The latest move by leading British architects in the Prince Charles/Chelsea Barracks debate is a pathetic gesture that fails to tackle the worst of his ideas. Will Alsop, Tony Fretton, Piers Gough and several others are calling for architects to stay away from the Prince of Wales lecture at the RIBA tomorrow. Their main point is that they think the Prince is abusing the democracy of the planning system, not that they oppose his stylistic preferences. Architects will have to do better than this if they are to challenge the ability of developers, planners and royalty to walk all over their ideas. Boycotts are for prissies who are scared of taking on a difficult argument. Better to go along to the lecture and put up a robust defence of progressive architecture. Perhaps Alsop thinks that by staying at home and praying to Cedric Price, everything will be ok.
Twenty-five years ago, RIBA similarly failed to argue against Charles’ ideas. Despite having sight of the notorious Hampton Court speech three days in advance, RIBA opted to plead with the palace to tone down the attack instead of preparing a rebuttal. More importantly, it failed to tackle a tide of anti-modern public opinion that poured forth after his ‘monstrous carbuncle’ comments. There followed a host of retrograde buildings: countless supermarkets designed to look like tithe barns, and swathes of mock vernacular housing estates.
As for Alsop and co’s cry that the Prince is subverting the democracy of the planning system…it seems naïve to imagine that a member of the Royal family would take any other approach. I certainly don’t remember the election where we had the chance to vote on whether the Prince of Wales and his relatives could ponce around the world foisting their reactionary views on society. Alsop and friends go out of their way to emphasise that they have no gripe with Charles’ proclivity for pastiche architecture. Do they not see a coincidence between his anachronistic views and his privileged and undemocratic position in society?
I write this comment a day ahead of Prince Charles’ lecture to mark 175 years of the RIBA. Yet it seems certain that tomorrow evening he will attempt some of reconciliation with the profession by emphasizing the commonality between his ideas and those of the institute. I’m sure his speech will be peppered with terms that no one will take offence to such as ‘sustainability’, ‘community’ and ‘eco-‘. Many people think that Charles has already made good the damage he did 25 years ago by embracing more progressive, environmental ideas.
Yet, the reality is the opposite. Instead of Charles leaving the dark-side, architects – like much of society – have accepted the conservativsim and limits of environmentalism, acknowledging that society needs to build less, and scale down development ideas for the future, whether in existing cities (witness the reaction against Sarkozy’s grand plans for Paris), or in the Middle East (witness middle class horror at the scale of ideas for new cities in the desert). Charles’ ideas about environmental/vernacular architecture and his alternative proposal for Chelsea Barracks are nothing more than NIMBYism and conservativism dressed up in green garb. Personally, I cannot understand why we continue to put up with the kow-towing and cap-tipping to monarchy, and this latest debacle is just another good reason why we should abolish the institution altogether.
Meanwhile, at the very least, architects should be calling for the ‘R’ to be dropped from RIBA. Let’s reject Royal interference once and for all and recognize that progressive ideas about architecture are not compatible with an institution like the monarchy.
Ms Vicky Richardson’s rants are of very little benefit to modern architecture or even, indeed, to her desired abolition of the monarchy. In lieu of any reasoned argument, she has instead opted for the emotional sputterings of a mild lunatic. While she is entitled to express her views and concerns, I would prefer her to show due respect to fellow humans – royalty or not.
On the basis of this article and the rumours of her conduct at the RIBA I doubt very much that I will be reading Blueprint quite as often as I have done.
oh do be quiet, winston, you aging buffoon.
i’m going to be reading blueprint more often. well done ms. richardson.
Many people feel excluded by the planning system by an architectural elite with powerful financial friends and as such Prince Charles is something of a hero for those of us who like our buildings not to resemble glass boxes or concrete car parks.
Prince Charles has done plenty to help the poor and the marginalised in this country with his Princes Trust charity, for that reason alone Vicky you should have shown the man more respect then you did.
Cosmopolitan Scum is an ageist idiot who is welcome to read Blueprint more often if he or she so desires – I won’t. Ms Richardson’s rant is demonstrative of a number of people who want to abolish the monarchy without considering the very considerable foreign currency they earn for the UK by attracting tourists to this overcrowded little island. Life without the Royals would be even more boring than it is now.
Vive La Revolution!
Well done Vicky.
I can’t believe the speech was such an easy ride after the outcries of 25 years ago. It seems we have gone backwards! What more could a royal provocateur do to incite a creative profession into action for the greater good?
The RIBA really are wimps.
Don’t wait another 25 years to take measure of a pitiful record.
Ironically, twenty years ago, Prince Charles asked ‘Whatever happened to architects’ and designers’ humility?’ He said the same thing, effectively, last night. And yet the press perceived that he had ‘changed’ in the interim and was now much more conciliatory. Actually, all that has happened is that Charlie’s small-scale, small-minded, localist, communty-centred, patrician New Urbanism has, in fact, become mainstreamed.
Coming from the anti-democratic status of a ‘prince’ I understand it, but nowadays, every self-respecting architect is into the sustainable community agenda; committed to the environment; and more than keen to tell people how to behave.
So the tragedy is that while over the last 20 years or so, the monarchy has fallen from public grace… a large percentage of the architectural profession are propping up his reactionary philosophy of limits by other means.
Congratulations to Vicky Richardson for having the courage to reveal architecture’s Emperor’s new clothes.
The monarchy do not make money for the country, they cost us, billions. The top tourist attraction is in fact the Tower of London, publicly owned and profit-making, unlike Buck House which they’ve gone cap in hand to the government asking us to pay for repairs of as it’s hardly ever open to the public as they use it as a private residence and if even one minor royal is in one wing, they shut it. We actually own the castles and palaces, we own the Royal Art Collection, yet only 2% of it is on display and there are serious worries re whether the royals and their employees are properly caring for this huge collection, it’s notoriously difficult to get to see. If Buck House was an art gallery like the Louvre a lot more tourists would be attracted here. Who would come to “see” the royals? They’re not on display in fact so anyone who did would be sadly disappointed. It’s long past time to call it a day on the ridiculous, pathetic circus that the monarchy is and the damage it’s doing to this country’s image, of itself and in the world. Architects can get busy now on the transformation of Buckingham Palace into an art gallery, an instead of a glass pyramid, maybe a pair of huge glass ears to commemorate who made us realise he could never be king.
“Life without the royals would be even more boring that it is now”.
Nigel, you seem to be saying two things here.
1. Your life is boring.
2. The Royal Family makes it more interesting.
Sad. Very sad.
re: cosmopolitan scum.
why is it wrong to expect a degree of respect from someone? And what does that have to do with my age, or ageing? Are we upon a great new young chavvy movement in architecture?
I’m a strong supporter of modern architecture, however I believe the Prince of Wales makes some very good points and I’m willing to hear them. I do believe his 1984 comments may have been inconsiderate, though not vitriolic as compared to Ms. Richardson.
I’m not here to defend the monarchy as an institution, or classicists design. I just wish Ms Richardson was more reasoned in her delivery.
I am finding it incredible that people are able to make such sweeping statements about architecture and categorise what they do and do not like into such tidy tiny boxes.
There are certain modern structures – glass boxes or concrete car parks – which I genuinely love and feel add an awful lot, positively, to their environment. There are also modern buildings which I do not enjoy so much. I also love visiting historic buildings and even more so, enjoy seeing these brought back to life either through restoration, conservation or addition. However, I beleive as an intelligent human building I have the right to judge each building on its own merit and not categorise so generally.
It is indeed dangerous when someone of Prince Charles’ standing makes such strong statements, but surely it is our right to say that while that is his opinion, we are fortunate to not have to live in such a black and white world, and are instead the priviledged majority who can see in technicolour and embrace the fact that it is the diversity of architecture in this country which makes our built environment so inspiring – old and contemporary.
“Life without the royals would be even more boring that it is now”.
No Cosmopolitam scum you have got it wrong – what I’m saying is that without people like you we wouldn’t have these mindless exchanges. I’m not bored as I have a full and interesting life in which I don’t have to navel gaze to fill my time.
I’m not sad at all …
Ever since the 18th century, our society has grown to appreciate the architecture of the Middle Ages, yet we (pace Ruskin and Pugin) do not consider thinking of the Renaissance as retrograde, conservative, or a mockery. That architects nowadays apply these epiteths to the kind of traditional architecture the Prince happens to promote does not prove that the POW is stupid or reactionary for doing so.
Vicky Richardson was absolutely right. She has guts and conviction,and said what needed saying. As a New British Republican I heartily recommend Vicky and her talents.The fact that she was called a “silly girl” just shows the misogynist,sexist attitudes of certain monarchists.It is interesting how monarchists often cannot carry on an intelligent debate,but resort to rude remarks and just plain silliness. They often cannot string two sentences together.They also trot the usual old cliches about royalty bringing in tourist money,which cannot be proved,and is no argument. The Eiffel Tower and the Kremlin probably bring in just as much tourist money. I will not go into all the best republican arguments here,of course. Anyone interested should look at Republic Blog on the net. Monarchists are obviously easily taken in by the royal propaganda machine and are victims of massive royal mythmaking The republican movement is growing in our country. It might not be amajority,yet,but eventually our country should mature into a more healthy republican democracy. Keep up the good work Vicky,you have a lot of support out there !
How many architects will now work to set up the Republican Institute of British Architects. I’ll get involved in a move to ditch the “Royal” from the RIBA.
Martin Pawley understood in the mid 1980s that in his attempt to appear popular the Prince of Wales was mounting an attack on professionalism. He found it easy to kick architects when they were already apologetic for their own less than glorious part in Britain’s post-war reconstruction under the authority of the 1947 planning act. Prince Charles turned the RIBA’s attempts at “community architecture” after the Skeffington Report of 1969 on its feet, and used the 150th anniversary of the RIBA in 1984 to claim to be more representative of “communities” of interest than professional architects. This has been the claim of many an aristocrat, with Prince Peter Kropotkin an earlier example.
At the 175th anniversary of the RIBA Charles was confident that the RIBA had sucked up to him over the intervening 12 presidencies. The RIBA is hopeless.
But what to do, if doing nothing is no option? Try to turn the RIBA republican, or start an institute for republican architects? After all, the RIBA is only the club. It is the ARB that is the legal registration.
Well done Vicky – what’s next?
Im 19, in september i start the Architecture: spaces and objects course at St Martins. i read this article and the consequent type debate because i dont think the monarchy are usefull in any way.
i can tell just by reading his statement that Paul Galley is and has most definitely not ever been poor or marginalized.
But the most glaring thing i have found out during this read is that Nigel needs to get out more …sad.