Originally Posted by johnnypd
While Prince Charles may talk about scale, this is his favoured proposal for Hyde Park Barracks...
what a monster!
No surprise there!
Him and people in his camp shouldn't try to theorize. Non-neotraditional architecture has a rich history and development of ideas that you can give explanations and justifications for why things are the way they are. And sometimes other movements throughout history are contradictory, but there are still so many interesting and beautiful ideas.
Ironically, out of those 10, the ones that hold up under critical examination (why is concrete bad but limestone good?) are either universal qualities of architecture (that for thousands of years they have never been in dispute) or are ideas that were developed by modernism.
And the other ideas are frequently contradicted by their own proponents. Richard Roger's scheme has more human scale (3), but also beats out his favored proposal on a few other of the criteria. Poundbury violates a few on that list as well. And the actual architecture that the neotraditional buildings are based off violate that list, and that list would be almost completely foreign to the architects of the buildings he supposedly thinks are good models.
So instead of trying to theorize, he should just say that he thinks they're prettier and leave it at that. I could find brutalist housing schemes that fulfill that list much more than the projects that he personally endorses, but he still wouldn't like the brutalist buildings.
I think the reason, even if just subconsciously, is that he supports traditional architecture because his entire identity and existence comes from being royalty, a very traditional institution, and that the architecture that is symbolically of the progressive welfare state undermines the cultural authority of those institutions.