Morning:
8°c
Debate stirs as Prince Charles steps into row over £1bn barracks development
Rashid Razaq7 Apr 2009
LEADING architects today entered the debate over the design of Chelsea Barracks after Prince Charles urged a rethink on modernist plans for the site.
But as the Prince was accused of "harking back to a Classical age", residents in the area hailed him as a "champion of the people" for opposing the £1billion glass-and-steel scheme drawn up by Lord Rogers.
The controversy rumbled on a day after the Evening Standard revealed that his intervention had risked sparking a diplomatic row with the Qatari developers behind the project.
Westminster Council is considering the plans for the prime 12-acre site near Sloane Square, but the heir to the throne has written to the Qataris to urge them to reconsider the design. A rival plan drawn up by his favourite architect Quinlan Terry is based on more traditional design.
Stirling Prize-winning David Chipperfield, who recently completed a highly praised restoration of the Neues Museum in Berlin, said: "The distinction shouldn't be between classical and modern, but good and bad architecture. There has to be consideration of the surrounding area and a reflection of public opinion."
Modernist architect, Will Alsop, who won the Stirling Prize for his design for Peckham Library, questioned the Prince's timing, but believes the current plans "could be better". Mr Alsop also criticised the Prince's choice of architect.
He said: "I'm not a great fan of the Rogers plan (but) Quinlan Terry is not the answer. We shouldn't be harking back to a classical age. We should be trying to create something better."
Residents opposed to Lord Rogers' plans backed the prince's support for a classical redesign.
Georgine Thorburn, chair of Chelsea Barracks Action Group, made up of local residents associations and businesses, said: "We're delighted that he has said this and come out in support of what so many of us think about the original design.
"The tall towers in (Lord Rogers') design are outrageous. They contravene what Westminster had asked for. They cut light, views and privacy. It is unthinkable that they will be built."
Reader views (10)
I think Prince Charles is absolutely right. I work in the creative business and am all for contemporary design. However waht many architects seem to fail to realise is that the impact of their own mark on the area can drastically effect the quality of life of ordinary people (60' & 70's tower blocks for instance). London has a character. Think of the same argument being posed in Rome... I rest my case.
- Paul, Slough England, 18/06/2009 23:41
Report abuse
How right Prince Charles is. Another Rogers glass and steel monstrosity is not needed. Let's have something a bit more classical in keeping with the area. And why can't the church remain where it is and be used as a 'community' centre. Many of the 60's buildings have already been demolished and Rogers' buildings will go the same way. Let's have more bricks and mortar!
- Val, London, England, 08/04/2009 09:29
Report abuse
The Prince is championing the views of the great majority of his people who are very upset that monster-schemes like this are being imposed on them. Time after time the opinions of local residents are ignored by a government dazzled by its favourite clique of architects, who wheel out the same old same old. Charles is standing up for us against the cartel of big developer interests and their henchmen in the architectural fraternity. Well Done Chalres! I hope the landowners listen.
- Thomas, London, 07/04/2009 22:15
Report abuse
I understood it was almost a capital offence to disagree with such a great architect
- Patrick, Dalston, 07/04/2009 17:22
Report abuse
This guy should be ignored. He knows nothing much about anything so should keep his nose out.
T H Leeds
- Thomas Hayes, Leeds UK, 07/04/2009 17:07
Report abuse
Good on Prince Charles. At least someone stands up for people friendly places.
- Anthony, London, 07/04/2009 16:50
Report abuse
The Prince's meddling in an earlier project has brought us the ugly, unloved and anti-human Paternoster Square. He should stay out of this and frankly, his lobbying on behalf of his pet architect, who simply apes Wren, but with little skill, is an outrage.
- Carl, London, 07/04/2009 14:40
Report abuse
Prince Charles is right, even if his alternative is not ideal. These Roger’s flats are ugly and inappropriate. So many of today's architects lack imagination, they are businessmen of little artistic merit who seem to type numbers in to their machines to get the right amount of floor space in to the room they have. The memorable modern buildings in London are so few. The Gherkin and Millennium footbridge aside the last 10 years have resulted in almost uniform mediocrity. Wouldn't it be great if Boris passed a bylaw that all new buildings had to have decoration on at least 20% of their vertical surfaces. This tedious glass, steel and concrete rubbish lacks so much and often ages so badly. Please spare us.
- Stephen, London, 07/04/2009 13:04
Report abuse
Everybody in their right mind has to go with the Rogers design.Grandeur should be kept with the 'well known' landmarks like St Paul's,the Tower of London and Parliament.The Royal Hospital is a mediocre ancient landmark.Besides,there are other projects that he could dump an ancient piece of rubbish on,like the Shard of Glass,1,017 feet of glass beauty,or the Bishopsgate Tower,which obstructs views of St Paul's but is just as well designed.To all supporters of Prince Charles,I am sorry to say this,but you are all completely WRONG.End of story.
- H.J.Jones, London UK, 07/04/2009 12:42
Report abuse
Prince Charles lives in the nineteenth Century with his servants, Stately Homes and Country Pursuits and thinks that we would all be better off if we knew our place. I'm sure he will love to move in to Windsor Castle where he can look down on the people of Slough.
- Neil Idees, Acton England, 07/04/2009 10:28
Report abuse
