makeshift

"All change is a change in the topic" Cesar Aira* 

If anything could announce the collapse of architecture's 20th century grand narrative ('form', 'function', 'style' ..) beyond all possible doubt, it would have been the Prince of Wales' Richard Dimbleby lecture, broadcast by the BBC on 8th July 2009. Sublimely incongruous (a manifesto for social change read against the lavish backdrop of St James' palace), it seemed to inevitably represent some kind of end to the debate. And Charles won.

PRINCE CHARLES VS ARCHITECTURE

It's important to point out that I write that not as a long-standing supporter of HRH, but the precise opposite. Since his first intervention into the design of the extension to the National Gallery in 1984, the accepted view among architects is that HRH's intervention in architecture has been as a meddling traditionalist, peddling a conservative worldview against the majority of 'modernist' architects, who were standing up for progressive semi-socialist values and refusing to employ anachronism - fake traditionalist architecture to endulge the whims of the few. It was always a debate made very awkward for its lack of substance, always about 'style', with each side invoking the 'will of the people' in support of their position.  It is to the modernist side which I, like many designers, have hitherto belonged, if only on the basis of stylistic preferences .

LENS

But those battles lines are, of course, now exposed to be totally obsolete. The terms of debate were so stubbornly narrow that their very existence depended upon seeing Architecture as an autonomous cultural platform, whose policies could be debated separately from say, politics or economics.

By effectively stepping-back and (one suspects) post-rationalising his own career, HRH expanded the terms of debate beyond those old fashioned boundaries. What he presented was a surprisingly cohesive critique of the modernist project and its relationship with the earth's resources; not really mentioning architecture and urban design until the very end of the talk, instead focusing largely on the bigger picture of resources, agriculture and economic philosophies.

In fact, he admitted early on in the talk that he had failed to make this case before: "It must have appeared as if I was flitting from one subject to another...from agriculture to architecture to healthcare. But I was merely trying to point out where the imbalance was most acute".

INTERDEPENDENCE

By including architecture as part of the solution into his expanded frame of reference, what he was effectively doing was making an incredibly powerful case for the importance of architecture as a very non-separate thing - and doing it in a way that the architectural profession itself has largely failed to do. In fact it might even be said that architecture has worked hard for several decades to do the opposite. Mainstream architectural journalism, for example, still occupies two (increasingly hard to distinguish) roles: Industry Journalism - a fairly solipsistic but functional information service provided to professionals (generally quite conservative but brilliant for encouraging the use of innovative materials within that framework) and Cultural Journalism - for example written 'Reviews' of newly opened buildings, commented upon by critics as if they were films or works of art in an exhibition. Both of these (to borrow a phrase from Bruce Mau) have much more to do with the world of design than they do with the design of the world.

CAPITAL

By contrast, HRH's integration of architecture into his argument made a very convincing case for its central role in balancing "financial... natural and community capital", specifically setting the challenge for architecture to become much more familiar with bio-mimicry and systems thinking. That's actually a very progressive and valid idea - certainly not something you'd normally associate with a neo-classical conservative.

As the lecture progressed, it was hard not to think that the caricature of meddling traditionalist didn't really fit. Like many people, I am mistrustful of entirely hereditary power systems, so it's very hard to admit that HRH was showing a certain kind of leadership. But by expanding the debate beyond architecture itself to a wider view of our industrial / economic complex, he's forcing his opponents to do the same. Of course, this is not 'the end of style', but it has left anyone who is leading their debate on primarily stylistic terms ('traditional' vs 'modern' etc) looking uselessly out of date. 

PRINCE IN THE TOWER

OK - so he has undoubtedly post-rationalised his position on architecture. And there are still some pretty major flaws in his perspective. His lecture at times showed signs of an almost absurd traditionalism - a totally false belief that at some point in the past humans had a more "harmonious" relationship with nature and each other. This was coupled with dubious criticisms of "empirical, mechanistic" thinking, a rather lame advocation of contextualism ("local materials") and above all, a rather naive romanticism of nature itself and its "organic grammar of harmony" (tell that to a wildebeest being ripped apart by a pack of hyena simply because it was unlucky enough to be born disabled). 

It could equally be said that to many of us, much of what was being said is not new - but what was striking was who was saying it, and to whom. The scope of the manifesto was reminiscent of Stewart Brand or Buckminster Fuller (from whom he borrowed a coinage at one point - perhaps unknowingly). Equally, some of the best ideas could have been taken from a Herman Daly or Richard Layard lecture:

"Most would agree that the main result of progress should be less misery and more happiness. In our modern situation these ends have become dangerously confused with the means to the point where now wealth, innovation and growth have become the ends. They have become the destination when they were only ever meant to be the means of getting there."

But by advocating a different sort of progress he has undoubtedly changed the game. That's an uncomfortable development for the architectural discipline, not least in light of Charles' recent controversial intervention into a housing scheme in Chelsea on what were, I suspect, largely aesthetic grounds. But there's no getting around it: If architects and designers are serious about allowing new environmental and social awareness to radically change what we're designing (and a lot are), HRH is a public figure who, from now on, we're going to have to see more as a difficult ally and less as an easy enemy.

*Quoted in Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine