Modernity's Ugliness: A Philosophy of Deconstruction and Destruction, By Richard Miller (Londonistan)
The lament in the Daily Sceptic's July 18, 2025, article, "Why Is Modernity So Ugly?" captures a profound truth: the built environment of modern Britain, its signs, housing estates, and public buildings, has become a monument to aesthetic decay. From the sterile metal sign replacing Townsville's flower-laden welcome to the soulless St Clement's surgery in Winchester, modernity's creations stand in stark contrast to the timeless beauty of historical structures like the Hospital of St Cross. This discussion argues that modernity's ugliness stems from a philosophy of deconstruction and destruction, rooted in a rejection of tradition, beauty, and human aspiration. By accepting function, efficiency, and abstract ideals like sustainability over form, meaning, and transcendence, modern design erodes the cultural and spiritual heritage that once uplifted Britain's landscapes and communities.
The Daily Sceptic paints a vivid picture of "incremental uglification." The replacement of Townsville's charming brick-and-flower sign with a bland, passive-aggressive metal one ("Please drive carefully") exemplifies a shift from warmth to sterility. The Taylor Wimpey estate, with its cramped, utilitarian homes, pales against the elegance of Georgian architecture. St Clement's surgery, a blocky eyesore, stands as a betrayal of Winchester's Anglo-Saxon heritage, unlike the 900-year-old Hospital of St Cross, which radiates dignity and permanence. These are not isolated failures but symptoms of a broader philosophy that dismantles beauty for expediency.
Public sentiment reflects this loss. A 2024 YouGov poll shows 62% of Britons prefer traditional architecture over modern designs, yet planning approvals favour the latter, with 80% of new UK buildings adhering to functionalist styles, per the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). The Daily Sceptic cites Harriet Green's observation that "progress" is now synonymous with "decline," with communities opposing new developments because they expect "rubbish" outcomes. This scepticism mirrors the broader erosion of trust in institutions, with only 37% believing public bodies act in the national interest, per Ipsos.
Modernity's ugliness is not accidental but ideological, rooted in a deconstructive ethos that dismantles tradition, hierarchy, and meaning. The Daily Sceptic references Roger Scruton's critique of functionality over form and the rejection of tradition, a hallmark of modernist architecture. Since the early 20th century, movements like Bauhaus and Brutalism prioritised utility and egalitarianism, stripping buildings of ornamentation and historical context. Le Corbusier's "machines for living" philosophy reduced homes to functional boxes, ignoring the human need for beauty, as William Morris lamented in his yearning for "romance and beauty."
This deconstruction extends beyond architecture. Modernity's broader philosophy, evident in postmodernism's scepticism of grand narratives, rejects the sacred and the aspirational. The Daily Sceptic notes societal atheism as a factor, with only 14% of Britons trusting religious institutions, per YouGov 2025. The Church of England's decline (600,000 weekly attendees, down 40% since 2000), reflects a spiritual void, leaving no impetus to "recreate heaven on earth" through architecture. Instead, corporate ideology, as the article argues, drives design, with firms like Assura boasting of "sustainability" and "energy efficiency" while ignoring aesthetics. The St Clement's surgery, with its solar panels and Net Zero credentials, epitomises this soulless pragmatism.
Modernity's destructive impulse is evident in its erasure of cultural heritage. The Hospital of St Cross, built to uplift the poor, embodies what Nikolaus Pevsner called the "human urge to dignify its surroundings." In contrast, modern buildings like St Clement's choose cost and compliance over inspiration. The Daily Sceptic highlights the loss of human-based measurements (feet and inches) for the metric system, symbolising a broader detachment from intuitive, human-centred design. Planning officers, driven by corporate metrics, approve developments that clash with historic landscapes, 80% of new UK housing estates lack architectural cohesion with their surroundings, per a 2024 Create Streets report.
This destruction is not just physical but cultural. The Daily Sceptic's comparison of modern signs to "passive aggressive" commands, reflects a shift from community to control. The Townsville sign's shift from "Welcome" to "drive carefully" assumes distrust, mirroring the state's broader erosion of social bonds. Crime, up 4% in 2025 with knife crime spiking 7% (ONS), thrives in environments stripped of beauty and cohesion, as studies show attractive public spaces reduce anti-social behaviour by 20%. By replacing market halls and guild buildings with utilitarian structures, modernity severs Britain's connection to its past, leaving a fragmented society.
The Daily Sceptic blames "corporate ideology" for accepting safety, affordability, and sustainability over beauty, truth, and goodness. This is evident in the Taylor Wimpey estate, where cramped homes meet "community" and "location" buzzwords but lack aesthetic value. Assura's focus on Net Zero for St Clement's ignores John Ruskin's call for buildings that inspire future generations. Corporate developers, backed by councils, operate under a utilitarian calculus: 70% of UK planning budgets choose cost over design, per RIBA. This ethos, rooted in post-war modernism, views beauty as frivolous, a stance Scruton criticised as a "philosophical rejection of tradition."
Globally, this pattern holds. China's coal plants, approved weekly, mock the UK's Net Zero obsession, yet Britain's environmental policies, gas boiler bans, EV mandates, drive up costs without aesthetic or practical gains. A 2025 Financial Times report notes UK energy prices rose 15% since 2023, squeezing households and builders alike. The result is a built environment that feels punitive, not uplifting, with 65% of Britons feeling new developments worsen their quality of life, per YouGov.
The ugliness of modernity's philosophy has far-reaching consequences. Aesthetically barren spaces erode mental health, with a 2024 UCL study finding that residents in poorly designed urban areas report 30% higher rates of depression. Social cohesion frays as communities lose shared landmarks, only 25% of new UK buildings incorporate local heritage, per Historic England. The Daily Sceptic's reference to public opposition, like Bath's Art Deco fire-station campaign, shows resistance to this decay, yet 85% of planning disputes are lost to developers, per CPRE.
Politically, this fuels populism. Reform UK's rise, with 29% trusting Nigel Farage to improve safety, per Survation, reflects anger at a system that builds soulless estates while crime surges. Migration, blamed by 22% for rising crime, exacerbates tensions in poorly designed urban sprawls, where 708 charges against 312 asylum seekers in hotels highlight integration failures, per the Mail on Sunday. Without beauty to bind communities, social fracture deepens, risking the "lawless Britain" 48% fear.
To counter modernity's deconstruction, Britain must reorient toward beauty, truth, and goodness, as Ruskin urged. Architects and planners should give human-centred design, drawing on Georgian or Gothic traditions — 90% of Britons prefer these, per a 2023 YouGov poll. Planning laws must incentivise aesthetic cohesion, with tax breaks for heritage-inspired projects. Communities should have veto power over developments, as 60% of locals oppose new estates, per Create Streets. Rejecting corporate buzzwords like "sustainability" in favour of uplifting design could restore pride, with studies showing beautiful environments boost civic engagement by 25%.
Modernity's ugliness is no accident but a product of a deconstructive, destructive philosophy that chooses function over form, efficiency over inspiration. From Townsville's sterile sign to St Clement's bleak surgery, Britain's built environment reflects a rejection of tradition and beauty, eroding cultural heritage and social cohesion. This decay, coupled with institutional failures and rising crime, threatens Britain's soul. By embracing Ruskin's vision, building for posterity, not just utility, Britain can reclaim its green and pleasant land. Without change, modernity's ugliness will continue to scar the nation, leaving a legacy of despair for generations to come, as King Charles (as Prince) argued years ago:
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/07/18/why-is-modernity-so-ugly/
"It's like Worzel Gummidge's 'joke': "What's the difference between a lemon and a banana? They're both yellow." What's the difference between a new town sign, a housing estate and a doctor's surgery? They're all ugly. Across the land, buildings are being erected, signage replaced, facilities upgraded, yet little of it seems an improvement on what came before. My commute from our village to my place of work in a cathedral city has been aggravated in recent months by a great march of incremental uglification.
Our local old town wooden sign used to read: "Welcome to Townsville." It had a brick structure that included a trough, filled every season with bedding plants. It was pretty. Naturally it has been replaced with a bland metal sign: "Townsville, Please drive carefully." Topped as it is with an aggressive yellow and red 30 sign, like an ill-fitting bobble hat, it's aesthetically unbalanced.
And passive aggressive.
Where the older sign welcomed visitors to the elegant Georgian market town, the new one makes dreadful assumptions about those who have the temerity to drive in. In asking us to "drive carefully", it assumes that without the bossy sign, we are all speeding lunatics about to tear through the town and mow down a group of school children.
Next up is the Taylor Wimpy estate of 350 homes built on the town's margins, after years of strenuous opposition. The next-door field is a solar farm. Houses are enormously expensive and yet most double bedrooms only have enough space for a single wardrobe and no chest of drawers. Utilities and central heating may be improved but visually, not one house looks better than the Georgian houses in the historic town centre.
"Now, now," chides my husband, "let's not be rude about where people live." He was up a ladder trying to replace the rat-eaten soffits beneath the gutters of our 1980s dormer bungalow. Yes of course, shelter and affordability are important, but so too is visual beauty. I feel like William Morris who lamented: "I half wish that I had not been born with a sense of romance and beauty in this accursed age."
What entirely spoils my commute is the new city centre surgery that has been thrown up in the heart of Anglo Saxon Winchester. Only two months old, the St Clement's surgery (pictured above) already looks like an abandoned 1960s precinct. When I compare this medical centre to the nearby Hospital of St Cross in Winchester, a stunning Romanesque building founded by Henry of Blois, a grandson of William the Conqueror, to help the poor (pictured below), a wave of sadness pulls at my heart. It is square and solid and buttermilk stone in the summer sun, the sort of Abbey you would travel to Normandy to visit. It has stood resplendent for nearly 900 years, continuing to support the robed Brothers of St Cross who live in what Simon Jenkin's describes as "England's most perfect Almshouse". Can there be a stronger example in England of the degradation in style and substance of buildings that claim to help those in need?
At the six-month anniversary event of Looking for Growth, Harriet Green of Basis Capital spoke about the natural reflex to campaign against building projects. She cited the attempt to replace Bath's Art Deco fire-station:
When people hear that new buildings are coming… there is upswell in support for people trying to block it. We have subbed in progress for decline, we assume that if something is going to be 'improved' it's just going to be quite rubbish… when we hear that change is coming, we know it's probably going to be shit.
While previous generations prompted architectural historian Nikolaus Pevsner to write that, "Church spires, market halls and guild buildings stand not just for religion or commerce but for the human urge to dignify its surroundings," it appears that this urge has long since departed. The Healthcare Property 'experts' Assura, who developed the hulking St Clements surgery, boasts: "The development will meet the latest sustainability and energy efficiency standards. It will be able to generate onsite energy through the installation of solar panels on the roof and the design follows Net Zero Carbon principles throughout." Mention of the dignification of the local surroundings, there is none. Of the potential of great buildings to uplift the human spirit, silence.
Various explanations have been offered to explain the collapse in modern consideration for beauty. Dominic Frisby talks about the replacement of human based measurements, feet and inches, with the metric system; Roger Scruton, the primacy of functionality over form and the philosophical rejection of tradition; my chum who's a civil servant in the housing department, blames planning officers; others, our societal atheism precluding the need to recreate heaven on earth. I blame corporate ideology: the visions and values of the companies and councils who commission and design such buildings and street furniture.
The over-riding impetus when replacing the market town sign would have been around safety and affordability. Likewise, the new housing estate is 'built' around the three key concepts of 'community,' 'location' and 'sustainability.' Only when architects, designers, town planners, council members, healthcare property developers and house building conglomerates all orient their intentions away from such ugly-making concepts as sustainability, efficiency and safety and back towards beauty, truth and goodness, will our human made environment once again enhance this green and pleasant land. Then, John Ruskin's rallying cry has a hope of succeeding:
When we build… let it not be for present delights nor for present use alone. Let it be such work as our descendants will thank us for, and let us think… that a time is to come when these stones will be held sacred because our hands have touched them, and that men will say as they look upon the labour, and the wrought substance of them, See! This our fathers did for us!
Or as Harriet Green put it more pithily: "When we hear 'progress', when we hear 'change' it should be an unwavering, unmistakable positive."
Comments