This book contains manuscript material by Sir Nicholas Pevsner (1902–83) that has not previously been published. Pevsner planned it as part of a project, begun in the 1940s, of a history of the ‘Picturesque’ and it is here sub-titled ‘visual planning and the picturesque’ and published with annotation by Matthew Aitchison and an introductory essay by Aitchison and John Macarthur. Matthew Aitchison is a lecturer in architecture and urban design at Queen's University Belfast. This work is based on his PhD thesis, research for which was carried out in conjunction with the Technical University Berlin, where he has also taught. He has practised as an architect and has been engaged with the establishment of an international centre for architecture and urban design in Berlin. John Macarthur was the supervisor of his PhD at the University of Queensland.

After the introductory essay, the first part of Pevsner's material analyses the English planning tradition before 1800 and is mostly presented in pictures. The second part presents us with a survey of English planning theory as understood by Pevsner; in effect, it becomes a study of the evolving theory of the picturesque, supported by some illustrations. The third part is presented as a sequence of headings and quotations with supporting images. It is essentially a study of the processes of picturesque tradition and theory and how they shaped architecture and urban planning in England in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. They show that Pevsner's views on Modernism were out of step with much of the contemporary thinking and writing. To read this today is a refreshing experience, due to Pevsner's sharp insight into planning in England. He is not hampered by an approach which can see the picturesque as nostalgic, but rather as a process of thought that can allow for such Modern developments as the Roehampton Estate to be part of the picturesque tradition.

Pevsner's thoughts, as presented here, promote a refreshing visual approach to urban design and planning combined with a ‘common sense’ rather than a nostalgic approach to architecture; an approach that seeks to incorporate and mediate, rather than idealize in isolation, buildings and developments within their sites. The methodology of architectural history has continued to develop since Pevsner's death; this becomes clear when reading this text. In the past, Pevsner has often been portrayed as a malign agent of foreign ideology and change who promoted Modern architecture in our cities. The introductory essay helps to put this judgement into a balanced contextual framework. This may not be the last word on Pevsner and his views on architecture and planning, but it may open the way for a reassessment of his writings and contributions outside the County Guides, as well as being a valuable resource for historians that adds to our understanding of urban planning and architectural choices in the post-Second World War years.

The reviews in the Journal are published as the views of those who write them. They are accepted by the Journal in good faith as accurate and honest expressions of opinion.