Morning:
8°c
Prince Charles told firm to axe architect chosen for St Paul's project
Peter Dominiczak17 Aug 2009
The Prince of Wales secretly lobbied for a leading modernist architect to be dropped from a development next to St Paul's Cathedral, it emerged today.
Jean Nouvel was commissioned by developer Land Securities to design the £500million One New Change office and shopping complex next to the landmark. But in 2005, the Prince allegedly wrote to Land Securities calling for an alternative architect to be considered for the site.
It was announced last week that five of the firms on a shortlist of 10 asked to draw up new plans for the Chelsea Barracks site have links to the Prince.
The original £3 billion proposals to redevelop the barracks site, submitted by Lord Rogers, were abandoned after Charles objected.
The Prince was also accused today of telling English Heritage's chairman to urge Cabinet ministers to block a £200million development at Smithfield Market and it is claimed his aides regularly scrutinise plans by major architects including Sir Terry Farrell, Sir Richard MacCormac, John McAslan and Alan Baxter.
In the private letter to Land Securities, the Prince is said to have made it clear he felt the firm's design approach was wrong. Mike Hussey, then London director of Land Securities, said: "He wrote to me at the time we selected Nouvel and suggested we should meet his preferred architects. He hadn't seen the scheme, he just complained about the selection of the architect. He didn't want a modernist."
In the letter, Prince Charles is alleged to have written that the design should "allow St Paul's to shine bright" and offered his own architectural advisers to the firm. Mr Hussey decided the Prince's suggestion was "not appropriate" and declined the offer.
Sunand Prasad, president of the Royal Institute of British Architects, described the intervention as "brazen" and "pernicious" and called on the Prince to "step back".
He said: "The Prince has an unusual amount of power which, under our constitution, is not designed to be used to interfere with the running of everyday affairs in this country for the simple reason that the prince is not accountable. There was an open competition for this building and then along comes somebody with special powers seeking to influence the outcome in a blatant intervention."
A spokesman for Clarence House said Charles was concerned to retain StPaul's "inspirational" status, but would not comment on the Prince's private correspondence.
Roger Madelin, chief executive of the developers Argent, which consulted the Prince's aides on the £2 billion plan to regenerate disused rail land at King's Cross, said Charles now had a similar stature as a consultee as statutory bodies including English Heritage, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and professional bodies including Riba and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.
In 2004, the Prince wrote to English Heritage's chairman, Sir Neil Cossons, to protest against a plan by Thornfield Properties to redevelop Smithfield Market. Prince Charles is said to have written: "If, as you say (and we all agree!), they make 'a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the Smithfield conservation area and possess great townscape value' then why on earth can they not be listed now?"
Reader views (13)
Some carefully measured views lol
- Will Maccormac, London, 26/08/2009 12:06
Report abuse
I looked at the website of Land Securities to see pictures of One New Change. The gimmicky website raised my suspicions. The building immediately reminded me of the Tesco supermarket at the east end of the Hammersmith Flyover. It is a totally inappropriate design for a position next to St. Paul's Cathedral.
If Prince Charles will not speak up against such monstrosities, who will?
As for those who say that Prince Charles has no right to speak out because he is unelected, would they say the same about Lord Mandleson?
- Percy Vere, Chipping Campden, Glos., 18/08/2009 10:04
Report abuse
Prince Charles has every right to involve himself in how our towns and cities are developed. The public is now so powerless in shaping the places we live and work in we need a people's champion to voice our views - and Charles is far more in tune with the majority view than many architects and developers who seem hell-bent on destroying the heritage we cherish.
The new office block rising next to St Paul's is an abomination, replacing a perfectly decent Neo Georgian building. It is a great shame Charles was unable to stop this monster from blighting our cathedral.
- Thomas Twidale, London UK, 18/08/2009 09:40
Report abuse
Unlike most of the other commentators so far who seem to find nothing wrong with the heir to the throne voicing his opinion on everything under the sun and, more particularly in the case of this article, on architecture, I think Charles's interference (because that is what it is) is not on. One can only hope that when he eventally becomes King that he will keep his thoughts to himself, as I've always believed that the monarch should be 'neutral' - and it's a great pity, that in his capacity as heir to the throne, that Charles can't be 'neutral' as well AND KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT.
- Judith, KIng's Lynn, Norfolk, UK, 17/08/2009 23:24
Report abuse
He left school with only one "O" level. He could at least try to go to Adult Educational Classes and get SOME qualifications before he opens his stupid mouth and preaches to others.......its never too late to learn.
- Frank, Bristol, 17/08/2009 22:42
Report abuse
Clearly Prince Charles is entitled to an opnion on architecture,and to express that opinion publicly is healthy both for the monarchy and society. What is wrong, in my opinion, is for Prince Charles to secretly try and influence a developers choice of architect, or prefered style of building. If he tried to influence other public arts in the same way there would rightly be moral outrage.
- Chris Roche, london, 17/08/2009 21:17
Report abuse
So only an architect is allowed to have "properly considered judgements" on what a building looks like?
Be careful there Peter J, I 'm sure we can find plenty of things you are thus unqualified to judge. Given you are not royalty I'd say the first item on the list is that you are in no position to judge what a prince can or cannot do!
The Prince has an opinion. He uses influence etc to make his opinion known. How is that different from anybody else?
- Trunk, US, 17/08/2009 15:37
Report abuse
Prince Charles though unelected, does speak for the majority of London. Qualify and the environment the new building is in are vital issues.
- Andrew, London, 17/08/2009 12:26
Report abuse
Prince Charles does not have "an unusual amount of power" - he is just using the celebrity which has been thrust upon him. This is no different to all the luvvies who are opposed to extra runways, or the celebrities (including himself) who use the public interest behind their figure to raise money for charity. He has asked for alternative architects to be used - he has not ORDERED alternative architects to be used: he is using his influence, not some kind of phoney power.
It seems to me that it is the astonishingly left-wing RIBA that issues edicts and forces people to have buildings that are unpopular, not the Prince.
- Roz, France, 17/08/2009 12:09
Report abuse
All modern architecture should be banned, it is unsuitable for London and nearly everyone hates it. Why didn't Boris try to stop this shopping centre being built? He said he was going to ban tall buildings overshadowing St Pauls.
- Sarah, London, 17/08/2009 11:59
Report abuse
The Prince has acted in a manner unsuited to his role.
He is not an architect and his view MUST not be allowed to overule properly considered judgements.
His interference at Smithfield is a blatant example of allowing self-importance to dominate when in a powerful position.
If the Crown can survive the passing of this our glorious Queen - then it's time to get the heir apparent to stop teaching his grandmother to suck eggs!
- Peter J, london uk, 17/08/2009 11:28
Report abuse
Prince Charles is dead right on this one. Nouvel's work is clearly totally inappropriate and inferior. Only a brazen idiot would consider Nouvel for such a project.
- Nigel Jackson, Manchester, 17/08/2009 11:22
Report abuse
Modernist as in rubbish? Have you seen Nouvel's designs? They are utterly vile. Prince Charles was right. We need architecture that reflects human scale and fits in with the venacular. Not ego-driven piles of ordure.
- Matt, Telford UK, 17/08/2009 10:51
Report abuse
