Princely Facades
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
I have to second Dreher and Waugh on this one: Prince Charles’s opposition to Chelsea Barracks, if not entirely democratic, is not entirely stupid either. I don’t know if the alternative will be pure schmaltz once constructed, but whatever it is I’m guessing it’ll beat Roger’s pastless modernism hand over fist, at least so far as surface aesthetics go.
But then again, how far do surfaces go? Though there are certainly great differences in the aesthetics of the two options, and in the spaces they set up, we can’t forget that this fight, for better or worse, is over facades. The underlying construction of the buildings will likely be the same modern steel-girder system with whatever cultural sensibility we might imagine tacked on top, so that whatever comes out of it will be, so to speak, modern in its bones. The kind of stone-pile architecture it’s supposed to imitate will remain as dead as it was in Roger’s design, so if we’re looking for a model of traditional architectural sensibility, of really long-lived buildings, Chelsea Barracks ain’t gonna be it. What it may be (more livable, prettier on the eyes) should be kept in mind with what it can’t be (genuinely permanent.)
Unless of course, Quinlin Terry will actually buck the trend and build something beautiful and lasting at enormous expense. Yet somehow I doubt that.
Filed under: pop culture
I’d argue, for what its worth, that surfaces go pretty far. Granted, given the typically cheap materials wherewith we tend to construct even “important” building, they won’t go as far as the surfaces of a hundred years ago may, but, as you note, even schmaltz can — and often is, even if only moderately — better than something “real”.
To me, it goes back not simply to a question of finances, but to matter of culture and a sufficient respect and appreciate for the importance of the public realm. Folk a century ago managed to make humble but beautiful buildings because that’s what made sense to them. It may have cost them a bit more, but it was worth it. But in an era of hyper-individualism, when respect for the past (and our forebears) and adequate concern for our descendants no longer matter, we end up construction rote shite, seeking to outdo Frank Gehry in the most–self-aggrandizing–but–at–the–same–time–atrocious category. Or the “I’m cheap and don’t give a damn” category.
Three cheers from this small-R republican for Bonnie Prince Charles.
*it’s, rather. Blame the early-evening beer and gin. Also, “appreciate” should be “appreciation”. “Construction” = “constructing”.
Finally, all of that, the run-on sentence, should conclude with something about how, in this era, anything halfway-good is better than the crap most modernists give us.
*sigh* *Note to self: Booze plus commenting equals bad idea.*