<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Foster, Hadid, Gehry, Nouvel, Piano and more against Prince Charles</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.archdaily.com/20645/foster-hadid-and-gehry-against-prince-charles/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.archdaily.com/20645/foster-hadid-and-gehry-against-prince-charles/</link>
	<description>Architecture News: The latest buildings, projects and competitions every day.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:04:23 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: DO WORK</title>
		<link>http://www.archdaily.com/20645/foster-hadid-and-gehry-against-prince-charles/#comment-39414</link>
		<dc:creator>DO WORK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:33:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.archdaily.com/?p=20645#comment-39414</guid>
		<description>Pwned</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pwned</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stuart Kurtz</title>
		<link>http://www.archdaily.com/20645/foster-hadid-and-gehry-against-prince-charles/#comment-32332</link>
		<dc:creator>Stuart Kurtz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 18:38:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.archdaily.com/?p=20645#comment-32332</guid>
		<description>Modernism, the kind started by Le Corbusier, Gropius, and Mies Van der Rohe wanted to clean the world of historical associations. They may have seen those as leading to WWI. The style was supposed to be egalitarian and a great equalizer. Modernism was been subverted, but that&#039;s another blog. 

Prince Charles&#039;s philosophy, believe it or not, has to do with continuing the line of dynastic privledge. It is about what&#039;s particularly British and historical. The Richard Rogers design for Chelsea Barrack, with exposed ducts a la Le Centre Pompidou addresses contemporary trends of exposure. The Quinlan Terry design looks like Oxford. We can&#039;t fool ourselves into thinking the old nobility lives on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Modernism, the kind started by Le Corbusier, Gropius, and Mies Van der Rohe wanted to clean the world of historical associations. They may have seen those as leading to WWI. The style was supposed to be egalitarian and a great equalizer. Modernism was been subverted, but that&#8217;s another blog. </p>
<p>Prince Charles&#8217;s philosophy, believe it or not, has to do with continuing the line of dynastic privledge. It is about what&#8217;s particularly British and historical. The Richard Rogers design for Chelsea Barrack, with exposed ducts a la Le Centre Pompidou addresses contemporary trends of exposure. The Quinlan Terry design looks like Oxford. We can&#8217;t fool ourselves into thinking the old nobility lives on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fl!p</title>
		<link>http://www.archdaily.com/20645/foster-hadid-and-gehry-against-prince-charles/#comment-27404</link>
		<dc:creator>fl!p</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 04:49:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.archdaily.com/?p=20645#comment-27404</guid>
		<description>E.K. Stop being a RACIST. Judge zaha as an architect, not as an IRANIAN/IRAQI..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>E.K. Stop being a RACIST. Judge zaha as an architect, not as an IRANIAN/IRAQI..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ultra man</title>
		<link>http://www.archdaily.com/20645/foster-hadid-and-gehry-against-prince-charles/#comment-27380</link>
		<dc:creator>Ultra man</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 03:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.archdaily.com/?p=20645#comment-27380</guid>
		<description>Wow a lot of rubbish around here, a lot of jealous comments. A lot of bitterness.
The issue here is simple, it&#039;s not about the egos of architect vs. the bad taste of Prince Charles. 

It is about Disney vs Prada. 

It is about wanting a part of London to become a suburban Disneyland, a PoMo theme park for nouveau-riche, or wanting the same area to become a gentrified suburb for middle class snobs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow a lot of rubbish around here, a lot of jealous comments. A lot of bitterness.<br />
The issue here is simple, it&#8217;s not about the egos of architect vs. the bad taste of Prince Charles. </p>
<p>It is about Disney vs Prada. </p>
<p>It is about wanting a part of London to become a suburban Disneyland, a PoMo theme park for nouveau-riche, or wanting the same area to become a gentrified suburb for middle class snobs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TO</title>
		<link>http://www.archdaily.com/20645/foster-hadid-and-gehry-against-prince-charles/#comment-27300</link>
		<dc:creator>TO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:57:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.archdaily.com/?p=20645#comment-27300</guid>
		<description>Not that I agree with Prince Charle&#039;s take on the project, but come on, is it not just a little hypopcritical for Gehry, Hadid and the like to write an open letter condeming somebody for using their &#039;position of priviledge&#039; to make a statement? The only reason this letter has had any impact is because of the position of priviledge of those who wrote it. 

Beyond this, Price Charles has every right to have an opinion on the project just as everybody else does in the democratic society in which (as the group of architects aptly notes) this is playing out in. 

And lastly, one can&#039;t help but wonder if these architects are more upset about this particular project or that somebody is standing up and saying that architecture isn&#039;t an anything goes profession?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not that I agree with Prince Charle&#8217;s take on the project, but come on, is it not just a little hypopcritical for Gehry, Hadid and the like to write an open letter condeming somebody for using their &#8216;position of priviledge&#8217; to make a statement? The only reason this letter has had any impact is because of the position of priviledge of those who wrote it. </p>
<p>Beyond this, Price Charles has every right to have an opinion on the project just as everybody else does in the democratic society in which (as the group of architects aptly notes) this is playing out in. </p>
<p>And lastly, one can&#8217;t help but wonder if these architects are more upset about this particular project or that somebody is standing up and saying that architecture isn&#8217;t an anything goes profession?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bo Lucky</title>
		<link>http://www.archdaily.com/20645/foster-hadid-and-gehry-against-prince-charles/#comment-27265</link>
		<dc:creator>Bo Lucky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:39:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.archdaily.com/?p=20645#comment-27265</guid>
		<description>The fact that the Prince has his own specific taste and ideas that may not necessarily be shared by others, does not make the Rogers&#039; design any better. It&#039;s so obvious that what he proposes is standing out in a negative way. The Chelsea Barracks Action Group raises very important questions which require to be answered. I hope they will be addressed and the design will be modified to fit the place. Starchitects should build monuments to themselves on their own properties.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The fact that the Prince has his own specific taste and ideas that may not necessarily be shared by others, does not make the Rogers&#8217; design any better. It&#8217;s so obvious that what he proposes is standing out in a negative way. The Chelsea Barracks Action Group raises very important questions which require to be answered. I hope they will be addressed and the design will be modified to fit the place. Starchitects should build monuments to themselves on their own properties.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: francis</title>
		<link>http://www.archdaily.com/20645/foster-hadid-and-gehry-against-prince-charles/#comment-27260</link>
		<dc:creator>francis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:45:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.archdaily.com/?p=20645#comment-27260</guid>
		<description>Lord Rogers&#039; work for the Welsh Assembly is one of my fav, his designs have lots to be praised, BUT, on this occasion, his current proposal for Chelsea is still unsuitable for that site. I share WN&#039;s views on this.

The architects’ letter stinks of &quot;pot calling the kettle black&quot;. Thank goodness HRH voiced his opinion, otherwise, how do you get those bands of elites to submit?

Unfortunately, this project is private; therefore have issues with &quot;outside&quot; influence. But, it will have a bearing on other projects that is just around our own corner.

Parts of London should be down-scaled and uniquely leafy to be &quot;London&quot;. We shouldn&#039;t abandon our heritage for square meter age nor be seduce.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lord Rogers&#8217; work for the Welsh Assembly is one of my fav, his designs have lots to be praised, BUT, on this occasion, his current proposal for Chelsea is still unsuitable for that site. I share WN&#8217;s views on this.</p>
<p>The architects’ letter stinks of &#8220;pot calling the kettle black&#8221;. Thank goodness HRH voiced his opinion, otherwise, how do you get those bands of elites to submit?</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this project is private; therefore have issues with &#8220;outside&#8221; influence. But, it will have a bearing on other projects that is just around our own corner.</p>
<p>Parts of London should be down-scaled and uniquely leafy to be &#8220;London&#8221;. We shouldn&#8217;t abandon our heritage for square meter age nor be seduce.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WN</title>
		<link>http://www.archdaily.com/20645/foster-hadid-and-gehry-against-prince-charles/#comment-27249</link>
		<dc:creator>WN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:42:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.archdaily.com/?p=20645#comment-27249</guid>
		<description>Funny thing is that Lord Rogers did the same thing that HRH is being lambasted for back in 2005 when Quinlan Terry designed the adjacent housing for the pensioners. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/may/12/urbandesign.arts

How hypocritical. Well now the joke is on you Rogers. Terry was asked by the local community to produce an alternate proposal. HRH simply pointed this out to an acquaintance in the scary situation that Rogers&#039; mediocre proposal might get approval. I have visited the site and have to say both proposals do not work. Rogers&#039; scheme is boring and lazy, creating leftover dead space that is prettily landscaped in the renderings but proven unsuccessful in practice. The social housing is designed to look completely different to the luxury ones... Talk about segregation. The wonderful small scale neighbourhood to the East is begging to be connected through the site, resurrecting the little chapel that Rogers is going to tear down. This proposal is another beautiful jewel when viewed from far, but still far from good. It could be anywhere. Doesn&#039;t say London to me. Terry proposes a campus type courtyard model but that isn&#039;t suitable either for the scale of the surrounding neighbourhood. It is too grand and competes with his nearby project and Wren&#039;s own too. Yet the harmonious street edge would create a fine, lasting backdrop for life on that magnificent leafy street.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny thing is that Lord Rogers did the same thing that HRH is being lambasted for back in 2005 when Quinlan Terry designed the adjacent housing for the pensioners. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/may/12/urbandesign.arts" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/may/12/urbandesign.arts</a></p>
<p>How hypocritical. Well now the joke is on you Rogers. Terry was asked by the local community to produce an alternate proposal. HRH simply pointed this out to an acquaintance in the scary situation that Rogers&#8217; mediocre proposal might get approval. I have visited the site and have to say both proposals do not work. Rogers&#8217; scheme is boring and lazy, creating leftover dead space that is prettily landscaped in the renderings but proven unsuccessful in practice. The social housing is designed to look completely different to the luxury ones&#8230; Talk about segregation. The wonderful small scale neighbourhood to the East is begging to be connected through the site, resurrecting the little chapel that Rogers is going to tear down. This proposal is another beautiful jewel when viewed from far, but still far from good. It could be anywhere. Doesn&#8217;t say London to me. Terry proposes a campus type courtyard model but that isn&#8217;t suitable either for the scale of the surrounding neighbourhood. It is too grand and competes with his nearby project and Wren&#8217;s own too. Yet the harmonious street edge would create a fine, lasting backdrop for life on that magnificent leafy street.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Manuel Mauricio</title>
		<link>http://www.archdaily.com/20645/foster-hadid-and-gehry-against-prince-charles/#comment-27227</link>
		<dc:creator>Manuel Mauricio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:27:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.archdaily.com/?p=20645#comment-27227</guid>
		<description>Prince Charles should be quiet?
To be brief, I can tell you that i do not agree with him but with the architects. The thing is...did or did not the baroness thyssen interveened when Siza wanted to cut all the trees in Paseo de Prado in Madrid. Yes she did and she took advantage of her political and social position.
I think he is doing exactly what rodgers would do, or zaha, or whatever if placed in such a situation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Prince Charles should be quiet?<br />
To be brief, I can tell you that i do not agree with him but with the architects. The thing is&#8230;did or did not the baroness thyssen interveened when Siza wanted to cut all the trees in Paseo de Prado in Madrid. Yes she did and she took advantage of her political and social position.<br />
I think he is doing exactly what rodgers would do, or zaha, or whatever if placed in such a situation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George</title>
		<link>http://www.archdaily.com/20645/foster-hadid-and-gehry-against-prince-charles/#comment-27123</link>
		<dc:creator>George</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:13:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.archdaily.com/?p=20645#comment-27123</guid>
		<description>I wish FOG still wore those glasses...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wish FOG still wore those glasses&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
