³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

As one who has lived in New York City 1950s public housing in Harlem & now lives in a Bronx 1939-43-built private version of public housing projects, I fully agree with Prince Charles. "Tower-blocks" are designed as inhumane prisons to force the working-class into the life-styles determined to be acceptable by social workers. The Robert Moses theory of public architecture, still alive now, is grim, restrictive, ugly, & mean-spirited.

The Prince has a point - those steel and glass buildings will soon become dated. And bricks, stone and slate will last longer. I would much rather live in a home like those in the Prince's design than some pseudo-futuristic monstrosity that is likely to fall down in less than 50 years!

Charlie needs to remember what his role, and the role of the Royal Family is in the UK. Whilst we still have them they are 'constitutional', as in that have no real power, nor should they. His interfering and imposing of his own arcane architectural tastes through 'the family name', with a preference for a chocolate box ye Olde England that no longer exists should only add to calls to rid us of this anachronism. What is old fashioned now was once modern. What is modern now will one day be old-fashioned, and so it goes on. It's called progress and is something Charlie is clearly against! The 'monstrous carbuncle' he condemned years ago was a spectacular piece of architecture that would have attracted people purely because of the design of the building, forgetting about what was inside. In years to come it would have been seen to be a classic. Thanks to him it doesn't exist and we have missed out!

Just yesterday I was watching the newly discovered Betjeman film 'A Poet Goes North.' He describes the modern buildings as against the old as 'Money-grabbing slabs with lift machinery left like parcels left on the top' of a desk! To him and to me these new buildings spell nothing but "CASH." Incompetent and ignorant pseuo-architects working from unbelievable bursuries from even more ignorant and incompetent charities stinking of modern vulgarity and commercialism.

It is interesting that Mr Ahrends thinks the 'democratic' process of planning is being interfered with. To me, a democratic process is one where the people have a right to their say. Mr Ahrends clearly believes this is only the case if they agree with him.

If I were to write to the Qatari Royal family, expressing what I can well believe was a well thought through and thorough opinion of the new project, and giving a suggestion of an alternative, I wonder if Mr Ahrends would be as vocally opposed to my interfering? Or is it simply that he still smarts from never having built his Carbuncle?

LOL if it is just peter I'll build another forgettable piece of modernistic , waiting to be dated, trash that is complaining then Charlie must be on the right track.

Cocteau it is a bit like your name. Dated.
Ahrends buildings like I say above have that look of just waiting to be Dated.


Oh in about 10 years time.

then for the rest of it's life we have another dated piece of rubbish.
the psychology behind architecture is interesting.

you can go on about chocolate boxes but when it comes down to it. most would rather live in a chocolate box house over a office that has been vacated.

Which is what most of his buildings look like

2 was reading up and notice you feel the same.

Ahrends designs for the looks on his computer. like so many buildings these days.
The textural reality is a boring place to be.
The computer models don't really deal with the reality of materials.
And as such the building gets designed around the program not the people.

5 look at his portfolio there.
Wow what a bunch of BOOORRRIIINNNGGG.

I'd give him 5 minutes with the 1 st year at brooks until they are all asleep.


Both ahrends and the slightly more appealing Roger stark harbour both have one thing in common.
Their buildings look like the mutoid waste company should squat them.