Fight! Architecture, Prince Charles, neo-classicists and modernists.

[teuchter]

Ah yes, a member of the house of Lords working for a Middle Eastern absolute monarch to build posh flats for the ultra-rich and shoddy flats for those common people needed to service the needs of the ultra-rich whining about Prince Right-Charlie subverting the democratic process at the City of Westminster, former home of corrupt class cleanser and cemetry saleswoman Shirley Porter.

While it would be perhaps a legitimate criticism if the Prince had intervened off his own back over issues of taste (or, as Rogers alleges, self-interest), it surely is relevant that there was widespread local and national opposition to the Rogers design, and - as seems usual with planning applications - it was almost totally ignored by the developer, WCC and CABE. There is surely something seriously wrong with our democracy when an unelected figure behaves in a far more democratic way in articulating those views than our elected representatives did (which of course now applies to the difference between the House of Lords and the Commons).

The intervention is, essentially, a matter of taste.

Rogers was commissioned by the Candy brothers / Quatari royal family to design a scheme. Remember that it is the developer who specifies a brief, in terms of what they want on the site. It is not Rogers who decides whether it is homes for the ultra-rich or schools for orphans or whatever. That is a matter for negotiation between the owners of the site and the local authority, Westminster, who are responsible for drawing up and enforcing planning policy.

If the objections to the scheme are about things like usage, target clientele, density, height of buildings, amount of public space, that kind of thing, then they should be aimed at the developers and the local authority (or whichever other politicians are involved in that negotiation and decision-making process). Get them to force a change to the brief and the architect will respond to that.

If the objections are to the style of the architecture, then it's valid to aim them also at the architect. Obviously, matters of style and taste are subjective, and there's never going to be a situation where everyone is happy.

Even if you argue that it's OK for Prince Charles to use the influence of his position to interfere with political matters - in which case it would be fine for him to lobby the politicians and the developers over issues like who the housing is for, or the height of the buildings - that is not all he is doing here. He has made a specific request for one particular designer to be replaced with another specific designer - who just happens to do stuff in the style which is to Prince Charles' taste: classicism. Quinlan Terry will be given just the same brief that Rogers would have been if he had been given a revised brief. Putting columns and pediments and whatsits on the facades isn't going to magically make a certain amount of square metres of luxury housing fit into a smaller volume of space.

While Rogers might have gone a bit over the top in his accusations I can certainly understand why he's exceedingly pissed off. This is a quite personal attack on him by Prince Charles on the basis of a personal preference for one style of architecture over the other.

And yes, you can draw comparisons between Prince Charles and Rogers, pointing out how he's fairly well implanted in the establishment, sitting in the House of Lords and with influential relationships with government and City Hall. But he got to that position by being one of the very best architects of the last 50 years, with a string of excellent projects to his name. In contrast Prince Charles found his influence by inheritance and has got a toy town in Cornwall to his name.

And not that I want to go overboard about defending Richard Rogers, but I think his involvement in promoting good urban design, by engaging with politicians, shouldn't be ignored. It goes way beyond what most of his peers do: he doesn't spend his time flying about in helicopters like Mr Foster and his practice continues to produce good thoughtful work which looks at each project individually. Again rather unlike Foster whose practice now churns out endless competent but repetitive grey office blocks with the odd signature building here and there to keep him in the news.

I think the interesting way Rogers' partnership is set up says something about his general approach - it is owned by a charity, directors salaries are capped as multiples of the lowest paid staff's and profit is shared between employees:

http://www.richardrogers.co.uk/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,5,1160

 

[Crispy]

Rogers is a good guy. His 'Towards an Urban Rennaisance' report has been massively influential in town planning, bringing focus to high density quality developments and associated infrastructure in urban environments. He genuinely wants to make cities nice places to live and uses his influence to try and attain that goal.

 

[agricola]

Rogers is a good guy. His 'Towards an Urban Rennaisance' report has been massively influential in town planning, bringing focus to high density quality developments and associated infrastructure in urban environments. He genuinely wants to make cities nice places to live and uses his influence to try and attain that goal.

One of the great New-Labour-speak documents that, you get the impression that all the Urban Task Force spent their time doing is doodling modernist building after modernist building, and congratulating themselves about how very modern and enlightened they all were.

A shame then that there was far more in that about tax breaks for developers and improving investment opportunities and returns from property in those areas than local consultation (indeed, at one point the report bemoans the difficulty in getting CPOs).

 

[Crispy]

Well, yes the devil's always in the details

 

[teuchter]

One of the great New-Labour-speak documents that, you get the impression that all the Urban Task Force spent their time doing is doodling modernist building after modernist building, and congratulating themselves about how very modern and enlightened they all were.

I can't see any doodles in that document.

Which part of it do you see as pushing a "modernist" approach? And what do you consider a "modernist" approach in terms of urban planning? And in what ways do you disagree with it?

 

[Fedayn]

Most architects can't afford to build themselves the kind of houses they design for their clients, of course.

But a few other architects' own houses:

Frank Gehry:

Marcel Breuer:

Gunther Domenig:

Erick von Egeraat

Look at them all in their Georgian townhouses!

I like all of these buildings, prefer Breuer and Egeraat's mind you.

 

[Azrael]

This is the house Ken Shuttleworth, architect of the Gherkin, built for himself.

The Georgian comment was mild sarcasm. Quality not style is at issue: architects who defend dilapidated towerblocks like Robin Hood Gardens tend to live in luxury. The crescent-house you've linked to looks sumptuous.

 

[teuchter]

It's not the delapidation that's being defended.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

RE the chelsea development:

The residents hated the idea. Part of the issue was that rogers completley ignoredthe brief that the council gave him for a residential development. Council said no more that 5 storeis, Rogers designed 11. Counncil said lots of green space, Rogers paved the lot. Council said keep the grand hall, Rogers wanted it demolished. Council said in keeping with the local design, Rogers of course ignored it.

The residents were ultimately pissed off with having to live in shadow once it was complete, their MP's hands were tied.

The problem with these developments is that there are alot of vested intrests and politcal ties involved where democracy flies out the window. I'm glad Charles stepped in, and perhaps these councils and architectshould listen to the residents, and the people who they are supposed to represent more rather than the VI's because ultimatley it's the residents that have to live in the shadow of awful, out of plce buildigs.

Insidently, there's a similar development being pushed through by Ealing Council, who I'm gathering is getting alot of money from the development. They are huge steel towerblocks, totally not in keeping with the local georgian, and low rise architecture, And it means that the central ealing green will be overcast in shadow 24/7. It also means and extra god knows how many thousand residents, which quite frankly, the infastructure in the station is not there to cope with (though it may change with cross rail.

The residents, as do I, hate it. The council are only interested in the money. The thing is, I don't mind modern structures, where they are sympathetic, they can look stunning. But most of the time it's arrogant architects fighting againts each other and eventually the public that have to live amongst it are miserable.

http://www.saveealingscentre.com/

 

[Crispy]

Note that it's the developers with the arrogance - architects design to the whim of their clients. In the case of Ealing, you can be sure that the developer demand xxxxx sq.m. of floorspace and therefore a tower.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's not just the initial architecture, either. The Barbican is a high-rise housing development. I know opinion is divided about the Barbican but I'd love to live there.

Now not every estate will have its own arts centre, but every estate can and should be well maintained and have high-quality community facilities – sports facilities, pubs, a centre with halls, an adventure playground for the kids, libraries and IT rooms, communal gardens.

All these things are very possible, but in the dilapidated estates they are almost entirely absent. Anything that was there originally has closed, leaving behind an offy and a betting shop if you're lucky. The regeneration of King's Cross shows how such estates can be improved.

IMO the alternative is even worse – a sprawl of low-rise atomised buildings on anonymous cul-de-sacs without a shop, pub or any other amenity in sight – large parts of Bermondsey, for example. Why doesn't anyone build squares any more?

 

[teuchter]

RE the chelsea development:

The residents hated the idea. Part of the issue was that rogers completley ignoredthe brief that the council gave him for a residential development. Council said no more that 5 storeis, Rogers designed 11. Counncil said lots of green space, Rogers paved the lot. Council said keep the grand hall, Rogers wanted it demolished. Council said in keeping with the local design, Rogers of course ignored it.

The residents were ultimately pissed off with having to live in shadow once it was complete, their MP's hands were tied.

The problem with these developments is that there are alot of vested intrests and politcal ties involved where democracy flies out the window. I'm glad Charles stepped in, and perhaps these councils and architectshould listen to the residents, and the people who they are supposed to represent more rather than the VI's because ultimatley it's the residents that have to live in the shadow of awful, out of plce buildigs.

So I shouldn't really have bothered writing all that stuff above explaining that architects design to their clients' briefs, not to their own whims.

This post seems to contain a degree of misinformation, too, as the plans were revised several times during the pre-planning period to reduce the height of the blocks and increase the amount of public space, in response to the various objections.

And what's this about "Rogers paved the lot"? That simply isn't true, at all.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I have to agree that Rogers is one of the good guys. I've read some of what he's written about urban renewal and it makes tons of sense.

The thing about fuckwits like Charles Windsor is that he offers no realistic alternative. He simply doesn't understand the problems of mass housing or the factors that are important in improving quality of life. Why would he? The man's one of the most privileged people on the planet and has been protected from the world most of the rest of us live in for his entire life. He really should shut the fuck up. I'm not surprised Rogers is hopping fucking mad.

 

[Azrael]

It's not the delapidation that's being defended.

Which is Baron Rogers' defence. What Lord Rogers overlooks is why Robin Hood Gardens is dilapidated. Was it a likely consequence of its design?

Now not every estate will have its own arts centre, but every estate can and should be well maintained and have high-quality community facilities – sports facilities, pubs, a centre with halls, an adventure playground for the kids, libraries and IT rooms, communal gardens

The Barbican is endlessly cited in defence of towerblocks but it's exceptional. Its residents tend to be loaded. High-rises demand constant maintenance and investment to function. That just isn't going to happen on poor estates, whereas houses can be maintained by individual occupiers.

Towerblocks also dismembered the fabric of existing communities. Central planners had little concern for such things.

As for Lord Rogers being "a good guy", I don't think it's very good to abuse your government contacts to try and get a building rejected because you don't like its style. Lord Rogers demands open mindedness for Robin Hood Gardens but is himself fiercely intolerant of traditional architecture.

 

[Azrael]

Council said keep the grand hall, Rogers wanted it demolished.

I suspect lots of modernist architects would love to follow the lead of Le Corbusier's plan to flatten central Paris. Rejecting tradition is the core of their ideology. But they box clever and make all the right noises about conservation. Very hard to prove outright, but things like this, and the story I linked above, give clues.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The Barbican is endlessly cited in defence of towerblocks but it's exceptional. Its residents tend to be loaded. High-rises demand constant maintenance and investment to function. That just isn't going to happen on poor estates, whereas houses can be maintained by individual occupiers.

Yes, the Barbican is exceptional, but there's no need for it to be. Like any high-rise development, maintenance, however it is paid for, must be organised and carried out communally. In the case of 'poor estates', that means the council. There are councils, such as Camden and Islington, that have put in the money in recent years; there are others that haven't. In this instance, I'd like to see central govt money committed – the rich must subidise the poor to improve the built environment. We all benefit from such an improvement.

Underinvestment in social housing has been chronic and systematic. It is not inevitable – this kind of 'just isn't going to happen' attitude annoys me. Why the fuck not?

 

[Azrael]

Like any high-rise development, maintenance, however it is paid for, must be organised and carried out communally.

That's the key point. In his defence of Robin Hood Gardens, Lord Rogers said, "Robin Hood Gardens has been appallingly neglected, and from the beginning, has been used as a sink estate to house those least capable of looking after themselves -- much less their environment." [1] His prejudice aside, however house-proud the residents, the communal nature of Robin Hood Gardens makes its residents dependent on the owners for maintenance.

Why do I say dilapidation is inevitable? Because councils will neglect the least powerful. You can fight it endlessly, but it's a constant battle. Why disempower people in this way? Simpler to let them have houses if at all possible.

If Lord Rogers and his chums rehouse the residents of Robin Hood Gardens out their own pockets, apologise profusely for blaming said residents for the building's squalour, raise the funds to fix it up, and then move in themselves, I'll take him seriously.

 

[agricola]

the new head of RIBA has kicked off the argument again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8232870.stm

I suppose anyone who bases their argument on the belief that the planning process is democratic is on a hiding to nothing, but at least it gets her in the press....

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

I'm a bit of a Prince Charles at heart. I think it's ace that we do still have some old buildings. I lived somewhere which was the result of the crushing stalinist anti-joy that some people on this thread seem to advocate, and it was fucking depressing, especially considering that country was meant to have 5000 years of history.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

One of the modernists, with the crazy hair has just declared neo-classical architecture a classist tool, which keeps people in their hierarchical place and that modern architecture is about breaking down the class walls and reducing the hierarchy.

I think that at the time the Modern Style in architecture was founded, namely in the Twenties, with van der Rohe, the Wiemar/Bauhaus School, that was actually true. It was an outgrowth of the politics of that time, and did rerpresent a backlash against the class-ism that existed throughout Europe.

I don't think it's so true today, since the Modern Style has pretty much come and gone, the political atmosphere is completely different, and the symbolism of the different architectural styles is lost on the majority of people in any event.

 

[Shevek]

it's part of the reason people hush their voices in museums despite there being no actual rules about noise levels.

In the museum where I work you get kids running round screaming, obnoxious mums hollering at their sprogs etc..

 

[Stigmata]

In the museum where I work you get kids running round screaming, obnoxious mums hollering at their sprogs etc..

Ditto for the one I work in, actually. But that's because it's dead progressive.

 

[teuchter]

the new head of RIBA has kicked off the argument again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8232870.stm

I suppose anyone who bases their argument on the belief that the planning process is democratic is on a hiding to nothing, but at least it gets her in the press....

I think her complaints about Prince C are reasonable ones - it is an abuse of power, I think - but going on about it probably doesn't particularly help the image of the architectural profession which is what the RIBA is supposed to be for.

I just get depressed when the level of discussion gets reduced to "glass and steel" vs "classical". That's how that BBC report treats it (and how most mainstream coverage treats it) and it's a totally useless simplification of the debate. And this is at least partly Prince Charles' fault.






Incidentally, I was talking about this the other day with someone who was wondering how Prince Charles actually experiences the built environment. I think that's a good question. If your experience of the world is largely a succession of stately homes and country estates joined together by chaffeur driven car journeys ... perhaps your opinions become a little distorted.

 

[agricola]

I think her complaints about Prince C are reasonable ones - it is an abuse of power, I think - but going on about it probably doesn't particularly help the image of the architectural profession which is what the RIBA is supposed to be for.

I just get depressed when the level of discussion gets reduced to "glass and steel" vs "classical". That's how that BBC report treats it (and how most mainstream coverage treats it) and it's a totally useless simplification of the debate. And this is at least partly Prince Charles' fault.

Incidentally, I was talking about this the other day with someone who was wondering how Prince Charles actually experiences the built environment. I think that's a good question. If your experience of the world is largely a succession of stately homes and country estates joined together by chaffeur driven car journeys ... perhaps your opinions become a little distorted.

I dunno if it is an abuse of power - after all, the planning process in this country is nowhere near democratic and seems to rely on speaking to the right people, so for the biters to be bit as they have been with the Prince seems oddly appropriate.

As for the standards of the debate, yes Prince Charles does have his opinions but they are mirrored by the modernist-or-nothing stance that the likes of RIBA seem to come out with, you almost get the impression listening to them that they consider themselves artists more than architects.

 

[teuchter]

I dunno if it is an abuse of power - after all, the planning process in this country is nowhere near democratic and seems to rely on speaking to the right people, so for the biters to be bit as they have been with the Prince seems oddly appropriate.

Well - it's debatable whether PC's intervention in this particular planning process was an abuse of power beyond the various corruptions which, as you suggest, are unfortunately a regular part of all planning processes.

I think the "abuse of power" thing is more about what his position is and how he uses it. I think there is a general feeling that the monarchy (if we tolerate their existence at all) should stay out of politics and do their "job" which is being ceremonial and looking nice on postcards. Charles however does get involved with things outside that role, and his influence is entirely down to his inherited position and wealth rather than a proven expertise in the fields he meddles in.

I am of course aware that there are lots of people who use their inherited wealth and position, rather than proven merit, to bring influence on things. That doesn't make Prince Charles' behaviour any more acceptable though.

As for the standards of the debate, yes Prince Charles does have his opinions but they are mirrored by the modernist-or-nothing stance that the likes of RIBA seem to come out with, you almost get the impression listening to them that they consider themselves artists more than architects.

Is this really true? Can you give me an example of the RIBA's "modernist or nothing stance"?

 

[Azrael]

the new head of RIBA has kicked off the argument again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8232870.stm

I suppose anyone who bases their argument on the belief that the planning process is democratic is on a hiding to nothing, but at least it gets her in the press....

I'll take Ms Reed's views seriously when she also condemns Lord Rogers for abusing his contacts with the Labour government to try and get the Chelsea Royal Infirmary blocked. I doubt she will, as unlike Prince Charles, Lord Rogers can fight back.

 

[Azrael]

Ditto for the one I work in, actually. But that's because it's dead progressive.

It's progressive to let undisciplined kids disrupt things for other visitors? Thank goodness I'm not a progressive!

 

[agricola]

I'll take Ms Reed's views seriously when she also condemns Lord Rogers for abusing his contacts with the Labour government to try and get the Chelsea Royal Infirmary blocked. I doubt she will, as unlike Prince Charles, Lord Rogers can fight back.

Didnt know about that, thanks. The hypocrisy of that man, and that crowd, is unbelievable.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Incidentally, I was talking about this the other day with someone who was wondering how Prince Charles actually experiences the built environment. I think that's a good question. If your experience of the world is largely a succession of stately homes and country estates joined together by chaffeur driven car journeys ... perhaps your opinions become a little distorted.

You're forgetting about the hospital visits, and trips to the Colonies.

 

[Azrael]

Didnt know about that, thanks. The hypocrisy of that man, and that crowd, is unbelievable.

No worries. Newspaper story is here.