Prince Charles and the SPAB...

[Gareth Hughes]

...Teddy has left the pram

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/5204997.article

Prince Charles quits heritage society in censorship row
13 July, 2009 | By Robbie Blakeley, Dora Kennedy

The Prince of Wales has resigned as a patron of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB)

The falling-out centres on a foreword Charles wrote for a handbook on the restoration of old houses. The heir to the throne used the opportunity to express his belief that buildings should always be restored in their original style. The society, which frequently uses modern architecture and design, asked Charles to amend his conservative views. The Prince refused and subsequently resigned from the Society.

Philip Venning, secretary of SPAB, said: ‘We agree with so much of what he says, but on the issue of new design there are occasions when we disagree, and we don’t disguise the fact. We were pleased he was our patron.’

Charles was asked to write the foreword to The Old House Handbook by its authors, Roger Hunt and Marianne Suhr. After his work was rejected, Philip Venning provided the introduction himself.

The SPAB, founded by socialist architect and writer William Morris, is the world’s oldest environmental campaigning group. It is understood that Charles resigned from the Society several months ago when his five-year term as patron ended - before his very public row with Richard Rogers over the Chelsea Barracks development.

SPAB has yet to appoint a new patron.

 

[Horace]

Whose Teddy? Whose pram?

 

[biffvernon]

I do wonder what William Morris would have thought

 

[JoceAndChris]

Poor Prince Charles, I think it's a shame. No matter what he does he's despised and misrepresented.

And that attitide of his is a whole lot less damaging that some of the actions and attitudes displayed by EH lately.

 

[worms]

Without getting drawn into any debate on the merits or otherwise of monarchy or the content of individual views held, surely if you ask someone to write a foreword for your book, you can't go back and ask them to change the views that they express? I think at that point, most of us would have told them where to go and put their book!

 

[Gervase]

One would hope that if someone was asked to write a forward for the book he would have read the manuscript and would also have taken on board SPAB's principles, which are clear enough. It would seem from HRH's hissyfit that he didn't.

 

[Flyfisher]

I agree with worms. I understand Gervase's point but SPAB must have known HRH's views so why ask him (or anyone for that matter) to write a foreward comprising of their own views when they know they are not entirely aligned with their own? You can't seriously ask someone to "amend their views". They might as well have sent him their preferred text and asked him to put his name to it - and what's the point of that, other than misrepresentation?

 

[Moo]

It was rather brave of HRH, knowing as he must have the political capital that could (and probably would) be generated by his action.
However, I for one think that the SPAB has ended up with egg on its collective face over this. I'm sure that HRH wouldn't have minded them adding a little footnote to the effect that his views were his own and did not necessarily reflect those of the organisation but it would seem that they were prepared to print only their own censored version. The gospel according to SPAB, it would seem.

 

[Lime]

Good for Prince Charles.

He speaks a lot of sense.

 

[Gervase]

Brave? I fear he often acts first and then thinks of the consequences later. Yes, his heart is largely in the right place, but one doesn't always get very joined-up thinking from him.
And he probably would very much mind someone adding a footnote to his forward - Charles has quite a reputation for losing his temper at those who dare to contradict him, as some of his former private secretaries will only too ruefully affirm.
I'm afraid his stomping off is rather par for the course, and SPAB isn't the first organisation to experience the slamming of a royal door. Perhaps it was rather naive of SPAB, however - when dealing with the Prince of Wales one has to be aware that the whole relationship is completely and utterly on his terms, and no parts are negotiable. Of that much, at least, they should have been aware.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Patron : One who supports.

I don't think Chuck could reasonably argue that he didn't know what the SPAB stood for, and has stood for for the last 132 years http://www.spab.org.uk/html/what-is-spab/the-manifesto/ - after all, his granny was patron before him, and they never had any trouble with her. But unfortunately, he's one of those people who won't accept that anyone else - including those he's nominally giving his support to - might have a valid, but different, point of view, hence my fervent singing of "God Save the Queen".

 

[Moo]

Patron : One who supports.

- and who never, under any circumstances, rocks the boat by expressing an opinion.

 

[Flyfisher]

Is it not possible to offer support as well as guidance according to one's own beliefs, or should a patron just be a puppet-figure?

 

[JoceAndChris]

I'm confused. SPAB frequently use modern architecture and design. Charles disapproves, and would like to see buildings restored to their original design when work takes place.

Morris' manifesto is clearly disapproving of Charles' philosophy,

"But those who make the changes wrought in our day under the name of Restoration, while professing to bring back a building to the best time of its history, have no guide but each his own individual whim to point out to them what is admirable and what contemptible; while the very nature of their task compels them to destroy something and to supply the gap by imagining what the earlier builders should or might have done"

but in no place does it advocate adding on modern architecture and design either. Having just read through it again, Morris seems very anti-restoration and much more about propping up an old wall or patching up a roof.

"we plead, and call upon those who have to deal with them, to put Protection in the place of Restoration, to stave off decay by daily care, to prop a perilous wall or mend a leaky roof by such means as are obviously meant for support or covering, and show no pretence of other art, and otherwise to resist all tampering with either the fabric or ornament of the building as it stands"

Which means that SPAB's current attitude is no more true to the manifesto than Charles'.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Gervase]

SPAB was co-founded by Morris and the architect Philip Webb, in whose memory the society makes the Philip Webb award. Webb was actively involved in teaching young architects to work sympathetically with historic buildings, and the award in 2001 reflects his concerns in 1877.

Purpose of the Award
To encourage new design in the context of historic buildings and to develop an appreciation of old buildings amongst architectural students, through an understanding of the architectural and historical values of old buildings and the purpose, philosophy and techniques of conservation.
The Brief
The Student (or groups of Students) are to choose an individual building or group of buildings of historic interest in the UK which are subject to decay or neglect. The Student(s) are required to produce a scheme which will sympathetically re-vitalise the building(s) and setting for appropriate new existing use(s). The scheme should include a significant element of new design. Some local authorities have produced 'Buildings at Risk' Registers, which might be used as the basis for such a choice of building(s).

So in that sense SPAB has remained true to the ethos of its founders. In a modern context, Webb's approach is probably more realistic than Morris's romanticised view - at the very least it allows for the installation of electriciy, plumbing and other hideous modernities!
SPAB's current statement of purpose recognises this:

Repair not Restore
Although no building can withstand decay, neglect and depredation entirely, neither can aesthetic judgement nor archaeological proof justify the reproduction of worn or missing parts. Only as a practical expedient on a small scale can a case for restoration be argued.
...
Complement not parody
New work should express modern needs in a modern language. These are the only terms in which new can relate to old in a way which is positive and responsive at the same time. If an addition proves essential, it should not be made to out-do or out-last the original.
Fit new to old
When repairs are made, new material should always be fitted to the old and not the old adapted to accept the new. In this way more ancient fabric will survive.
...
Workmanship
Why try to hide good repairs? Careful, considered workmanship does justice to fine buildings, leaving the most durable and useful record of what has been done. On the other hand, work concealed deliberately or artificially aged, even with the best intentions, is bound to mislead.

Materials
The use of architectural features from elsewhere confuses the understanding and appreciation of a building, even making the untouched parts seem spurious. Trade in salvaged building materials encourages the destruction of old buildings, whereas demand for the same materials new helps keep them in production. The use of different but compatible materials can be an honest alternative.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Ah- enlightenment - thanks Gervase. That explains many things which have puzzled and nettled me as I've been reading this forum, as well as the rift between Prince Charles and SPAB.

I see their "honest repair" argument and statement of purpose as being a slippery slope to glass atriums, ugly modern extensions and terrible windows. "sympathetically revitalise"- what a terrifying phrase. That could be interpreted as any arrogant young architect sees fit.

I'm with Charles, sorry. I couldn't in all conscience join SPAB now having read that.

 

[Hatster]

It's an awkward situation, isn't it. I wouldn't want to write a preface for a book which I fundamentally disagreed with - but resigning as patron seems a bit much, given I'd say there's a lot of overlap between concerns. Probably would have been more sensible to say that he just wouldn't write a preface, or write a very tactfully worded preface to say that there a number of views on the matter...

I'm with SPAB on the matter here (all in favour of the glass atrium), but I know that Prince Charles and our own Princess Joce have their own views!

 

[JoceAndChris]

ROFLMAO!! :lol:
xxx

 

[biffvernon]

Er, excuse me but has anyone else actually read Roger Hunt and Marianne Suhr's excellent book? Let me assure you there are absolutely no slippery slopes to glass atriums, ugly modern extensions and terrible windows within the covers of this book. In fact I can't see anything to which Charles himself might take exception, not even in Philip Venning's forward in which he says

The book's aim is simple: to help homeowners hand down their houses 'instructive and venerable to those that come after us', to quote the Society's Manifesto written by William Morris in 1877.

It seems to me that's exactly what the book does and if anybody sees messers Venning and Windsor in the same room please bang their heads together and tell them to behave.

Meanwhile, Joce, please join SPAB. It really is on the side of the Good and you don't have to be Republican.

And buy the book.

 

[JoceAndChris]

What, actually read a book before criticising it? :shock:

But thankyou for reassuring me about the slippery slope, Biff. So you'd rather I spent money supporting this:

Philip Webb Award Winners 2003
Joint First Prize - £700
Joint first prizes of £700 were awarded to Khalil ur Rehman, a student at de Montfort University in Leicester and Argus Gathorne Hardy, a student at Oxford-Brookes University. Khalil Rehman's scheme was the conversion of a decommissioned electricity sub-station at Mere Green, Sutton Coldfield into a GP's medical centre. The rejuvenation of the Old Silk Mill, Chipping Campden, once the home of CR Ashbee's Guild of Handicraft, was the scheme submitted by Argus Gathorne Hardy.

than on linseed oil paint or livestock would you? Hmmmmm. Not convinced. Beacon Cottage needs funds more urgently than some imaginary scheme to convert a decommissioned electricity sub-station. Sod Argus Gathorne Hardy. Our own period property sucks us dry, and no help from anyone, either.