The Prince and the City

A controversy took place over the summer involving a prince, an architect, and real estate developers. Matters related to aesthetics, social and communal values, public participation and the role of government vs. the private sector were all part of this rather fascinating exchange.

The prince in question is UK’s Charles; the architect is Lord Richard Rogers; and the real estate developers are Qatari based Diar and CPC, their Monaco based partner. The controversy centers on the development of Chelsea Barracks, located within the upscale Chelsea district in London. The site was purchased by CPC for a reported $1.5bn and in partnership with Qatari Al-Diar, they commissioned Richard Rogers to design a scheme, that according to the brief should maximize the site’s use by incorporating high-end residential apartments. Rogers, an architect known for his modernist designs, proposed a series of high-rise glass and steel towers, located within a meticulously designed landscape. The design stood in contrast to the traditional and conservative buildings surrounding the site.

Prince Charles is outspoken in matters related to architecture, espousing a traditional viewpoint and arguing for a return to what he calls traditional and timeless values. Thus, he voiced his objections to the scheme noting that ‘his heart sank’ when he saw the design in a letter to the Qatari prime minister, were he also proposed a more traditional approach by his favorite architect – Quinlan Terry. He implored Diar to reconsider the scheme, which they did by withdrawing planning applications on the eve of the project’s approval by planning authorities. Now, the matter could have ended there but it provoked a reaction by the architect and the partner.

Richard Rogers argued that Prince Charles intervention was not within his constitutional rights and that he overstepped his bounds. Moreover, his viewpoints are outdated, not progressive and stand in the way of modernity – which was also expressed in a letter to The Times signed by a number of world architects: Zaha Hadid; Frank Gehry, Pierre de Meuron among others. In a series of interviews, Rogers voiced his frustration at the Princes’ intervention – he actually managed to stop another Rogers project in the 1980s. The other reaction came from the partner – CPC who filed a lawsuit against Diar on the basis that they unjustifiably withdrew the planning application leading to a reported loss of $100mn which they would have been paid had the project been approved. A UK judge recently ruled in favor of CPC, noting that the withdrawal was an ‘unlawful breach of contract’.

This episode raises a series of interesting points. While it has been portrayed as an intervention by one individual, what is not widely known outside the UK is that there was strong objection among the surrounding community. In fact more than 50,000 mobilized against the project citing the tower’s height – more than 36 meters, or 12 storey’s, which would have cut off sunlight and led to severe congestion. Although I should note that this is not really the architect’s fault but was a program requirement.

There is also a social side to this. Qatari Diar is not just financing this project but is involved in others. Among them is what will be the tallest tower in London and Europe, known as ‘The Shard’ designed by Rogers former partner, the Italian architect Renzo Piano. It will have a ‘colossal’ impact on the London skyline, according to architecture critic Hugh Pearman, which is not comparable at all to Chelsea Barracks. Yet Prince Charles has not objected or written letters. The reason as Pearman points out is that ‘The Shard’ is located in a poor neighborhood next to a railway station, whereas Chelsea is a rich residential district inhabited by influential people – including the architect Richard Rogers.

As an architect my inclination with respect to this episode is to lean towards the progressive side, in other words I should side with the architect and his modernist design. Yet sometimes the modern does not really work – both at a visual and functional level, and there is always value in learning from the past. Rogers scheme upon closer examination reveals flaws – it is in fact a series of repetitive and monotonous towers, which do not relate to the strong historical surroundings in any substantive manner nor do they challenge them (as in his 1970s cultural center in Paris designed with his then partner Renzo Piano).

Finally, for us in the Middle East this debate and the back and forth arguments between developer, architect and the prince should be a lesson in good urban governance. The transparency with which this affair has been conducted, the various issues that have been raised and the final outcome of revising the project is a counterpoint to top down approaches. Here, buildings and projects appear almost overnight without any community input. But, as the Chelsea Barrack episode shows, a project involves numerous stakeholders whose concerns need to be addressed. It is not always about finance and economics.

Incidentally I should note that Prince Charles is responsible for the preservation of Bastakiyya in Dubai. Without his intervention in the 1980s the district was well on its way towards oblivion. He pointed out to officials the value of preserving buildings with windcatchers and they have since become a symbol of the city. Thus, thanks to the Prince.

Email the writer: