Comment on: The Regs: Part L changes
Windows can be improved without being replaced, so energy savings can be made without affecting the character of a building. Depending upon quite what the upgrading measure is, acoustic performance can be rather better than any double glazed system (which could be beneficial in most older buildings because they tend to be closer to noisier roads). An added bonus is that historic glass can be retained too.
So a starchitect can vandalise a perfectly good townscape to pander to his own ego, but when Prince Charles seeks to keep the character of a place for future generations we have a problem with that? Far better to have someone seeking the common good than someone with an over inflated ego. Spot on Charles.
In a democracy we wouldn't have modernist architecture foisted onto us by the profession . . . and to say that the Prince is a man of rich people is to ignore the good work that he does - for instance The Princes Trust. If Prince Charles was pro modern architecture, I doubt we'd be hearing these objections. The problem is that most modern architecture is machine like as Corb intended - traditional architecture is usually more human and more organic. That's why the general public usually like it.
Comment on: Prince Charles: 'I am an ignorant amateur'
Lets keep things in context - Prince Charles admits to being an amateur in specific matters of bureaucracy, not architecture. Most architects seem too concerned with erecting monuments to themselves because they can, rather than being concerned about the average man in the street who will use the building, or that the building respects its surroundings. FLW stated that form follows function - if the building doesn't work for the users, it's a poor building regardless of how it looks, and surely not architecture. Just because it can be built doesn't mean it should be built.