A book more concerned with sounding clever than imparting knowledge, this feels to me like it was written by someone as a personal goal, rather than because they thought is would be a good book for others to read. Although with the tone throughout, I'm sure there was lots of self-congratulations as it was being written, and I'm sure he thinks it's great.
Depsite calling itself the secret life of buildings, the main focus in the book is not on buildings, and most definitely not on history. Despite the notes at the end, I find it hard to believe that much of the content if verifiable fact, despite the way it is presented - it is impossible, I think, to describe the feelings and opinions of long-dead figures with any accuracy, unless they kept very precise diaries, which everyone the book references did not do. A large proportion of the story of each building is just that - a story, written down like an oral telling, and full of embellishments and artistic licence. I don't think think this is suitable for a book presenting itself as history.
I also disliked the tone of the writing, which is personal preference, but Goodreads ratings are supposed to be based on enjoyment, so is relevant to note. The overwhelming feeling is one of pomposity, and of someone who I'm sure entertains themselves very much. Included in the Gloucester Cathedral section is some verse, which would be fine, if it were not in its original archaic spelling. Keeping it in this form does nothing beneficial for the reader, it simply makes it more difficult to understand and therefore less enjoyable. The verses written in other sections, originally in Arabic or Greek, have been translated - why is this not? Presumably, it appeals to the author's intellectual vanity - I can think of no other reason.
There was also a heavy focus on religion, as opposed to architecture. The architectural jargon was all present, meaning the average reader will have to refer often to a dictionary to understand fully, which I don't object to - if you're opening a book about a subject you are not familiar with, you have to accept that your lack of knowledge will hinder your understanding. What I found more objectionable was the litany of religious terms and highly specific terms, which isn't what I signed up for when picking up a book on the history of some buildings. I understand that a lot of the oldest structures are religious, but I don't think there was a need for it to be so in-depth with regard to the religious backgrounds of the areas, when it is supposed to be a history of the buildings themselves. There is definitely no need for what amounts to almost a full page of the succession of Abbots in charge of Gloucester Cathedral over its life - usually with no more information than their name. This is not interesting, nor is it pertinent.
I've given it one star because I hated reading it. I did learn some things, assuming not all of it was fabrication, but I didn't have a good time doing so. I would never read anything written by this author again, and would advise others not to. I'm not sure what to do with the book now, as giving it to a charity shop might inflict it on some other unfortunate soul, but having it on my bookshelf will be an unpleasant reminder. Maybe I'll leave it in the woodpile for kindling - at least then it will finally bring me some joy, by bringing warmth.