|
Modern architecture has always been a subject of contention. Many favour the tradition of older buildings to the new minimal, colour-blocking art that has recently come to define so many architects work. Prince Charles has recently renewed his opinion of modernist architecture after his opposition to it in the mid 1980’s, in which he publicly slammed several displays of modern architecture, some of which were not even complete. The RIBA trusts annual lecture was delivered by Prince Charles this year, 25 years after his initial opinion was aired. The press have been reporting in torrents on the opinion of HRH and his re-established thoughts on modern architecture. The Chelsea Barracks was a subject of much discussion.
With Architects urged to boycott the lecture, can we overthrow the Prince of Wales choice of design or are we to submit to the power of the Monarchy? What is it about modern architecture that is loathed by some and can we achieve a balance in Britain, between our Royal landmarks (Buck palace) and our thoughts towards the future?
Answer By Ian Moores
I remember as a student the debate that raged in the mid eighties when HRH interjected with comments which were an anathema to the majority of the Architectural Profession. There was something quite surreal about the way in which Architects were urged to repent of their modernist ways and rediscover the golden truth, which would lead them towards an enlightened tranquil world order. I have fixed in my mind the cartoons of Leon Krier depicting a noble urban setting where cars did not exist, and citizens went about their business with civic dignity. There might have been something strangely appealing within the imagery, but it never really squared with reality. Without doubt that is why it had a limited impact in the years that followed. Many of the valid and relevant solutions, which were moote, are undermined by their connection to a romantic and idealised historic world view, which overlooks the deprivation and realities of past civilisation.
The Prince of Wales latest comments do show that HRH has move a little from a completely black and white analysis. However, there is a disappointing and familiar simplicity to the arguments, which somehow fails to get to the heart of the real challenges. I say disappointing, not because I do not agree with his point of view, but because his interest in Architecture and clear passion for some kind of reform has such potential. But, I feel that potential is channelled into a personal crusade that alienates rather than engages, and is negative rather than positive.
He clearly feels vindicated over his early adoption of green issues, but the suggestion that that sooner or later we will come around to his way of thinking is wide of the mark. The Prince’s own scheme at Poundbury has become a dormitory suburb (although it embodies some sound urban design principles). The majority of people still get into their cars in the morning and drive to work in another location. It would be helpful if HRH could at least concede to the shortcomings of his own urban experimentation.
I guess you could philosophically say that any publicity is good publicity, and a debate about the future of the built environment can only be a good thing. But, do we need a debate, which polarises the issue and makes real progress even harder to achieve?
Strong leadership is required from within our profession but if we are serious we will need many allies as we can find. Is it just possible that HRH could look at the common ground and find a supporting role?
Answer by Dickon Hayward
The last time Charles let rip about Architecture, the profession seemed to dive into a freefall that many thought irrecoverable. But since then both the Prince and the architecture establishment seem to have been converging towards a more natural and environmental approach to architecture, one that eschews both the sharp angular edges of high tech and the frivolous mannerism of Post-modernism. Concurrently architecture, particularly residential design, has become popular culture. Gone are the highbrow philosophisers in bow ties, replaced by chatty TV presenters in faded denim.
The great schism of the 80s seemed to buried forever, so it was surprising to hear that the Prince had decided to vent spleen on modern architecture again, and even more so that people within and outside the profession still react to what he says.
Outside the profession this is understandably due to the ongoing political and constitutional opinions surrounding the Prince’s role – republicans and royalists alike are keen to jump onto any such decisive actions the Prince makes, particularly if they appear in opposition to the ‘democratic’ political establishment. But of more interest here, the Prince’s views resonate within the construction industries as they reveal deep problems at the heart of our industry, problems that we can all identify but few of us have the means to broadcast to the rest of the world.
Most explicitly, the Prince’s self-appointed role as voice of the common man against the elitist establishment, forces us to question just how democratic the planning process is. The answer - to anyone with any in-depth experience of the process - is that it’s not very democratic at all. When things aren’t going their way, I’m sure this is also the opinion of those well-respected establishment architects who were so quick to criticise the Prince’s actions as an affront to democracy. Charles has also highlighted what may be well founded concerns regarding the Chelsea barracks scheme itself – particularly regarding the proposed density of the scheme and its merging into the existing fabric of London.
However, as the massed ranks of the media waded in to denigrate or defend the Prince, the important questions seemed to have been washed away, replaced by the age old simplistic bickering of subjective stylistic preference. Before you know it the issues that have been keeping architects and planners busy for the last three years are ignored, as we are again forced to take sides on the seemingly eternal and mindless debate on whether ‘modern’ architecture is better than ‘classical’ architecture – a debate tantamount to deciding if you like paintings which use the colour red or you prefer blue. This ludicrous position finds it’s ultimate absurdity when we’re asked to compare the workings of Rogers’ office, who presumably have been jumping through all sorts of political and design hoops for the last three years, with a five minute doodle by Quinlan Terry.
This is not what architecture is about and both Prince Charles as well as those opposing him in these ‘style wars’, whom made their point by childishly boycotting his most recent lecture at the RIBA, should know better. Architecture is about issues beyond stylistic preference – no one ‘style’ or approach is superior or should dominate, indeed it would be a very boring world if it did.
|
Digg
Del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo!
