Personal Recommendations

Here’s a list of “proper old” Brit pubs, for those who are either of a Brit persuasion or else part of a vanishingly-small number who actually want to visit Britishland.

For the record, I’ve been to four of them (The Bell, The George, The Coach & Horses and The King’s Head) and had a great time in all.  (By the way, the interiors of The George and The King’s Head are stunningly alike — when I saw the pic of the latter in the article, I thought for a moment that it was the George.)

That said:  when I was at The Bell, the beer selection was absolute shit — even Mr. Sorenson had trouble finding something decent, and we ended up drinking cider (ugh).  The George, of course, serves Wadworth 6X and their lamb pie is excellent.  I don’t recall much about the C&H because I was drinking there with either The Englishman or Mr. Free Market, and after those kind of epic sessions, memory is frequently foggy:  probably caused by sundry pints of Fuller’s London Pride, in retrospect.

I don’t know about the other pubs mentioned in the article, but they look excellent.

Missing from the list, however, is my absolute favorite, The King’s Arms in All Cannings:

…as is Salisbury’s Haunch of Venison:

Very much worth a visit, despite the lack of 6X.

Sick Transit

Francis Turner has written a piece that I could have written, only he’s not insane with rage and uses a lot fewer swear words.

That’s “the late” Limoges Hôtel de Ville (Town Hall), as it’s since been torched by Muslim/African/Communist (some overlap) rioters during the recent Scuffles.

Untouched by anyone (so far, we should be so lucky) are excrescences such as this:

…and our own inverted turdpile:

I don’t want to go on, for reasons of both repetitive boredom and depression.  Read Francis’s piece instead.

Not Too Bad

Of a Saturday morning, New Wife and I lie in bed together while reading Teh Intarwebz — this website, various news outlets and, of course, C.W.’s site, which features many pics that catch his attention.

One such C.W. pic was this one:

At first, I was appalled, but the more I looked at the building, the more I came round somewhat.  Yes, it does stand out (from what one can see) in a fairly conservatively-built neighborhood.  And yet… if you were to ask me what to call it, I’d have to say “Modern Art Deco” because of that giant circular window frame, and — dare I say it? — all those stained-glass windows, which give the thing a little more of a classical style.  It’s kinda 70s… and I grew up in the 1970s, lest we forget.  But the kicker is that whatever you call it, it’s a huge improvement on the foul 60s-era style of its neighbor standing on the right.

New Wife — who agrees with me on most matters like this — really liked it.  But then her inner chick came shining through on the next such pic:

…which she declared “cute”, even as I was reaching for a handy bedside barf bag.  I think what causes my opposition is the stained-glass front door (“Adorable”, quoth she, because she loves stained-glass anything:  doors, windows, Tiffany lamps, whatever).

Regardless, all that floral nonsense is still miles better than the ugly Po-Mo crap that’s foisted on us by the Le Corbusier School Of Ugliness.

But although the first edifice is still too modern for me, given a “must pick one” choice I think I’d take it over the Botanical Gardens thing.  Some things are just too much to bear

Discuss.

Ugliness

As any fule kno, one of my frequent irritations is architecture that is foul and ugly (especially of the Bauhaus / Le Corbusier / Post-Modern ilk).  Reader Alex S. sends me an interesting take on the whole “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) syndrome;  and while it’s a long read, it’s definitely worth the time:

Western countries used to let landowners build almost anything anywhere. Now, strict rules freeze the character of most neighborhoods, banning change and densification. Why? One theory is that modern buildings tend to be ugly, leading residents to support rules that exclude them from their neighborhoods. If this is true, then designing beautiful buildings could lead to more development.

One could only hope.  Let me clear on this:  I’m absolutely not against redevelopment, especially in urban locations.  The more the merrier, say I, as long as the new buildings don’t look like factories, warehouses and concrete/glass building blocks.  In cities, by definition, where people are squashed together, there needs to be some kind of harmonious architecture — and not just for aesthetic reasons, either.  It’s actually jarring to find, in an area that has a certain architectural feel or style to it, a new construction that belongs to the Fuck You School.

I’m less concerned with suburban architecture, by the way, especially if the houses are not standing cheek-by-jowl with each other.  When it comes to personal property, I’m kinda-libertarian about the whole thing.  While I may cluck my tongue and (occasionally) shake my fist at some modern concrete block house standing on the same street as some gracious older homes (and there’s a lot of that in Dallas), the way I see it is that if someone’s just dropped a couple mil on a piece of land, he should be allowed to build whatever he likes on it.

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about.  Along the occasionally-posh Inwood Road in north Dallas, one generally sees what I refer to as the “Dallas Mansion” style:

But on that very same road, one occasionally runs into an ugly Modernist edifice:

…and while I think that the above is a piece of shit and doesn’t fit into the overall tone of the neighborhood, I just shrug and say “No accounting for taste, is there?” and continue on my way to the DFW Gun Range.

My tolerance, however, stops very short when I see something like this:

…when it’s perched in a neighborhood that looks like this:

At that point, I start calling for the C4, and an investigation of the bank accounts of the people sitting on the local planning commission.

Never mind “not in my back yard”:  it should be “not in anyone’s back yard”.

Misguided

This little promo caught my attention:

Forget Vienna and Salzburg, there’s another Austrian city that is proving the perfect weekend destination, with a fabulous food culture, gorgeous green spaces and even a friendly alien.

Unlike its imperial sisters, Graz has long flown under the radar, despite being Austria’s second largest city. It’s hard to understand why. A historic beauty, Graz boasts the remnants of a medieval hilltop castle, prettily situated among the old baroque houses, church spires, and gabled roofs, and surrounded by wooded mountains.

So far, so good.  I’ve always wanted to go to Graz, having already visited Vienna (several times), Salzburg, Linz and the gorgeous Innsbruck.  Austria is one of my favorite countries on the planet and frankly, if someone were to point a gun at my head and say, “You have to leave the U.S. and live in a furrin country”, Austria would be pretty much at the top of the list.

All the more so when you see pictures like these:

Hubba hubba, book that tick– wait a minute, what?

JHC, what is the matter with these people?  I thought the Parisians were crazy, what with the I.M. Pei pyramid and the godawful Pompidou Centre;  but Paris is a huge city and you can hide all sorts of awfulness away there.

But Graz is tiny (relatively speaking), so plonking those “friendly alien” (my ass) structures into so small an area is just some architectural vandal stabbing a middle finger right into your eye.  That gorgeous bucolic river view assaulted by that horrifying glass worm of a bridge:  it’s like finding a festering carbuncle on Scarlett Johannson’s nose.

I still want to go to Graz, of course, but just a little less so now.