The Chelsea Barracks Partnership was brought in after the Fosters master plan was scrapped to do public consultation work in order to involve and inform the local community in the design process of the master plan and to resolve any issues in the previous design, and perhaps to – unintentionally – inform the rest that these are the opinions of locals, and not just the architecturally proscribed views of Prince Charles.

When designing a master plan, from a very humanistic point of view, architects should not be designing for themselves but should be taking into consideration the needs and desires of the people who live there, work there, and make the urban fabric what it is.

Prince Charles’s philosophy, believe it or not, has to do with continuing the line of dynastic privledge. It is about what’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’t fool ourselves into thinking the old nobility lives on.

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.

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’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’t an anything goes profession?

The architects’ letter stinks of “pot calling the kettle black”. 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 “outside” 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 “London”. We shouldn’t abandon our heritage for square meter age nor be seduce.

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’ mediocre proposal might get approval. I have visited the site and have to say both proposals do not work. Rogers’ 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’t say London to me. Terry proposes a campus type courtyard model but that isn’t suitable either for the scale of the surrounding neighbourhood. It is too grand and competes with his nearby project and Wren’s own too. Yet the harmonious street edge would create a fine, lasting backdrop for life on that magnificent leafy street.

Let the projects approval or dismissal be judged on its merits, not by the influence of spoilt brat. Don’t let this man bypass the system, a system that as a head of state he is supposed to represent.

The question of taste is becoming an overuling issue here – and it shouldn’t be. The fact is that the scheme seems to in no way acknowledge any nearby buildings. In fact it blocks out alot day light for existing residents.

I question Quatri Diar’s reasons for asking Roger’s to run this project. They too are at fault here, and have cleverly kept rather quiet during this furore.