Reader views (23)

 Add your view

Prince Charles is an exceptional and humanistic individual, and chooses his words very carefully. He has the rare opportunity to exercise complete intellectual freedom, so that his his thinking covers an extraordinary depth and range. He takes the long view. It's unfortunate to see how he is dis-respected. If you follow his sources, you will understand exactly what is meant by "organic" - for this you must read the works of Christopher Alexander and Nikos Salingaros, as well as the wealth of environmental psychology and the CABE guidance on architecture which show, based on scientific evidence that the Prince is entirely correct, and his ideas are becoming more dominant all the time.

- Dan, London, UK, 20/05/2009 16:35
Report abuse

Carry on Charlesw, I have watched the modern buildings going up around the country. Houses so small the cat buggers of because there is no room in them. Take a look out our town centres they are the same where ver you go. So Charly you carry on and dont take any notice of the moaners.

- Ebin Donk, angus scotland, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

The Architecture Fraternity is the most amount of elitist snobbery money can buy and unwilling to admit that what they do is not all the Art in architecture that has ever been. Others would say that most of them are just jumped up hacks peddling a computer mouse's worth of pretentiousness which they just big up at every turn in order to stay in business.

- Tallulah, Hove, UK, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

Why should we have faith in architects? - I mean look at the nasty 1960s Tower Blocks and Council estates. Look at what we have to live with. Or all the new modern housing estates that are springing up - they are nothing more then glorified cardboard boxes. Even the buildings in canary wharf will look like huge mistakes like the 1960s tower blocks.

- Rk, London, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

Alan, London - are you saying he should be muzzled because of his 'rank'? Ever heard of freedom of speech? It applies to everyone, regardless.

The only reason anyone in opposition is being heard, saying the same thing that others (who are not even acknowledged by the planners and designers) say, is because of that very rank. He isn't leading thought, he is expressing commonly held views that he too believes. He cannot make it stop as he is not in the decision loop - but to say that he cannot express his dismay at what he and others see as a poor design is a bit much.

If it wasn't for HRH, those who dislike what is planned would not be heard at all by the frequently self-important, "I know best" crowd. We wouldn't even be having this discussion.

- Rogan, Irving, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

This spoilt, arrogant, temperamental man pokes his nose into anything that takes his fancy, while continuing to live the lifestyle of a grand Edwardian. Paul Finch's comment that his "charm offensive" has lost its charm but is still offensive is spot on. Charles is a pain in the neck, has been for years.

- Brian, Frimley, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

That would be Paul Finch, Chairman of the 2012 Olympic Committee which chose an incomprehensible 'smashed-plate' design for the logo, which is now building a grandiose, over-budget useless-to-the-local-community eyesore on a mud-flats with a flood risk which were only useful to migratory birds, with the help of imported cheap foreign Labour?

Why is his impartial view on Chelsea Barracks more important than that of Prince Charles, I wonder? Oh that's right: his mate, Lord Rogers of Riverside - elected to the House of Lords for services to the coffers of the Labour Party - was Mayor Red Ken's Chief Advisor for architecture, who threatened to boycott the event unless it was done his way. In that role he sat on the Olympic Delivery Authority's 'Design Reference Group' and, errrr . . . the OLYMPIC DESIGN REVIEW PANEL!

Welcome to the ever-decreasing circles of power. And they'd like us to think Prince Charles represents nepotism and unelected influence . . .

- Roz, France, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

I'm afraid I agree with Prince Charles. The design by Lord Rogers is appalling when you compare it to all the wonderful classical buildings that would be around it. What's wrong with building something that blends in with its surroundings rather than something that will look completely out of place? I hope the Qatari backers see sense and go for a more classical design.

- Penny, Ealing, Ealing, UK, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

I think Charles is right. Some of the Carbunkles designed by these men are a disgrace and blight the landscape. I should imagine Charles has had a lot of prods from many people to say something. I usually find he is right on these things. Charles is a very succesful businessman having turned a £million into hundreds of millions and helped many in the Prices Trust. The Lefties would like him to be dumb and unsuccesful but he is succesful and continues to be. So they criticise him for being succesful. I don't agree with Charles on everything but give credit where its due. He is right on this.

- Peter, Camberley UK, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

The Royal Institute of British Architects. What is that first adjective doing in the title of the organsition?

- Julian, walthamstow, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

Paul Finch has merely been splenetic in a blog. He can hardly be called a top architect.

CABE regrettably demonstrates time and time again that it is the architectural elite's poodle, ever willing to massage their already over inflated egos. It is delicious irony that Rogers sought to use his influence to subvert the planning process to stop Quinlan Terry from building his new classical hospital directly opposite the barracks site (opened a few weeks ago), and now the tables are turned.

(this is a direct quote from bdonline comments)

What is more interesting is the debate itself. The debate has been better covered in bdonline. Their running tally of comments (8th-29 April) for and against Rogers and Terry has the following results

53 Pro Terry
23 Pro Rogers
23 undecided.

I don't feel qualified to comment since I no longer live in London but I have taken money from the Prince of Wales and from Rogers in the past.

- Ralph Perry Robinson, Salisbury, Wiltshire, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

David, London,
I live a few miles from Poundbury, and its popularity with its residents is in stark contrast to your opinion.

Its main failing - and the reason that I would not wish to live there - is that it is becoming 'elitist', in contrast to the original idea that it should be a 'mixed' village of all talents and skills.

Go to Google images, and seach 'poundbury' to see a bit more than the firestation.

- John, Dorset, UK, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

I know it has been said before but who else will defend us from the 'Wretched Starchitects'? Modern architecture is just the pits!

- Deliahake, Waltham Cross, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

Prince Charles is a dinosaur, who's becoming more irrelevant by the day.

- Steve Green, London, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

I could not agree more. I am also fed up with this man using his unelected status to influence decision. He must accept that there is a middle way bewtween modern architecture and his view that all buildings must be 100% neo-Georgian.

- Jack, london, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

Why on earth should the new development blend in with the surroundings? Some people may not like it but it is just a matter of opinion. They probably don't like Tate Modern art either, and that's fair enough, but we can't just live in the past producing beautiful paintings à la Constable and yesteryear architecture. British modern architecture does not have to be ugly and certainly can deliver imaginative, stylish buildings fit for a vibrant capital city. Let's move on here.

- Daniel, London, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

I agree with Prince Charles, London is a beautiful City with some amazing historical buildings that preserve the past. There are plenty of other locations in London for modern buildings.

- Steve Gordon, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

The Rogers design is most unfitting for the area and most people are agreed. End of story. No doubt it would fit in Dubai or the like. Paul Finch is an old mate of Red Ken and Lord Rogers, and much of his Olympic Village work is open to criticism. Besides being a prima donna, Finch use of language is intemperate in describing Prince Charles besides being vindictive and lacking in objectivity.

- Ralph, London, England, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

They are getting rattled...their cheap snearing comments defending the indefensible says it all

- David, Fulham London, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

Google 'fire station poundbury' to see HRH's very own architectural design. Bear in mind, he would cover the UK with this sort of lego legacy tat, given the chance.

As to 1688, the last important contribution the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family had on London's buildings was the Gotha bomber (named after them with grim Prussian humour by cousin Willi).

- The Masked Avenger, hammersmith, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

It's not a matter of classical versus modern, it's about good versus bad architecture. The Rogers plan is banal in the extreme, and tacky to boot. It deserves to be dumped.

- David, London, UK, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

The issue here is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Prince Charles, but the fact of his very priveleged position which gives him influence and power that others do not have. This of course arises only by "accident" of his birth. The fact that he is not elected, and unaccountable, raises resentment when his views do not accord with one's own. Queen Elizabeth has set a very high standard for a Sovereign in terms of keeping her views to herself; if only her son would follow her example.

- Alan, London, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

Sorry David London,
My comments were aimed at the Masked Avenger, Hammersmith

- John, Dorset, UK, 20/05/2009 15:35
Report abuse

Add your comment