上圖左邊是Rogers 的設計、右邊是Prince Charles 的設計方案 (圖片來源：http://static.worldarchitecturenews.com/project/)
20th April 的相關報導
http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=11459
A Royal pain in the neck?
EDITORIAL
Architects rally against Prince of Wales' criticism
The Prince of Wales has once again thrust himself into the architectural spotlight by adding his voice to opposition for the £1billion Chelsea Barracks scheme designed by Lord Rogers. Demanding that the design for the project, which will provide 552 homes, be scrapped, the Prince has added to a string of influential outbursts in the architectural profession which commenced in 1984. In a speech at Hampton Court he branded plans for a new wing of the National Gallery as a "monstrous carbuncle" and they were promptly dropped.
In February this year the Prince, who set up the Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment, commented on the slums of Mumbai saying they "provide a better model for housing a booming urban population in the developing world than Western Architecture".
Following this latest input from Prince Charles, 5 Pritzker prize winners: Jacques Herzog, Lord Foster, Zaha Hadid, Renzo Piano and Frank Gehry and five others have signed their names in a letter to the UK's Sunday Times. The letter in part reads: “It is essential in a modern democracy that private comments and behind-the-scenes lobbying by the prince should not be used to skew the course of an open and democratic planning process that is currently under way.”
Prince Charles' opposition of the scheme is such that he had an alternative design developed. Both designs can be seen in the main image, Prince Charles' right, Rogers' left.
20th April 建築師的連署信全文
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/top-architects-condemn-prince-charles-meddling/5200676.article
Full text of the letter to the Sunday Times
THE Prince of Wales’s intervention over the design of the former Chelsea Barracks site deserves more reasoned comment. It is essential in a modern democracy that private comments and behind-the-scenes lobbying by the prince should not be used to skew the course of an open and democratic planning process that is under way.
Proposals by Richard Rogers’s practice for the developers Qatari Diar were recently submitted for planning to Westminster city council. The scheme has been adapted and changed in response to comments from Westminster’s planning officers and extensive local consultation. Statutory bodies such as the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and the Greater London Authority have also been consulted. Westminster’s planning committee will meet and shortly deliver its verdict.
Its members should be left alone to decide whether the Rogers’s scheme is a fitting 21st-century addition to the fabric of London. The developers have chosen carefully in selecting the best architect for the sensitive project. Rogers and his team have played their part in engaging with the democratic process. The prince and his advisers should do the same. The process should be allowed to take its course; otherwise we risk condemning this critical site to years as an urban blight.
If the prince wants to comment on the design of this or any other project, we urge him to do so through the established planning consultation process. Rather than use his privileged position to intervene in one of the most significant residential projects likely to be built in London in the next five years, he should engage in an open and transparent debate.
Lord Foster, Foster and Partners, London, Pritzker Prize 1999
Zaha Hadid, Zaha Hadid Architects, London, Pritzker Prize 2004
Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron, Pritzker Prize 2001
Jean Nouvel, Jean Nouvel Architectes, Paris, Pritzker Prize 2008
Renzo Piano, Renzo Piano Building Workshop, Genoa, Pritzker Prize 1998
Frank Gehry, Gehry Partners, Los Angeles, Pritzker Prize 1989
Sir Nicholas Serota, Commissioner, CABE 1999-2006
Richard Burdett, London School of Economics
David Adjaye, Adjaye Associates, London
Deyan Sudjic, Director, Design Museum, London
BBC 訪問Lord Rogers 的片段
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8098250.stm
12th June 開發申請撤銷的新聞
Developers withdraw barracks plan
Developers of the Chelsea Barracks in west London have withdrawn their planning application.
The firm Qatari Diar had planned to build 552 flats in 17 blocks at the site near the River Thames.
It hopes to put in another planning application after discussions with stakeholders including the Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment.
The Prince of Wales recently criticised architect Lord Rogers' design for the former barracks site.
Clarence House said on Friday it had no comment to make on the withdrawal of the application.
In March the prince told representatives of the Qatari royal family that he preferred an alternative classical design for the site by architect Quinlan Terry, describing the current proposal as "unsuitable".
'Building consensus'
Qatari Diar is owned by the Qatari Investment Authority, which is headed by the country's prime minister.
"If he wishes to live in an era which no longer exists then that's up to him but whether everybody else has to live in that era I don't know," Lord Rogers said of Prince Charles.
The Chelsea Barracks site was sold by the Ministry of Defence to Project Blue (Guernsey) Limited (PBGL) for £959 million in January 2008. PBGL is owned by Qatari Diar.
A spokesman for PBGL said: "We will continue our extensive consultation process with all our stakeholders, where our focus will be on building a consensus for one of the most important sites in London.
"We acknowledge however that there are differing views from various other quarters."
He added that he anticipated a "masterplan" would be submitted to Westminster City Council for planning consent by the end of 2009.
Councillor Colin Barrow, Westminster City Council's leader, said: "We have been notified of Qatari Diar's intention to withdraw, which we welcome as it will provide a new opportunity to create a scheme which is more sympathetic to its surroundings and reflects the aspirations of local people."
A spokesman for the Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment said it had been invited by Qatari Diar to participate in "a more open process".
He said: "We will work with them to advise on master planning, from our core principle of involving the local community and local stakeholders in the design process."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/london/8096854.stm
Published: 2009/06/12 18:54:06 GMT
我的看法：
19 June 2009 在London College of Fashion 辦的Any Questions programme 中，有人提出Prince Charles 干預的這個問題，整個panel (Tessa Jowell, Minister for the Olympics, the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, Shadow Leader of the House Alan Duncan, Liberal Democrat peer Julia Neuberger, media entrepreneur Kelvin Mackenzie) 的回答都是他們覺得Prince Charles 有言論自由，可是他們也清楚地表達他們自己不喜歡新建築、所以他們贊同Prince Charles 的言論。尤有甚者、當主持人大概問了一下在場觀眾：有哪些人覺得Prince Charles 的行為不適當的時候、只有少數人舉手。
我覺得很可笑：理論上這個節目應該是一個知識份子和政客一起討論問題，大家應該都知道什麼叫做保留一些對專業的尊重，而設在Fashion College 中的討論、雖然可能很多都不是College 裡面的人、可是怎麼有辦法在一樣都是以創作為專業的領域中這麼地不尊重創作專業？
我相信很多人並不喜歡新建築，就像很多人可能對現代舞、對蔡明亮的電影、對現代劇場所想要表達的一知半解，我也同意不是所有學建築的人都認為玻璃帷幕就該用在全世界、作為普世價值、就像大家後來批評International Style 一樣，可是不表示就可以蹂躪專業。尤其是一個能見度很高的人、更不能隨便以自己的主觀感受發表這樣傷人的評論！
Prince Charles 在25年前的評論才在近期道歉，又出了這麼個巨作評論，然後理論上應該要知道尊重專業的panel 卻對這樣的議題以相對來說隨便的態度處理帶過，我真的覺得很差勁！
