Architecture Here and There

Left: Charles Pinning criticizes design of GTECH headquarters at hearing in November 2004. (Journal archives)

PRINCE CHARLES is the only powerful public figure out there fighting the good fight for the people against modern architecture. America has no one. At least the Brits have someone, even if he does happen to be, well, a prince.

Blogger Jan Wiklund recently lamented, "I don't want to be rude with Charlie, but his position makes him a very inconvenient front-figure. It's time to democratize!" Yes, but why can't a prince democratize? Didn't Nixon go to China? In an era of modernist control of what the public realm looks like, the prince's push for democracy and tradition in architecture and planning must do for now.

"All the things that give us our identity in society -- language, social and political institutions, manners and behavior and so on -- are founded on tradition," writes British neo-classical architect Robert Adam in a recent essay on Charles's architectural ideas. "It's hardly any wonder that people want to maintain their identity in the aesthetic traditions of their houses and their towns and cities."

Adam cites studies over the past decade or so that show that "taken as a whole there is a quite consistent 80 percent preference for traditional design and 20 percent for modernist design." He says that the Commission on Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), the British government's planning and design advisers, did a study in 1995 that "confirmed this balance" but kept its findings secret. The preference of the public was displayed most recently in online polls in which Quinlan Terry's traditional design for the Chelsea Barracks development in London beat Richard Rogers's modernist design by an average margin of two to one.

But such popular majorities would seem to be irrelevant so long as modernists control the architecture schools, architecture firms, professional societies and journals, as they do in Britain, America and just about everywhere else.

At a forum on urbanism in July at the Aspen Ideas Festival, "starchitect" Frank O. Gehry took offense at a civil question from Fred Kent, president of the Project for Public Spaces, who recently visited Providence to help improve Kennedy Plaza.

"You are a pompous man," Gehry told Kent. Then, as described by journalist James Fallows, the architect "waved his hand in a dismissive gesture, much as Louis XIV might have used to wave away some offending underling. He was unmistakably shooing or waving the questioner away from the microphone, as an inferior -- again, in a gesture hardly ever seen in post-feudal times."

That is exactly how modernists treat the public, as if it were a rabble easily ignored.

Is the public really that irrelevant? Maybe not.

Last week, in a proposal so obvious that it startled many, Prince Charles suggested that the public be given more official say in the planning-and-design process. Called "enquiry by design" (EBD), this approach would bring a community in at the beginning to help set parameters for a development, rather than merely allowing locals to comment on a proposal after its design -- often only to be ignored by the developer's team. Scotland recently enacted EBD into law after consultations with Charles.

More so in America than in Britain, the weak link in modern architecture's power is the government that oversees the development process. The process is superintended by municipal planning offices and design-review committees sympathetic to modern architecture. They rule on permits for proposed developments and designs. But these ruling bodies are appointed by politicians elected by the public.

In Britain, public input is so routinely disregarded that Rogers assumed he could get away with ignoring the official planning guidelines for Chelsea Barracks. In the United States, the process includes mechanisms for public input that could be more than window dressing -- if only the public would attend the meetings and voice its opinion.

Just look at the meetings in Providence of the Capital Center Commission and the Downcity Design Review Committee. Members of the public dismayed by how far the look of their world has declined rarely come to these meetings. That may reflect a lack of anger at modern architecture, but that lack of anger may itself reflect a failure to force architecture onto the agenda in America as Charles has in Britain. Yet, when the public here believes that the professionals have toyed with its interests -- watch out!

For example, meetings about the proposed Providence 2020 master plan in 2005-07 showed the power of the public to overwhelm policy elites. I recall a crowd angered by the backward strategy of enacting zoning before finishing a new master plan. Planning officials were so rattled that Mayor Cicilline ordered them back to the drawing board.

How can the sort of robust debate on architecture generated by Prince Charles in Britain be started in America? Must town-hall mobs bring the public's legitimate anger at modern architecture to design-review meetings? Maybe not. Legislating a stronger public role in planning and design might avoid such a scenario. Just because Charles is not our prince does not mean his lead cannot be followed.

David Brussat is a member of The Journal's editorial board (dbrussat@projo.com). His blog at projo.com is called Architecture Here and There.

 Tags  Architecture Chelsea Barracks Frank Gehry Fred Kent James Fallows planning Prince Charles Providence RI

Comments

Please be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity are not allowed. Name and email are required; email address will not publish.

ans said:

since you are so pro-traditional and anti-modern i think you should define what "traditional" architecture in america is? oh wait, you can't, because there is no such thing. if your definition is a style we borrowed/stole from the europeans, it can range anywhere from greek temple design to the bauhaus. if its a type of construction practice developed and practiced in the united states then the "tradition" would be steel and concrete, which would make our "traditional" architecture modern. modernism as a style in america is now nearly 100 years old. i think that would make it pretty traditional.
you obviously don't spend much time reading or learning about current architectural debate in the u.s. or else you would realize that many of the current issues in architecture involve bringing back certain types of building/living practices in urban design that are quite old in order to make cities and communities more livable and sustainable. but then, those places wouldn't "look" like some disney-fied version of a european village, so they probably wouldn't satisfy you.

as to the notion of "design by public committee": would you trust the community to give you a medical diagnosis if you were sick? no, you would go to a doctor and get his professional opinion and treatment. architects and designers are professionals in the same capacity as doctors. meaning: they know more than you so let them do their job and trust that they know what they are doing. what you are proposing is like trying to cure cancer with mom's chicken soup.

Link | August 27, 2009 1:18 PM
Report Abuse

---

drdowntown said:

Ans - Of course, all the points raised in your first paragraph are quibbles. Defining tradition in architecture is much like defining obscenity in art - one knows it when one sees it, even if one can quibble about this or that. I am sure that you are very well aware of this, and that your first paragraph is a sort of subterfuge designed to reel in those few who may indeed consider that your quibbles are the real issue.

I would not have the public design a building or a community any more than I would let the public take out my kidney. But again, as you are very well aware, that is not what Charles proposes.

Your type of argumentation, Ans, is very sly, but easy to see through for anyone who has encountered it in debates over architectural issues, where it is used by modernists who don't care whether it is effective, because they are in control anyway. They are reacting harshly to Charles now because they realize his work could mean the end of their control. Cheerio!

Link | August 27, 2009 1:34 PM
Report Abuse

---

Elite Modernista said:

David:

You wouldn't feel as you do if only you went to the right school. Clearly you have not been properly educated to appreciate modernism. You're a nobody unless you attended the Institut zur Erforschung von Stahl und Glas.

Cheers.

Link | August 28, 2009 12:16 AM
Report Abuse

---

Jan Wiklund said:

Since I am quoted, somewhat abruptly, I should perhaps explain what I mean.

The most efficient accusation there is against modernist architecture is that it is aristocratic. Architects not only nurture an aristocratic culture of "we know best what is good for you" and "our taste is higher than yours", they also deliberately want to silence everyone who tries to propose other tastes than theirs.

Ant to put up an aristocrat against aristocratic values is... well, not convincing.

I wouldn't like to silence Charles, but I urge English non-modernists (post-modernists?) to organize other, more populist channels of protest. Organize popular campaigns. Set up public web mags. Link local protests with national, elected bodies. Not doing that opens up accusations against you that you are the aristocratic ones - which is rather unnecessary.

Link | May 11, 2010 10:12 AM
Report Abuse

---

Leave a comment

Name:

Email:

URL:  

Remember personal info?

Captcha:

Type the characters you see in the picture above.