An ensemble of seventeen 9-storey towers (however, opponents of the project call the height 67 m) was supposed to appear on the site of the demolished army barracks, on a 5 hectare site next to the Royal Hospital of Christopher Wren. About half of the 552 apartments in this £ 1 billion housing estate were to be affordable housing, the rest were luxury. During the development of the project, Rogers toned down his original glass and steel by adding copper and concrete, painted in tones consistent with the historic buildings.
Nevertheless, the complex is designed in the mainstream of high-tech, without any style concessions to the architectural environment. But observers were especially doubtful about the scale of the ensemble, conceived back in the days favorable for the British real estate market. In the opinion of the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods, new buildings would block access to their apartments for sunlight, and this quarter would also become a "Gucci ghetto" - a space closed to ordinary citizens. But, according to Lord Rogers, after 80 meetings with the local population and accusations of elitism, he made the project half social and ensured that the complex and its public spaces were open to everyone at any time of the day or night.
Since 2007, on behalf of Qatari Diar, the first major project in Europe, owned by the Qatari royal family, the project has been managed by leading British developers Candy & Candy, usually working with leading architects - including Rogers. According to the latter, in the fall of 2008, all control over the process was taken by Qatari developers, and in early spring 2009, Prince Charles, who had already expressed dissatisfaction with the modernist spirit of the Chelsea Barracks project, wrote a letter to Sheikh Hamad bin Yassim bin Yabr al-Thani, Prime Minister and the royal family of Qatar, asking to reconsider the plans of Qatari Diar. The prince, known for his traditionalist convictions and active dislike for any other architectural direction, urged him to abandon Rogers' version as inappropriate to the urban development situation of the area and proposed instead a neoclassical project of his "court architect" Quinlan Terry. It should be noted that since the number of square meters in the complex was supposed to remain the same, Terry's plan looks very congested and dense and not much more "friendly" in relation to the surroundings.
In early April, information about the letter got into the press and caused a wide response. Opponents of the project saw the Prince of Wales as their noble protector, while most of the architects were unpleasantly surprised. Many recalled 1984, when at a reception at the Royal Institute of British Architects dedicated to its 150th anniversary and the presentation of the RIBA gold medal to the Indian modernist Charles Correa, the heir to the throne in his speech smashed modern architecture in very harsh terms, and for a long time after that many developers reluctantly hired architects - adherents of high-tech or radical postmodernism.
Soon an open letter appeared in the Sunday Times, signed by six Pritzker laureates, the director of the Tate Gallery and two former curators of the Venice Architecture Biennale, urging Charles not to violate the democratic review and approval procedures of the project and to express his personal opinion in the form prescribed by law, without resorting to backstage intrigue. However, the authors of the letter were also attacked by critics who saw in their actions the protection of the interests of an elite group of "architects-stars", little interested in social problems and inattentive to the needs of ordinary citizens and to the urban planning context of their works.
At the same time, many prominent members of the RIBA and its president, Sunand Prasad, also criticized Charles's act, but from a broader standpoint - as professionals, dissatisfied with the intervention of an amateur who had already done a lot of harm to them over the years. The prince's first speech after 1984 at RIBA, timed to coincide with the 175th anniversary of the institute, made the situation especially poignant. Some, like Will Alsop and Chris Wilkinson, have called for a protest boycott of the event. But on the appointed day, the hall was full, and Charles was very careful: he apologized for his harsh words 25 years ago and urged architects from all directions to work together on the issue of environmental projects and sustainable development.
Meanwhile, the Chelsea Barracks project was submitted to Westminster Municipal Council and received a positive assessment in the officials' report. The final decision was to be made at a meeting this month. But shortly before that, on the morning of June 12, both Rogers himself and the public were notified that the developers had abandoned the project and were planning to organize a new architectural competition - in conjunction with the Prince Charles architectural foundation The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment.
Richard Rogers' reaction was predictably harsh: he is known for his radical political statements (for example, several years ago he joined a group of British architects who urged colleagues to refuse to work in Israel because of the inhumane attitude of the local government towards the Palestinians), he also sits in the House of Lords the British Parliament and has extensive connections in the highest echelons of power. He called Charles' actions "abuse of authority" and "unconstitutional" behavior and called for a public hearing to determine the legality of the Prince of Wales's interference in the fate of his project, as well as his similar actions in the fields of medicine, education, agriculture, and environmental protection.
Rogers even called the Chelsea Barracks one of the best works of his entire life, and also stressed that Charles destroyed a project on which dozens of people worked for 2 and a half years, on the implementation of which would be employed in conditions of unemployment 10,000 people, and which included 226 "social" apartments. But the main claim of the lord to the prince is that the latter does not want to enter into a discussion with his opponents, limiting himself to individual statements or acting behind the scenes. In this case, Rogers is definitely right: the press service of Charles from the very beginning refused to confirm the fact of sending him a letter to the Qatari prime minister, and to deny it - and now the situation has not changed. This creates the impression that the prince either regrets his act, or is afraid of the flurry of criticism that will follow after his confession.
The feelings of Richard Rogers are more than understandable: this is his third project, which remained unrealized due to the fault of the future king: in 1987, after Charles's critical statement, the developers abandoned his project to build up Paternoster Square near St. Paul's Cathedral, later due to the prince's intrigues the management of the Royal Opera was rejected by his design for its new building.
As usual, when the Prince of Wales was involved, passions flared up serious.
But while arguing about the advantages of traditionalism and modernism, the self-centeredness of the “stars” architects and the arrogance of the crowned heads, one should not forget about the interests of developers. The situation is now drastically different from 2007, and it remains unclear how much income this residential complex will bring upon completion of construction. Developers have already spent about £ 30m on this project, but compared to the £ 1bn total budget (and potential losses if it doesn't pay off), that's not much. So perhaps the scandalous ending of the Chelsea Barracks affair has nothing to do with politics or architecture: it's just a matter of profit.
