In the 1971 introduction he writes. “In writing an introduction to this edition of Townscape I find little to alter in the attitude expressed in the original introduction written ten years ago” but went on to say that with current designs “the original message of Townscape has not been delivered effectively.” Did his approach change to accommodate the days approaches to Urban Design that he felt went against his ideals?

2) Did he ever experiment with film? 

His work uses the ideas that people apprehend urban environments through kinaesthetic experiences as they move through them in everyday life and he uses series of photographs and sketches to illustrate these ideas in his publications. His work seems ideally suited to film and is this something he ever adopted later in his career?  

3) Did he perceive himself to be either modern or traditional? 

Criticism of his work claims that he was backwards looking because of his focus on picturesque aesthetic qualities. However, his use of photomontages, photography, kinaesthetic experiences and diversity in urban plans seems distinctly modern to me.

4) Was he a natural story teller? 

His writing in very accessible and flows well which is not always found in architectural or urban design texts. No doubt his time at the AR would have greatly helped his writing and editing but I wondered If he was as good at verbal communication. His enjoyment of English pubs as well speaks to someone who might have been excellent in conversation and his writing often contains witty remarks througout.

5) Did he use drawings, photography and collages for different purposes in practice?

In his publications it often seems that his work between the 3 are so visually similar that a drawing could easily be replaced with a photograph or vice versa and the same point would be illustrated.

SF