Charles on the perils of modern architecture

Started by Duch_Luver_4ever, July 02, 2017, 02:16:06 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Duch_Luver_4ever

Why Modern Architecture SUCKS - YouTube

A video by Paul Joseph Watson (who i recommend highly for politics/society videos)on how space affects our behaviour, and how modern architecture has a deleterious effect on society. I thought it was ironic that he said Prince Charles was right, and the video clip of him was from the infamous Dimbleby video along with some audio clips and a mention of his planned city.

Funny how in a lot of things he was ahead of his time, and how now wed have a lot more in common to talk about that I would have ever imagined, but for that whole sticky wicket of the first wife....
"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.

Curryong

Yes, every major city in the world now has these high skyscraper blocks in the centre lending a sameness to the landscape and often causing a wind tunnel effect. My son is in love with that kind of architecture but I'm not. It does have its place of course, and it's efficient I suppose, but good on Charles for speaking out about it, though I have read it affected the income of some architectural firms for years afterwards.

I don't like huge social housing towers for family life and I do believe they're crime ridden in many cases because concrete corridors and lobbies facilitate that. Also, we've just seen an extreme case of what happens in cases of fire. I'm not a great fan of modern architecture per se really, too much glass and concrete.

We are lucky in Aus in that we have a great deal of land and a house on a quarter acre block is the norm in our suburbs. Of course it makes our cities sprawl and often suburban life can be isolating and lonely for young mums if there aren't two cars, so I don't know what the solution is!

Mike

Mark Twain:
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."
and
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."

Curryong

^ Charles probably disapproves of the London Eye, as he does of so much modern architecture. I don't think he's ever said anything on it though. A lot of his more contentious speeches date from the 1980s and 90s. He seems to have reined himself in a bit over the last five years or so, though no doubt private protests in the form of black spider letters still pour in their dozens into the offices of unfortunate government ministers.

royalanthropologist

Unfortunate government ministers my foot!!! Those guys are paid to listen to people, make decisions and execute government policy. If they do not want to listen they can just bin the letter or send a polite reply but do nothing about it. We know that they do that most of the time anyway so why the fuss now? Indeed none of them have publicly complained that they are overwhelmed with letters from Prince Charles. This is just people crying more than the bereaved and pretending that they suddenly care so much about the well-being of government ministers. That is a disingenuous way to try and mask an enduring and pathological dislike of a person they do not know and who has never done anything to them.

Suddenly because Charles gives an opinion on something in a letter, it becomes the latest pretend constitutional crisis. I remember when the Guardian spent vast amounts of money and time trying to pin Charles. When the letters were opened to the public, there was not an inch of controversy. Charles was making very sensible points and advocating on things that many members of the public care about. Some people just look for obscure things to criticize about Charles. It is their choice but those partisan and subjective criticism should never be used to make policy.

The guy does an excellent job as a royal and prince of wales. Most of the projects that he has touched or sponsored have become world class successes. No other member of the royal family has done anything near the scale of the Duchy Originals, Poundary Project or even the Princes Trust. First they insult him as being mad then everything he says becomes the latest fad for the so called progressive Guardianists. Charles was one of the early converts to organic farming and sustainable development, long before it became the latest Leftist cause. He was mercilessly mocked and abused by people who have now proved to be ignorant hypocrites. The thing is they never even bother to apologize after they have been proved wrong.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Curryong

The trouble is that when Charles speaks out on architecture for example he doesn't speak as a trained architect. When he speaks out about alternative medicines he doesn't do so as a medical professional. When he crusades against GM foods where is the scientific training behind his words? It's all very well to pontificate in speeches, and be listened to because of who you are. That doesn't mean you are automatically correct.

In late 1982 Charles went on a crusade against an over reliance on surgery and powerful drugs in a speech to the British Medical Association. He probably had a point. However, he then strongly recommended alternative treatments like chiropractic, acupuncture, and homeopathic medicines. Many people practicing in that area had few qualifications and some were outright charlatans.

However, Charles was convinced he was right and cast himself in messianic terms, identifying with the 'unorthodox individual' who 'is doomed to years of frustration, ridicule and failure' while carrying out his role 'until his day comes and mankind is ready to receive his message'...'from a deeper source than conscious thought'.

Yes, well, listening to that would make the thought of some doctors think 'pretentious and pompous twat' before anything deeper.

As Charles was the new President of the BMA (who he is again, rather than what he's qualified for) the Association deferred to him and set up a wide-ranging inquiry into alternative medical procedures.
When they reported their findings more than four years later, it showed that many were ineffective.

Charles has never had any qualifications in science, agriculture, environmentalist sciences or in anything else. In 2000 on radio he launched an attack on GM foods. Had he been qualified then he would have been listened to with respect by his peers in the scientific community. But he wasn't and isn't, is he? In fact he is only listened to because of who he is. What is worse, is that his biographies are full of instances in which he just simply does not brook or listen to any viewpoints that don't agree with his own.

Richard Dawkins, who is a qualified scientist, argued that 'agriculture has always been unnatural. Almost every morsel of our food is genetically modified.' James Watson, Nobel Laureate, cited the innovation of GM modified 'golden rice' to 'fight the Vitamin A deficiency causing blindness and disease in the Third World'.

Why do these extremely distinguished men have to come out and argue their case against someone with no training at all in the area? Again, because of who he is. Anyone else arguing against counter evidence would be treated like a crank. What's more, Charles was under the influence of one of his gurus at this time, a man who made wild claims about Indian farmers committing suicide which were absolute lies.

And that is it in a nutshell isn't it? Charles knows he's right. Exactly how he knows this is debatable. However, he ignores counter evidence and continues on his merry way. Because of who he is. And Ministers who have plenty to do with their time besides reading his missives have to also listen and respond. Because this man, unqualified in any area on which he pontificates, is, after all, the Prince of Wales.

Want any more? Bedell Smith and other biographers show cases in which he interfered with town planning decisions (he isn't a Town Planner either) and actually hurt and damaged architectural businesses after he spoke out about modern architecture. I can easily bring up several examples.


tiaras


royalanthropologist

Quote from: Curryong on July 07, 2017, 08:20:13 AM
The trouble is that when Charles speaks out on architecture for example he doesn't speak as a trained architect. When he speaks out about alternative medicines he doesn't do so as a medical professional. When he crusades against GM foods where is the scientific training behind his words? It's all very well to pontificate in speeches, and be listened to because of who you are. That doesn't mean you are automatically correct.

In late 1982 Charles went on a crusade against an over reliance on surgery and powerful drugs in a speech to the British Medical Association. He probably had a point. However, he then strongly recommended alternative treatments like chiropractic, acupuncture, and homeopathic medicines. Many people practicing in that area had few qualifications and some were outright charlatans.

However, Charles was convinced he was right and cast himself in messianic terms, identifying with the 'unorthodox individual' who 'is doomed to years of frustration, ridicule and failure' while carrying out his role 'until his day comes and mankind is ready to receive his message'...'from a deeper source than conscious thought'.

Yes, well, listening to that would make the thought of some doctors think 'pretentious and pompous twat' before anything deeper.

As Charles was the new President of the BMA (who he is again, rather than what he's qualified for) the Association deferred to him and set up a wide-ranging inquiry into alternative medical procedures.
When they reported their findings more than four years later, it showed that many were ineffective.

Charles has never had any qualifications in science, agriculture, environmentalist sciences or in anything else. In 2000 on radio he launched an attack on GM foods. Had he been qualified then he would have been listened to with respect by his peers in the scientific community. But he wasn't and isn't, is he? In fact he is only listened to because of who he is. What is worse, is that his biographies are full of instances in which he just simply does not brook or listen to any viewpoints that don't agree with his own.

Richard Dawkins, who is a qualified scientist, argued that 'agriculture has always been unnatural. Almost every morsel of our food is genetically modified.' James Watson, Nobel Laureate, cited the innovation of GM modified 'golden rice' to 'fight the Vitamin A deficiency causing blindness and disease in the Third World'.

Why do these extremely distinguished men have to come out and argue their case against someone with no training at all in the area? Again, because of who he is. Anyone else arguing against counter evidence would be treated like a crank. What's more, Charles was under the influence of one of his gurus at this time, a man who made wild claims about Indian farmers committing suicide which were absolute lies.

And that is it in a nutshell isn't it? Charles knows he's right. Exactly how he knows this is debatable. However, he ignores counter evidence and continues on his merry way. Because of who he is. And Ministers who have plenty to do with their time besides reading his missives have to also listen and respond. Because this man, unqualified in any area on which he pontificates, is, after all, the Prince of Wales.

Want any more? Bedell Smith and other biographers show cases in which he interfered with town planning decisions (he isn't a Town Planner either) and actually hurt and damaged architectural businesses after he spoke out about modern architecture. I can easily bring up several examples.

My assumption is that you do not like Charles and liked Diana so I am going to compare and contrast their respective public lives and utterances to see whether your responses to them are consistent.


Can you please tell me where and when Diana received any qualifications in HIV/AIDs, Landmines and Mental Health issues? But she did certainly talk about them, didn't she?

Secondly, do you believe anyone would have listened to a word said had she not been the Princess of Wales?

As for not being qualified: if Charles is not qualified for anything as you say, I shudder to think how you would describe Diana?

Also: was Diana really known for listening to people who said anything that contradicted what she wanted to hear?

Double standards, double standards.

People give opinions and others are entitled to critique or even reject them. What is unacceptable is to insist that one person in the world must not give an opinion. Even the British constitution does not bar Charles from giving an opinion. You don't like his opinion, ignore or critique it. Saying he must not give an opinion does not sound right or fair to me.

As for those clever doctors and experts who call Charles a 'pompous prat", they have definitely not solved the world's problems. They might do very well to listen to him as he has run a successful business (Duchy of Cornwall) and has helped millions of people (Princes Trust). Their professional arrogance and insularity means that we are still grappling with disease, hunger, poverty and political strife. They are not the only centers of knowledge.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Curryong

The difference with Diana's speeches on mental health issues and HIV/AIDS is that Diana wasn't setting herself up as a medical expert and challenging medical orthodoxy on the issue, in the way that Charles did/does with alternative medicine. Her stance was to visit victims, offer friendship, kindness and understanding, and in that way try and change community attitudes towards those unfortunate people.

She also fund raised for their charities. In that, together with others like Elizabeth Taylor she largely succeeded in greatly helping the cause.

She did not, as Charles did and does, stand in a pulpit and attack those who are medical and science professionals, arguing from a strictly amateur viewpoint that other ways are better. Diana didn't listen to reason when people tried to check her personally. Charles won't listen to other points of view because he believes that he is the voice calling in the wilderness. He isn't. He doesn't just offer an opinion. Since the early 1980's he has tried to ram his views home whatever the counter-evidence.

royalanthropologist

No. Diana talked about land mines when she really knew nothing about the geopolitics involved in the issue.

So now we criticize Charles for sticking to his arguments?

Some of us happen to admire and support people who challenge orthodoxy since orthodoxy has often been proved to be completely wrong. Charles does challenge orthodoxy and fair play to him. If the orthodox qualified technicians are confident in their theories then there is absolutely no reason to why about the comments of someone they consider to be stupid, is there? If Charles is crazy then people will laugh at his ideas and move on? Clearly that is not what happened. A lot of people began to believe in his ideas and they adopted them.

Charles does have many, many enemies. He was bullied as a child and some people have tried to bully him as an adult through name calling, sniping and telling outright lies about him. I admire him for sticking to his points and refusing to be intimidated by the pseudo-intellectual insults leveled against him. At least he has done something to help millions of people.  What have his enemies done apart from traducing, insulting, criticizing and maligning him???
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Curryong

Oh, for heavens sake, belief in acupuncture, chiropractic, health foods etc wasn't started by Charles. Homeopathy has been practise within the Royal family since Queen Victoria. Quite a few people dislike modern architectural design without understanding the principles of it. And opposition to GM crops and enthusiasm for organic foods were around way before Charles began to speak of them. He may regard himself as some sort of latter day Moses bringing down the truth from Mount Ararat but his biographers quite clearly trace much of it from the influence of gurus like Laurens van der Post and others.

And Diana was praised for her work in that area on the floor of the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary Robin Cook on the day that Britain signed up for the international anti-land mine campaign. It was said at the time that the photos of her entering the field in her bomb proof vest was worth more than a thousand words on the subject.

Incidentally Princess Anne said that she would be perfectly happy to have GM crops at her estate at Gatcombe, so Charles can't even convince a member of his own family on the issue! As for Charles's 'enemies' never achieving anything in comparison to him, at least one person who criticised him was a Nobel Prize winner who achieved cutting edge work in the field of DNA; exactly the the sort of people worthy of others'  admiration.


TLLK

Quote from: Mike on July 06, 2017, 08:44:55 PM
What does Charles think of the London Eye?
That it offers a great view of the city but it is expensive to ride on!!! :P

FanDianaFancy

Good grief people. I do not understand the obession with PD!

How in the hell does she come in the topic here. I was going to pm Dutch, we buddies, that his post fine until ,why the wickets first marriage.

royalanthropologist

So @Curryong. If Charles is not convincing anyone in his family including his own sister what is the problem? Why make a song and dance about his opinion? If nobody is convinced then surely he is doing no harm?  I believe that he has every right to make his points known. Those who believe in them (as I do) can follow them. Those who don't can either ignore him, critique the points or offer alternatives. What is unacceptable to somehow suggest that he should not comment because he is "not qualified for anything". It smacks of intellectual arrogance and close-mindedness that has caused many problems in the world.

It must so frustrating for some people that despite all their best efforts, Charles still has people who like and support him. The character assassination has not been completely successful and of course he was refused to bow down to "popular public pressure". I like him for that, warts and all. I dread to think the day when the monarchy is run by opinion polls and the latest opinion piece.

Diana was coming dangerously close to becoming a stooge of the Blair government. That support by Cook is a perfect demonstration. I am sure if it had been Charles who had been praised by the Labor government in parliament, his enemies would be in hysterics about the unconstitutionality of it all. But since it was Diana who was being praised, then it is a credit to her wonderfulness.  The double and triple standards do not convince me at all. They never had and never will. Charles is a good and effective Prince of Wales. He will be a good and effective King, despite all the ill will that his enemies have wished him for most of his life.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

Diana was divorced when she talked to Blair about a future role. And Blair would not be PM forever in any case.

Double post auto-merged: July 07, 2017, 09:41:29 PM


Quote from: Curryong on July 07, 2017, 02:39:48 PM
Oh, for heavens sake, belief in acupuncture, chiropractic, health foods etc wasn't started by Charles. Homeopathy has been practise within the Royal family since Queen Victoria. Quite a few people dislike modern architectural design without understanding the principles of it. And opposition to GM crops and enthusiasm for organic foods were around way before Charles began to speak of them. He may regard himself as some sort of latter day Moses bringing down the truth from Mount Ararat but his biographers quite clearly trace much of it from the influence of gurus like Laurens van der Post and others.

And Diana was praised for her work in that area on the floor of the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary Robin Cook on the day that Britain signed up for the international anti-land mine campaign. It was said at the time that the photos of her entering the field in her bomb proof vest was worth more than a thousand words on the subject.

Incidentally Princess Anne said that she would be perfectly happy to have GM crops at her estate at Gatcombe, so Charles can't even convince a member of his own family on the issue! As for Charles's 'enemies' never achieving anything in comparison to him, at least one person who criticised him was a Nobel Prize winner who achieved cutting edge work in the field of DNA; exactly the the sort of people worthy of others'  admiration.



Charles got too attached to the mentors IMO. As for Charles ideas they are not new. Even his environmental ideas had their origins with Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, from decades ago. And Earth Day started back in the seventies

Duch_Luver_4ever

Ill add more on the subject later which is sure to please and displease everyone, but I thought id answer @FanDianaFancy  questions about the sticky wicket.

My purpose was to show that while its generally known that Im less than thrilled about Charles in relation to how things panned out with Diana, and our obvious divergence of opinions on her loveliness, I DO actually agree with the chap on a lot of the subjects he has interests in.

I thought people would get a bit of a kick out of it, while drawing attention to both the opinion that we both share about buildings, and the excellent work of Paul Joseph Watson.

As royal-philes, we also can take delight in little snips of things the "normies" miss but ring a bell with us. Such as the clip on Charles coming from the interview that was so infamous. (Likewise I had a chortle at the snip in The Unseen Diana when it mentioned in brief passing,that Jimmy Saville arranged the trip of the wheelchair marathoners getting to go to KP, back in 98 ppl still thought Saville was just a TV personality....)

I just thought that it was interesting that under other circumstances, Charles and I could get on well on a variety of subjects, but the one that we cant, is close to the heart and a big one for me...and im afraid thats how it got onto Diana again.

But really, is it so hard to forsee that anything about them doesnt have far to go before its about Diana....its all about Diana...whats that phrase, its her world were just living in it  LOL.
"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.

TLLK

QuoteMy purpose was to show that while its generally known that Im less than thrilled about Charles in relation to how things panned out with Diana, and our obvious divergence of opinions on her loveliness, I DO actually agree with the chap on a lot of the subjects he has interests in.
I think that both of you could have some rather interesting conversations and quite likely he'd agree that his first wife was very beautiful.

amabel

Quote from: tiaras on July 07, 2017, 09:00:17 AM
Why do we need them again..??  <_<
If people don't feel they need the RF they have an option..