"Rogers demands inquiry into Charles's interventions in Chelsea Barracks"
16 June, 2009
Richard Rogers has called for an official inquiry into the constitutional validity of Prince Charles’s interventions into the Chelsea Barracks project.
Ian Simmons 16 June, 2009
What's wrong with Rogers, it was not only the prince who was objecting to the scheme, there are other who didn't like it but he seemed to think he could ride roughshod over these little people. Good on the prince for being prepared to do something, even if it upset the 'star', whats the point of having contacts if you can't use them, I'm sure that Rogers has used his contacts in the past.
Andy 16 June, 2009
Finally an architect willing to stand up for himself. Enough is enough.
Laura Roberts 16 June, 2009
Bryan Scott - good point. This particular issue is not about the quality of the design as such but whether Charles as the right to express his opinion directly to those commissioning the scheme. I would say yes. His "intervention" wasn't a legal/practical block. He expressed his opinion. Rogers' client had 100% freedom of will to ignore said opinion, or take it on board with the 90%+ local opposition, the latter ingredient in their decision-making which Rogers seems to persistently ignore. The 90% opposition of local residents was ignored by the planners. Their opinion didn't matter, Rogers with all his connections, network, privilege and clout didn't care and carried on regardless. In return, the Prince used his to offer his opinion. Not many architects, only those with a considerable position of privilege such as Rogers could have ploughed on disregarding such vehement opposition to those who would have to actually exist among these depressing structures, so completely wrong in terms of everything from massing to facade. And not many people, only those with the considerable position of privilege such as Prince Charles could get their opinion heard by the client. Just heard remember. Not enforced. So, what's the difference?
GS 16 June, 2009
A fantastic architect he is, but Lord Sir Richard Rogers is being a little kettle black with his suggestion that it is wrong for privilege and titles to buy influence.
Bhavnesh Chamdal 16 June, 2009
Finally someone to stand up and speak out
Ian Simmons 16 June, 2009
What's wrong with Rogers, it was not only the prince who was objecting to the scheme, there are other who didn't like it but he seemed to think he could ride roughshod over these little people. Good on the prince for being prepared to do something, even if it upset the 'star', whats the point of having contacts if you can't use them, I'm sure that Rogers has used his contacts in the past.
Andy 16 June, 2009
Finally an architect willing to stand up for himself. Enough is enough.
Laura Roberts 16 June, 2009
Bryan Scott - good point. This particular issue is not about the quality of the design as such but whether Charles as the right to express his opinion directly to those commissioning the scheme. I would say yes. His "intervention" wasn't a legal/practical block. He expressed his opinion. Rogers' client had 100% freedom of will to ignore said opinion, or take it on board with the 90%+ local opposition, the latter ingredient in their decision-making which Rogers seems to persistently ignore. The 90% opposition of local residents was ignored by the planners. Their opinion didn't matter, Rogers with all his connections, network, privilege and clout didn't care and carried on regardless. In return, the Prince used his to offer his opinion. Not many architects, only those with a considerable position of privilege such as Rogers could have ploughed on disregarding such vehement opposition to those who would have to actually exist among these depressing structures, so completely wrong in terms of everything from massing to facade. And not many people, only those with the considerable position of privilege such as Prince Charles could get their opinion heard by the client. Just heard remember. Not enforced. So, what's the difference?
GS 16 June, 2009
A fantastic architect he is, but Lord Sir Richard Rogers is being a little kettle black with his suggestion that it is wrong for privilege and titles to buy influence.
Bhavnesh Chamdal 16 June, 2009
Finally someone to stand up and speak out
