Why Labour may come to regret closing the Office for Place

The announcement this week by the housing minister Matthew Pennycook to shutter the Office for Place echoes a regrettable pattern in the treatment of bodies dedicated to improving the quality of the built environment. Pennycook framed the decision as a matter of efficiency, arguing that the office’s role could be more effectively delivered from within the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government (MHCLG). Yet, as Nicholas Boys Smith, the Office for Place’s interim chair, remarked, this decision risks “ministers marking their own homework” on housing design.

This move recalls the 2010 decision of the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government to effectively abolish the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) and wrap it into the Design Council, where it limps on, all but invisible. At the time, CABE’s neutering was justified as a budgetary measure, but it also smacked of political spite – a wilful dismantling of an organisation that had made real progress in improving design standards.

The cycle of creating, dismantling and reinventing design bodies seems to reflect deeper cultural battles, as much about ideology as policy

CABE itself had replaced the Royal Fine Art Commission, whose dissolution in 1999 was similarly motivated by ideology, particularly on the part of the left, which viewed the commission as an elitist relic.

The cycle of creating, dismantling and reinventing design bodies seems to reflect deeper cultural battles, as much about ideology as policy. It is also symptomatic of Britain’s stop-start approach to policy, with all its frustrating and energy-sapping implications for architects, business and investors.

The Office for Place emerged from the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, chaired by the late Roger Scruton, a conservative philosopher whose involvement ignited fierce opposition from the progressive left. Scruton’s championing of “beauty” in architecture – long dismissed as an irrelevant, conservative notion by many architects – reopened old wounds from the so-called “style wars” of the 1980s.

These battles were epitomised by Prince Charles’s infamous “carbuncle” speech, which critiqued modernist architecture and left many architects nursing a sense of grievance that endures to this day.

Despite this controversy, the commission’s final report contained much that was uncontentious. It advocated for design that responded to place, context and community needs – principles that few would disagree with.

Yet, the perception that a conservative-led body was questioning the architectural establishment’s prevailing orthodoxy on aesthetics and urbanism made it anathema to many within the profession, where liberal political leanings dominate.

Architecture’s fraught relationship with tradition and modernism forms the backdrop to these debates. Following the soul-searching of the 1980s, the 1990s saw a gradual return to modernism, not as the progressive programme of the mid-20th century, but as a tradition in its own right.

Contemporary architects, while professing disdain for “pastiche” traditionalism, frequently reference and reinterpret the work of their modernist predecessors.

This ironic relationship with the past extends to urbanism. Few architects now deny that modernist planning principles – car-centric developments, buildings set back from the street, and the neglect of public spaces – were catastrophic. In their place, principles long championed by the New Urbanism have gained traction.

Developments such as King’s Cross and Elephant Park show the value of re-embracing streets, well-defined public spaces, and ground-level activation – practical lessons from the past that architects once dismissed as “conservative.”

>> Also read: True placemaking is so much more than just a numbers game – King’s Cross is a prime example

CABE, for all its achievements, avoided engaging with the cultural and emotional dimensions of the built environment. Who do we build for, and why? Where do the preferences of ordinary people fit into architectural discourse?

Architects have traditionally shied away from acknowledging popular taste, seeing it as antithetical to innovation. The result has been a profession increasingly divorced from housing delivery.

Most UK housing is designed not by architects but by mass housebuilders, whose pastiche traditional designs, while often derided by architects, reflect the preferences of many. The Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission sought to address this chasm, recognising that the gap between architectural orthodoxy and popular perceptions of beauty had become a barrier to delivering the homes the country needs.

Labour’s decision to close the Office for Place appears driven by the same budgetary logic that led to CABE’s demise in 2010. However, it also betrays a lack of narrative around quality in placemaking.

Labour has set ambitious housing targets – 1.5 million homes over five years – but seems to lack the policy framework needed to ensure that these homes contribute to sustainable, liveable communities.

Without a figure like Richard Rogers to champion urbanism, the party risks prioritising volume over quality. Yet, history suggests that starting from scratch – a common impulse for incoming governments – is counterproductive.

The closure of CABE set back progress on design and urbanism by years. Labour may find itself in a similar position, struggling to define a placemaking agenda while losing valuable time.

The irony of this situation is that the lessons Labour needs are already available. From the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission to CABE’s guidance, there is no shortage of frameworks for delivering good design.

Without addressing the fundamental question of what makes a place work, the Labour party risks repeating the mistakes of the past

The challenge lies in integrating these principles into planning reform and housing delivery. Almost inevitably the government will eventually realise that a dedicated body is required to oversee implementation on policy and quality of place.

Successful urbanism is not about constant innovation or reinventing the wheel. It is about learning from what works – streets that are active and overlooked, public spaces that invite use, and developments that respect their context. The most unsustainable urbanism is that which fails, requiring costly interventions to fix or replace.

Labour’s focus on volume must not come at the expense of quality. Without addressing the fundamental question of what makes a place work, the party risks repeating the mistakes of the past – delivering housing numbers but failing to build communities.

The decision to close the Office for Place may save money in the short term, but the long-term costs could be far greater.

>> Also read: Decision to scrap government design advisor Office for Place a ‘mistake’, says Nicholas Boys Smith