Poundbury, Paisley and Perspectives all ultimately failed to conquer the complex commercial and political challenges they faced. Their royal patron’s attempts to create human-centred townscapes have led to car-dominated suburbs. His efforts to uplift grand historic buildings have carved them into dreary flats. Our King is someone who sees the right problems but, ensconced in the very establishment that prevents meaningful solutions, he can only meddle around the edges of effecting real change. — The Guardian
The new British King is memorably the originator of the panned Poundbury estate that has failed to fall in line with its stated goals towards sustainability and car-free pedestrian orientation, according to Phineas Harper. He thinks the scion is hemmed in by a stolid commercial banking system and arcane land ownership laws and that class differences have otherwise made Charles' ability to gain perspective on the needs of his constituents otherwise impossible. As the Open City director sees it: “His view of society, as of architecture, is restricted to what can be seen from the tinted window of a chauffeured car.”
Meanwhile, in a different corner of the empire, new ArchitectureAU monthly critic Elizabeth Farrelly says she felt he “proved himself thoroughly unrepentant” during his time as Prince, citing his statements in support of traditionalism, and asking, “is he, as a constitutional monarch, entitled to proselytize in a field that profoundly affects people’s lives? And, quite separately, is what he promotes desirable?”
“To my mind, the answer must lie in recognizing that the opposing needs for both change and continuity constitute an urgent design challenge,” she offers finally. “Rather than replicating the classical style, our civic buildings should instead emulate that tradition’s respect for materials, grasp of proportion, flexibility of use, judicious decoration, intricacy of detail and acknowledgement of the street as our principle public realm.”
10 Comments
For a companion piece, read Wainwright's Horror storeys: the 10 worst London skyscrapers
Sprouting over every corner of the city, most are of an architectural quality that recalls the outskirts of Dubai or Shenzhen. The overall impression is of an unplanned free-for-all, a steroidal frenzy of building tall, with little attention to individual design quality, or the cumulative effect that these scattered hulks might have on the city.
I would be curious to hear a critique of the forces, trends, and institutions that led to the mess above.
Is there any middle ground that can negotiate sensible, successful architecture in London and elsewhere?
I was recently in Vancouver and really liked the urbanity blended in with nature. Sure, they have some stupid outlandish skyscrapers going up now (Chinese money) but by and large was quite harmonious
Compare London with Paris. One is stunningly beautiful from a thousand different viewpoints, one is terminally schizophrenic. Or go visit Munich or Vienna. I guess you could have an attractive all-modern city but I have never seen one. Look at Arlington, Virginia, soon to be home of Amazon's second headquarters. Just driving through the place gives one a sense of dread and impending doom.
We have an entire (unelected) department that controls key areas of our downtown specifically so that it looks presentable whenever the Queen or the Pope visits... Strange that no such things exists in London. This department is wicked difficult to deal with and is absolutely irrelevant for most things but they try hard to control building designs within the core so that things meet certain guidelines.
That’s dumb
Dumb? Absolutely. Especially you realize it’s all just a big political game and not in fact a attempt to keep design quality. My last meeting wanted us to remove security barriers and other non-relevant things at grade in exchange for our client to receive permission to change badly damaged cladding 9 storeys above grade.
Coherently designed assemblies of buildings!!! OH NO!!!!
/s
King Charles has done far more for architecture and urbanism than our Gods of glass and metal have.
Prince William, we can smell you.
Remember that time that America kick the kings ass? Yeah, that was cool.
Certainly, if anything, he's posing the question(s). And he tried to produce and answer, perhaps clumsily and elitest, but now how can city planners take these core concepts, weed out the chafe and produce something archtecturally pleasing and sustaiable? Not the cement-ridden color- blocked slabs and rectangles of boring instituionality that reeks of the impersonal dehumanization, like Pete Seeger's Little Boxes! Charles III is right on, so lets get to it make it work instead of grousing that his ideas have no merit either in the UK or USA!
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.