Richard Rogers hits out at ‘self-serving’ Charles

Richard Rogers, the architect whose plans to replace the Chelsea Barracks with a modernist multi-million pound development were shelved after the intervention of Prince Charles, has slammed the heir to the throne's "self-serving and unconstitutional" abuse of power.
 
Lord Rogers, whose iconic designs include the Pompidou centre in Paris, the Lloyds building in the City of London and the Barajas Airport in Madrid, had spent two and a half years on his proposal for the site of the former barracks for his client, Qatar's royal family, before it was scuppered by Charles's complaint.

Rogers believes the design - which would have provided with 251 'affordable housing' flats within the complex - could have been "one of the best schemes my office has ever produced".

It is the third time Charles has stymied one of Rogers' projects and it has "knocked the stuffing out of me", the 75-year-old says in an interview with the Guardian. "We had hoped that Prince Charles had retreated from his position on modern architecture, but he single-handedly destroyed this project."
 
In 1987, Rogers was in line to rebuild Paternoster Square beside St Paul's Cathedral, until Charles spoke out against his plans, comparing the architect to the Luftwaffe in his ability to destroy London buildings. The proposal was subsequently dropped, as were Rogers's plans to rebuild the Royal Opera House. Rogers told the Guardian: "I was basically told: 'The prince does not like you'."
 
With the Chelsea Barracks project, Charles has once again "gone round the back to wield his influence", according to Rogers. This time the Prince has even recommended, "prince to prince", an alternative design designed by his own charity, The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment. "Bringing in the Foundation, his own boys if you like, is unbelievably questionable," says Rogers.

The architect and his wife Ruth Rogers, the restaurateur who co-runs the River Café, say they have been inundated with calls from writers and artists, such as the sculptor Anish Kapoor, urging him to take a stand against Charles.

Rogers, meanwhile, is sanguine about the Prince's motives. "I think he pursues these topics because he is looking for a job and in that sense I sympathise with him. He is actually an unemployed individual, which says something about the state of the royal family. I don't think he is evil per se, he is just misled." ·