The Prince Charles Fallacy on Architecture

Prince Charles reveals his personal views in a lecture on architecture at RIBA today. Not surprisingly, many serious architects are outraged by the way he wields his influence on planning. See this letter to The Guardian from some of them.

When I wrote my biography of the modernist architect Ernö Goldfinger Ernö Goldfinger: The Life of an Architect (Routledge, 2004) I coined the term 'The Prince Charles Fallacy': the misguided notion that the only buildings that should be allowed to be built are those that look more less like the buildings that are already in the area. Read how this approach blighted Goldfinger's career.

Let's hope this interfering aesthetic conservatism that undermines democratic processes triggers a serious debate about what we value in architecture and how we go about civic decision-making.

Comments

[Tevez]

I find your comments interesting here. From listening to your excellent podcasts I am aware that you are an unusually clear thinker, however I am a little confused:

you say: "...this interfering aesthetic conservatism that undermines democratic processes..."

Now, the impact of the appearance of a building is, in the parlance of economics, a form of externality for all those not involved in the ownership or conception of that building.

Accordingly is it your opinion that everyone has a right to at least partially determine, (by way of a vote for example) the nature of any externality? Should the appearance of every building, be the subject of public vote? Or should we leave all decisions to the unelected architectural elite because they know best?

Which aspect of the democratic process do you believe to be undermined?

I seem to remember your use of the example of Prince Charles in discussion with Fricker, Is it your belief that he should refrain from public pronouncements because he is unelected?

If so is it also your view that all architects be elected?

Or do I misunderstand your point?

By the way, to nail my colours to the mast, I am an admirer of much modern architecture and loth pastiche.

[nigel warburton]

Thanks very much for your comments. Richard Rogers put it well when he said 'The problem is Prince Charles doesn't debate' See
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/5220057/Prince-Charles-challenged-by-Lord-Rogers-over-Chelsea-barracks.html

[Daniel]

Dear Sir,
Thanks for your comments. I entirely agree that room for innovation such as Goldfinger's must be supported. But I don't see Charles as being aesthetically conservative. It's not about that at all. He's referring to organic processes, in the biological sense. He is heavily influenced by the works of Christopher Alexander and Nikos Salingaros, whose works are based in science and mathematics. Their conclusions are not so much aesthetic as related evolutionary and environmental psychology. Have a look at Salingaros' theory of architecture at http://www.math.utsa.edu/ftp/salingar.old/architecture.html for an example of the mathematics underlying it. As to the quasi-biological process, look at http://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/action.htm
Thanks.