‘It’s fantastic when the great powers of the land become interested in architecture’
Architects have given a conditional welcome to an essay by Prince Charles in which he airs his opinions on urban design and scolds his critics to “take a more mature view”.
While many agreed with his manifesto they questioned the “position of untouchable power” from which he asserts his views.
The prince, writing in the monthly magazine Architectural Review, lists 10 geometric principles on which he argues all masterplans should be based, including use of local materials and the primacy of the pedestrian.
He denies wanting to return to a mythical golden age, insisting his concern is with the “terrifying prospect” of an additional 3 billion people sharing the planet by 2050.
“Architects and urban designers have an enormous role to play in responding to this challenge,” he writes.
“We have to work out how we will create resilient, truly sustainable and human-scale urban environments that are land-efficient, use low-carbon materials and do not depend so completely upon the car.
“However, for these places to enhance the quality of people’s lives and strengthen the bonds of community, we have to reconnect with those traditional approaches and techniques honed over thousands of years which, only in the 20th century, were seen as ‘old-fashioned’ and of no use in a progressive modern age. It is time to take a more mature view.
“I say this because those universal principles are expressed in the order of Nature, which can never be ‘old-fashioned’. Nature is only ever of paramount contemporary importance and, although we think we can, we ignore the order of Nature at our peril.”
He goes on to urge architects to employ geometry - “spiritual mathematics” - and in particular the circle.
When a tutor at the prince’s School of Traditional Arts taught geometry to a group of creatives at an event at the British Museum, the result was “breathtaking moment of realisation”, he says.
One corporate executive reported realising “with some dread that her company’s brand new headquarters, still under construction, were unlikely to work” because an open-plan office was to replace a cluster of buildings that acted like village centres. These, she felt, “had been key to producing the company’s immensely creative process of development and design”. The only architect whose proposal for the site featured an inter-connected series of hubs had been dismissed as old-fashioned and insufficiently iconic.
The prince’s essay was welcomed by Robert Sakula, a founding partner of Ash Sakula, who said: “He’s got 10 good ingredients but it depends what you cook with them.”
Sakula said he’d been impressed when he visited Poundbury, the prince’s model village in Dorset, to find “intelligent urban design” had been incorporated into its structures.
He added: “I don’t see Prince Charles as a big bogeyman but it would be nice if he had as much understanding of modern architecture as about traditional architecture, but he clearly doesn’t.
“I think it’s fantastic when the great powers of the land become interested in architecture because one of the real problems we have is the Blairs, Milibands, Camerons and Cleggs don’t know a thing about architecture and don’t care a fig. They are totally words-based and have not an iota of visual culture between them.
“Frankly, if more people cared as much as he does we would have a better architectural culture.”
Tony Fretton, principal of Tony Fretton Architects, said: “In some ways he’s done a lot of good.
“What’s tricky with the prince is his entanglement with power and the question of whether the letters he writes to government are proper.
“If he were a man who just voiced his opinions and activated them through his charities I would have nothing but praise for him. But if he influences the establishment that’s more difficult because it’s not open debate and he’s not democratic.
“The big battle in the UK is for proper democracy and because of his background beliefs he is a force of reaction whatever he says.”
Robin Nicholson of Cullinan Studio said: “Many of the musings of the Prince of Wales have been based on a good urbanism, to which we should all subscribe, and much of his criticism is well-founded.
“The only problem is that he speaks from a position of untouchable power, with a rosy romance about the past and a faith in the Sacred Nature of geometry.
“When one thinks of the destruction that is being waged around the world in the name of ‘the sacred’, I think it behoves us to be a bit more modest in our claims.
“I think the 10 points are pretty good but I would argue that #2 should read ‘Architecture is a developing language…’.
“I have been fairly upset in the past that he likes to claim that he personally has invented urban regeneration and good urbanism whereas he has always been advised by bright people and many others have been working on the same issues. I note that he now claims the authorship of the Manual for Streets. Bring back Cabe.”
The prince’s 10 points
1: Developments must respect the land. They should not be intrusive; they should be designed to fit within the landscape they occupy.
2: Architecture is a language. We have to abide by the grammatical ground rules, otherwise dissonance and confusion abound. This is why a building code can be so valuable.
3: Scale is also key. Not only should buildings relate to human proportions, they should correspond to the scale of the other buildings and elements around them. Too many of our towns have been spoiled by casually placed, oversized buildings of little distinction that carry no civic meaning.
4: Harmony − the playing together of all parts. The look of each building should be in tune with its neighbours, which does not mean creating uniformity. Richness comes from diversity, as Nature demonstrates, but there must be coherence, which is often achieved by attention to details like the style of door cases, balconies, cornices and railings.
5: The creation of well-designed enclosures. Rather than clusters of separate houses set at jagged angles, spaces that are bounded and enclosed by buildings are not only more visually satisfying, they encourage walking and feel safer.
6: Materials also matter. In the UK, as elsewhere, we have become dependent upon bland, standardised building materials. There is much too much concrete, plastic cladding, aluminium, glass and steel employed, which lends a place no distinctive character. For buildings to look as if they belong, we need to draw on local building materials and regional traditional styles.
7: Signs, lights and utilities. They can be easily overused. We should also bury as many wires as possible and limit signage. A lesson learned from Poundbury is that it is possible to rid the street of nearly all road signs by using ‘events’ like a bend, square or tree every 60-80 metres, which cause drivers to slow down naturally.
8: The pedestrian must be at the centre of the design process. Streets must be reclaimed from the car.
9: Density. Space is at a premium, but we do not have to resort to high-rise tower blocks which alienate and isolate. I believe there are far more communal benefits from terraces and the mansion block. You only have to consider the charm and beauty of a place like Kensington and Chelsea in London to see what I mean. It is often forgotten that this borough is the most densely populated one in London.
10: Flexibility. Rigid, conventional planning and rules of road engineering render all the above instantly null and void, but I have found it is possible to build flexibility into schemes and I am pleased to say that many of the innovations we have tried out in the past 20 years are now reflected in national engineering guidance, such as The Manual For Streets.
No comments yet