Morning:
6°c
The late Saddam Hussein used look-alikes of himself in order to thwart assassination attempts. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is a considerably more pleasant individual, but I can't help wondering if there is also more than one version of him roaming the land.
How else to explain the fact that one Prince Charles denounces “battles of the styles” as the invention of “stupid extremists”, while another Prince Charles has for a quarter century determinedly and ruthlessly promoted one style of architecture and attacked another?
For what is his support of the classical architecture of Quinlan Terry at the expense of the modernism of Lord Rogers, if not a sally in a battle of styles?
But never mind. Last night, at the Royal Institute of British Architects, the nice version of the Prince was on show. He called for harmony and beauty, sustainability, place-making and involving people in the shaping of their environment.
He called for Riba and his own Prince's Foundation to join together in discussing ways to save the planet. It was perhaps a trifle condescending to speak as if such values were his own personal discovery.
It was odd to claim that “very few people” dare “to question the state of our surroundings, of our natural environment, our food security, our climate and our own human identity and meaning”. If they do, they “find themselves abused and insulted”. Actually rather a lot of people dare to question these things, but to camouflage this fact the Prince seems to imagine a network of sinister white-coated boffins against which he is a lone crusader.
But, as I say, never mind. If the Prince and the architectural profession are generally on the same side, if everyone wants sustainability, friendliness and reason, then there are no further grounds for the battles they fought in the past. As Sunand Prasad, president of the Riba, asked in a gracious response to the Prince, “what actually is the battle about?”
Like gorillas and chimps, Prince Charles and Lord Rogers share 98 per cent of the same DNA. They both want good design and happy cities and friendliness to the environment. Both are somewhat arrogant. The only real difference is that Rogers likes shiny things and the Prince likes bricky stony things.
So why don't the Prince and the architects just follow the logic of their remarks, and campaign together for the things they both believe in? Why don't they get up on the same platform and denounce greedy, destructive and cynical development? For this to happen would require some adjustment. For the Prince, it would need, in his own words, “humility” rather than “ego”. It would mean an end to his fixation with a small group of neo-classical architects who are not, by any stretch, leaders in sustainability and involving the public.
It also requires leaving behind cheap shots. The Prince asked “how many Pritzker Prize-winners are not living in beautiful classical homes?”, reviving an old chestnut that modern architects don't live in modern buildings.
I could immediately think of several who do, including Jacques Herzog, Rem Koolhaas, Norman Foster, Frank Gehry and Zaha Hadid.
For his part, the Prince should try living in his own creations, the tiny-roomed, low-ceilinged, small-windowed faux cottages in his model village of Poundbury, in Dorset. It would be impressive if he did.
Reader views (1)
Actually Rowan, plenty of people live in the "tiny-roomed, low ceilinged" houses you describe and they are perfectly lovely. Just remember that not ALL the public want ultra-modern sci-fi type buildings forced on them by the arrogant architects. The Prince is simply standing up for common sense; if you are to build a new extension next to a classic building, it makes sense to build it in-keeping. Over the centuries, architects that havent done so have left a legacy far from admired by this generation.
- Francesca Quine, London, UK, 13/05/2009 16:54
Report abuse
