely Western modernizingphenomenon. We have begun with Erikson’s account of the Yurok to show that this process is by no means unique to either modernity or to Western society.
As we are about to see, Elias’ account of the development of European self-restraint is analogous with Erikson’s account of the Yurok. Elias argues that pre-modern feudal Europe was centrifugal and highly spontaneous, while modernization was centripetal and tending towards self-restraint. This