prince charles

World architecture... what's happening generally....

prince charles

Postby hodmoz » Thu Oct 18, 2001 8:28 pm

i have a essay to write on a quote from Prince Charles. " technology without architecture, attributes to the many projects that adorn our cities today".
i can't seem tio find where the quote came from, although i have gone through many of his speaches and the book " a vision of britain" any one any ideas....i'd be very gratefull...thanks.
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 12:00 am
Location: England

Postby Barry » Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:45 pm

Not sure where the quote comes from, but it displays Charle's worrying tendancy to adopt the mantle of "Britains Architectural Guru".With such previous gems as "Does it have to be so high?" (Pelli tower)....I'm sure the prospect of reintroducing Charles to this role has architects quaking in their boots. I would challenge Prince "wingnut's" statement....that buildings exist to "adorn" Cities...This reveals his tendancy to view architecture in romantic Post Modernist terms. Buildings dont exist to "adorn" cities, they exist to form them...and the very concept of architecture divorced from technology is a contradiction in itself. Architecture is the skill with which technology is applied to the art of creating the space, volumes and forms that are the buildings that comprise cities.
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 12:00 am

Postby MK » Wed Oct 24, 2001 1:37 pm

Prince Charles views modern architecture from a Dickensian point of view, around about the 18th century. Critising modern architecture is reasonable, after all it has many faults, but with no alternative but an imagined antiquity is farsical.
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Limerick

Postby GregF » Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:09 pm

What's that housing estate they have built in England with approval from himself....Poundbury I think it's called......just like Disneyland ....a fantasy...........redbrick quaint looking little houses dotted everywhere...harking back to a contrived idealistic past.
User avatar
Old Master
Posts: 1610
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby edward » Sat Feb 02, 2002 3:52 pm

that quote comes from a short TV documentary he did regarding architecture in the UK about 10 years ago.....unfortunately I can't remember the name of it....but I know it included his name....
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 1:00 am
Location: dublin ireland

Postby retrick » Wed Feb 27, 2002 9:27 pm

prince charles doesnt want an imagined antiquity, does he?
architecture is for normal people not architecture students, and the fact is alot of modern architecture is ugly.
over the last 400 years up until the 50's buildings hadnt really changed that much, apart from maybe a different style of window or different embellishments, but mordern architecture tries to look too different. This means that if you have a street of nice old buildings you cant stick a some funny flat roofed, concrete thing in the middle of them otherwise it looks out of place. everyone seems to realise that apart from architecture students and architects, as its perfectly clear from looking at all the british town centres ruine by nasty sixties buildings. Prince Charles is just arguing that we carry on the old tradition of british architecture without altering it too radically or copying the americans too much, otherwise none of the old buildings will fit in with the new ones.It seems really simple to me
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 1:00 am

Postby James » Thu Feb 28, 2002 11:05 am

Re: Poundbury

Interesting to hear the varying comments re: the POW and his somewhat odd views on modern life & all things relating thereto.

Funnily enough when Poundbury was first mooted I remember being horrified that anybody could propose re-creating a 19th century 'village' as social housing and seeing it as a very anti modern and anti architecture development.

With time I have pretty much reversed my opinion.

The actual layout, masterplanning and urban design of Poundbury is superb and very popular with the dreaded 'Locals', as social housing it is enormously successful and has an exceptionally low rate of crime and vandalism.

I think there is room for development of this type even if it might be seen as hearkening back to a nostalgic view of the 19th century. There is a need for an intelligent understanding of the patterns of towns and villages and of the pattern book type developments which often grew up within them.

Pattern book architecture historically - such as Batty Langly and his contemporaries -generally produced good wholesome vernacular architecture - the great advantage of which was that no great talent was required of the architect or builder so long as they followed the pattern. This is in my opinion the great success of Poundbury - the fact that it provides a quiet - high density - well clustered and decent wnough looking option to the massed ranks of semis which hav been defacing the Irish as well as the British Landscapes.

As to the Princes views on Architecture - they realy are quite embarassing and naive. That said his consultants - Krier etc were right on the ball with Poundbury - they gave the public and the occupants what they wanted while at the same time doing so within a recognisable framework of design and urbanism which while not groundbreaking is at very least pleasant and safe.

This kind of thing often gets chewed up in the modern V traditional arguments - that said all architecture is historicist in its references. The modernism which (to my mind) is the highest expression of the architects ability in design terms - is still a pastiche of the work of the CIAM in the 30's -every motif used therin, (and the same goes for the skyscraper which is an iconic image in its own right) is historicist in reference. Maybe Poundbury is simply Temple Bar in Sheeps Clothing?????

Posts: 89
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Dublin

Postby MK » Wed Mar 06, 2002 5:21 pm

James, I completely agree, Poundbury is an astonishing sucess, pastische as it may be. Critisisms may be valid of Prince Charles, but he paved the way for a public debate that in many ways has improved the overall gestandard of responsible design.

Retrick, I presume you are referring to the former Pequite tribe of North American when you say that architecture had not changed much for 400 years before 1950, I wont bother going into detail, as you obviously have not.
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Limerick

Return to World Architecture