- Hardcover: 160 pages
- Publisher: Doubleday (7 Sep 1989)
- Language English
- ISBN-10: 038526903X
- ISBN-13: 978-0385269032
- Product Dimensions: 29.7 x 22.9 x 2 cm
- Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
- Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 277,512 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
| |||||||||||||||
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Plus, get an extra £5 Gift Certificate when you trade in books worth £10 or more before June 30, 2012. Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. |
Product details |
More About the Author
Product Description
Product Description
Prince Charles stresses the need to preserve the unique character of towns and cities, the desirability of reviewing existing planning laws, and the importance of providing architecture on a human scale. 300 color photos.
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful
Format:Hardcover
This book duplicates the contents of a BBC TV documentary I remember enjoying 22 years ago in America. In it the printed words and many photographs perfectly capture his ironic musings as to what's caused certain senior British architects to discard all the best characteristics associated with traditional British design in vain attempts to find original design solutions for "The National Theatre", etc.
The general apathy Prince Charles complains about is confirmed by his book having only one review in the last 22 years. However I did hear the architectural establishment was in high dudgeon at the time and made absolutely sure he didn't bother them again. The proof can be seen on either side of the Thames between the Tate Gallery and Tower Bridge. As every new site becomes available you can be absolutely sure another inept ugly building is on its way up.
The most recent insult - Portcullis House - opposite the Houses of Parliament. This weird hybrid reveals all the idiosyncrasies of computed designed architecture. What appears solid on a monitor has a random cartoon quality when built. Its black roof looks as if it were made of enlarged Lego blocks - and sticking-up into the sky are 20 grotesque black chimneys (with unpleasant anatomical associations). Underneath which 3 messy elevations are held together with a pattern of black and white spots. As no human hand or brain put this contraption together (luckily for the architect) no one can be personally held to blame.
Further downstream are 2 massive eyesores in what the Prince refers to as a "transatlantic post-modern style" I.e. imports having no connection with English architecture. Why does the "MI-5" building resemble a collapsed green and cream blancmange? Tristan Edwards's treatise "The Things Which Are Seen" has the full explanation. Namely this symmetrical building fell into all the compositional traps associated with "unresolved dualities".
"London City Hall" was built long after the Prince's book was published but it does help to explain why no English style has emerged in the past 65 years. Only a very stubborn Lord would recycle 1960's developers' standard steel and glass curtain-walling to house the City's bureaucrats. Flatten out the wildly expensive circular form and it replicates a thousand other banal office blocks spec-builders imposed on every British city after WW2.
If there's any fault to be found in the Prince's book it's after the impact of his memorable indignant river trip consoling readers with the modest achievements of reasonable British architects comes as something of anti-climax.
Personally I wish he'd ramp-up his Trafalgar Square crusade (saving The National Gallery) and take every incompetent British architect (and planning authority) to task for not respecting our past. Recent visits suggest the mismatched forms and cucumber shapes sprouting from The City will soon become a National Embarrassment. Are no influential individuals prepared to take up the Prince's cause? Had only a few "who care" followed-up oo the warnings contained in this 22-year-old book the current crop of recalcitrant architects might have been given pause to control their egotistical destructive impulses.
The general apathy Prince Charles complains about is confirmed by his book having only one review in the last 22 years. However I did hear the architectural establishment was in high dudgeon at the time and made absolutely sure he didn't bother them again. The proof can be seen on either side of the Thames between the Tate Gallery and Tower Bridge. As every new site becomes available you can be absolutely sure another inept ugly building is on its way up.
The most recent insult - Portcullis House - opposite the Houses of Parliament. This weird hybrid reveals all the idiosyncrasies of computed designed architecture. What appears solid on a monitor has a random cartoon quality when built. Its black roof looks as if it were made of enlarged Lego blocks - and sticking-up into the sky are 20 grotesque black chimneys (with unpleasant anatomical associations). Underneath which 3 messy elevations are held together with a pattern of black and white spots. As no human hand or brain put this contraption together (luckily for the architect) no one can be personally held to blame.
Further downstream are 2 massive eyesores in what the Prince refers to as a "transatlantic post-modern style" I.e. imports having no connection with English architecture. Why does the "MI-5" building resemble a collapsed green and cream blancmange? Tristan Edwards's treatise "The Things Which Are Seen" has the full explanation. Namely this symmetrical building fell into all the compositional traps associated with "unresolved dualities".
"London City Hall" was built long after the Prince's book was published but it does help to explain why no English style has emerged in the past 65 years. Only a very stubborn Lord would recycle 1960's developers' standard steel and glass curtain-walling to house the City's bureaucrats. Flatten out the wildly expensive circular form and it replicates a thousand other banal office blocks spec-builders imposed on every British city after WW2.
If there's any fault to be found in the Prince's book it's after the impact of his memorable indignant river trip consoling readers with the modest achievements of reasonable British architects comes as something of anti-climax.
Personally I wish he'd ramp-up his Trafalgar Square crusade (saving The National Gallery) and take every incompetent British architect (and planning authority) to task for not respecting our past. Recent visits suggest the mismatched forms and cucumber shapes sprouting from The City will soon become a National Embarrassment. Are no influential individuals prepared to take up the Prince's cause? Had only a few "who care" followed-up oo the warnings contained in this 22-year-old book the current crop of recalcitrant architects might have been given pause to control their egotistical destructive impulses.
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful
Format:Hardcover
This is a really interesting book, which delves into the history of British architecture, how it is changing, and the effects on our surroundings and people.
It has an insert of a painting by Canaletto which gives a view of London around the Thames & St. Pauls area, and images of the tower blocks which have evolved since the 1960s, showing just how much the view has changed.
Also the little paintings and photographs Prince Charles has included are delightful and make this book a pleasure to read, and there is a nice balance between text & pictures.
For anyone interested in the British environment and surroundings this book is a great read.
It has an insert of a painting by Canaletto which gives a view of London around the Thames & St. Pauls area, and images of the tower blocks which have evolved since the 1960s, showing just how much the view has changed.
Also the little paintings and photographs Prince Charles has included are delightful and make this book a pleasure to read, and there is a nice balance between text & pictures.
For anyone interested in the British environment and surroundings this book is a great read.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
5 reviews
31 of 31 people found the following review helpful
An insightful manifesto that tells us a lot
25 Oct 2000
Format:Hardcover
So much has happened in the years since this title came out that it's hard to remember what a storm The Prince of Wales' venture into architectural criticism caused. He seems to have made his peace with the profession now, but this is still an interesting and useful book that tells us as much, or more, about the author than it does about the art and science of building.
The Prince's opinions on architecture seem congruent with, for example, his more recent outspoken opposition to genetically modified food. As I've heard him described elsewhere, HRH seems to be a man not entirely comfortable with the twentieth (and now twenty-first) century. And a good thing, too: lots of discomforting things have come out of that century. While unpleasant architecture may not rank high on the scale of the twentieth century's crimes, one is reminded of Winston Churchill's saying that 'We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us.'
The Prince's central point is that modern architecture has lost sight of its surroundings. Rather than creating structures that harmonize with their location, using local materials and respecting the history of the site, many modern buildings seem determined to draw attention to themselves -- or rather, to their architects. Like any art, architecture is a matter of taste. But while you can hide a bad statue or painting, an ugly building is a blot on the landscape that's darn hard to avoid. My tastes must be very similar to HRH's, because when he described a certain library building, for example, as looking like a place where books are burned rather than preserved, I nearly stood and cheered.
It's hard to say whether the Prince's activism had, in the long run, any impact on British architecture or the architectural profession. But it was noble (not to say 'royal') of him to use his position to present a viewpoint that seems all too rare these days.
14 of 14 people found the following review helpful
open your eyes and see
28 Aug 2005
Format:Hardcover
This book is about an honest account of a royal layman about the visual quality of his country. I'm an architect and I appreciate what he is trying to say even if I don't agree with all the points he is making. Architects today are too much restricted to their out "sub-culture", we need a more "holistic" approach to what we do. I wish this "vision" would have been more "ambitious" and "deep" because it deserves to be so! In time the most of the points of this "vision" will prove right, I'm sure!
8 of 8 people found the following review helpful
A Much-Needed Slap in the Face to Post-Modernism
17 Jun 2009
Format:Hardcover
I found this book on the $5 table in a clearance book store many many years ago and as I'm a fan of good architecture and civic planning, I figured I'd go for it. I'm glad I did -- Prince Charles was quite brave to go on the offensive against the ills of post-modernist architecture (and post-modern thinking, for that matter), and I thoroughly enjoyed every page of it.
As I understand it, Charles was (royally) thrashed when this book was published -- the architectural elite and general intelligentsia blasted him to bits for what they felt was an out-of-touch and backwards love-letter to an architectural age gone by by a member of the Ivory Tower Club. No doubt they felt that as a non-architect, Charles has no right to criticize architecture; and as his criticisms were so pointed, sarcastic, and instantly read by millions due to his fame, the attack was very personal and embarrassing for all concerned.
Now does Charles come across and being 100% in-touch? Not really. What person growing up with his wealth and privilege can be? But still, he has eyes and knows what is pleasant to look at and experience. I think that Charles was simply saying what untold millions of non-architects and common folks have been saying for decades -- "These new buildings are awful", "Why did they tear down that nice building to make . . . this . . this . . . THING?" Charles cites several examples and they are vivid, undeniable proof that Le Corbusier was a menace, not a genuis.
What I remember most about this book after all these years is that I finished it and sat back and thought, "You know what? He's RIGHT!" It all makes wonderful sense -- from building to a human scale to using natural, local materials to re-embracing the "rules" that served architects and planners well for hundreds if not thousands of years. These ideas have been echoed over and over again in the ensuing years as we come to grips with the failures of post-modern architecture and social/civic planning.
Charles stood up and went against the rushing tide of post-modernism with this book, and I thank him for it. His critics are slowly being replaced by followers as we explore sustainable buildings, creating community, and a better way of life for all. Along with Thomas Hylton's "Save Our Land, Save Our Towns", I'd say this should be standard reading for planners and architects who are more interested in creating a world that people want to live in -- rather than what feeds their ego.
As I understand it, Charles was (royally) thrashed when this book was published -- the architectural elite and general intelligentsia blasted him to bits for what they felt was an out-of-touch and backwards love-letter to an architectural age gone by by a member of the Ivory Tower Club. No doubt they felt that as a non-architect, Charles has no right to criticize architecture; and as his criticisms were so pointed, sarcastic, and instantly read by millions due to his fame, the attack was very personal and embarrassing for all concerned.
Now does Charles come across and being 100% in-touch? Not really. What person growing up with his wealth and privilege can be? But still, he has eyes and knows what is pleasant to look at and experience. I think that Charles was simply saying what untold millions of non-architects and common folks have been saying for decades -- "These new buildings are awful", "Why did they tear down that nice building to make . . . this . . this . . . THING?" Charles cites several examples and they are vivid, undeniable proof that Le Corbusier was a menace, not a genuis.
What I remember most about this book after all these years is that I finished it and sat back and thought, "You know what? He's RIGHT!" It all makes wonderful sense -- from building to a human scale to using natural, local materials to re-embracing the "rules" that served architects and planners well for hundreds if not thousands of years. These ideas have been echoed over and over again in the ensuing years as we come to grips with the failures of post-modern architecture and social/civic planning.
Charles stood up and went against the rushing tide of post-modernism with this book, and I thank him for it. His critics are slowly being replaced by followers as we explore sustainable buildings, creating community, and a better way of life for all. Along with Thomas Hylton's "Save Our Land, Save Our Towns", I'd say this should be standard reading for planners and architects who are more interested in creating a world that people want to live in -- rather than what feeds their ego.
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
