The Classical City online journal is jointly edited by Anton Glikin and Youry Makoussinsky and published by The Classical City Association.
The Classical City online journal is jointly edited by Anton Glikin and Youry Makoussinsky and published by The Classical City Association.
SIR - Ellis Woodman's account of the Prince of Wales' battle with modernist architects contains a red herring and a number of inaccuracies ("Prince Charles vs the architects: round two", May 6).
The issue, pace Mr Woodman, is precisely one of style and not one of inadequate planning regulations. The former Chelsea Barracks land was not sold without sufficient indication of what what would be an acceptable level of building density. To the contrary, the authority concerned (Westminster not Chelsea and Kensington) issued clear details on both the permitted densities and required materials in October 2006, and well in advance of the May 2007 sale of the site.
The design proposals of the Lord Rogers project disregarded planning requirements that, for example, buildings should be no higher than five storeys and should "relate to the established townscape context". The clearest guidance was issued on what would constitute an appropriate response to the context and what would not: "facing materials should be predominantly red or yellow London Stock brick, perhaps with stone dressings. Roofs other than green/living roofs should generally be clad in natural slate or lead". That the developers and their architect have so manifestly disregarded these requirements seems either careless or contemptuous. The planning authority had specifically warned that "Predomintly glazed frontages and metal or plastic facades are not considered approriate to this setting."
This is (rightly) a battle of styles. But it would seem necessarily also to be a battle against those who feel able to act in defiance of lawful planning authorities. In polls some 80% of the public express support for the Prince of Wales' architectural judgements. On this scheme, and contrary to recent claims by a bevvy of modernist grandees supporting the Rogers project, it is the Princes opponents, and not he, who are acting "in contravention of the democratic planning process".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/5279141/Prince-Charles-vs.-the-architects-round-two.html
2009-05-12 19:38:43
