Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Architectural Friends and Foes
Prince Charles's latest intervention against modernist architecture has stirred up quite the controversy, reports Andrew Pierce. Obviously, as one who would be happy for royalty to wield more power than they currently do, I have no patience with those who object to the Prince using his influence because he is "unelected." In any case, as Gerald Warner points out, who elected his critic Lord Rogers? Modernist architecture has been thrust down the throats of people who never wanted it for years; it's about time someone with the ability to do so make a difference. Andrew Roberts is correct to celebrate HRH's "meddling."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It is a disgrace that some rabid republicans are using this a a blunt weapon with which to hit Charles and his interest in architecture. Firstly the proposed buildings in Chelsea were horrific lumps of glass and steel, secondly, the Prince of Wales is well known for his campaigns against these sort of buildings, third, since when is the Prince not allowed an opionion?
Will it be only the prince who is no longer allowed to venture an opinion, wil he also be banned from talking about sustainability or the environment?
A pox on Lord Rogers I say!
Rod Dreher at beliefnet.com, in his blog called "Crunchy Con" has a very good discussion regarding this topic.
Jim
Thanks. Here (for other readers) is the link:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/06/prince-charles-vs-the-modernis.html
I'd like to add a personal observation. I was a secretary for over 25 years, often working through temp agencies. I have extensive experience with different building styles and their effect on the work environment. Without hesitation I would say that the more modernist the building the more uncomfortable the working environment. To pick just one factor, the more modernist the building the more unbreathable the air, usually far worse than airplanes.
Jim
Post a Comment