Tonight:
3°c
Twenty-five years ago next month members of the Royal Institute of British Architects sat down to dinner at Hampton Court. It was the institute's 150th anniversary and they were expecting the customary bromide congratulations from their guest of honour, Prince Charles. Little did they expect the spirit of Henry VIII to seep from the palace's ancient brickwork, causing his heir to declare, in effect, “off with your heads”.
Now it's all coming around again. The Prince is trying to pull strings with fellow royal the Emir of Qatar to stop the modernist design for Chelsea Barracks by Rogers Stirk Harbour and Partners, which the emir is funding. Some columnists, politicians and local activists are applauding, while leading architects are objecting to his intervention in the planning process. The RIBA, meanwhile, admirably open-minded, has invited the Prince back to speak again, for its 175th anniversary.
But before we rerun the conflicts of the 1980s, like people digging out videos of bygone sitcoms, or re-enacting Civil War battles in full costume, it is worth asking if the Prince's actions achieved their aim of bettering British building design. I happen to believe that Prince Charles was — and is — wrong on architecture in almost every respect. Yet he touches on something with just enough validity to give his remarks currency. There is a reason why he won't go away.
Back in 1984 he roundly attacked architects for the inhumane towers and housing estates they had already stopped building more than 10 years earlier. He called a proposed extension to the National Gallery “a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a well-loved friend”. Miles of newsprint followed, then a TV programme presented by the prince, a book, an exhibition, a new school of architecture called the Prince of Wales Institute and the model village of Poundbury on his land in Dorset.
Projects the Prince didn't like were scrapped or redesigned. Some architects' careers were wrecked, others were made. Developers of sensitive sites started making discreet trips to Highgrove to ensure royal approval. The unelected prince, with a limited knowledge of architecture and planning and no accountability, became an unofficial additional organ of the planning system.
The Prince's position was clear. He disapproved of modern architecture, favouring buildings that used the motifs and styles of the past, especially classical architecture, and especially the versions of classical architecture that prevailed in Georgian England. Whenever he had the chance to show his preference, in the architects he commissioned himself or urged on other clients, they were from the same band.
They included Quinlan Terry, who has now produced a classically styled counter-proposal for the Chelsea Barracks site which the prince is backing. Also John Simpson, author of a Grecian extension of the Queen's Gallery by Buckingham Palace. In the Eighties, under the prince's influence, the proposed design for the extension to the National Gallery was scrapped. In its place came what is now the Sainsbury Wing, by Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown, which is wrapped in a continuation of the gallery's original 1830s façade.
His hand is also present on the opposite corner of Trafalgar Square, where Northumberland Avenue meets the Strand. An ex-Victorian hotel called Grand Buildings was knocked down and rebuilt as an approximate replica, containing offices. At Paternoster Square, next to St Paul's Cathedral, he backed a plan by John Simpson to counter a scheme he thought too modern. More than a decade later, an approximation of the Simpson plan was finally built.
At his peak, the prince was the most influential voice in British architecture, but from the mid-Nineties his profile waned. He published a magazine promoting his beliefs, Perspectives, which folded. His architecture school struggled. He had other worries in his life, and at the same time the royal family was losing some of its gloss and authority. He also turned his attention to alternative medicine, genetically modified crops and the teaching of English in schools where, as with architecture, professionals accused him of ill-informed arrogance.
Meanwhile, tastes changed. Modern architecture became more popular thanks to buildings such as the Bilbao Guggenheim abroad and the Gherkin at home, or less conspicuous works such as the stations of the Jubilee line extension, Peckham Library, and the Laban dance centre in Deptford.
It became difficult to categorise modern architecture as doctrinaire and insensitive. Younger architects showed how new buildings could be responsive to their surroundings without copying architecture of the past.
Under Tony Blair, Lord Rogers, Prince Charles's greatest adversary in the debates of the Eighties, now became chief influencer of architecture.
When Ken Livingstone was elected mayor, Rogers became his adviser, and Livingstone's London Plan enshrines Rogers's core beliefs. These are that it is good for cities to be densely populated and intensely used — or to use Rogers's favourite term, “vibrant” — and that “quality architecture” should be achieved in new buildings.
The Prince quietened down but was never silenced. He still banged off private letters on projects about which he felt strongly. In 2004, writing to the then chairman of English Heritage, he argued for the listing of endangered market buildings at Smithfield. “I recognise I am an ignorant amateur in these weighty bureaucratic matters,” he wrote with faux humility, knowing full well that recipients of his crested stationery tend to jump to attention. The Prince's Foundation, meanwhile, has been contributing to government policy on new housing and eco-towns.
If you seek a monument for the Prince's architectural interventions, look around you. Personally I doubt anyone will ever recall the time of the Prince's greatest influence as a golden period of British architecture. The Sainsbury Wing, Poundbury and Grand Buildings are not works to inspire future generations, nor are the other projects that followed in their wake.
In the Eighties and early Nineties the trick of sugaring commercial developments with traditionalist detail became standard. Out-of-town superstores dressed themselves as barns and flimsy pediments were tacked onto commercial hulks. It was a time at best of damage limitation, at worst of cynicism.
The glory of London's architecture is its variety. Generation after generation has made its mark by doing its own thing, without which this would be a duller, drabber city. If the Victorian builders of St Pancras and the Natural History Museum had been in thrall to the past, these magnificent structures would have been styled in deferential Georgian. If Wren had been enslaved to his forebears, St Paul's Cathedral would be Gothic and Inigo Jones's Banqueting House would be half-timbered.
It is hostile to the spirit of London to insist that new buildings should be built in a classical style. It is also an abuse of the Prince's position to meddle as he does: his voice carries weight through his inherited prestige, while the same prestige prevents him engaging in debate with his critics. It is unhealthy, in a democracy, for public decisions to be influenced by monogrammed letters from one prince to another, or for pressure to be exerted from above on public officials.
So what, then, is that something he touches, that causes people to listen? It's the fact that the planning process is not flawlessly democratic, and it's not just the Prince who has abused it. In proposed projects such as the Walkie Talkie tower in Fenchurch Street, the Three Sisters at Waterloo, and the Vauxhall Tower near Vauxhall Bridge, Rogers's principles of “density” and “quality” have been stretched to the point where density becomes commercial exploitation, and “quality” becomes a fig leaf. If it's big, it's dense, and if it's shiny, it's good.
Quality is arbitrated by panels of experts, including architects who take it in turns to announce that each other's work is good. Often such committees make reasoned and balanced decisions but not always. There is an absence of clear principles in the process, and a sense that public feelings are being bypassed, which allows the Prince to rise again.
Neo-Georgian architecture is not the solution to issues such as over-development. But architects and developers, if we are not to return to the sterile debates of the Eighties, need to understand why people pay attention to this self-confessed “ignorant amateur”.
Reader views (10)
I back 100% the Prince's action.
This article is typical of self-righteous elite. We have heard the same arguments for fifty years now: "..tastes changed. Modern architecture became more popular thanks to buildings such as the Bilbao Guggenheim...". Where the hell did Mr Moore get that idea ? The younger generation were supposed to understand was the older did't, about the monstrous Le Corbusier's rabbit house in Marseille or the absurd Sidney opera. These buildings are outdated now. In fact nothing like "modern architecture" exists. What does exist is industrial art of designing, applied to industry of building, an industry which pollute, like many industries, the pollution being in this case visual. Some architects collaborate with building industry, as some doctors collaborate with chemical industrie: for money. Guggenheim is amusing, nothing more. And since it's amusing, some people persuade themselves they like it, willing not be regarded as old fart. So operate the setup, the deception of modern art: people think they ought to like it. We don't want to live in an urban environnement such as Schenzen or Dubaï. It's why I'll fight fiercely people like Rogers or Renzo piano.
- Valentin Fiumefreddo, Paris, France
You might be interested in learning that we have a controversial building plan that is set to destroy one of the most protected areas in our district. The building works has been pushed through and despite record objections is set to go ahead.
The ferry port is set to destroy the only remaining full length promenade, an art Deco swimming pool (again unique and one of one a handful left) an 18th century peer (they intend to extend it to almost twice the length but use concrete) and their not going to relocate the 18th century lighthouse... so it will be stuck in the middle of the pier.
All this controversy and I bet you wouldn't expect to find out that Prince Charles has an interest in this. Yes it goes against all of his principles....
So far thousands of local residents have objected against the building work but the council have ignored the objections. Our local MP has objected and every.... yes every councillor for our town has objected.... but still it goes ahead.
- Steff, Penzance UK
Have any of you lot actually lived on a post-war estate? I spent 15 years of hell on a Lambeth Council Estate.
Just like some women are beautiful whilst others are ugly, so it is true with buildings. Idiot developers have failed to replace the gardens and every HOUSE we once had in our working class areas.
Idiots designing housing they themselves will never live in, as their home will be a Georgian, Edwardian or Victorian terraced house. (Which even has a garden the nippers can play in).
- Toby Rowe, What?
I used to guide friends around London, and I always had difficulty in enthusing them about anything. Take away the trees and most areas of London near the Thames could be anywhere, in any concrete jungle in the world. Hidden London was the key, which the developers and architects had not yet seen. Prince Charles is anything but an "ignorant amateur" and his views should be respected and taken into account.
- Mark, Venice, Italy
If we are to accept the idea that Prince Charles should have a role in the democratic process to decide planning consents. We have to answer the question - who should decide which applications he should be involved with. Clearly he couldn't look at all planning applications - that would be impractical, so I assume that the Prince would have to choose. Does this make any sense at all? - I think not.
- Ned Grimble, London UK
Well said Roz of Chamonix.
Modern architecture such as that produced by Lord Rogers and Norman Foster has its place. Business and technology parks lend themselves to this sort of design. However in common with many others I favour the retention of classical proportions in London. That does not mean that modern materials cannot be used.
Prince Charles speaks for a lot of people when he intercedes as he does in such cases. Modern architects should rememeber that there is a difference between modern architecture and modern art. If anyone wants to look at modern art, they can go to a gallery such as Tate Modern. That does not apply to creations by Rogers or Foster which we all have to look at whether we like them or not.
God bless the Prince of Wales.
- Martin Fielding, London, England
I love modern architecture - if it is good. I like the Ghurkin and the Blade of Light bridge, but not the Dome. Prince Charles is the only prominent conservative voice in the field of architecture: without him there would be no-one keeping the egomaniac modernist architects in check. Just because architecture is modern - like anything else that is new - does not mean it is good. The debate is mindlessly black-and-white when it needn't be: there is a place for both, but they need to be held in balance with each other.
Even with the Prince Charles trying to fight its corner, the Grade II Listed Mappin and Webb Building was demolished and replaced with a hideously bad example of modernist architecture: WHY have a scheme for protecting the nation's architectural heritage if you can then caste it aside whenever you fancy building something more commercially viable (subtext: profitable)?
THAT is why the unelected Prince Charles and his views are important. Unfortunately the last decade has proven that people who are 'elected' to represent the rest of the populace frequently further their own interests ahead of protecting ours. Our only consolation is that very rapidly, some of these buildings will themselves become old-hat and - with a bit of luck - be knocked down in favour of some high-quality post-modern architecture of the future.
- Roz, Chamonix, France
This dilettante Prince should stay clear of matters that impact on the public. I don't want to live in a pastiche of 18th Century London just so it pleases the eye of this man as he rushes through in his motorcade.
- Carl, London
What has Prince Charles given architecture?
A large bill?
- Chris, TEESSIDE
Poundbury is especially awful! Ruins the skyline for a start. When exactly were "traditional" Dorset villages built on the skyline anyway? Within the development the distorted pastiche is sickening. Hateful though they are, at least out of town shopping centres are honest and functional! That Charles creature should keep his nose out. If he wants to do anything useful, he should devise an expeditious way of losing the ridiculous, pompous and useless monarchy we have.
- Sandy, Ealing, UK
