“Unfortunately we also await the inevitable uninformed drubbing of Prince Charles, his foundation and all five connected firms.”

I penned those words in the full expectation that there would be “Consequences“  for Charles continued advocacy of architecture as a living environment as opposed to the prevailing position of architecture as “Art”!  But even I was totally unprepared for the blistering barrage of bile and sheer bloody-minded spite.

The first salvo was a seemingly harmless article in The Telegraph. Inspired, perhaps, by Hollywood’s Walk of Fame, the Prince of Wales has created “an eccentric tribute to the stars of his own universe“. A none too subtle hint that that Charles is not like you or I, he is, quite frankly, a bit odd, a total whack job no less.  Think cabbages!

The second salvo was an all-out assault on the success, viability and even safety of  his Poundbury project in the Gaurdian: “Cracks appearing in Prince Charles’s dream village in Poundbury”

• Residents complain about poorly-finished homes
• Alleys and corners fuel petty crime, say locals

This is followed by a litany of discontent and allegations of total disillusionment by the inhabitants and pronouncements of the imminent disaster it heralds,  This is strangely at odds with Simon Conibear, Poundbury’s development manager, assertion that Poundbury had been “an overwhelming success among the people who live here” and pointed to a survey by Oxford Brookes University that showed 86% of residents were glad to have moved here. Read more…

MARG British Royals Architecture, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales

Image from TRF avatar collection

Well it’s two for two with Prince Charles versus ‘Monstrous Carbuncles’ and, having successfully weathered the anger, spite, outright bile and downright slander of the vanquished, we now look to the future.  A future in which the developers have drawn up a shortlist of ten architectural firms who have been asked to submit  new master-planning plan for London’s Chelsea Barracks redevelopment site.  Five of those firms have links to Prince Charles.

We await the final presentations from all ten firms with barely suppressed anticipation!  Unfortunately we also await the inevitable uninformed drubbing of Prince Charles, his foundation and all five connected firms.

MARG British Royals Architecture, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales

Click for the article at the Daily Mail

 Twentyfive years ago Prince Charles, in a fit of righteous indignation, condemned an architectural plan for being, in his words, “a monstrous carbuncle on the face of an old friend”,  thus enraging the Royal Institute of British Architects, who angrily bit back at anyone  having the temerity to question their architects’ view of the future.  A future that seemed to be a cold, soulless, glass and concrete skyscraper jungle dwafing the people who had the misforturne to actually live their vision.

In the intervening 25 years it seemed like a sort of armed neutrality had been achieved.  RIBA, in a grand gesture of “forgiveness”, and in the totally baseless belief that his teeth had been pulled rendering him somewhat harmless,  invited Charles to be the Keynote speaker at their annual bash.  But Charles neither wanted nor needed their forgiveness.  He was hot on the trail of the Chelsea Barracks Project and engaged in a verbal tussle with Lord Rogers (the architect of the aforementioned carbuncle debacle), a man whose architectural style had not, and still does not, thrill Prince Charles at all. Read more…

MARG British Royals Architecture, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales

 Using a bit of royal-to-royal pull, and acting via his Foundation for the Built Environment, The Prince of Wales has been heard in his vocal objections to a modern design for a London redevelopment site.

Image from TRF Avatar Collection

Developer Qatari Diar plans to build 552 flats in 17 blocks on the former Chelsea Barracks site in west London. Qatari Diar is owned by the Qatari Investment Authority, the investment arm of the sovereign wealth fund of the government of Qatar. Although the fund is administered by the prime minister of Qatar, the chairman of the QIA is His Highness Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad Al Thani. In addition to the purchase and ownership of the Chelsea barracks site, QIA holds a substantial direct interest in London’s Canary Wharf development. The Chelsea Barracks site is owned by a subsidiary of QIA, Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company.

Preliminary plans for the development of the site drew negative comments from the Prince, who referred to the glass exterior modern design as “unsympathetic.” Reaching out to the Qatar royal family, the Prince told representatives of the Qatari royal family that he preferred an alternative “classical” design for the site, in keeping with its surroundings near the River Thames.

His commentary was not universally welcomed, with some architectural experts expressing their opinion that the intervention of the Prince subverted the process of architectural integrity.

Charles’ interest in matters architectural has been longstanding; he has famously referred to the design for the extension of the National Gallery as being a “carbuncle,” and regularly participates in and speaks at leading architectural conferences in the U.K. and abroad.

The Chelsea Barracks is located in the City of Westminster, London, and was vacated by in 2008 by the British Army. In 2007, it was sold by the Ministry of Defence for £959 million to a consortium including the QIA and the CPC Group Ltd. The CPC Group was purchased in November 2008 by Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company, placing QIA in sole control of the Chelsea Barracks site.

NotAPretender British Royals Architecture, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales

 Prince Charles gave a speech at the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) last night to commemorate the 175th anniversary of the organisation. He has a long history of controversial ideas about architecture, particularly modern architecture, going back to his comment in the early 1980s that the winning design for a proposed addition to the National Gallery was akin to “a monstrous carbuncle on the face of an elegant and much-loved friend.” The design was dropped as a result of the Prince’s criticism, and he and the modern-architecture community have been at loggerheads ever since. They accuse him of being idealistic and out of touch, and he accuses them of being insensitive and self-centred.

His crusade against modernism flared up again recently when he objected to the proposed modernist design for a housing scheme to be erected on the site of the Chelsea Barracks and supported an alternative design by one of his favourite architects, Quinlan Terry. He used his royal connections to write privately to the royal family of Qatar, which owns the site, to express concerns about the proposal.

Set against this background, Tuesday’s speech was awaited with some interest. There had been calls by some RIBA members, particularly Will Alsop, to boycott the speech in protest against what they feel is unjustified meddling by the Prince in the Chelsea Barracks development. However, the turnout was unaffected and the Prince spoke to a full house. His tone was conciliatory, but his message about the inappropriateness of much modern architecture was unchanged. He likened the practice of modern architecture to the short-term approach and unsustainable practices that have characterised the financial sector in recent years and said, “Architecture defines the public realm, and it should help to define us as human beings, and to symbolize the way we look at the world.”

The reactions to his speech were mixed, with architects appearing to conclude that while the Prince went out of his way to assure the community that he was not interested in fighting them, his basic opinions have remained essentially unchanged since his 1984 “monstrous carbuncle” speech at RIBA’s 150th anniversary.

For more details about Prince Charles’s interest in architecture, see this thread. Read a transcript of his speech here.

Lucia-mia British Royals Architecture, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales

A couple living in Richmond-upon-Thames for 40 years have incurred the wrath of Dr. David Starkey, Tudor historian. Planners at Richmond Council have approved the couple’s plans to build a solar powered, triple-glazed, two-story house near the former site of Richmond Palace, which was built by Henry VII.

Starkey finds it a slap in the face to the founding Tudor’s son: “To give it planning permission almost to the day of the 500th anniversary of the coronation of Richmond’s most famous inhabitant, Henry VIII, would add insult to a grievous injury to the surviving historic fabric and setting of Tudor England.”

Starkey says that “The proposed new building is like a snotty-nosed punk in an elegant drawing room: wilfully and self-indulgently out of keeping with its surroundings – in form, colour and materials.” Further, “This sort of ’statement architecture’ can make sense as part of the regeneration of a run-down port or industrial slum, but in the precincts of Richmond Palace, it is simply bad manners.” Read more…

iowabelle British Royals, Historical Royals Architecture, David Starkey, Henry VII, Henry VIII, Richmond Palace