Prince Charles's interest in architecture and urban planning

[RoyalistRiley]

Don't see what the problem is.....a public figure makng a judgement about something, that's all Charles is doing. I agree with him. I live ina city where there sin't enough heritage architecture and the CBD is now ruled by concrete and glass monoliths

[Skydragon]

The Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment is to work closely with the developer Qatari Diar to deliver a scheme more focused on local community

Control of Chelsea Barracks shifts to local people - and Prince Charles | News | Architects Journal

It really is time the planners and developers, who don't live anywhere near these developments, listened to the people who will have to look at them day in, day out.

[susan alicia]

Lord Rogers attacks Prince Charles for intervening in Chelsea Barracks wrangle - Telegraph

.........Lord Rogers said: "The prince always goes round the back to wield his influence, using phone calls or in the case of the Chelsea barracks, a private letter.
"It is an abuse of power because he is not willing to debate. He has made his representations two and a half years late and anyone but him would have been shown the door.
"We should examine the ethics of this situation. Someone who is unelected, will not debate but will use the power bestowed by his birthright must be questioned."..........

[fearghas]

I don't have any sympathy for Lord Rogers. The Prince is acting the way he does best, for what he beleives in. It is the way we all work, writing letters, talking to people. He just has a lot of influence. As for the Chelsea Barracks, well I've seen the plans they had for it, hideous.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by susan alicia

.........Lord Rogers said: "The prince always goes round the back to wield his influence, using phone calls or in the case of the Chelsea barracks, a private letter..

'Lord' Rogers must be so used to getting his own way, can we presume from this that he has never written a letter or made a phone call for or against a proposal.

Does he expect the public to believe that he didn't write to the planning officers and clearly he has given interviews to many of the papers to influence the decision in favour of his hideous plans! He sounds like a

[ada]

Thank goodness PC defied the so called top architects and kept on with his 'meddling'.

[Little_star]

I didn't like the development plans but I think it's disgraceful that Charles interfered the way he did. He seems to be harking back to his namesake CharlesI in thinking he has more rights than he does....

[AuroraB]

It seemed like Prince Charles was the only one who was not thrilled with the concept presented, until you read (after the decision was made to rethink the design) that 450 resident of the area had also voiced their displeasure also.

[BellaFay]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

'Lord' Rogers must be so used to getting his own way, can we presume from this that he has never written a letter or made a phone call for or against a proposal.

Does he expect the public to believe that he didn't write to the planning officers and clearly he has given interviews to many of the papers to influence the decision in favour of his hideous plans! He sounds like a

Indeed you're right. Lord Rogers has himself intervened behind the scenes at a high level to get his own way. Some years ago he went to his friend the then Minister for Planning & the Environment John Prescott to get him to call in for planning review a classical architectural project that he didn't approve of by Quinlan Terry.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Little_star

I didn't like the development plans but I think it's disgraceful that Charles interfered the way he did. He seems to be harking back to his namesake CharlesI in thinking he has more rights than he does....

So you don't think Charles has a right to express an opinion.

Actually he does - in fact many Princes of Wales have interferred without the flack Charles is getting.

It is the monarch who can't do these things.

In the past Princes of Wales have voted in the House of Lords and I remember that Edward VII was upset when not allowed to vote in the Lords on a housing bill because he knew that without his obvious support the bill wouldn't pass but he also knew that he could, and did, make his views known. The bill didn't pass but not because he didn't try to influence the vote.

[susan alicia]

He probably will not make a habit of using his power/influence so openly, only on very important occasions.

[Skydragon]

The explosive if entertaining dispute between the Prince of Wales and the architect Lord Rogers of Riverside moved in the Prince’s favour last night after one of the country’s leading constitutional experts roundly dismissed Lord Rogers’s demands for a review of Prince Charles’s political influence

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle6514850.ece

Richard Rogers, the modernist architect who gave the world the Pompidou Centre in Paris and the airport with a wavy roof at Madrid, has demanded a national inquiry.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ed-cities.html

With his mature Italian charm and well-practised gestures, Lord Rogers of Riverside (better known as Richard Rogers, the millionaire architect) never tires of hearing people saying how wonderful he is

Who's really abusing their position? Lord Luvvie and his ego demanding a constitutional inquiry into Prince Charles | Mail Online

[susan alicia]

I know him as the husband of Ruth Rogers one of the owners of the Riveside Café who discovered Jamie Oliver

mail on line: ..................But then, it's a fair bet that there won't be many ardent royalists among associates as they gather for Ruthie's famous grilled polenta and baked seabass at the family-owned River Cafe where Rogers is a director.
Chef and author Ruth, who is from Long Island, New York, and is the architect's second wife, loyally protested to The Guardian: 'The Prince's actions are akin to calling up a publisher and saying I want all books to have happy endings. . .'


the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ju...s-architecture

[MARG]

Originally Posted by AuroraB

It seemed like Prince Charles was the only one who was not thrilled with the concept presented, until you read (after the decision was made to rethink the design) that 450 resident of the area had also voiced their displeasure also.

While nobody seems to have "heard" a thing about the 450 residents who protested least of all the press who have gone for the "David and Goliath" version of the story (and you could never quite tell which was which and, come to think of it, means they will always be on the winning side proclaiming the winner "David")!

With only the two main protagonists in the headlines the real story got lost. The less than millionaire residents who protested or those that just took one look at either the diorama or an architect's drawing and saw ghastly cold wind tunnels, were equally ignored until our Charming Prince gently shoved the realities of life into the face of those bankrolling the scheme.

Bingo! Suddenly we find out about the "little people" and about time too! Thanks to the "interference" of someone with no personal stake in the project. Thanks to our "people" advocate Prince Chales.

And let,s be clear here. Prince Charles has as much right to launch a letter campaign as anyone else, including Lord roger who has done exactly the same thing . . . . . and lost!

[Marsel]

I couldn't agree more with the Daily Mail article Skydragon posted - Yes, let's have an inquiry - into how modernists have ruined our cities.

This is not a matter where there are things to be said on both sides: the Prince is right, and Richard Rogers is wrong. The greatest fans of the neoclassicist Quinlan Terry would not say that his plan was very inspired. Nor would the greatest fans of Richard Rogers say that his modernist plan was very inspired either.
But if you asked local residents - who would have to live with the results - the overwhelming majority preferred the designs of Quinlan Terry to those of Richard Rogers.

Twenty-five years ago, when the prince described the proposed modernist development of the National Gallery in London as a monstrous carbuncle, he likewise caused howls of anguish from the architectural establishment.
But he spoke for England. And now he is doing so again. Anti-royalists always suppose that monarchs wish to impose their will arrogantly on a servile people.
Historically, in fact, it has been the role of kings and princes to stick up for the people against the powerful monied bullies - the wicked barons or, in this case, the monstrously arrogant modernist architects.

It is not Prince Charles but the modernists - led by Richard Rogers - who are the arrogant ones. They will brook no opposition even though, time and again, their work spoils our towns.

In Prince Charles, traditionalists have found not a bossy know-itall, but a public figure who was actually humble enough to listen to what the vast majority of the people wanted.
The Prince is, in any case, not an ignoramus. He studied architecture at Cambridge, and he has a good eye. That is something to be grateful for - but it is an added bonus, not the central point.
Thank God for the Prince. It is he, and not Lord Trendy Billionaire Rogers, who speaks for anyone with eyes in their head and a love of Britain in their hearts.

The passages I underlined speak clearly of what I think about the barracks and Prince Charles's intervention. As the closing line says, Thank God for the Prince..., who speaks for anyone with eyes in their head and a love of Britain in their hearts.

[Marsel]

Prince Charles, the architect, a $5-billion project and Britain's royal understanding

"What most people don't realize is that it has been the unstinting opposition by the thousands of Chelsea Barracks Action Group supporters that kept the objection campaign alive and it was them who commissioned Quinlan Terry to find an alternative scheme," she told the Times.

"It so happened that the Prince Charles agreed with us and reflected the voice of the people that 121 feet high of steel and glass was inappropriate for this area. Lord Rogers' bitter criticism of the Prince is unfounded; to us he is the people's prince and the only one who seems to stand up for what the people want."

"The Prince is speaking up because he feels local people, aside from anyone else, are not being listened to, and, in any case, the Wren complex is of national importance," added Amanda Baillieu, editor of the weekly Building Design magazine. "Can you imagine something like this being built next to the Hotel des Invalides in Paris?"

Letters to Prince Charles regarding his intervention in the Chelsea Barracks project:

Here are some of the letters:

SIR – Thanks are surely due to the Prince of Wales for his efforts in stopping Lord Rogers's proposed affront to the Chelsea skyline (Letters, June 16).

Lord Rogers's lofty talk of a lack of democracy and debate during this royal intervention appears more melodramatic with each hearing.

To many, the Prince is merely representing the commonsense view that characterless, hard-edged glass boxes are not suitable for a historic part of London. In fact, I am not sure if such structures are appropriate for any part of our capital. If Lord Rogers wishes to continue experimenting with the skyline, he should try his luck at somewhere such as Canary Wharf.

Architects in particular, and developers in general, have for too long ridden roughshod over the wishes of the people. Indeed, architects have strayed into the field of social engineering.

Michael Nicholson
Dunsfold, Surrey

SIR – The Belgravia Residents Association and the Chelsea Barracks Opposition Group have been working for well over a year with Westminster council to oppose the Rogers design for the Chelsea Barracks project.

We, as well as the developers, have become aware of overwhelming public opposition to the project. The Prince's intervention came partly as a result of appeals made by residents' organisations, faced with the implacable inflexibility of the architectural elite and lack of sympathy for the residents' point of view.

So it is inaccurate to claim that the Prince "interfered with the planning process", and wrong to suggest that he does not "represent" the people. He does represent them in this instance, and we are grateful for his intervention.

Campbell Gordon
Belgravia Residents Association

SIR – Lord Rogers has met a lobbyist more powerful than he, and doesn't like it.

Thank goodness for Prince Charles!

Simon Taylor
Garvestone, Norfolk

SIR – I have more faith in the grasp Prince Charles has of aesthetics than in the grasp Lord Rogers has of the constitution.

Yorick Moes
London WC2

SIR – Lord Rogers is calling for a constitutional inquiry into the intervention by the Prince of Wales. What would be of more benefit is a committee of inquiry into how so many architects have been allowed to despoil this once fair land with their hideous designs.

I might further request Prince Charles to pay an urgent visit to my home city of Norwich, which has suffered more than most from municipal vandalism by local planners and architects who clearly learned their craft at the University of Legoland.

Malcolm Allsop
Norwich

[Emeralds and Opals]

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/architecture_and_design/article6531217.ece

"Developers ‘run plans past Prince Charles’ to avoid rows later."

[Skydragon]

Developers working on major building schemes routinely run their plans past the Prince of Wales rather than risk facing private interventions later on, it has been reported.

Prince of Wales 'routinely consulted over building schemes' - Telegraph

If they ALL did this, we might be spared costly errors such as the Dome or the other revolting 'modern' buildings ruining our cities!

[Little_star]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

So you don't think Charles has a right to express an opinion.

I never said anything of the sort, I would strongly suggest you actually re-read my post before attributing your own ideas onto me.

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Actually he does - in fact many Princes of Wales have interferred without the flack Charles is getting.

Really? Perhaps you could point to one of these examples please.
[quoe=Iluvbertie]
It is the monarch who can't do these things.[/quote]Again, please would you provide a link stating this?

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

In the past Princes of Wales have voted in the House of Lords and I remember that Edward VII was upset when not allowed to vote in the Lords on a housing bill because he knew that without his obvious support the bill wouldn't pass but he also knew that he could, and did, make his views known. The bill didn't pass but not because he didn't try to influence the vote.

There was also a time when the people of Britian used to worship their kings like gods. Thankfully those days have gone.

Just because something was acceptable in the past does not make it acceptable now.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Little_star

I never said anything of the sort, I would strongly suggest you actually re-read my post before attributing your own ideas onto me.

Your original post was:


I didn't like the development plans but I think it's disgraceful that Charles interfered the way he did. He seems to be harking back to his namesake CharlesI in thinking he has more rights than he does....

To me that is very clearly saying that in your opinion Charles doesn’t have the right to express his opinion. Charles contacted people he knew, and asked them to reconsider their plans. That is expressing his opinion - that the plans were unsuitable. You say that you aren't saying he can't express and opinion but that is all he did - express and opinion to friends about their plans.

If you think that saying something someone does –in this case express an opinion about how suitable a design is for an area– is disgraceful than how else can someone interpret your comment - other than that you don't think he has the right to express an opinion.

If you didn’t mean to say Charles can’t express an opinion then your wording needs to be clearer such as ‘Charles can express opinions but he can’t write to people and ask them to reconsider the things that they are doing’.

Originally Posted by Little_star

Really? Perhaps you could point to one of these examples please.

I actually gave you a specific example but you chose to ignore it. The one about Edward VII and the housing bill where he wanted to vote but was advised not to knowing that his not voting would see the vote defeated but knowing that if he did vote it would probably pass – definite use of the role of Prince of Wales to influence opinion far more politically than Charles has ever tried.

Originally Posted by Little_star

Again, please would you provide a link stating this?

This doesn’t need a link as it is common sense when the rest of the royal family have the right to vote and have the right to stand for parliament (having lost the right to sit in the House of Lords) they could now stand for political office. The fact that they don’t do so doesn’t deny them that right and therefore the right to have the same say as anyone else in the political process, including asking politicians to consider their views.

The monarch is above politics due to the position but not the rest of the family, who chose not to get involved as it would make the situation of the monarch much harder.

Originally Posted by Little_star

There was also a time when the people of Britian used to worship their kings like gods. Thankfully those days have gone.

I have never come across time when the people of Britain worshipped their kings like gods. Could you please provide a link?

Since the early middle ages the people of Britain have worshipped the Christian god so you are obviously talking about a time before the early 600s AD or at least before 664 and the Synod of Whitby.

My knowledge of English history between about 500 and 600 is a bit weak mainly due to lack of documents from the period but that it the only time that I could possibly point to the English worshipping their Kings as gods unless you want to go back before the Roman Conquest and my understanding of Celtic beliefs also rule that out.

That the kings believed in Divine Right of Kings and that the people believed that God chose their king is NOT the same thing as worshipping a person as a God. I still believe that God chooses everyone’s role in life and therefore chose Elizabeth II to be the Queen. That isn’t the same as worshipping her as a God. I also believe that God gave her a parliamentary system to do the ruling.

Originally Posted by Little_star

Just because something was acceptable in the past does not make it acceptable now.

I agree that with that statement.

Charles wrote a letter to some friends asking them to rethink a plan. I see nothing wrong with that. You do. You don’t see that as expressing an opinion. I do.

We will have to leave it there I am afraid as you have a totally different view of what constitutes an opinion and I know we won't agree on other things either as you seem to think that people have worshipped Kings as gods whereas my extensive study of English history tells me totally different.