Prince Charles, heir to the British throne, does not hide his hostilioty to modern architecture but his long-standing design crusade is now drawing accusations of abuse of power.
The prince's efforts to promte clasical designs over modern "carbunchles" have enraged many architects, particularly when he manages to block new projects - interventions that some condemn as anti-democratic.
The scale of the row was laid bare this week when the new head of the Royal Institute of British Architects, Ruth Reed, laid in to Charles' interference in planning decisions just one day into her new job.
"It is unfortunate if anybody uses their position in public life to exert undue influence on a democratic process such as planning," she told the BBC on Tuesday, the day after becoming RIBA's first female president.
"There appears to be evidence that he has written behind the scenes both about planning applications and also about the appointment of particular architects, which would be an abuse of his position, definitely."
Graham Smith, a spokesman for the anti-monarchy campaign group Republic, said the prince's interventions made his position as future king "untenable".
"He can't do the job-as heir of the throne he is obliged to remain neutral and out of politics," Smmith told AFP.
Criticism of Charles gathered steam this year when his objections to an ultra-modern project for a former military barracks in west London reportedly resulted in the plans being scrapped.
According to the British press, the prince wrote to the Qatar royal family, who are linked to the Gul state's property investment arm, Qatari Diar, to ask them to review plans by renowned British archietect Richard Rogers.
In June, Qatari Diar withdrew their planning application for the building.
Charles had described Rogers' projects as "unsympathetic and unsuitable", proposing an alternative design that used traditional brick and stone that used traditional brick and stone that were used in the surrounding buildings.
"Even if he is quite forward-thinking in terms of sustainability and environment...[Charles] is a bit more aggressive and a bit more lookingg back" when it comes to architecture, expained Dan Stewart, architecture correspondent for Building magazine.
The bad blood between Charles and Rogers goes back 25 years to a now infamous speech by the prince in which he atacked the architect's plans for an extension to the National Gallery in London as a "monstrous carbuncle".
But the their to the throne's anger is not confined to Rogers.
In 2005, he tried to block a project by the French architect Jean Nouvel, which he believed risked ruining the area around St Paul's cathedral in London.
Charles wanted something that should "allow St. Paul's to shine brightly" and suggested architect Quinlan Terry-who specialises in building grand houses in historical modes - take over, the project's then manager Mike Hussey said.
However, his objections were rejected and Nouvel's project for offices and shops at One New Change is under construcction.
The prince's latest intervention came in support of plans to add a loggia to Kensington Palace where he lived with his late wife, Princess Diana. It was rejected by planners last month.
While Charles' aides refuse to comment on the disputes, Hank Dittmar, chief executive of the Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment, an educational chairty, insisted the public shared his clasical tastes.
"At its core this is an argument about architects and developers wanting to have their way, not about democracy in planning," he wrote last month in response to the media speculation.
The bad blood between Charles and Rogers goes back 25 years when the prince attacked the architect's plans for an extension to the National Gallery as a "monstrous carcuncle".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment