Richard Rogers has challenged Prince Charles to engage in public debate over Britain’s built environment after claiming he knows of five developers who privately consulted him over their choice of architects because they fear his opposition.
The Labour peer and designer of the Pompidou Centre reopened a simmering row over the heir to the throne’s interventions in architecture by alleging in a new book that the developers consulted the palace “to check what would be acceptable”.
— The Guardian
The Guardian cites Rogers' thoughts on the Prince from his new memoir, A Place for All People: "I don’t believe that the Prince of Wales understands architecture. He thinks it is fixed at one point in the past (for him, classicism – an odd choice as it is not a style with deep roots in England), rather than an evolving language of technology and materials. But if he is not going to join in debate, it hardly matters whether his opinions are right or wrong. He occupies a privileged position, and he should not use that to damage the livelihoods of people he disagrees with."
If a prince can have an opinion on Architecture, surely its ok for an architect to have an opinion Architecture.
All 12 Comments
They both care about the built environment.
What's your point?
Caring and understanding are two different things. Whether or not either 'cares' isn't up for debate. When one cares too much and understands too little, awful things happen.
"...classicism – an odd choice as it is not a style with deep roots in England..."
What a bizarre statement. Really?
Rogers is right and that looks Palladian, was he English ;-)
Rogers is wrong, that is by John Vanbrugh. Late 17th century.
Besides, Palladian = classical.
Yes Palladian is classical but not English, even if John Vanbrugh copied that style, it's still Italian in my opinion.
You should look up Vanbrugh. He is generally credited with being the guy who established the English Baroque, which is a unique branch of classical design.
I know, and he's even of Flemish/Dutch heritage ;) But the example you posted is in my views more Palladian than English Baroque, probably one of his earlier works when Palladian architecture was still accepted.
What does his family heritage have to do with it? He was born in England.
Not that it really mattters, but that building is an accessory structure to the Castle Howard. Not Palladian at all.
Since I'm Dutch I just notice those things...like how Canadians know who's one of them...has nothing to do with his architecture just trivia. And that accessory is totally Palladian in my book.
I had no idea that Randomized was a Dutch name. You learn something every day... :)
That's the beauty of archinect
Another Billy Jean King(RR) against Bobby Riggs(PoW)
He [Prince Charles] thinks it is fixed at one point in the past (for him, classicism – an odd choice as it is not a style with deep roots in England)
That's ok for an 18th century building but we live in the 21st century, 300 years onwards, and nobody goes to church anyways ;-)
St. Paul's has four services daily plus special services and programs at Easter and Christmas.
That's for the architecture students and tourists ;) only a matter of time before it will turn into a mosque or something.
Didn't know PC was an architect or planner, he makes/sells overrated and expensive teas, that's what I know.
Does one need to be an architect to have an informed opinion on architecture?
Thank heaven's no. But that Prince Charles is bullying developers and architects is very disturbing, just because they don't build in his approved style, that's why maybe he's better off selling overpriced tea so we can decide not to buy it.
If a prince can have an opinion on Architecture, surely its ok for an architect to have an opinion Architecture.
The 1980s called and wants its debate back.
I agree. I am wondering why Lord Rogers insists on perpetuating it.
Modernism has pretty much uglified London whereas Paris had the good sense to reign in modernism to specific areas on the outskirts where they can mold and leak in isolation.
Is there anything more extremely elitist than a future King of England lecturing us about proper style?
And look at that hideous outfit and haircut he's sporting. He's the last person who should be lecturing about style.
You think Charles' haircut is really that different from Lord Rogers' ?
Yes. Its clearly different. Do I need to describe the differences?
Charles has slightly more hair. Is it really different in some dramatic way, which makes Rogers "cool" and Charles "uncool"? Why are you guys so obsessed with his hair and clothes? I think it's weird. Is having cool hair somehow important in a discussion about architecture? As if hair style, which is transient fashion, is in some way conceptually related to style in architecture.
In a discussion about style, it is relevant. I don't see architecture styles as that different from any other notion of style. Architecture tends to cost more and there are particular influences that are profession-specific. Architecture tends to last longer than many other types of design, but not necessarily. There are plenty of garments, books, cars, logos that outlast buildings. And what about when architects design things like chairs, or lights, or jewelry? Its all style. Its all a calculation about aesthetics and communicating ideas, values, ideology through aesthetics. Some of us are obsessed because design is our obsession. And any architect that feels that their work is inherently more intellectually rich than fashion design should think again.
Every time I hear a debate about styles I roll my eyes. Regarding traditional vs. modern architecture, I'm reminded of Leon Krier's writing about how traditional and vernacular construction methods were the dominant form of construction until the industrial revolution and Modernism. Vernacular construction dealt with local materials, climate, soil, and altitude, to create cities that respond to highly contextual problems, whereas Modernist buildings are mostly agnostic to these issues, creating buildings that could function almost identically in Caracas, Paris, New York, or Los Angeles. Most industries, including the construction materials industry, are now dedicated to such large-scale operations that an entire economy based around craft and trades is now virtually gone, and the world is increasingly designed for a machine-scale and not a human one. I remember in my education that robots and mechanization were earmarked for rich for academic and theoretical exploration, but traditional building methods were for some reason relegated to a position of backwards historicism. It's an intellectual crime that there is this false distinction between high tech and low tech, because in a way, technology is an ahistorical discourse and study about the techniques, possibilities, and objective knowledge of what we can do with materials. This knowledge of materials hasn't been superseded, transcends culture, social traditions, and for the purposes of this discussion, style. Rather than creating a hierarchy of these techniques of construction, we should be discussing the ecology of these processes, especially as the situation with the climate and fossil fuels becomes even more dire. Architects should focus on creating a better product than the building industry produces on it's own without our help and not get involved in stylistic debates that are largely fought and won by the culture that ends up consuming and living in the buildings and environments that they create.
"and not get involved in stylistic debates that are largely fought and won by the culture"
Architects do not exist outside of culture. We live it every day and we design for it. Style is one of those aspects of design that humanizes the built environment. It gives character to the automatic industrialized defaults that you were critiquing.
I'm not saying that architects shouldn't know how to deploy and use style, but authenticity and intentionality are important. See my comment below. Style is a slipperly slope.
Yes, I agree 100% with what you're saying, but there isn't only one culture, there isn't one style, and everybody has different tastes. If you're a Christian and you try reading the Quran, you probably won't really understand what it's saying because it's highly contextual and it's meaning, though universal, is particularly meaningful to the culture that uses it. Again, to my point, architects should not paint with too broad a brush on what is good or bad in terms of taste or style because it is outside of their hands to define the relevance of their buildings; it depends highly on the people that use the. If you think that architects are the ones in control over how their products are used throughout history, then the hundreds of Modernist social housing projects built and subsequently demolished in the 20th Century should be proof enough that the grandiose concept that people can live in a social utopia simply through "good" design is belligerently arrogant.
My guess is that Richard Rogers is more likely to support a diversity of styles that reflects a pluralistic and contemporary society.
You're probably right, but notice that I wasn't taking sides in the discussion against Mr. Rodgers and the Prince of Wales. I was simply trying to parse out where the respective sides of this debate are coming from.
That said, what do you think factories should look like if this is a cultural institution?
If this is a chapel by a famous, unnamed Modern architect, what should a backyard shed look like?
Are these styles appropriate for their programs, or have we been brainwashed by our education to think they are great works done by great architects?
Let's not forget that we aren't designing for our personal consumption alone.
Neither of those examples were designed for personal consumption. They've both been used by a local (and global) community for about a half century.
Neither of those examples were designed for personal consumption. They've both been used by a local (and global) community for about a half century.
And to your other point. I see plenty of churches and factories reused as apartments or artists studios. I see storefronts reused as churches. I see old rail lines reused as parks. There is a lot of definition-blurring going on, and its just fine.
I personally think both of those projects are regrettably ugly although they were supposedly created by Modern masters. The Pompidou is built with materials that require excessive heating and cooling yet most of the services are located outside the building, defeating the purpose. Mies's chapel looks more like a glass and brick coffin than a holy space of worship or celebration, to me.
Well, lucky for you, they are very easy to avoid.
some challenges are not really that challenging
So if this is really a debate about styles, I think the their person who should be on the podium would be Schumacher to get a long arc of styles and what they represent. It could be interesting to see how modernism (presumably) allies itself with classicism, revealing their common threads related to humanism- and their divergent points based on the same topic. Compare both (presenters) to parametricism.
That and imagine the snipes and blank stares being exchanged.
Great point. A modernist versus a Classicist is a familiar debate. But Schumacher has taken some bizarre positions and deserve to be challenged more.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.