Afternoon:
10°c
Architects unite to fire barracks salvo at Prince
Aline Nassif20 Apr 2009
THE Prince of Wales has come under renewed fire from the world's leading architects over his attempt to interfere in the Chelsea barracks development.
The architects, who include Lord Foster, Zaha Hadid and Renzo Piano, have condemned his "behind-the-scenes lobbying" to scrap Lord Rogers's modern glass and steel designs for the site.
In an open letter, they criticise the Prince for using his "privileged position to intervene in one of the most significant residential projects likely to be built in London in the next five years".
Their letter follows reports that the prince has persuaded the Qatari royal family, the project's developers, to consider a more traditional brick and stone design, which he argues would be more in keeping with the adjacent Royal Hospital, by Sir Christopher Wren.
The letter reads: "The [Rogers] scheme has been adapted and changed in response to comments from Westminster's planning officers and extensive local consultation.
"Statutory bodies such as the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and the Greater London Authority have also been consulted. Westminster's planning committee will meet shortly to deliver its verdict. Its members should be left alone to decide whether the Rogers scheme is a fitting 21st century addition to the fabric of London Rogers and his team have played their part in engaging with the democratic process. The Prince and his advisers should do the same."
A spokeswoman for Charles refused to comment on the letter, saying it was based on "private correspondence" between Charles and the Qatari royals. She said: "In cases of private correspondence we have no comment."
The architects' letter was also signed by Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron, Jean Nouvel, Frank Gehry and David Adjaye.
Reader views (19)
As a neighbor to the Chelsea Barracks, there is little to my knowledge, and practical experience, within the existing frame work of the project, that presents to the community anything other than a large scale housing development of little charm and absolutely no sympathy to the environment.
It is with a monstrous lack of long term vision and historic investigation that the developers and now this band of self-proclaimed Architectural Czars should
plan to violently drive a piece of architecture into the ground that will not only date with astounding speed but destroy the ambiance of a historically significant corner of London.
The Royal Hospital has recently completed the Margaret Thatcher Infirmary which was designed and executed to a standard and harmony that provided not only what was needed but what was appropriate.
The existing plans for the Chelsea Barracks have very little other than instant gratification in monetary terms to the developers to promote its cause.
- Morgan Webb, London UK, 22/04/2009 08:08
Report abuse
"Its [architect] the lowest paid professional wage out there." [sic]
I'm sorry John Harris, but would that be the same low paid architect Lord Forster in this article who's worth close to a half a billion pounds?
Who's the 'naive muppet' exactly?
As for 'clients', the clients are the developers who wish to squeeze maximum value out of a piece of land, not the people who live in the area and are thrown into shadow of someone else's profit driven vanity project.
There's simply more profit in squeezing 500 nasty high-rise homes into a plot of land than there is putting 300 attractive ones there - hence this argument has little to do with upsetting the architectural integrity of the architects and developers and more to do with upsetting their bottom line.
Modernism and high-rise developments are fine, but they are only fine when in the appropriate place for them.
- John, London, 21/04/2009 13:19
Report abuse
Don't ever stop speaking out for what is right, Sir!
I Can't wait until your King.
- Mark A. Lack, Calgary Canada, 21/04/2009 06:37
Report abuse
June
I think you`ll find that a lot of designs are client driven, thats why they are called clients. Then Local Authorities have their say. Don`t be so ignorant.
Millionaire Architects is a joke. Its the lowest paid professional wage out there.
There really are a lot of naive muppets posting on this forum
Try and look to the future
- John Harris, London, 21/04/2009 03:52
Report abuse
Architects who hell bent on ruining the countries they destroy. The ones signing the letter are more damaging than Bin Laden. And just how much does Rogers get paid?
- Tony, london, UK, 20/04/2009 23:31
Report abuse
These buildings look like thrown-away boxes strewn accross the landcape.
- Bill Stickers, LA, CA, 20/04/2009 22:06
Report abuse
Location, location, location - and its relationship to other near by building. Prince Charles has a very strong point in trying to bring this development into relationship with its location. Edwin Heathcote, in his Financial Times Weekend article, points out the successful near-by Duke of York re-development. The Quinlan Terry scheme could greatly profit by studying that development. As for the Rogers proposal - it really could be buildt anywhere. No distinction! Local roots are needed, something which the Paul Davis and Partners planning has in the Duke of Yorks scheme.
- John Marsteller, Geneva, Switzerland, 20/04/2009 18:27
Report abuse
Well done Charles! Some of the monstrosities in London today were thrown up in a fast and furious way by ego maniac architects. Just look at the unlovely high rise tower blocks in which some unfortunate Londonders are forced to reside. Who designed those? Architects!
- June O'Brien, London England, 20/04/2009 18:15
Report abuse
The architects who think they have a right to go against public opinion to build their unsympathetic structures have sold their souls and integrity to property developers. In some cases they are property developers themselves. They are the new equivalent of those soulless men who built the 1960s tower blocks that have blighted urban landscapes ever since.
- Tom Jennings, Beckenham UK, 20/04/2009 17:36
Report abuse
We live in a democracy and if Prince Charles has his views he should express them in open debate not his continual pulling of rank. He is not known for handling criticism too well. We would be living in a 18th century Disneyland if he had his way.
- Peter Berg, Wembley, 20/04/2009 17:25
Report abuse
Very eloquently put by Roz.
While not normally a supporter of Prince Charles, on this issue he is clearly speaking for the majority whose voices are not as 'distinguished' as the Lord architects, and so subsequently get ignored.
Stephen Bluestone did make me chuckle though, using his anti-Royal proclivities to defend a Lord from a Prince! Very republican...
- John, London, 20/04/2009 15:34
Report abuse
We live in a democracy and even Royals have the right to express their views and, if necessary,use influence to enforce them.
- Peter Glazier, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 20/04/2009 15:07
Report abuse
Agree with David of Fulham entirely. These architects are clearly very insecure. Rogers, Foster and all the rest of them have stuck quite enough of their boring steel and glass buildings on London's landscape. Prince Charles is entitled to do as he has done, and I hope he succeeds.
- Annabelle, london, 20/04/2009 14:03
Report abuse
What's in this for Prince Charles: bad publicity? And what's in this for 'modernist' (I use the term loosely as the the proposed design looks like a rehash of a 60s concrete estate now covered in graffiti) architects: millions of pounds?!
There was once a modernist architect with a great vision for the future of London - it involved knocking down all the ugly old pre-existing buildings and replacing them with whole new streets and squares of light, airy buildings based on geometric designs - but fortunately he was stopped in his tracks by some fusty old conservationists. Both sides would do well to remember that his name was CHRISTOPHER WREN.
There are 2 types of architecture: 'good' and 'bad'. Although HRH's idea isn't 'exciting' I'm sure that most of the families destined to live in it would prefer his low-rise design with enclosed courtyard gardens to some privacy-limited shadow-thrown towerblock with a token bit of grass on the roof. HRH is no more priviledged than the cosy-knit circle of architects clubbing together to protect their own income. Prince Charles is standing up for a silent majority of his subjects with no other representation: let's not forget that whereas he has no executive power, donations to the Labour Party mean 'Lord Rogers' can now pass laws on the rest of us. Rogers need not worry: we still have the Millenium Dome as a 'crowning' triumph by which future generations may remember him - which is, let's face it, what this is really about.
- Roz, Chamonix, France, 20/04/2009 13:56
Report abuse
Let's face it, if this scheme didn't have Rogers' name on it, nobody would support it.
- Ag, London Village, 20/04/2009 13:32
Report abuse
The large number of us who regard Lord Rogers' creations as out of place in central London are fortunate to have Prince Charles to speak out for us.
- Martin Fielding, London, England, 20/04/2009 13:12
Report abuse
Critisism of the Windsors is never published by AOL.
Charles; an uneducated man dictating public policy.And still we allow it.
- Stephen Bluestone, London, 20/04/2009 13:03
Report abuse
This just makes me hate these incredibly arrogant and self obsessed architects even more. Just like anyone else Prince Charles has every right to comment on, and lobby against, their self aggrandising schemes, especially when, as is the case here, the proposal is so very unsuitable and out of keeping with the surrounding area.
The only reason that Richard Rogers engaged with the democratic process, such as it is, on this development was because he had to in order to fulfill the legal requirements of the planning process, it certainly wasn't through choice and it is absolutely not the case that he has any kind of track record of actually listening to what local people actually want to see built.
London, indeed the world in general, is increasingly blighted by the over intensive, unsympathetic, and often just plain ugly, ego trips of these so called leading architects who seem a lot more interested in memorialising themselves than in building what is right for a particualr site. Their "bigger is always better" ethos is clearly demonstrative of the basic sickness pervading most modern architecture and it is they who need to defend themselves, not Prince Charles who is undoubtedly articulating the heartfelt views of the majority of ordinary people who have to live with these monstrosities.
When it comes to building design I say more power to Prince Charles and a hell of a lot less to the self serving multi millionaire architects.
- Matt, London, UK, 20/04/2009 13:00
Report abuse
Thank goodness for Prince Charles whose actions have already saved Trafalgar Square and Paternoster Square. Why should an arrogant minority impose their ego driven montrosities on a public who despises their soon to be outdated creations. The majority in this area want buildings which will blend in;not those which make a statement.
- David, Fulham London, 20/04/2009 12:46
Report abuse
