rileyuk.co.uk

Richard Rogers has accused Prince Charles of interferring in the Planning Process after he wrote to the Qatari royal family (owners of the site) and complained about the design. The planning application was then withdrawn and Rogers was sacked. The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment has now been appointed to progress with an alternative design.

Rogers has acused the Prince of being unconstitutional and having significant economic and social effects on the site. Lets not mention that some as yet un-named construction company has now lost a major project and 10,000 people will not be employed on it this year.

Do you think he should have interferred? I suppose it is the equivalent of writing to your neighbour and complaining about their extension and they decide to withdraw their planning application (have they been bullied?).

As a final say. Richard Rogers is one of the most influential WORLD architects that are still building. To loose what was probably a very significant design is a loss to the Capital.

vs



The quality of the Princes favourite is especially poor in my humble opinion.

If you will allow a lay opinion, as a general comment I would think that if someone really feels strongly about something then they have a duty to speak up.

So I'd apply that to Charles as well, because if he kept quiet and did nothing then that would be a dereliction of duty. Richard Rogers has had his say as well, so he's also entitled to his point of view.

There's an article on the subject today in the Daily Mail that you might find interesting. They have a look at Richard's own home and apparently he ripped out all the internal original features and so as conservationists view him he doesn't seem to be that popular.

Is he a great architect or a once great architect who's become a Grouchy Old Man?

I would say he was still a great Architect. . . the problem is he did not object in the normal way to the application (anyone can object) he wrote to the owners directly and complained. It is akin to you writing to your neighbour and complaining that their design for an extension is rubbish and you should use a better Architect such as you son. . . .

I could do that! I've cut out the Daily Mail article for you and i'll bring it along later.

Strictly speaking, is there anything to stop you writing directly to someone like that? Nope.

The issue is the immense influence the guy has, and the fact his team of old-school architects have now been hired. That seems slightly dodgy.

Let's not pretend there was no opposition to Lord Roger's plans either. Thing is, I simply can't find enough images online to make anything like a valid judgement on either his or Prince Charles's alternative scheme. The jobs argument is valid, although could it be that the site's owners were considering delaying things anyway due to the economic climate and found this to be the perfect excuse?

Prince Charles charity could come under investigation for his recent interference in local planning applications and developers. The Charity Commission is concerned that this charity is becoming a personal lobbying vehicle to further the Prince's opinions (Guardian Article).

The Guardian poses the question 'Does the Prince's Intervention undermine the Monarchy?'.

It follows his attempts to influence Land Centre Securities (London) and their development adjacent to St Paul's Cathedral. Thankfully his attempt to get his pet Architects to draw up a scheme for this site were politely refused by the developer. The current Architect Jean Nouvel is an internationally renowned Architect and responsible for some masterpieces of modern building.

Hmm... it's obvious from those articles that the Chelsea Barracks intervention wasn't just a one-off. Heck, I was slightly surprised to read that he gets a monthly report on schemes throughout the UK. The criticism he's receiving for the manner in which he makes approaches is now becoming much more valid.

Well, yes, possibly so...but do we really want another Canary Wharf in the middle of Chelsea? These are historic buildings & should be treated as such. Bit rich from a purveyor of modern furniture I know, but was Lord Rogers planning on plonking down something that would look dreadful with the rest of the area, or building something sympatico. I think we all know the answer to that...