• Charles lands blow against towers of steel and glass
• The major players in the bitter battle of Chelsea barracks

Reader views (105)

 Add your view

I beleive that Prince Charles is entitled to express his disapproval as our future head of state. Well done!

- Rick, Shrewsbury, 15/06/2009 22:11
Report abuse

Great, great victory for all the people. Well done Charles keep up the good. Now get lost all of you modernist idiopts and take the unwanted terrible architect Rodgers with you. Long live the revolution against PC views. The people have spoken and its we dont want thiese glass & steel building in London

- Tony, Lodon. UK, 15/06/2009 04:14
Report abuse

Here, here, Prince Charles!

Thank him you ungrateful gits for riding to the rescue of beautiful London.
Down with the ugly glass and steel eyesores.No one likes them any more.
Get with the programme.

- Sydney, Toronto, Canada, 15/06/2009 02:59
Report abuse

Good for CHUCK---I honestly do believe he will make a 'good' KING!

- Ronald Cooney, montreal,canada, 15/06/2009 01:24
Report abuse

This is excellent news. It is a tribute to the 100's of residents who fought tooth and nail to stop the Roger's proposal, it is a tribute to the Prince of Wales for giving them a voice and speaking up for his People and it is a tribute to the Qataris for listening and being willing to go back to the drawing board to produce a more sympathetic scheme. It is however a slap in the face for the architectural elite whose arrogance knows no bounds and attempts to force its taste on local people because they think they know best. It is also a rebuke to the Westminster planners for failing to listen to the people they are meant to serve by backing this ugly development. I hope the elected members of Westminster are far more in tune and order their planners to get out of bed with the architects and start listening to their electors and instead negotiate a scheme that will enhance Chelsea instead of blighting it.

- Thomas, London, 14/06/2009 22:13
Report abuse

If the prince of one royal family wants to write to another royal family that is his right. Everyone is allowed to write letters.

However this is a victory for better and more active city planning. The new selection process, by being open to anyone, will result in a neighbourhood that almost everyone will like. Hopefully with a mix of styles, similar to what you find in a neighbourhood that has developed over time.

- Dan, urbanneighbourhood.com, 14/06/2009 21:23
Report abuse

Welcome to 21st Century Britain, where an unelected, ill-informed busybody of average intelligence and undistinguished education can hold sway over major capital projects. The prince of Wales would apparently have us all living in a pastiche of regency Bath. Wander round Paternoster Square and see the banal, kitsch 'style' that he so admires, and ask yourself if it reflects - or inspires! - our country. His Poundbury experiment would be better suited to his beloved Tuscany: its location on a Dorset hillside is exposed and windswept, and its dwellings overpriced, unpopular and barely habitable.

How depressing that he is permitted to interfere at will in the life of our vibrant and forward-looking capital city.

- Rob, Canary Wharf, 14/06/2009 21:01
Report abuse

Nice job Prince Charles! Critics can say what they want, but were it not for him then the glass and metal monster would become part of the landscape<i>.</i>

- Janet Curry, London, 14/06/2009 13:21
Report abuse

So, it's not enough that Lords of this and that have a stranglehold on the rental stock in this city, but now we have royalty opining on development and apparently carrying weight. In any other 'democratic' country in the world, there would be a revolution over this kind of thing. Charles needs to understand that he is tourist attraction (and not much of one) and nothing more, and that he should just fulfill his Disney-land UK role and stay out of the marketplace.

Step 1) Get rid of the archaic concept of primogeniture so that Charles and his ilk can no longer concentrate and control the wealth in such an outrageous manner;

Step 2) tell Charles to shut the hell up.


Reverse steps as needed.

- Kevin D, London, 14/06/2009 12:51
Report abuse

Great news! Prince Charles has scored one. Our city must be protected from ugly architecture. Enough is a enough, no more ugly buildings, we have enough of those from the post war era.

- Maria, London, 14/06/2009 08:12
Report abuse

Great - so Charles's ambition to be King of Legoland is now one step closer to reality.

- Dan, Fulham, 14/06/2009 06:56
Report abuse

Never Thought I Say This But Big Ears Has Done Right In Torpedoing This Project. Well Done To Him Concerning This Project And Maybe Designers Will Now Listen To The Residents Who Have To Live With These Buildings That Are Destroying The Residential Area's.

- Ej Joseph, Long Island, USA, 14/06/2009 05:33
Report abuse

Thomas, nothing in the article has the prince taking credit for this victory. And he would be the first to say it is a victory for the people who raised their voices against the well monied political machine.

Regarding "jobs at risk:" There are far more jobs at risk every time a council or MP proposes tax increases or more laws regulating business. There are more jobs at risk every time new 'immigrants' come across the Channel.

- Trunk, US, 14/06/2009 05:09
Report abuse

I normally don't think much of HRH, but on this occasion well done. He was the only individual that had the clout to stand up to the arrogant "we know best" achitects.This profession still comes up with the same nonsense they did in the sixties and seventies, and us poor plebs are the ones who have to live with their so called gound breaking designs. The only breaking is the hearts of those who have to live in, and look at some of their monstosities

- Mick Isaacs, London, 13/06/2009 21:35
Report abuse

Cliff of Melbourne - I think the outskirts/suburbs of Paris are actually hideous and much worse than almost anything London has constructed. I know London isn't perfect, but in my opinion it is a lot better than the slummy areas of Paris.

- Shirley, London, 13/06/2009 21:11
Report abuse

Thank you, Roz, Blighty in my Heart, for your excellent rebut of Simon Caleb's post.

Modern architecture has its place in the right context but no architecture can please everybody. However, if Prince Charles has an opinion, even if someone disagrees with him, it is no reason to insult him or the monarchy in general.

In my opinion, we are very fortunate to have someone like Prince Charles to stimulate debate and not to bow to the political prejudices of those who purport to lead us.

- Percy Vere, Chipping Campden, Glos, 13/06/2009 11:52
Report abuse

Excellent news, and a boost to all the true believers in the sancity of the capital's skyline. I say, begone from London's ancient acres you metal and glass merchants. You might be welcomed in Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool etc., but in LONDON? Never, never, never!!

- Ted, London, 13/06/2009 11:26
Report abuse

What the hell has it got to do with him, that lot only got where they are by rideing roughshod over poor farmers in the dark ages

- Richard Edmunds, Rayleigh Essex, 13/06/2009 10:26
Report abuse

We should just go back and live in caves...

- Marco, Notting Hill, London, 13/06/2009 10:26
Report abuse

I seem to remember that Charles also complained about the proposed modern design for Paternoster Square, prefering a "traditional" alternative that looked like the film set from Ben Hur. The resulting compromise is probably the most boring set of buildings ever constucted on a key site in London. Well done Charles!

- Alan, Essex, 13/06/2009 09:29
Report abuse

Hugo of Fulham,
Let me assure you that tourists do not come to London to see low rise housing. London is blighted with the most boring suburban sprawl of any European city.The most beautiful parts of London are in the central core, the City, Westminster and Kensington where the buildings are medium to high density. The charm of Central London is that new and old buildings of different styles and scales are mixed together.High density can work very well. Paris has a far more people per hectare than London and I have never heard it being called an ugly city.

- Cliff Steele, Melbourne australia, 13/06/2009 04:10
Report abuse

For once, good for HRH! We all too often see developments engineered by architects who are only really interested in building monuments to their own edification or for commercial gain. London has seen too many of these. Lets see something that the local community is happy with rather than something that is foisted upon them by partisan/biased local planers.

- David Welch, Washington DC USA, 13/06/2009 04:04
Report abuse

The decision is a welcome one. London has already been ruined by ugly developments. The people see the problem, but a handful of arrogant architects continue to pursue their horrid designs, which do little for the community, and even less for tourism. Just imagine if British planners had free reign over Venice.

- Mark, Venice, Italy, 13/06/2009 00:58
Report abuse

What a fantastic relief that the plan has been withdrawn.
It is a great victory for us who live in close proximity of the site and it is a victory for London that for once this tendency of "glass & steel" which has littered the city for years for once has been reversed.

- Cb Chelsea, Chelsea, 12/06/2009 23:04
Report abuse

THANK YOU Prince Charles!

- Radz, Expat!, Copenhagen , Denmark., 12/06/2009 22:36
Report abuse

Thank you, Sir. I love London, and its necessary diversity and renewal, but the 'democratic' systems have demonstrably failed to moderate and a different kind of merito-egomaniac has threatened to dominate. So, Princes do have uses - thank you to the BOTH of them.

- Steve, London, England, 12/06/2009 21:41
Report abuse

A modern architectural design for a modern society is stopped by an unaccountable aristocrat devoid of imagination and modern sensibilities. This could only happen in the UK, the land of artistically and architecturally challenged people, people who don't want to live in the modern world.

This could never happen in the important cities of Holland or Germany or Scandinavia, where modern high rise buildings sit side by side with traditional buildings.

- Sandeep Murthy, Oxford, 12/06/2009 17:48
Report abuse

This message board and sadly the campaign team is clearly infected by hysteria. I am shocked with regards to lack of knowledge of the area, the development or of British architectural history.

With regards to being out of touch with the area and in particular the anti-brigade's (championed by Prince Charles) key strategy of pretending to be protecting the handsome Royal Hospital is that the Royal hospital is visually segregated by a continuous line of mature trees all around it, with doubled up trees nearer the development site and by park land that is double the area or the hospital itself! The campaign team had to stoop to the rather frivolous accusation that the development could be seen "through gaps in the trees" I kid you not, as if anyone would be doing that. Please check an arieal photo of the site. The worst offenders against the Royal Hospital are the large Edwardian blocks that take up a large corner of the parkland. Perhaps we should demolish those? Or enjoy the juxtaposition? The rest of the barracks site is surrounded by tatty adhoc post war build and low-rise town houses, an complete ecclectic mix. The Rogers development looks postively handsome by comparison.

Wren himself designed controversial stand-alone buildings that celebrated juxtaposition and the Royal Hospital is no different. It doesnt need to blend in! It certainly does not require to be surrounded by an overblown pastiche by Quinlan Terry.

- B M, London, 12/06/2009 17:35
Report abuse

'Once we have planning consent for the overall plan, we will invite the best suited architectural practices to compete...' Quinlan Terry always has very nice suits; does this give him an unfair advantage?

Presumably whatever replaces what was a massively over-dense scheme will be subject to the usual S.106 agreement providing a percentage of low-cost homes for the huddled masses of Chelsea?

- Mdj E10, london uk, 12/06/2009 17:28
Report abuse

Well done sirs. The right man to stand up for our priceless heritage which so many want to destroy. You cannot have a worthwhile future if you do not care for the past.

- Albert Hall, hove england, 12/06/2009 17:27
Report abuse

Good work for HRH. He DOES express the average people's concern for their environment and the continuity of local planning.

Hopefully, however, the new scheme will take into account our century, but with the proportions approprate to the site and surrounding buildings. This does NOT mean a Georgian copy, but rather a sensative re-interpretation of the proportions and massing of the architectural elements in this very large site.

But the architect must be carefully chosen - not easy!

- John Marsteller, Geneva, Switzerland, 12/06/2009 17:22
Report abuse

Well done Charlie boy!
You've saved London from yet another carbuncle.

We’re very lucky to have someone who, when asked by Londoners, is prepared to stand up and be counted and to grasp the nettle!
More of the same leadership and ‘interference’ please, before taste-blind architects destroy the scenic centre of London that its inhabitants and so many tourists love!

- Tim;, Outer London, UK, 12/06/2009 17:14
Report abuse

Hooray for commonsense, good taste and a proper sense of place.

- Paul, Edinburgh, 12/06/2009 17:13
Report abuse

Well done Charles.

- Minnie Ovens, London, UK, 12/06/2009 17:11
Report abuse

Margy, please can you explain why Chelsea property owners conspiring to cancel this scheme is a good thing for democracy? I trust that the Chelsea property owners are instead going to pool their considerable resources to build a dense commune with public open space on the derelict empty site to help towards housing the millions of disenfranchised in this country?

- B M, London, 12/06/2009 16:43
Report abuse

Well done HRH - fantastic that we won't have another corner of London ruined with a glass and steel ugly mess. Let's have a proper plan with something more fitting for such a lovely part of London.

- Tim B, Marlborough, 12/06/2009 16:16
Report abuse

Well done HRH look forward to seeing the new plans with some respect for the surrounding area.

- Dave, Madrid, 12/06/2009 16:16
Report abuse

Its good news,wish we had him to stop hideous developments going up in our area!!

- Jean Matthews, London England, 12/06/2009 16:11
Report abuse

Well done to Prince Charles. I only wish Charles had had some influence in the late 60's and during the 70's to have prevented the architectural scars that are still blots on our landscapes. High quality modern buildings are now plentiful in London. There are fewer bad buildings being allowed to be built. The Chelsea plans were awful and now rightly rejected.

- Catherine Scott, London England, 12/06/2009 16:00
Report abuse

Nothing to do with Prince Charles -

The legal counsel to the objectors was shocked to find out how much of the WCC Planning Brief had been ignored and in addition the contravention of central government guidelines including minimum amount of open space required per capita for a development.

- Ian, London Eng, 12/06/2009 15:53
Report abuse

Some people are missing the point. Prince Charles held the view of the local residents, and I would bet one that is far from uncommon elsewhere.

He has the same right as everybody else to state his views, and it is sheer good luck that the development is owned by a friend of his. If my mate was building some flats, and I had a word in his ear that I was not sure they were quite right, and he listened, then so what?

These were ugly inappropriate buildings and Prince Charles' comment has led to what looks like it will be a more democratic process. It can only be a good thing.

We need more public figures willing to stand up for their beliefs in the face of big business and the noisey few.

- Stephen, London, 12/06/2009 15:51
Report abuse

Anyone who wants to listen to Charles views on architecture should go visit the pastiche of a Victorian suburb in Poundbury the parasitic and dysfunctional outcrop to the historic Dorchester.

Modern architects get things wrong they all do. Hampton Court Palace was knocked down and even fell down in places many times before it arrived at what it is today. But you do not build things in the style of 100 years ago you build to todays tastes and standards.

- Martin, london, 12/06/2009 15:37
Report abuse

Bravo! Well done that man.

- Charlie, London, 12/06/2009 15:09
Report abuse

A sensible decision - the Rogers scheme was out of place in this part of Chelsea.
The modern glass and steel structures have their plac if they do not jar against the surrounding buildings which they did in this case - a more classical design that utilises modern materials is required such as that used in the Cadogan Estates Square development on the KIngs Road.
Well done Prince Charles in this case.

- Simon, london, 12/06/2009 15:07
Report abuse

Traditional and modern can work together beautifully and harmoniously; but that is not always the case and the impression I had of the Rogers scheme is that it simply ignored and would totally have dominated its surroundings.

Such a shame that discussion of the architectural merits and the planning process is so clouded by rude and tasteless remarks driven by class warfare.

- Gordon (No Relation), London UK, 12/06/2009 15:05
Report abuse

"This is one of the saddest things, that some over privileged non elected person can speak for others"
SIMON CALEB

I'm confused: are you talking about PRINCE CHARLES, who cannot propose or enforce laws by the rest of us must abide by, or the architect LORD ROGERS OF RIVERSIDE (ennobled for donations to the Labour Party), who can . . . ?!

Prince Charles has nothing to gain whereas Lord Rogers will be several million out of pocket after this debacle. Prince Charles is not funded by the tax-payer: only the Queen and Prince Philip are paid from the Civil List to cover the expenses of their roles of office (which have voluntarily been publicly scrutible far longer than those in real power in Westminster): Prince Charles has a private income and pays income tax. It is a great shame that it requires the clout of a well-known character such as Prince Charles for the many voices of dissent from ordinary people to be taken into account when trying to get Labour Luvvies to stop lining their own pockets in the face of public opposition to what was, at the end of the day, a rubbish design. Google 'Robin Hood Gardens Rogers' to see more staggering examples of his architectural arrogance in the face of popular opinion.

All this talk about 'modern' and 'classical' architecture is rubbish: there are only 2 kinds of architecture - 'good' and 'bad': Roger's offering was bad, plain and simply. Bring on someone younger with more talent - modern or classical.

- Roz, Blighty in my Heart!, 12/06/2009 14:34
Report abuse

the development is on crown estate land-last time I looked HRH was an interestd party-great news -all you peasants just think what the glass block would have looked like in 25 years time-drab and aged-
again well done on behalf of the Royal Park Albert Hall Albert Memorial and other interesting buildings locally that are all close by-wonderful news!!

- Keith Skelton, Colombo Sri Lanka, 12/06/2009 14:26
Report abuse

Excellent news! Well done HRH.

- Pb, London, 12/06/2009 14:25
Report abuse

One of these days Charles will interfere once too often, and I do really hope so!

He abuses his birthright but unfortunately, unlike our elected MPs, PMs etc cannot be voted away.

- Jan, london, 12/06/2009 14:20
Report abuse

Sheila, your term 'ugly' is merely opinion. To deny high quality housing to many in a city that is built around public amenities and culture because of a, i would suggest, poorly concluded, aesthetical opinion is rather selfish would you not agree?

I am all for citizen participation in planning, if there are legitimate concerns and tangible criteria, such as inclusion of certain amenities or saving a historical feature or rights of access but woolly aesthetical opinion is not one of them.

For further evidence that aesthetical opinion in these types of architectural debates particularly regarding housing set for other people is that one only has to look at product design in the past 100+ years. The reason for looking at product design is that most of us can afford it thus creating a market that has enough 'space' to provide real market choice. In this near-democratic world you can bet the majority of people go for ergonomics and usability and in aesthetical terms they go for minimalist or loud avante garde over fussy classical ornamentation. Unfortunately in the finite space of landownership architecture has never been able to deliver choice to the masses; instead it is left to the top end to represent the design ideas of today.

- B M, London, 12/06/2009 14:16
Report abuse

May I take this opportunity to hope the Queen will live forever.

- Kate, London, 12/06/2009 14:08
Report abuse

Bravo, Prince Charles! History and taste will prevail across the street from Sir Chistopher Wren's Royal Hospital. In 50 years, when fashions have changed and Rogers, Gehry and their lot are forgotten, there will be one less modernist atrocity in London to regret.

- Nathaniel Foye, Dover, NH US, 12/06/2009 13:59
Report abuse

Prince Charles was speaking out for the vast majority of residents who found the proposal did not meet the original planning brief. This is a victory for democracy. The Qatari Royal Family is more responsive to public opinion than Westminster Planning Officers who showed contempt for the the views of the people.

- Thomas Sutherland, London, 12/06/2009 13:58
Report abuse

The big question is: where could it all end if someone with influence comparable to that of some would-be developers did not apply a brake?
After all, large developments in the Middle East are not exactly flourishing in their entirity.

- Peter Seekings-Foster, Mildenhall, Suffolk., 12/06/2009 13:58
Report abuse

Hi Robin please explain to me why a high density, mixed affordiblity, environmentally stringent development moulded by the most stringent planning laws in the world in a dense urban core that has a well established public transport system is not sustainable? Please explain then the intervention of 'sustainable' Prince Charles and the Chelsea tractor mob. Also please explain why an utmost single minded attitude to the facade of a building with disregard to all other criteria is in anyway sustainable. I'm all ears...

- B M, London, 12/06/2009 13:56
Report abuse

To quote- ""What is wrong with everyone nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities?... People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability." Absolutely, so, Charlie, how it is a man with no formal architectural training think he knows better than an award winning architect like Lord Rogers? Really what is the point in having a proper planning process, or even a democracy, in this country if privileged unqualified individuals feel that they can ride roughshod all over it because of their position? Not only is this a national disgrace but it sets a dangerous precedent and I thought the days of absolutism and the divine right of monarchs ended centuries ago.

- Nj, London, 12/06/2009 13:52
Report abuse

This shows how wise the Government is to demolish democracy and rule without the people: who do local people think they are? If they are allowed to win this kind of campaign, they might come to believe that they have a voice and a right to be heard.

- Jamal Akhbar, Edinburgh, 12/06/2009 13:51
Report abuse

Mr Hugh, as much as it is a pleasure to read an avalanche of ill-informed posts, yours stood out enough to warrant a response! Enlighten me as to how replacing a cheap, quick-build 1960's barracks is in anyway destroying Londons tourist friendly heritage? Are you using spin? Now lets go through your other points! Faddish architects... who were architects throughout history but people engaged in that lastest fad! They are ok but future talents are not? Strange logic there. Socialist utopia of concrete and glass?! Yes thoughtful architects, Rogers is one of them, of our age are very concerned by the habitat of the internals of a building, I bet most people would welcome that type of socialism. Has anyone tried to live in a damp crumbling Victorian basement or a gloomy flimsy mock-traditionalist house in a typical green-field development? I guess the Chelsea residents are not used to that. Glass lets in lots of nice natural light you see because most people prefer that to tungsten. Concrete well that provides a solid, long lasting, sound-proof frame for a building. Nice qualities for a house i think you will agree. Fit for families? Well that is more down to the free market and lack of minimum space legislation, yes the UK without such a law has the smallest average living space in Europe. St Pauls drowning? Well if people were more open to attractive towers then St Pauls would have more room to breathe. Have you checked the vista? Its the low rise foreground buildings to blame!

- B M, London, 12/06/2009 13:50
Report abuse

Well done your Royal Highness!

- Brian, London, 12/06/2009 13:41
Report abuse

Hugo, Fulham, London:

are you in the right century, there are millions of londoners, low rise, low density is what you get in villages across the countryside. The time to live in a museum is long gone. we need high density low commute living in 21st century london. Funny enough the kind of support for the classical picturesque frozen-in-time london and HRH's idyll notion of architecture comes from the well off parts of london. Please explain to me how the rest of us will commute on the tube to work from zone 21 unless you're keen to put me up in your splash pad in Fulham!

- An_Architect, london, 12/06/2009 13:35
Report abuse

Thank you Prince Charles. I'm very pleased you spoke up - Qatari Diar didn't seem to be listening to anyone else.

- Katie, London, 12/06/2009 13:34
Report abuse

Clearly Prince Charles thinks that Nostalgia is what it used to be. Doesn't he realise that the building style he so craves was modern and technically advanced once? And for someone who is supposed to be so environmentally switched on, why does he insist on architecture that is so energy inefficient? He endlessly goes on about the environment and owns quite a few expensive gas guzzlers. Somewhat hypocritical I think

- Bruce Edwards, London, 12/06/2009 13:33
Report abuse

David Cole, Brighton, UK

You seem rather ignorant yourself as Prince Charles did NOT stick his nose in, as you so eloquently say; he was asked by the local residents to help them and he did.

Do you live in Chelsea? Are you affected by this development or did you see this message board as an opportunity to express your hatred for P Charles? I live in the area and I can tell you that this is the result the locals wanted. It has a lot to do with the residents of the area and absolutely nothing to do with you(unless of course you live in Kings Road).

This is a result for democracy - a rare thing these days!

- Margy, London, 12/06/2009 13:33
Report abuse

Go Charlie boy! i'm with you, its time buildings became a bit more aesthetically pleasing as opposed to the 'bang in as many' as you can approach..

- Mike, London, 12/06/2009 13:30
Report abuse

This is good news It was an ugly plan conceived by greedy people

- Sheila, london uk, 12/06/2009 13:16
Report abuse

A backwards solution that keeps all of the old fogies happy and the middle class people that cannot stand change on side.

Get real time moves on, we need new, modern solutions, otherwise we would be infected with cholera, not have television or radio, air flight or other 'modern' amenities.

Don't disenfranchise the younger generation by not allowing them their own brand of heritage by clinging on to your childhood through outdated development.

Lets have lots of glass steel, bronze and stone erected in imaginative and compulsive ways and tear down all of this old rubbish, perhaps including Buckingham palace as maintenance is not affordable (where is Charles sustainability comments on that property?)

- Jack, London, 12/06/2009 13:14
Report abuse

Why did Prince Charles not say anything against the 1 Knighstbridge development? The development is also a glass and steel project and is very tall. Personnally I find it nicer than the ugly barracks nearby that stink horses.

- Greg, London, 12/06/2009 13:01
Report abuse

Well done the far sighted Prince. This is the man who was talking about green issues twenty years before 'SO organic' and the rest of the commercial lobby. He was preaching sustainability before newlabour could spell it.

- Robin, London, 12/06/2009 12:51
Report abuse

Adam, London, UK

You clearly know or understand very little other than verbal abuse and spewing venom.

Would you prefer president Brown to be resident in Buckingham Palace or perhaps you fancy it yourself and this is part of your problem?

- David H, London, 12/06/2009 12:48
Report abuse

Prince Charles and the local residents were and are right. This is a victory for those who do not wish to see our cityscape destroyed by over large, over intense and downright ugly development solely in the name of outrageous profits and the massaging of undeservingly famous architects incredible egos.

- Matt, London, UK, 12/06/2009 12:45
Report abuse

Prince Charles is an ignorant buffoon who should not have stuck his nose into something that does not concern him. If he wishes to turn the clock back so be it but one only has to visit a city like Barcelona to see just how 'traditional' architecture can mix perfectly well with forward-thinking developments. Lord Rogers is one of our foremost architects as other world cities seem quick to acknowledge. Why is it that some many Brits seem to want to live in the days when we had an Empire and consistently dwell in the past? The other point made by the 'Standard' article is the potential loss of 5,000 jobs at this vital time. Having a job is something that Prince Charles does not have to worry about. He has never had one and doubtless if his mother has her way, he never will. The man is an interfering waste of space.

- David Cole, Brighton, UK, 12/06/2009 12:45
Report abuse

Thomas Hayes, Leeds UK

Your very chippy comment reveals a lot about you. Another leftie are we with social hang ups?

Get over it and stop being so descriminatory.

Most victorian slums have been knocked down. What we still have are streets of very well built victorian terraces which are much more pleasing to the eye than the modern rabbit hutches they put up in their place.

- Tom W, London, 12/06/2009 12:44
Report abuse

Welll done Charles old boy!

London has had enough of the tastless glass and steel cube lego developments and there is no slkill in art or design in building them. Having lived and worked in Kings Road, Prince Charles was right to intervene and the Arabs agreed with him as they can sip tea together at the palace and talk bigger, better deals!

- Mortgage Broker N3, London, England, 12/06/2009 12:44
Report abuse

Simon, you clearly have no class or taste and "Duchy" doesn't have a 't'.

- Anon, London, 12/06/2009 12:42
Report abuse

Great news. A victory for common sense!

- Margy, London, 12/06/2009 12:38
Report abuse

What fantastic news for all democrats whose views have been ignored and for local inhabitants. Why did the Mayor of London and the local council not have the courage to stand up to the architectural profession's bullying. Anyone who objects to proposals to inflict yet another soon to be outdated montrosity on the majority is branded somehow as outdated and abnormal.

- David, Fulham London, 12/06/2009 12:34
Report abuse

Prince Charles may have had some influence on this, but the Belgravia residents association, and other tenants living near by, were protesting about this development long before he got involved. The design was completely out of place, and would have been a real blott on the local landscape! Living almost opposite the site, I for one am absolutely relieved, and delighted that this horrendous design has been dropped. Having listened to the architect at on of the planning meeting,(there were so many protesters there, they could not fit us in), not sure if it was Rogers himself, I realised that these people live in a different world to the rest of us, and are more about getting design kudos and architectural awards, than about designs that are suitable for the area.

- Jean Hughes, London, 12/06/2009 12:34
Report abuse

Those bleating about Charles being 'unelected' - 450 locals democratically objected to this over-development which would undoubtedly overpopulate an already very crowded area and ruin its special character. We don't want the Royal Hospital crammed in on all sides by modern high rise development like St Paul's.

Probably neither the prince nor the locals have had any effect anyway, this is about economics, it's not viable to cram all this building in, in the current climate.

This is not some social housing project, it's for the non-dom non-tax paying global rich. It's very similar to the unsympathetically designed, over dominant very disruptive eyesore semi-built by the Candy brothers in Kinghtsbridge which they now cannot sell.

- Tom Moncrieff, london W6, 12/06/2009 12:29
Report abuse

Further proof that the class system is alive and kicking. The blue blood Nimby's of Chelsea have pulled rank and cobbled together a load of tosh about it being a sensitive area and won the day. The big loser here will be the UK economy that would have benefitted from the £1bn that would have been spent building the site. This will now be deferred for many many years. It is Paternoster square over again....

- Ben, London, 12/06/2009 12:28
Report abuse

What does this overpriviliged idiot know about buildings no matter how or what they are built of considering he and his family have lived in glass houses all their lives.No wonder the country is smothered with Victorian slum houses and streets. Left to hm we would still have gas street lamps.
T H Leeds

- Thomas Hayes, Leeds UK, 12/06/2009 12:25
Report abuse

The point is not that it's a victory for the Prince. It's a victory for common sense. The design was a series of glass tower blocks, similar in scale and design as those in Wandsworth and Battersea. It was a rush job done in order to take advantage of a booming housing market. They now have the opportunity to do something truly award winning, something that will be a lasting landmark for the area.

- Michael D, London, 12/06/2009 12:13
Report abuse

This is nothing to do with monarchy, retro, toffs, suburbia etc and all about the greed of developers cramming as many ugly buildings as possible onto prime London land. A truly great architect would have refused the commission, which was so obviously hoping to ride on the back of his reputation, unless he was allowed to create a set of buildings worthy of the capital. It's the unimaginative design which is so feeble and unworthy.

- Charles, London, 12/06/2009 12:02
Report abuse

This is one of the saddest things, that some over privileged non elected person can speak for others. How dare he or anyone else for that matter (other than planning departments) dictate when something is 'too modern'. It's ignorant minds like his, which have kept this sun forsaken isle in single glazed, energy wasting Victorian houses.

And as of now I'm boycotting his Dutchy products.

- Simon Caleb, London, 12/06/2009 11:59
Report abuse

The architect Rogers's contributions to London have been the failed Millennium Dome and a tower block in the city that looks like an ugly oil rig. It's about time he was banned from building anything else in the capital before he ruins it completely.

- Katie, London, 12/06/2009 11:59
Report abuse

Oh well done Charles! Those glass and steel edifices are the slums of the future. If you go down the river and see those sorts of places they are almost deserted and completely soulless.

- Miles, London, 12/06/2009 11:56
Report abuse

Well done Charlie. Not afraid to speak up and in this instance with complete common sense. The rogers design was compelely out of place with the area already pockmarket by ugly modernist monoliths that look tired out dated within a few years of being built.

- Bruce, London, 12/06/2009 11:54
Report abuse

Brilliant!

- Spandavia, UK, 12/06/2009 11:49
Report abuse

Good for Prince Charles. Leadership is what is needed the country is rudderless.

- Peteo, London NW1, 12/06/2009 11:33
Report abuse

Good on the Prince. He is getting results, unlike that "Prime" Minister.

- Georgie, Islington, London, 12/06/2009 11:25
Report abuse

Prince Charles is a major national hero.

- Russell, Chelsea, London, 12/06/2009 11:24
Report abuse

With respect who voted to put Prinny in office? Because I must have missed that election.
Time to ditch the Royals and this pathetic Government.
I find it sinister that an unelected unemloyed big eared oaf can influence matters so profoundly in this way.
We elected Boris and thats who should be the arbitor. Not this 'Green' hypocrite.

- Ethan, UK, 12/06/2009 11:12
Report abuse

Do people actually realise that density and massing is down to demand, economics and the developer. Richard Rogers is one of the country's foremost architects and as a general rule we don’t produce that many world renowned architects! To criticise Rogers and make grand sweeping statements regarding the architecture of our time is ignorant beyond belief! Every architect throughout history has used the latest technology and architectural ideas; this is why we have so many wonderful creations on the planet! To shoehorn the world into a classical debate shows a complete lack of imagination and utter contempt for the people that have to live and work inside the building, let alone the health of the planet! If we want to protect the environment we have to live more densely (unless you are the type of small-thinking suburbanite who thinks a village and a rose garden is 'the untouched wilderness'). Back to main point, the developer, after meeting the local people had already made concessions to the plan including more public space which was then reduced due to more people wanting to keep an average Victorian chapel. So a lot of work went into rejigging and fine-tuning, yet this was all turned upside down because a privileged (few) decided that they didn’t like the 'architecture' as if living in a house gives you the right to stop others living in your area! Do people really think that no one wants to live in a well designed house? Or should we all be moulded into disneyland?

- B M, London, 12/06/2009 11:11
Report abuse

Adam, London:

I couldn't agree more with you, if he was so bloody interested, why didn't he dig into his own pockets and buy the land to develop it.

Monarchy is outdated, and since the Queen has happily signed the Lisbon Treaty, she is not fir to be Monarch.

Lets have a Republic.

- P Staker, London, SW8, 12/06/2009 11:02
Report abuse

I wish the Prince could have a look at the plans to demolish the buildings at the SW corner of Leicester Square, including the Odeon West theatre (one of only a handful with 1,000+ seat capacity remaining in London) and the 1865 Hand & Racquet pub. The Swiss Centre (with its ornamental clock mechanism of figures that moved to mark time) at the NW corner of Leicester Square was ripped down earlier this year, and the frame of a bog-standard replacement skyscraper is already rising. When will Londoners and the British in general finally come to realize that tourists visit London and the U.K. just for its quirkiness and charm? If those tourists wanted to see skyscrapers on every corner, they could simply stay at home. Tourism is the largest industry in the U.K., and greedy developers and the governments in league with them (such as Westminster City Council) are killing the goose that lays the golden tourist eggs.

- Phil Jones, London UK, 12/06/2009 10:58
Report abuse

If Prince Charles had been around in 1913 would he have whipped up objections to Buckingham Palace being given a new facade? The reality is that times move on and today's historic buildings were once new, and very possibly reviled when built.

- Tonyb, Melbourne, Australia, 12/06/2009 10:55
Report abuse

This is utter nonsense. Prince Charles is not in touch with the general public, he is a arrogant toff who gets involved in things when he doesn't agree with them. Other than that, he does nothing. I hate the fact that in a modern society we, as taxpayers, are founding this big eared bafoon to waltz around and dip his fingers in whatever pie he likes the look of. It's about time we lost our monarchy, they're just as debauched as our government.

- Adam, London, UK, 12/06/2009 10:42
Report abuse

Well done everyone involved in this hard fought battle against those who seek to destroy our beautiful and historical city. London is centuries old, and its architecture should be influenced by what people come here to enjoy - the beautiful vistas, the history and the grandeur. To faddish architects this represents everything against their socialist utopia of concrete boxes and glass tower blocks sprouting across the capital like a rash of teenage pimples and spots. A return to local character, of low rise housing fit for families and the end of megalomaniac pseudo-science fiction futurist structures is the only way forward if London is to retain its iconic beauty for the next century. The campaign doesn't end here, let's hope the Prince's next intervention can stop developers wrecking our city's skyline and drowning Parliament and St Pauls cathedral in a sea of modernist dross. It is our only hope for a more beautiful future.

- Hugo, Fulham, London, 12/06/2009 10:17
Report abuse

Great news, and well done Prince Charles.

It is awful though that it takes the intervention of such a voice to get a plan like this knocked on the head. The residents's opinons, and simple common sense should have been more than enough.

Can we please have some decent planning laws to stop so many locations in London and the rest of the country being ruined by unsympathetic, often downright ugly, constructions.

- Stephen, London, 12/06/2009 10:13
Report abuse

Prince Charles tends to represent the views of the average member of the public which usually flies in the face of arrogant professionals.

- Dave Morris, Sunderland UK, 12/06/2009 10:09
Report abuse

Prince Charles certainly appears to speak for the majority of residents in the area and probably Londoners generally.

These modern architects are arrogant enough to believe that it is their right to use the London scene as if it was an extension of Tate Modern. The difference is that if anyone wishes to look at modern art, they are free to go to Tate Modern. What these architects build has to be seen by us all whether we like it or not. I suspect that their designs will start to look dated and probably shabby before too long in the way that 1960s architecture looks now.

If Boris Johnson is looking for an anthem for London, may I suggest "God Bless the Prince of Wales"?

- Martin Fielding, London, England, 12/06/2009 10:07
Report abuse

Good. The plans looked like a crammed mass of tasteless modern flats with maximising profit elevated above architectural style and originality. This is a central London site and they wanted to pile ugly modern boxes into it for the uber rich. It looked like a 60's housing estate. Let's have something spectacular, designed to last for centuries and beautiful. I'm no fan of Charles but he was right to block the cabal of self-interested architects.

- Charles, London, 12/06/2009 10:04
Report abuse

It's about time this over-pampered, hypocryte kept his nose out of things that do not concern him.

He, and the rest of his family, should clean up their own act before admonishing others.

- Paul Bokor, Cambridge, UK, 12/06/2009 09:45
Report abuse

This is excellent news. Not just because it will prevent an ugly development being built in a sensitive area, but because it is one in the eye for the arrogant architectural profession that is so determined to foist its souless and vulgar creations upon our long-suffering city.

- Ken, Bexleyheath, 12/06/2009 09:36
Report abuse

Hooray,
this is a decision on behalf of the majority of city dwellers who are not ego maniac architects or multimillionaire designer property developers.
. Architecture and design affects us all. Once in place it stays for a very long time. The peoples voices should be heard.
Good for Prince Charles. The voice of the people.
He's having a good day today what with the new Snowdon Cafe opening too.

- Ashgl, UK London, 12/06/2009 09:32
Report abuse

Why is it a victory for Prince Charles? Many people were against the project and he has no more or less right to put his name to victory than all the other objectors.

Typical royal: "we are better than all the rest of you and we count for so much more than the rest of you". Arrogance.

- Thomas, London, 12/06/2009 09:32
Report abuse

Add your comment