Ridicule of the Prince of Wales by architects

[Adrian Lombardo]

I understand that some years ago, then some times since, the Prince of Wales have been criticizing modern architecture publicly and suggested a shift in the Zeitgeist. I have heard a lot of ridicule, mostly of the kind that "he probably wishes we only had Victorian buildings around".

However, when it turns out many of the New Urbanists supports him, I looked into exactly what he was trying to say. His principles of architecture are incredibly sensible. On his websites, is says:

"Does The Prince dislike all modern architecture?

No. The Prince has been the patron of several contemporary architects, and has provided training to young architects through his Foundation for the Built Environment.

The Prince believes buildings should be designed on a human scale and be sustainable, should respect the character of local surroundings, and should be able to cope with a variety of uses over their lifetime. "


In an article on him by theorist Nikos Salingaros, his principles are: (I added some explanation)

1. The Place (architecture as places rather than inividual buildings)
2. Hierarchy (fractal shapes/organized complexity, not social hierarchy)
3. Scale (that humans can relate to)
4. Harmony
5. Enclosure
6. Materials
7. Decoration (Ornament is not a crime, it makes pleasant buildings)
8. Art
9. Signs & Lights (Less distraction, ugly signs etc)
10. Community (-building)

I really think this makes a lot of sense, and is well supported by psychologists and urbanism as the way to go to avoid the all-too-frequent modernist disasters.

However, I can understand that people see him as old-fashioned, as he is criticizing modern and not old architecture, and his village Poundbury looks very old-fashined. Also, he is after all not an architect but a royal, classical target for ridicule in the media.

What do you guys think? Is his criticism legitimate? Is the criticism of him legitimate? Are there any good arguments against his principles for good architecture, or are all the attacks ad hominem?

[lekizz]

I could possibly give jug-ears credit for speaking his mind on a number of current issues (such as the environment) and using his influential position to affect change. But generally his position in the hierarchy of society will mean he bends towards a conservative tradition. And, as for architecture, he has spent his entire life living in the very grandest buildings that overtly eschew the classical tradition, so what else would we expect from him?!

[teamjdc]

Be careful with your assumptions and prejudices. Charles has made a serious effort to understand and appreciate the built environment and it's shortcomings. He has also stood up for modern, sustainable design.

His criticisms in the past have revolved around structures that ignore humanity.

Perhaps a little research is warranted.

I would think that the profession would embrace someone of political stature taking an honest interest in architecture and wanting to see things move forward for the betterment of all rather than the self-engrandizement we usually see.

[Adrian Lombardo]

[teamjdc]

[lekizz]

Having already read the "carbuncle" speech, I can see fully well for myself that it was generally balanced and thoughtful. The "monstrous carbuncle" sentence was latched onto by the press, which was no doubt intended by the prince and his advisors.

However, "alternative" views are not necessarily "progressive". Living in neo-Georgian village communities such as Poundbury is an option only seriously available to the wealthy middle classes. I don't see any indication in Poundbury of the prince applying his "alternative" theories of architecture to the modern world.

[lekizz]

"Charles at 60 - the Passionate Prince" is being aired on BBC1 tonight, all 90 minutes of it. I'll watch it with interest and see if it converts me to Royalism