Afternoon:
10°c
Prince Charles: When I said monstrous carbuncle...
Mira Bar-Hillel and Will Hurst13 May 2009
Prince Charles has renewed his attack on modernist architecture, branding the destruction of towns and cities in the 1960s as “brutal” and “insane”.
The Prince Of Wales, speaking last night on the 175th anniversary of the Royal Institute of British Architects, initially appeared to offer an olive branch to a profession he has largely been at odds with for 25 years.
He began his lecture last night by saying sorry for his infamous “monstrous carbuncle” attack on plans for an extension to the national Gallery made at Riba's 150th anniversary.
“I am sorry if I somehow left the faintest impression that I wished to kick-start some kind of style war' between classicists and modernists; or that I somehow wanted to drag the world back to the 18th century,” said the Prince, adding: “All I asked was for room to be given to traditional approaches to architecture and urbanism.”
But the apology went only so far. He insisted he had a right to criticise proposed developments, which some might see as a thinly veiled reference to his vehement opposition to the current glass-and-steel design by Lord Rogers for the £1 billion redevelopment of Chelsea barracks.
Prince Charles told the packed audience: “ Let me point out that I don't go around criticising other people's private artworks. I may not like some of them very much, but it is their business what they choose to put in their houses. However, as I have said before, architecture and the built environment affect us all.”
He went on: “It was when I was a teenager in the 1960s that I became profoundly aware of the brutal destruction that was being wrought on so many of our towns and cities.
“The loss was immense, incalculable — an insane Reformation' that, I believe, went too far, particularly when so much could have been restored, converted or re-used.”
The Prince went on to liken the effects of Modernism with the crisis in the banking and financial sector.
“At a time when, believe it or not, we are hearing calls for a return to old-fashioned, traditional banking virtues, might these calls not apply equally to the manner in which our built environment gives physical expression to the way we do business and live our lives, as essentially social beings?” he asked.
The Prince stressed that he had been calling for sustainability in building for more than 20 years. He said: “I pray that a new and developing relationship between this Institute and my Foundation [for the Built Environment] can enable us to work together to create the kind of organic architecture for the 21st century that not only reflects the intuitive needs, aspirations and cultural identity of countless communities around the world, but also the innate patterns of nature.”
Some observers believed he was taking a swipe at Lord Rogers when he launched a further attack on modernist architects who live in “beautiful classical homes”. Lord Rogers lives in a Georgian house — albeit one that has been modernised.
The Prince said: “The other day an architect friend of mine asked: How many Pritzker prizewinners are not living in beautiful classical homes?' and we all know what he was getting at. Surely architects flock in such numbers to live in these lovely old houses — many from the 18th century, often in the last remaining conservation areas of our towns and cities that haven't yet been destroyed — because, deep down, they do respond to the natural patterns and rhythms I have been talking about.”
The attempt at some conciliation appeared to appease some of the architects in the audience. Paul Monaghan, whose firm AHMM is working with Rogers on the Chelsea Barracks scheme told Building Design magazine: “It was low-key, polite and amusing at times. He seemed to say that 25 years ago, he was only saying there should be some room to do traditional architecture rather than saying everything should be traditional, so it's good that he corrected that.”
But architect Will Alsop, who had called for a boycott of last night's speech, said: “He did start a style war, which is the most facile of architectural conversations. He missed the point entirely. He successfully stopped the National Gallery extension and the careers of the architects have never really recovered. He needs to think about that.”
Reader views (20)
Your writer above is correct. Prince Charles does not know what he is talking about when it comes to architecture. Some of his feelings may be understandable, lots of folks don't like modern architecture today. But he has no true understanding of this subject. And I agree that with his upbringing and his life, his view of the world as it is today is rather skewered.
- Barbara Hartman, nutley, n.j. (u.s.a.), 14/05/2009 17:27
Report abuse
Well said Lindsay!
- Paul Hopkins, London, England, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
Logical progression suggests the European Union seek abolition.
- Spk, Country, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
Whilst I applaud the Prince for opening up debate, his commment of 'the brutal destruction that was being wrought on so many of our towns and cities' could easily be applied to any generation, from the Saxons to the Victorians, who shaped our cities into what we have today. Whilst the 1960s saw the automobile become the dominant force regarding urban design, today we have learnt from that mistake (or not quite in Boris's case) and are rectifying that with quality pedestrianisation schemes and better community harmony by mixing different tenure of housing within developments, making sure the 'grotty ghettos' of the past don't happen again.
Prince Charles should be directing his views towards developers, who hold the real power over what is and what is not built in our cities, rather than architects, who are merely following briefs and financial constraints.
- Darren, London, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
Surely the man is entitled to his own opinion?
- Rob, Farnham, Surrey, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
The man is an idiot, his arguments are facile. of course architects would choose to live in a Georgian House if available, as they would in a Frank lloyd-Wright house if they could. the point is they do not live in copies of them! That would be just like disneyland. there are castles in Disneyland but they are not real, and copies of neoclassicist buildings are just fake!
I expect Charlie would like us to have Georgian laws too, and maybe have the peasants live in hovels?
The man is totally out of touch with the age, and why does he have such a prominent voice? he certainly doesn't speak for the ordinary man, in fact he barely knows us.
- Kerry, Purley, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
Prince Charles, along with the entire 'Royal Dynasty' is an anachronism, completely out of step with modern Britain and the new millenium. Privilege has to be earned not inherited. Most of the new buildings, for instance, in the City of London over the last 15 years are an asset, Bright and energy efficient and often spectacular visually. I guess having numerous houses in the country will soften the blow for him and his like.
- Bondy, london, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
Yes he should, as long as London doesn't end up looking like his "Poundbury" pastiche, ruining a classic skyline.
- Sandy, Ealing, UK, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
Kerry, Purley.
Well you said it! You are extremely ordinary.
There's a real disassociation of intelligence when someone uses "you are an idiot" as a point in argument.
- Minnie Ovens, London, UK, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
In the States we often wonder what value royalty bring to the societies where they still exist. Clearly, in the case of Prince Charles there is the entertainment factor to consider. How lucky for the architecture profession in the U.K. to have such a gadfly. I suppose that since it is the "Royal" Institute, you are left little choice but to invite him to speak. Can't wait for 2034!
- Mark D. Foss, Bismarck, USA, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
Is this is the same Will Alsop who said he would boycott the event even though he hadn't been invited to it? Ha ha ha...
- Ian Gilbertson, Newcastle, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
Prince Charles has a point. Look at the Queen's Road and
North Peckham Estates. Complete eyesores. My grandparents, aunts and uncles lived in the terraced houses (late Georgian, I think they were)that were demolished to make way for these ghettos. Renovated they
would be considered very desirable residences in today's market.
- Spudina, Bessude (SS) Italy, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
The man is entitled to his opinion but as a "Royal" should keep it to himself. His role is to just shake hands and be nice to people, nothing else.
- Fanfan La Tulipe, London, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
I have no problem with Charles using his profile to create a debate about sandards of Architecture. No one else gets the column inches he does for such a subject. I do have a problem when he gets involved with politics or subjects beyond his comprehension.
- Alex C, London, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
Charles should not only not influence architecture; he is not qualififed to influence the width of a hamburger.
- Roy, London, England, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
The Royal family is a monsterous carbuncle on Australia
- Help!, Newcastle Australia, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
Darren -- I applaud you for pointing out that the developers fund and direct what actually goes up... the humble (in most cases) architect, in order to survive, is left having to pander to those who are more interested in the bottom line than the skyline.
- Kristi, San Francisco, USA, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
Someone has to critcise architects - the most arrogant people on the planet and who have been responsible for some really damaging projects. They give us what the think we should have (not what we want) and have treated the public with contempt. I admire Prince Charles for speaking out.
- Foster, London UK, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
HRH as a major landlord in his own right and as part of the Crown Estates administration certainly does have a point to make as an invited speaker for the RIBA.
Additionally some of the best parts of London and the UK were built by master craftsmen with no architect involvement.As a matter of interest check out www.ciob175anniversary.co.uk -From a wider social point of view supported by HRH there are fewer craftsman and individuals being trained to build the environment that we are currently shaping and that we live in.In another generation it will be much worse.Some of us actually respect the promotion of quality products being used in the construction industry.Re-use of old materials for a sustainable future is a far better option.What will we do with the concrete and glass towers when they are no longer in vogue ?? I am a Chartered Builder and do not use modern architects or planners.Much better to seek out master craftsmens who understands scale.It will be interesting to see what is still standing in 2034 and who the main speaker at the RIBA would be.
- Keith G Skelton, Colombo : Sri Lanka, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
If he had studied for seven years and gained a degree in architecture then he would be in a position to comment. What does Charles know of 'the intuitive needs, aspirations and cultural identity of countless communities around the world'? He lives in an upper class bubble, and his only experience of other cultures is as part of fleeting Royal visits, where he is cosseted and fawned on as usual and can hardly be said to have met real people in real situations. Charles suffers from the belief that 'old' is always 'good' and 'new' is always 'bad'. He talks about the 1960s as a destructive age for architecture, but we are living in a different age now, even though he seems incapable of accepting this. In common with the rest of the Royal Family and the concept of royalty in general, he is an anachronism and an irrelevance. Also, as someone rather humorously pointed out, he doesn't arrive for his royal engagements in a helicopter built with 'traditional' materials, does he? He is a hectoring hypocrite of the first order.
- Lindsay, London, UK, 14/05/2009 16:27
Report abuse
