baldysblog.co.uk

There was a Court case going on that involved Prince Charles intervening in a proposed re-development of the Chelsea Barracks site so that the people financing it, the Qatrai Royal Family who are personal friends of ‘Chuckie’, pulled the plug on it. The Developers then decided to sue the Qataris for “Breach of Contract with the aim of getting the £80 million they would have made as ‘damages’.

They won’t suceed in this as planning consent hadn’t even been applied for so therefore their “loss” is minimal. I’m on Charlie Boy’s side but a rather pompous Editorial in the Independent wasn’t… http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-a-question-of-influence-not-aesthetics-2011034.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/an-unwelcome-intervention-what-judge-said-about-charles-2010989.html

My Take On It

An egotistical Architect is denied the ‘opportunity’ to screw up yet another part of London and yes, that would have been the consequence as anyone who knows that part of the capital would know. The reason most ‘spiv developers’ avoid the type of architecture that would fit in and be liked by Prince Charles, is that it is more expensive to build and that is a problem in a low rise city like London where most of its finer buildings were probably built 100 years or so ago when labour was cheaper and more craft based. Essentially, this is an issue which London has yet to resolve in the broadest sense.

Whatever one thinks of Charlie Boy’s taste in architecture, he is not out of step with thinking right across Europe since the end of WWII. Very many European cities which were virtually obliterated during that war have had large parts rebuilt exactly as they were. This is not a stupid longing for the past but rather a recognition of the fact that it is these ‘styles’ that are endemic to the very character of the place. Also ‘modern’ architecture is not excluded but restricted to where it is appropriate. Lord Rogers is very good at greenfield sites where he has produced some stunning stuff but ‘empathetic design’ is not his strong suit, totally the wrong man for the ‘gig’.

Using His Influence

As to Charlie’s ‘interference’ I’m afraid I don’t agree with the judge at all. Given the Prince’s known interest in the subject over decades, the criticism is rather like someone complaining about say Mary Whitehouse’s views over smut on TV, Judges do not seem to have improved much in common sense over the years.

As to the Prince using his ‘influence’, this is an interesting one because I suspect that any view will be predicated by whether someone is ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ Monarchy, ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ Lord Rogers rather than any rational assessment. I am broadly for Prince Charles simply because his position as Heir to the Throne often has placed him at an unfair disadvantage. Rather like his going to Paris to accompany Princess Diana’s body back to the UK, he was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t.

This seems similar. These Qatari Royals are actual friends of his, should he use his influence to prevent yet another architectural carbuncle being visited on London particularly when architecture has long been a cause close to his heart ? It is not like some air head pop star holding forth opinions on some subject they clearly know nothing about is it ? Again damned if he did, damned if he didn’t, caught between using “undue influence” or being “totally impotent”.

Some years ago, my Wife and I visited a neighbour who had just given birth to a lively little girl. “Have you decided upon a name yet ?” my wife asked. “Phillipa” came the reply, my wife and I looked at each other in horror. “Do you think that goes well with your surname, Kettle ?” we asked. The child was given another first name, did we use “undue influence” I wonder ?

A Challenge

I was later challenged by some lady who questioned thus:

“Not only spiv developers but ANY developers. You say it yourself. Labour was cheap and craft based a century or more ago and buildings reflected that fact. Such an approach today is unsustainable. London is yet to resolve this problem, you say. Any suggestions? If not, the likes of Charles and his supporters are exposed as naive utopian s.”

My Reply

Surely, the answer is obvious given the current economic situation and that there are more people on this planet alive today than there has ever been throughout history and therefore ‘pressure’ on the resources of the planet which may or may not contribute to concepts such as ‘climate change’. On the veracity of the latter I am not too sure but, common sense must say that if there are way more people ‘queueing’ at the same well to drink water, we need to re-think some things and the first of which must surely be the “cost of labour”.

Allow me to take you on a ‘diversion’. In the late 1960s I had a conversation with a chap who was attached to the Chinese (Communist), Embassy in London as an agriculture ‘specialist’. We talked about many things but I touched upon ‘mechanization’ to which he smiled and said: “Ah, the great Soviet 10 year Tractor Plan !” He kindly explained just why the planting of Rice or indeed, the harvesting of Tea, were rather resistant to “mechanization” as he understood it. But and at the time, I think that the Chinese population was around 650-700 million, he finished with what for me was an amazing comment: “Yes my friend but, even if we could achieve the same productivity as the UK today in agriculture (2%) of the workforce (roughly, if I remember right), by whatever means, answer me one question. What do we do with the rest of our population ?

Reverse thinking here: Whether in the UK or any other Country in the EU, we have a vast pool of academically untrained labour. The ‘building trade’ is now down to a mixture of ‘facing brick’ bricklayers, shuttering and pouring re-enforced concrete with most other stuff built off site in factories to attach accordingly. This also is ‘factory development’ in an age of over supply so, these businesses will go belly up, rapidly. There are many other ‘issues’ here and all related to a long gone past.

Are you starting to see a possible solution ? We have very many thousands of people who would be the “Artisan Class” in previous generations, idle but, whether through Social Security Benefits or simple crime, we in this Society are ‘supporting them’ so, why not create a channel to use them – “…what do we do with the people ?”

It has been said that; “Generals always start off fighting the last war” but then, so do companies and a change of thinking, is always painful. You say:…”Such an approach today is unsustainable”, are you sure ? I am not and believe that by just a minor switch in imagination, we WILL build a better World.

You arrogantly conclude:”If not, the likes of Charles and his supporters are exposed as naive Utopians.” Well, I guess that we may all be but unlike you, at least we retain the ability to believe in a better World beyond those who have given up on the whole idea of a better future for all and money rules absolutely.