http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8102158.stm

Its about time someone told the twonk to STFU

The Prince doesn’t debate FFS!

Looks like toys out of the pram to me.

All he did was ask them to reconsider – good for him IMHO.

And a couple of thousand of jobs are likely to go down the pan as a result 🙁

Rogers has a huge ego and does not like to be questioned. Responsible for some great buildings and some horrendous enormous monuments to his ego

And a couple of thousand of jobs are likely to go down the pan as a result

why? I thought it was still going to be redeveloped just in a more traditional style.

I agree with the pram rattle sentiment

TJ – I agree. I’m just not sure that the heir to the throne should be allowed to veto development plans before they have gone through the correct procedures and authorities because he doesn’t like them.

In my ever-so-humble-opinion Charles is right, Lord Roger’s design is sh*t.

Seems he is not happy with criticism and is choosing to turn the fact he can’t handle it into some sort of quasi-Republican rant.

Knobber.

Oh and if he is so critical (suddenly) of the place of royalty in modern society then why doesn’t he relinquish his peerage? Its all part of the same beast.

Charlie shouldnt have stuck his oar in (doesnt do to have one sovereign writing missives to another about commercial enterprise, dontchaknow).

Equally, Rogers is a flouncy, overindulged, primadonna.

Id call it a score draw.

Whoever wins the war though, it’s such a substantial site that it really must be of the most carefully considered design. The number was up when the Westminster Planning inspector gave no “guidance” to the committee – very rare.

And the Candy’s are cocky, overindulged, overextended primadonna’s too BTW.

I like both old and modern architecture. The problem is the juxtaposition of the two. Prince Charles makes some valid criticisms of Modern architects.

The design elite may wish to break new ground and innovate. I personally embrace this quest, but I also think the impact af any design on a locality should be very carefully considered. Modern designs very often don’t stand the test of time and end up in decline before being demolished. The best designs are timeless, almost self-sustaining.

We should not be looking at a building’s lifespan in terms of tens of years, but much more. We should build to the highest standards and produce something that is practical to maintain, that won’t become a white elephant. We currently have a thirst for contemporary achitecture, but we should be very mindful that this will change.

According to independant surveys, most people prefer architecture that leans towards the past, designs that they are familiar with. Developers research this subject and give people what they want (look at the style of most new homes). Designs that push the boundaries often help reinforce this backward looking desire. I think it’s a shame that new houses are so homogenised however. The truth is that houses like these are cheap to produce. They are “toshed out” and packed in without sufficient archtectural detail to make them true to what they are supposed to be replicating – that would be too costly. I don’t think people really get it, otherwise they wouldn’t buy them would they?

The reality is that everone has to look at these new buildings for decades to come, whether they are high octane ground breaking steel and metal structures, or acre upon acre of bland stock designed Barratt homes.

We made a lot of planning mistakes in the past, look at the failure of high rise homes. The utopian dream of a few elite architects turned into a huge social mistake (Rudeboy will confirm this 😆 ) Look at the new towns. A huge planning blunder that requires disproportionately high and frequent investment to stop these places falling into terminal decline!

I think Charles has a lot of support even if people are questioning his right to influence matters.

No architect chooses to create a pastiche of the past as these structures don’t break any new ground and don’t present any new challenges. These old ornate designs are also completely uneconomic.

I wish Price Charles would rock up and protest at the acres of boxes that a handful of large developers get away with wrecking our countryside with! It’s happening across the length and breadth of the country! You know, 3500 greenfield boxes built on the edge of a town, but that only has one road in and out. Total vandalism of the very essence of our landscape. That’s much more of an issue IMHO.

I’m for a percentage increase in all villages, towns and cities, like the way they would have evolved before all the planning laws came into force. Planning laws that only big developers can pay their way to circumvent! I’d advocate limiting the size of developments, say 200 houses. Appartment blocks in high density areas is another matter.

Not a chance with the arcane planning process in this country!

Large developers are the culprits, not the architects! Buying up land and witholding it. Building just enough houses to keep the prices sky high. Damn them! 👿

Rogers is just throwing his toys out of the pram on this one and tbh it requires someone with some clout like Charles to stand up to him.

I wasn’t too impressed by Rogers arguments on R4 this morning – very much just sour grapes, nothiing of any substance.

A lot of architects are disappearing up their own arses and happy to pat each others backs whilst doing so. Very much like the art scene – if you don’t “get it” or appreciate it you are clearly an uneducated luddite and not worthy of comment.

Rogers to live in a cutting edge architects dream, 70’s tower block in Salford that should bring him to the level of the rest of us. Made me laugh when he said it had cost 5,000 to 10,000 jobs, done his sums pretty well with that one. Big ears is not the only person to object to the style of development, for once the local objecters seem to have a powerful friend.

Spongebob-you raise some pretty good points and it’s a shame that those that really could make a difference on property design for all of us only seem interested Phallic symbols and their own ego’s.

Yes mt, “big” is important to them, matches their inflated egos!

I wanted to be an architect, but didn’t think i’d survive the 6-7 years of studying.

(I have no idea why it takes this long, should be this duration to become a doctor, not a person who designs extensions!)

I opted for art and graphic design instead.

Big only for some.
I personally think that the RSH scheme was rather overbearing, but compared to a lot of stuff that gets built – not too bad, RSH in terms of design is usually a cut above most others.
But I rather think that you’ll find that the generator of the numbers of units will be the developers not the architects, after all we just do what the client wants. Actually what I always try and do is more than the client expected.

The vast majority of those of us who are local to this proposed development objected very strongly to it.