Prince Charles v the architects; round 2

Assuming that you read the same papers and watch the same telly as me, then, amid all of the headlines surrounding the frankly scandalous abuse of the expenses system by our MPs and Dundee United's drive towards third place in the Scottish Premiership and European glory next season (a story that admittedly doesn't seem to being given its due prominence in the Post's sports' pages), you could have been forgiven for missing the current controversy surrounding the heir to the throne's views on the built environment.

This afternoon, Prince Charles is speaking to the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA to its chums) on the occasion of its 175th anniversary. The speech is almost 25-years-to-the-day since, when addressing RIBA's 150th anniversary, the prince famously described the proposed extension to the National Gallery as "a monstrous carbuncle"; in doing so, both scuppering the proposed scheme and incurring the seemingly never-ending-wrath of a chunk of Britain's architectural elite.

25 years later, and history is repeating itself. The latest controversy relates to the design for the proposed development of the Chelsea Barracks site in London by (Lord) Richard Rogers, the incredibly eminent and distinguished architect behind the Pompidou Centre, Lloyds' of London and the Millennium Dome amongst other buildings. The Prince disagrees with the steel and glass design proposed and has commissioned a separate architect, Quinlan Terry, to produce a design more "in keeping" with the area - including the neighbouring Royal Hospital designed by Sir Christopher Wren.

Within the construction industry, the debate has been wide-ranging (with a leading trade magazine conducting a poll - which Prince Charles's preferred design won) but has increasingly become vitriolic, with leading architects publishing a letter of objection and urging a boycott of the speech. The main criticism is that the success or failure of the Rogers' design will depend on the normal planning laws of the land - which should apply equally to all buildings - and that it is unfair for Prince Charles to use his high profile to scupper the plan.

On the other hand, the degree of vitriol seems harsh and unfair. The built environment affects us all - and I would hope that all architects (distinguished and otherwise) would want to design buildings in which we all want to work, rest and play. I find the suggestion that a small intellectual elite should impose their views on us without comment or criticism very hard to take. Perhaps this is an example of the architecture profession protesting too much?