Morning:
13°c
THIS is Groundhog Day. For years Prince Charles's minders have successfully kept a lid on his architectural outpourings, on the grounds that a future monarch should not be partisan on public issues - but he has broken free.
The manner of his intervention exactly follows the pattern he took in the Eighties. Back then he attacked a project by Mr Richard Rogers, as the ennobled architect then was, for Paternoster Square, next to St Paul's Cathedral. He then encouraged a rival scheme for the site. He is now doing the same with Lord Rogers's Chelsea Barracks project, backing an alternative scheme by his favoured "traditionalist" architect.
At first sight the royally approved project for Chelsea Barracks has some appeal. In Quinlan Terry's wobbly pen sketch it looks roughly like Sir Christopher Wren's nearby Royal Hospital, but closer inspection shows it to be a bloated version of the hospital, rising up to eight storeys. It is Wren on steroids.
It presents a long, dull, impermeable wall to Chelsea Bridge Road, whereas the Rogers scheme regularly opens up views to gardens. It appears to offer narrow windows to the flats instead of the broad ones proposed by Rogers, as if there had been no progress in glass technology in three centuries. The Terry scheme has no balconies.
But the worst of it is the miserable, defeatist notion that modern architecture can do no better than mimic the architecture of 300 years ago. It is also unhistorical: if Wren had copied the prevailing London architecture of his time, there would have been no Royal Hospital.
The Rogers scheme is not beyond criticism. It is a little stiff and regimented, and somewhat bulky. But these issues are not resolved by giving it fancy dress. A hefty residential development is still hefty, whether it is in classical or modernist garb.
The Prince has forgotten nothing and learned nothing. He is behaving with the same high-handed arrogance as a quarter-century ago, using his prestige to tip the scales of the planning process in favour of his personal prejudices. This time, by addressing the Emir of Qatar personally, he is trying to exert influence as one prince to another.
He has not learned, in all this time, that good architecture is not about classical dress. He has not noticed the many and beautiful forms contemporary buildings can take. He has not registered how structures like the London Eye, the Gherkin and the Millennium Bridge have made modern architecture popular.
Nor has he learned the lesson of Paternoster Square. There his intervention led to years of stagnation, and the eventual building of a compromise that satisfied nobody. If the Emir of Qatar listens to him now, the same will happen with Chelsea Barracks.
Reader views (18)
Quinlan Terry scheme would have looked out of date in the days of Charles the first. I guess the 20th century and modernism was just something that happened to other people for the prince and Terry. Wren or Palladio did not create they designs by looking back but by thinking forward, when it comes to architecture Prince Charles cannot see further than the gates of 100 plus acre palace.
- John Newman, London
The Roger's plan for this site may have some flaws, but what better way to highlight the past, than to juxtapose it with a contemporary vision. I am saddened and disappointed that a man with Prince Charles' influence would not be using his sway to forward the profession he so loves, rather than suggesting we simply repeat the past.
- Judith, Philadelphia, USA
This is the worst form of architectural pastiche I have ever seen. Prince Charles is a traitor to the very concept of architecture if he keeps peddling this rubbish. Visit his model village ‘Poundbury’ and you will understand how destructive this attitude can be, it is like LegoLand but with out the integrity or the ice-cream.
- John Mcelgunn, London, UK
I see.You disagree with Chelsea Barracks but agree with the Lots Road plan.These are buildings with the beauty of glass and steel twinned with the waterfront.These are supported in the industry.But you object to this new plan.Hypocrites.
- H.J.Jones, London UK
Poor old Charlie.
Jack of all trades & master of none I fear is probably the best description of our King in waiting. I have "grown up with this guy", & being a couple of months older have followed his "career" with some interest.
I spent 8 years studying Architecture & even I don't comment on how some of my peers like to express themselves through their work, so I think HRH should keep his, in many cases unfortunate comments, to himself until such time as he has had some sort of meaningful training.
...just one aging architect's view, & I don't think I am alone.
- Greg Neilson, Sydney Australia
Prince Charles should stop meddling. Our towns and cities are the direct result of continual change. Charles's interventions have been partly responsible for our increasing inability to commission good new buildings. We train the best architects in the world and then stop them building here, until they are about sixty.
If our attitudes to planning had been prevalent in the middle ages we would now have none of the glorious churches and cathedrals that were built then. Medieval master masons would have been forced to buid reproductions of Saxon timber buildings as they "reflected the vernacular". We are in danger of not properly representing today in our built environment, and we build the worst houses in the world,
- David Cockayne, Dolgellau, Wales
'He has not registered how structures like the London Eye, the Gherkin and the Millennium Bridge have made modern architecture popular.'
The Eye and the Bridge are not works of architecture, but civil engineering - most architects could not begin the calculations these days; the Gherkin is hated by those who work inside it, and very impractically makes the most expensive floors with the best views the smallest. There's more to architecture than being 'iconic'.
In this case one could say, A plague on both your houses: Rogers' blocks seem packed very close, with no obvious relation to the site,and Terry's over-polite quadrangles carry respect for one's neighbours well past the point of blandness. There's more to architecture than good building. Will his blocks have lifts, or are the basements and attics intended just for the servants, as in the time of Wren?
What is always good about HRH's interjections is that he reminds this small and narcissistic set of celeb architects - PLEASE give us some new faces! - that we are not their fan club, but need persuading case by case of their merits. They may not care about our opinion, so it's good that there's someone out there to annoy them!
- Mdj E10, london uk
Prince Charles is a hero and I can assure you he speaking for us. The people of Chelsea loathe the Rogers design. We want a development that fits into, and enhances, the character of our area. Quinlan Terry's outline does precisely that. The demented modernist snobs hate Charles because he is one of the few people with enough influence to derail their arrogant decontextualised ugly plan.
- Andy, Chelsea
I'm sure it's not going to worry him in the slightest, but the Prince and I are going to have to differ on this - he'll go on confusing personal taste with truth, till the day he.... can no longer confuse things.
I like Richard Rogers and a lot of modern architecture, (though I'm not an enormous fan of his scheme at Chelsea Barracks). However, I wouldn't reject or accept it on grounds of old vs new, (and certainly not for the maudlin looking scheme the Prince has proposed). My modern taste in architecture is no more right than the Prince's taste for the old and we have to find a way that the two can coexist.
The debate should be about quality vs mediocrity, and perhaps this is where a great number of people can find common ground. The best cities in the world, as the Prince knows but just can't admit (it would unravel years of mischief making in architecture), are a mix of old and new buildings of quality.
The debate about old vs new has usually resulted in architects enslaved by the Princes' pronouncements, designing what Jonathan Glancey in The Guardian coined today as "Las Vegas Georgian". And decimating beautiful towns like Bath.
It's time Prince Charles' argument moved on.
- Hot Under The Collar, Bow, London
Right on Prince Charles. Rowan Moore's column repeats the typical Modernist posturing that insists what a building looks like matters not a whiff. How a building communicates, the emotional response it elicits in people, its interaction with its physical, not conceptual, context, are absolutely essential matters. How a building is "dressed" is critical - ask Semper. People like modern stuff, sure - just not everywhere. Modernists never have developed a sense of propriety - it's all modern all the time for them. The city demands a more nuanced approach.
- Michael, Philadelphia, PA
It seems to me that Prince Charles thinks that he has some sort of qualification to pass judgement on all manner of creative enterprises based solely of his experience of painting watercolours in his garden of a Sunday afternoon. Why can't he take a leaf out of his mother's book and stick to what he knows something about, ie greeting and shaking hands with visiting dignitaries?
Either he should keep quiet about subjects which are none of his business, or he should announce that he no longer intends to succeed to the throne. Ideally, he would do both.
- L A Odicean, Sidcup, London
Good on Prince Charles. East London's been blighted by architects like Rogers.
- Alex Story, Wapping, London
Prince Charle's version looks like a monstrous disaster!
- Paul Hopkins, London, England
Glass and steel might be okay for the brash City and Canary Wharf, but totally inappropriate for a barracks, especially in the event of a terrorist or other attack (which the government would have us believe is imminent). And isn't 'glass and steel' becoming rather passe? It's everywhere now. Prince Charles was proved right - as he so often is - about the ghastliness and soullessness of Holford's Paternoster Square in relation to Wren's masterpiece. I am sure he will be proved right again regarding the need for empathetic buildings in the vicinity of the Chelsea Hospital rather than another glass and steel structure which is totally out of synergy with both the soul and the physicality of the area.
- Pat, East Kent UK
Rowan Moore very clearly states the case for Lord Roger's design. While I agree that some modern architecture, particularly between 1960 and 1980, was a disaster, many of the modern buildings are excellent above all many of those of Lord Rogers. We cannot always live in the past and for Quinlan Terry to design apartments without balconies is ridiculous.
- Simon Wells, BRENTWOOD ENGLAND
Judging purely from the Standard's reproduced images The "classical" pastiche does not work. It looks heavy, ponderous and charmless. That is not to say that it was not worth a go - but this time it has simply not worked.
- W R Stevenson, London SE26
Well said Prince Charles. Richard Rogers, like Jade Goody and Daniel Liebeskind, has run away with the idea that publicity equals talent. His greatest failing, apart from his inability to appreciate any architecture other than his own, is his lack of a sense of scale.
- Melanie Carson, Chelsea, UK
I completely agree with Prince Charles. It is high time someone curbed the arrogance of architects who foist their souless glass-and-concrete monstrosities on us. Looking back over history, we can still appreciate and feel affection for the architecture of the Edwardian, Victorian, Georgian, and earlier eras. What will future generations make of the vulgar junk that is thrust upon us now?
- Ken, Bexleyheath
