Three cheers for Prince Charles.

mickysalt wrote:

Prince Charles should say what he likes,

Would you have said that if he'd have attacked a proposal for low rise building and called instead for a high rise development on the basis that it's more energy efficient / more efficient use of land / better suited to supporting public transport etc ?

I can't help thinking that the only reason you support him speaking out on this issue is because you agree with what he says.

Whatever your view of this development, I think it's worrying that someone in his position can use his power to circumvent the planning process and force a change based purely on his own aesthetic judgement.

What's laughable is that if this development had been proposed in a poor residential area that he has no connection to (Hackney for example, or somewhere like Leeds or Manchester) he wouldn't have given a damn about it.

martinr wrote:

mickysalt wrote:

Prince Charles should say what he likes,

Would you have said that if he'd have attacked a proposal for low rise building and called instead for a high rise development

.

That situation wouldn't arise as he only speaks on behalf of the general population .
And his opinions are on architecture not posh areas.

mickysalt wrote:

That situation wouldn't arise as he only speaks on behalf of the general population

What a bizarre comment, how on earth can you know - or are you relying on a minute sample as represented by those 'have your say' postings again. Your definition of 'the general population' can therefore only include those who agree with Prince Charlie, as (obviously) he can't be speaking for those that disagree with him.

mickysalt wrote:

And his opinions are on architecture not posh areas.

Really ? So do you think that other developments in less salubrious parts of town that he doesn't talk about are all to scale and beautifully complement their surroundings ?

Why should he pick on a development in an expensive part of the city, part of the same borough as Kensington Palace ?

Why didn't he pick on any number of similar modern developments up and down in the country in residential areas ? Oh of course - they're not being developed in an area that's a stomping ground for many of his friends, by a high profile architect whose work he usually loathes and financed by friends of the family !

I'm no great fan of Rogers' plans and it seems many local residents didn't like it either, but it's for the planning process to decide whether or not it should be built.

I don't think he should keep quiet on subjects necessarily - there's no reason why he shouldn't express his personal views on genetically modified food, climate change, organic farming and the rest of it, but the point is those are general areas open for discussion. This was a specific development that he managed to get scrapped by using his position and his personal contacts to override the planning process. That's a terrible abuse of his powers to my mind.

Prince Charles's comments on architecture are an over view of town planning,
He's commented on Borough market, and many other areas his views aren't confined to posh areas.
Unless you think Kings cross is posh.

Whatever the merits, well done, M Salt, for maintaining an impersonal and even tone in the face of the sarcasm which has followed you through the latter part of this thread.

Yay, two cheers for mickysalt.

God forbid his sweeping statements should ever be challenged.

mickysalt wrote:

Prince Charles's comments on architecture are an over view of town planning,
He's commented on Borough market, and many other areas his views aren't confined to posh areas.
Unless you think Kings cross is posh.

Overview of town planning ? He used his position to get a single development that he didn't approve of to be scrapped. He exploited his connections with the Qatari royal family rather than use the normal planning process to express his disapproval.

I've already said that I didn't particularly like the development but that's by the by. I wouldn't dream of overriding the planning process to try and force through what I would prefer to see in its place. It's a sad state of affairs when people can use their position of privilege to push their own personal agenda.

This post sums it up. I'm not sure who posted it originally ,as it was in a post consisting of quotes.


[quote]Rogers has a seat in one of the houses of Parliament; he is a legislator; he has both power and influence. The Prince has only influence - and the support of local residents and everyone who values Britain's environment. In this context, Rogers, not the Prince, represents the real establishment. The hissy fits thrown by members of our self-appointed, self-perpetuating oligarchies, in politics, the arts, and every other sphere of life are evidence of how rare it is for them to have their arrogant assumptions challenged.[/quote][/quote]

mickysalt wrote:

This post sums it up.

The quote you re-quoted sums up the view of Gerald Warner, who rants for the Daily Telegraph. His bile and sarcasm has been aimed at Guardian readers, gays, President Obama, abortionists, aetheists, 'the evil empire of Europe', the BBC in general, and anything else that confirms his view that his world has gone to the dogs. In that context his support and regularly expressed admiration for the Monarchy and what he believes it represents is predictable. He evidently doesn't see the contradiction in describing the 'oligarchies' in the arts etc., as 'self-appointed, self perpetuating', when he plainly worships our unelected, unaccountable royal family.

Back to the subject of the development in question: I have no opinion one way or the other about the scheme, because I haven't examined it in any detail. However, I do hope that, if the site is not left blighted and empty for years by this row, the resulting buildings will not be from the Poundbury school of sterile, unimaginative, two-dimensional prescriptive pastiche that is Prince Charle's image of an ideal urban Britain.