The Chelsea Barracks saga continues ...

Rogers goes on offensive against Prince Charles

I think "Lord?" Rogers comments are tantamount to treason. How dare he speak against the Crown Prince like that. Notwithstanding the Prince's comments which in my humble opinion are completely justified - just how many parts of london do we have to put up being "ghettoised" with these new, out of keeping schemes part private/part social housing soon to be inhabited by the lazy. Why spoil this part of London. The barracks should never be developed. As for the design, well - the scheme beggars belief!! Just what is it with these architects always trying to make a statement. It dispays not one jot of achitectural sympathy with its surroundings. Classicical design is best - its lasted for tens of generations. How long did these 1960's style monstonsities take before everyone decided to pull them down !!!! No doubt"Lord" Rogers made a good few quid on the way by designing a few! - OFF TO THE TOWER !!!

Why has no one referred to the residents protest group who opposed the scheme? All have concentrated on one persons opinion. Could the Developers have thought that local opinion counted more than Lord Rogers or Prince Charles's? There is a concerted attempt by locals to voice local opinion which Building has reported on but no one seems to think their opinion counts. It's about time Local Planners actively canvas their constituents opinions and give them the gravity they deserve.
Bill Baker

Chelsea Barracks: which design do you prefer?

As the occupant of a modern version of a 3-storey terraced home I can report that its traditional design is very practical to live in and fits in well with its surroundings. The modern behemoths (Rogers et al) are scaled to be public buildings and do not fit the brief of homes. The courtyards in Terry's design make for a more domestic aura and the lack of light on the lower floors of the Rogers apartments and their very accessibility to passers-by make me shudder at the thought of living there.

Lord Rogers design was open to the public. From ground level Terry's would present a monolithic wall to the road designed to keep the plebs out.

Naive to think planning is unaffected by influence of powerful individuals. Flogging the site for so much at outset, ensured the narrative would become a hybrid spectacle of developer anxiety and the grotesque points of view of big cheeses such as PoW and RR. Beyond this media trash is the issue of the site's specialness - its formal position w respect to Buck Hse, the Mall, and the Thames w the pastoralism of the Hospital, Physick Gdn and Old Asylum. This fascinating territory of institutional care, of the domesticity of the State (see the Barracks), is potentially a marvelous reference to the space of the Thames. Water ought to be central to a new architect. The formality of Chelsea Bridge Road ought to be emphasised. Clearly QT's scheme is collegiate sludge in light of this, whilst RR's is computer flotsam. A large practice such as RR can generate multiple options for massive schemes like this in a few hours. It's heartless, formulaic, thoughtless, shallow stuff. And RR knows it. Hyprocrite lecteur, mon semblable!