The Prince of Wales’ appearance at the Royal Institute of British Architects this week was the occasion for more handwringing, and an opportunity for some more architect-bashing by the usual suspects.
Chief of these was the former editor of the Times, Simon Jenkins, now a columnist for the Guardian. He set about the profession with a vengeance, suggesting that architects should apologize for what has happened to the built environment rather than the Prince apologising to them.
The neo-classical architect Robert Adam, interviewed on Channel 4, said the Prince stood up for the views of the man in the street, which always sounds like Tolstoy enjoying his relationship with peasants. And numerous tin-pot commentators have tried to rubbish Richard Rogers and his designs for the Chelsea Barracks site. as though the British housing crisis could be laid at the door of architecture. Whatever else it is, it is not a crisis of style.
Then the general attack on Modernism received fresh momentum from the British government. Its culture minister declined to give listed building protection to Alison and Peter Smithson’s Robin Hood Gardens housing estate in East London. This estate has been the subject of a campaign of vilification by English Heritage (which ignored the opinion of its own advisers that the building should be listed), the local planning authority, and the odd know-nothing minister with a grudge about concrete.
Prejudiced comments about Robin Hood Gardens have the same ring as those being circulated about the Chelsea Barracks development: ‘too dense’; ‘not sustainable’; ‘towers’ and so on. It reminds me about the difference between liars and bullshitters – the former know what the truth is; the latter don’t care.
Incidentally, the point about building protection in the UK is that it does NOT preclude change or even demolition. It just means that a serious high-quality proposal needs to be approved before demolition or alteration is allowed. EH now seems to believe that listing equals, or ought to equal, preservation.
Finally, back to the Prince. His clever technique is to tell you things you already knew or that everyone believes. Having softened you up, he then delivers a bit of nonsense which you are supposed to think must have the same authority. His bizarre comparison of recent financial meltdown with the decisions of modernist architects 60 years ago has to be read to be believed.
The Prince wants architects to end the gulf he claims separates them from ordinary people. This is an interesting example of transference, since the far bigger gulf is between that self-same public and the nation’s chief standard-bearer for hereditary privilege.
on May 20th, 2009 at 11:33 am
He’s a prince: he wants to be king in a society riven by class-division and privilege. They are a collection of egos throwing their toys out of the pram. We’re gob-smacked onlookers . What else do you expect of this farrago?
on May 21st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Sir Rogered of Richard the Bogger,
Flogs Chelsea a disreputable logger,
Denying his art,
He delivers a fart,
Causing prince Chucky to call him a codger.
Prince Chucky demands noble but coyly,
That the Bogger design a lace doily,
But what Prince Chuckey forgot
The Bogger did not
Only developers reward you most royally.
on May 26th, 2009 at 11:45 am
‘Modernism’ is starting to be rejected, and is it not grand to see. Funny how the opinions of some ultra rich architects are somehow more valuable than that of someone who exists purely to serve his country.
God Save the Queen and the Prince of Wales.
on Jun 16th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
What utter tosh, and indeed bullshit Mr Finch talks when he speaks about conservation policy.
Here he was, being taught a planning policy lesson by a young but well-informed conservationist on Radio Four’s Front Row quite some time ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/frontrow/frontrow_20030730.shtml
(last item)
The young conservationist won that battle.
But Finch has still not learned what PPG15 actually says, and it’s not that the claims of an architect about his genuis override all. There’s a spot more to it than that. There is a presumption of preservation, of listed buildings and buildings which make a positive contribution to a conservation area. There are provisions of sale on the open market and passing into community/charitable ownership. Substantial wider community benefits for demolition may override those, but many a would-be developer has floundered by making those sort of claims.
Robin Hood Gardens wasn’t, under current guidance, really listable. Simple.
on Jul 11th, 2009 at 3:33 am
What I find really peculiar in this whole debate is the vehemence of Architectural ‘Modernist Orthodoxy’. Even in your own article, you have to prefix Mr Adam with ‘Neo Classicist Architect’, presumably so we can be absolutely sure he is correctly ‘branded’. It is difficult not to interpret this as an outcast and heretic.
Maybe, just maybe, he is just an Architect with a different, but perfectly legitimate viewpoint (Not one I share incidentally). Why does it feel like those who follow the modernist view want him dragged through the streets?
Just what is the profession so terrified of? Change? Paradigm shift?
Maybe it is a crisis of style, otherwise why the hysteria?
As for the sweeping aside of the views in the wider media as ‘the usual suspects’, once again Architects lose the PR debate, by orders of magnitude I am afraid. They have singularly failed to engage with ‘the man on the street’ in ant meaningful way. Otherwise such a minority view would not have won the support of the wider population.
on Jul 11th, 2009 at 3:35 am
oops - please replace ‘ant’ with ‘any’