Morning:
11°c
Chelsea Barracks architects linked to Prince Charles
Peter Bill and Mira Bar-Hillel12.08.09
FIVE firms of architects with links to Prince Charles are on a shortlist of 10 which have been asked to draw up new plans for one of London's most prominent sites.
The initial £3billion proposals to redevelop Chelsea Barracks, submitted by Lord Rogers, were abandoned after Charles objected.
Lord Rogers claimed the Prince had "single-handedly destroyed the project" after he wrote a private letter to the Qatari prime minister raising concerns about the modernist steel and glass tower blocks proposed for the Belgravia site.
The site is owned by Qatari Diar, the investment arm of the Qatari royal family. The developer has shortlisted 10 designers - half of which are known to have links to Prince Charles.
Two of the bidders, Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company and Alan Baxter and Associates, inspired or worked on the Prince's model town of Poundbury in Dorset, while another bidder, Sir Terry Farrell, has defended Charles against attacks from Lord Rogers.
The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment was asked by the Qataris to suggest possible firms after Lord Rogers's proposal was scrapped in June, only days before it was due to be considered by Westminster council.
More than 450 local residents had objected to plans to build 14 residential blocks, standing up to 13 storeys high, containing 548 flats.
The Qataris lost £30million in fees as a result of the scheme's collapse. The architect whose rival design for the site was previously praised by the Prince, the classicist Quinlan Terry, is not on the list.
However, those selected face criticism from fellow architects who called for a boycott of the scheme because of "anti-democratic" interference by Charles.
The list seeks to strike a balance between designers known to produce work favoured by the Prince - and his Foundation for Architecture - while meeting vociferous local objections. A specialist consultation company involved in the transformation of King's Cross and the Olympics site in Stratford has been appointed by Qatari Diar to smooth relations with residents, via the establishment of a "Chelsea Barracks Partnership".
Three finalists are expected to be chosen in the autumn, at which stage residents will be able to work with the architects. The winner should emerge by the end of the year.
A spokesman for Qatari Diar said: "The masterplan approach will focus on achieving the right urban design solution for the whole site, independent of the architecture of individual buildings.
"There will be an emphasis on consultation with local people, which will be early and continuous through all stages of the process."
In addition to the flats, the project may also include a six-star boutique hotel, shops, a public sports centre, NHS health clinic, a community centre, children's play area and a private health club. The consultation process has been influenced by the so-called Enquiry by Design techniques used by the Prince's architectural foundation.
These recommend bringing local people and architects together to discuss developments before plans are drawn up.
But the Qatari spokesman said there were "no plans" to bring locals face to face with the winning architect.
The initial plans were inspired by developers Nick and Christian Candy, who persuaded the Qataris to pay the Government nearly £1billion for the site in 2006. The aim was to build 319 flats costing about £10million each alongside 319 "social" flats for sale or rent at government-subsidised prices. Objections led to scaled-back plans for 548 flats.
It is hoped a new planning application will be submitted to Westminster by late spring next year.
This is at least six months later than the date given when the previous scheme was withdrawn.
Reader views (9)
Just leave the site as it is and with any luck surrounding property values will fall and the developers will be able to expand the site as bargain basement prices!
- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex
Quinlan Terry's 'design' wasn't a formally drawn up plan - it was a scribble on the back of an envelope of the kind of thing which COULD be done if the residents wanted. The most striking aspect of it was the enclosed courtyards, which are slightly more family-oriented than a bit of grass on top of a tower-block.
If 5 on the list of 10 are classical architects the other 5 are modernists - 50:50 isn't that fair? What's the big agenda with linking it to Prince Charles: the residents and the public didn't like Rogers' building either. What is undemocratic is having the views of the majority quashed by a few arrogant architects who rather immodestly think their work is the best. Not one architect has explained why Roger's design would have been good for the site: presumably it had no redeeming features, hence attacking Prince Charles is their only line of defence.
- Roz, France
Perhaps if the original designers had not been so wedded to their 'hideous is beautiful and forget about those who have to live with it' concepts they might have been invited to sit at the table too.
- Rogan, Irving
I think chippy LW should grow up. Prince Charles has every right to a personal opinion in a free country. Too many architects in Britain are desecrating our built environment and are only interested in building monuments to themselves mainly from the Meccano school of design. In previous centuries they built for the longterm not for today only. Thank goodness he is listened to. The squeals of rage from (Lords)Foster and Rogers prove it to me.
- Richard, Battersea, London UK
Good! Time to put a stop to the soul-less blocks that pass for modern architecture in this country. Those who dismiss Prince Charles' efforts, dismiss the views of the majority who do not want to see the lovely public spaces of London covered in concrete and perspex.
- Beatriz, London
Nepotism at its best
- Ade, London
It is very instructive to listen to the squeals of indignation from the unelected overqualified and super arrogant when their ideas and plans are thwarted. How lucky we are to have a Royal family otherwise there would be even less checks on those who wish to impose their execrable taste on us.
- William, Montenegro
Charlie boy was quite right to try and stop the original plan but for all the wrong reasons. The alternative should also have been binned. Both impose a demographic density that is way too great without enormous infrastrucure work. Livingstone was into huge tower blocks and the like. This cannot be the way forward unless revenues created in these developments contribute to very significant improvements in transport, health, etc.
- Antoine Desmoines, London, UK
Oh quelle surprise. The reign of the unelected, unqualified, self-proclaimed Minister for Architecture continues. Send all the Royals to a desert island and use the millions we'll save supporting them to build new affordable housing and schools, and to fund universities. Then Britain can start to grow up.
- Lw, London
