London Then and Now

Rating:
Summary: Rather disappointing: strange choice of subjects
Review: This book contains some beautiful illustrations of London, together with much interesting information. The "then" photos seem to date mostly from 80-150 years ago. I learned several things from the commentaries, even though I lived in or near London for many years, and made every effort to learn about the city! However, the choice of subject for many of the comparisons seems less than ideal. Surely, in a "Then and Now" book, we want to see how much things have changed over the years, don't we? Hence, we don't really need to see locations where the comparative photos prove that very little has changed! For example, do we really need to see "then and now" pictures of Westminster Abbey, just to confirm that it really has NOT changed perceptibly during the past hundred years or so? I don't think so. In a world-class city where so much has changed, via either redevelopment or wanton destruction, there are many fascinating locations that should have been afforded priority in such a book, but which are omitted altogether. Examples: the South Kensington Imperial Institute/Imperial College site (actually mentioned in the book's Introduction), Holland Park House, etc. I can only imagine that the author was forced to draw on a limited stock of "then" photographic material.

Rating:
Summary: Rather disappointing: strange choice of subjects
Review: This book contains some beautiful illustrations of London, together with much interesting information. The "then" photos seem to date mostly from 80-150 years ago. I learned several things from the commentaries, even though I lived in or near London for many years, and made every effort to learn about the city! However, the choice of subject for many of the comparisons seems less than ideal. Surely, in a "Then and Now" book, we want to see how much things have changed over the years, don't we? Hence, we don't really need to see locations where the comparative photos prove that very little has changed! For example, do we really need to see "then and now" pictures of Westminster Abbey, just to confirm that it really has NOT changed perceptibly during the past hundred years or so? I don't think so. In a world-class city where so much has changed, via either redevelopment or wanton destruction, there are many fascinating locations that should have been afforded priority in such a book, but which are omitted altogether. Examples: the South Kensington Imperial Institute/Imperial College site (actually mentioned in the book's Introduction), Holland Park House, etc. I can only imagine that the author was forced to draw on a limited stock of "then" photographic material.