PER NA

I II "52x y,4 No,1

, 1990 ARCH

Prilla Chari" cOlltrOflersial book, A Vision of Brirain.

OF THE ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF UN'V;:~SI'TV Of

I II I ~~III II IIII ~I ~ I~ IIII~III III II I~III ~ IIII .3118 7 0075 1 1825 b

I S ION OF

BRITAIN A P~R50"\1 \'11\\ or R(HITECIURE

Responding to the Prince

Report on the Elliot Lake CAUSE.... ..3

1990 Executive takes office. . . . ... 5

New book describes design history of Universiry College. . .. 6

Field Guide approach helps make architecture accessible . . . ............ 7

March 1990 ~/) I'lf 1/ e-r;

'/, Ii r~ J, I

Prill£( Charles' book, A Vision of Britain, in Ulhich he possiollately setsfo,th his vi""s all arc/litecture, has sporked an intenst debale abOllt Ihe slate of architecture today and the role of architects. Perspectives asked Eberhard Zeidler, priTlcipolllllhe firm Zeidler Roberls Paltllership ArchiteCl<, alld An!hony Eardley, Dean of Ihe School of Architecture & Lalldslape Architecture at the University of Yoronto, to revi"" A Vision of Britain and 10 dirCllss the issues Ihe book mises. The following essays are their mponse 10 the Prillce's vision.

A Vision of Britain: An Architecture For All? By Anthony Eardley

When, several years ago, word began to reach us on this side of the Atlantic that HRH the Prince of Wales had become not only an exponent of the British 'Community Architecture' movement but also a quite unabashable architect basher, I recall musing on this current princely occupation as a variation on the traditional role of British kings and princes as ama­teurs and patrons of architecture. About 30 years ago Aida van Eyek, one of Holland's most distinguished modern architects, had summarized the [ask of architecture in an open society with [he announcement thac

Architecture was once [he prerogative of the prince and [he priest. The prince and {he priest are disestablished. Now, therefore, if not an architecrure for all, then no architecture at all.

It had seemed curiously paradoxical at the time, that it was finally to be a prince of Bri­tain who was to become the self-appointed populist enforcer of van Eyck's admonition.

A Visioll of Brilaill: a Persollal Vi"" of AlThile£tllre makes it clear that if Britain is to have an architecture for all it will be Prince Charles' architecture for all, and that Charles will employ whatever princely prerogra[ive he may deem appropriate to him as the ascendanr to the throne and the next 'Defender of the Faith', in order to enforce it. While there is much in the Prince's all roo personal vision of architecture that cannot be gainsa id, indeed chat is so inconrrovenibly obvious it scarcely needed saying except to inflame popular prOlesr, there is also much rhat should not go unchallenged.

It is easy to applaud his strong introductOry feelings "about the wantOn destruction which has taken place in this count,,' in the name of progress; about the sheer, unadulterated ugli­ness and mediocriry of public and commercial bui ldings, and of housing estates, not to men­{ion {he dreariness and heartlessness of so much urban planning." Certainly we cannot disagree with this complaint. Rather, we are obliged to echo it with regard to almost every­where else beyond Britain's shores, which has seen the nearly identical disfigurations of progress.

Neither do we need persuasion by the Prince and his loyal subjects that one way to improve the situation is chat children must (his italics) receive architectural and environ­mental education in the schools. The lasr rhat was seen of that brave idea in North America was Mayor Charles H. W«cker's Marlllol for Schools, of 1911 , revised as late as 1947, which provided mandatory instruction to the elementary school children of Chicago on the princi­ples and structure of Daniel Burnham's famous Plall for Chicago of 1909, and the need for an

COlltilllled all poge 2

Prince Charles and The Visual City By Eberhard H. Zeidler

The arch itectural debate, started by the remarks of the Prince of Wales is still raging. Adding fuel to the fire was the Prince's highly rated BBC documentary where he expressed his views about Brirish architecture, the publication of his book A Vision of Brilmll: A Personal Vi"" of Archileclure and his exhibition at the VictOria and Albert Museum. No one can deny that the words of the Prince have brought about changes in Britain's architecture. The National Museum extension is not the design which won the competition. Instead, the commission has been given ro another architect with a design more in rune with the "princely vision." The Paternoster Square scheme surrounding St. Paul's Cathedral has been questioned and the Prince himself is planning a new set dement on his estate incor­porating his own architectural ideas with the help of Leon Krier.

After all this princely activi ty there was a tremendous outcry from the architectural pro­fession . Max Hutchinson wrote the book, The Prince of Wales: RighI or Wrong? Richard Rogers gO[ coverage in The limes. EditOrials and newspaper art icles appeared en masse. For the most part the opinions of rhe Prince were rejected by the profcssion and its architectural critics. Their arguments fell inro tWO major categories. The first was a more personal one:

Is Charles a joke, then, nor worth taking seriously? Not unless you think that architecture is a joke. They' re laughing much these days in England, where this idioric crusade has caused architects [Q lose work and creativity ro lose starure,l

In a democracy, i( is eX(femeiy difficult (Q argue with the heir co the throne.z

It was argued rhar the Prince's remarks about the National Gallery's "carbuncle'" and the van der Rohe "glass srump"4 were nor directed ar the issue of architecture but were per­sonal arracks at the individual architects. As a result, careers were ruined or at least commis­sions were lost. It was said that the Prince had no right to comment because he did not represent an elected democratic position but merely a ceremonial tradition that should nOt get involved in such debates, particularly if one considers the influence that his posirion provided.'

However, has there ever been an architect who has built successful buildings who has not been subjccted to bitter critiques by people who have not been elected by a democratic process but st ill have immense power? Architectural critics, with the power of an influential newspaper, often write against individual architects and their bui ldings and there must be examples of an undeserved attack which resulted in the loss of a project or the diminishing

COl/lilllled on poge 6

Responding to the Prince A Vision of Britain: An Architecture For All? cont'd

Continued from page I Shall we never again create Hormony? informed public response to the bond issues that its implementation would necessitate in their lifetime.

It mighE surprise some of our archirect colleagues as much as it should shock Roben Hughes (The Shock of the New), Tom Wolfe (Frolll Bauhalls to Our House) and the Prince of Wales to discover that, as long as 80 years ago, architecture's most strident propagandist of L'esprit mod erne, the detestable inventOr of the house as a "machine for living in," the dese­cralOr of the urban Street and the proponent of the high-rise city in the park had, in fact, anticipated the horrors of the bu il t world to comment with equal dismay at its lack of har­mony. Bur having seen the heroic effons of Le Corbusier and his radiG-aI-minded colleagues to build persuasive and poetic counter-forms to machine-age civilization, and having rejected both those brave experiments and the dismal products of a gcneration of uned­ucated and ill-informed imirators as the urban disasrers that thcy are, how will Prince Charles re-esrablish the requisite conditions for architectural harmony?

Nor will mosr of us in Nonh America quarrel any longer with the growing British view that the powers of central and local government IIshould be better regulated in the interests of individuals, and nor of property developers".

I t is equally easy to agrce with Prince Charles' conclusions urging that: Everything cries out for a reappraisa l of OUf values and attitudes. Don't be intimidated by those who deride such views. They have had their day_ Look at the sou lless mess in which they have left us all. .! Look at what has been done to the developing countries in the name of progress and technology. We have managed, through our Western arrogance, to make at least tWO generations ashamed of their ancient, traditional customs, culwre and spiritual va lues. Now, I suggest, is the time when we should, in all humility, learn from our Third \Vorld neighbours.

Yes, we agree! His conclusions are compelling. Bur how rouchingly similar all this is ro the heanfdt cries of the Princc's satanic centre-piece, Le Corbusier, that chief "apostle of modernism" and arch-enemy of precisely the kind of tradition-fettered academy which the Prince is now raking StCpS ro re-esrablish, who in October 1911, concludcd his account of his 1011111'1 to the East, a you thful pilgrimage through Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Tur­key in search of a civilizarion as yet uncontaminated by western indusuialization, with these lines, wrinen in Pompei i, that repository of "the timeless canons of classical taste" which the Prince and his architect, Leon Krier, would now have us re-emulate:

Not, I suspect, by deriding the besr of Britain's contemporary architects into near obl iv­ion, by applauding the worsr of its recidivisrs and imponing an exo tic Club Med of Duanys, EI-Wakils and Kriers to impose his new principles and strategems on what remains of Brirish architecture after Cesar Pelli has crammed his Battery Park "towers of architectural arro­gance" into the skies ofCanaty Wharf and Robert Venturi has brought what he's learned about thc transmogrification of the classical orders in Las Vegas 10 the extension to the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square.

J am greatly bu rdened by all [hese things in Italy. Since Brindisi I 've set eyes on all the styles and all kinds of houses and every variety of tree, flower and plant ... Bur more than anything else, the styles have become complicated, questionable aggregations that are often ugly, atrocious, repulsive. Everything leads me ro honour the Turks. They were urbane and serious, and had respert for the presence of things .

The early pages of A Visioll of Britain do a thorough demolition job on post-war British planning and building - I won't call it "architecture" because much of it isn't -punctuated by evocations of traditional architecture, in panicular, regional vernacular archi­tecture, and by examples of the "neo-vernacular" representative of the kind of stol id "Wrc­naissance" style (as Jencks has re-dubbed it in The P,ince, the architects alld new mvroe monarchy) which Charles regards with favour, predictably ornamcnted wirh potted plants, English roses, "three-master" weather vanes and the inevitable British Lion. Several of these early pages lament the devastation of the Thames by contemporaty developments which, we must agree, form no regal procession for the Royal River. Other pages lament the outcome of London's current major public bu ilding and urban design commissions, with Charles bashing everyone, except his stolid Soan ian Simpson, with imperial even-handedness. He is no more persuaded by Terry Farrell 's "transatlantic post-modern" vulgarities at one extreme of the architectural spectrum than by Sandy Wilson's Aaltoesque red brick sobriety at the other.

Why, alas, is it all collapsing? ... All integrity is coming down, foulness rising up, Where will chaste life and an sti ll exist - where do they exist? Everywhere, abominations humiliate rhe native voice. Simplicity is discredited, Progress becomes Attilan. So what horrible levelling are we coming ro? Theorerically, it should lead to a more magisterial and imposing unity. Can it be true? The Japanese arc wcaring monocles while the jungle dislodges the stOnes of their pagodas into oblivion. Why must our progress be so shabby? Why do those whose blood is stili pure hasten to take up the worst from us? Do we have a taste for art? Aren't we suffering under a delusion, a Dead Theory, to

be willing to go on producing it?

Nothing raises Ptince Charlcs' ire quite so much, however, as the proposals for the renewal of Paternoster Square, the prccinct immediately nonh of Sr. Paul's Cathcdral. St. Paul's figures heavily in the pages of this book as the symbol of national unity in the heart of the now vanished Empire, struggling to maintain its visibi lity as the flagship amidst irs fleet of Wren church sp ires in the mounting chaos of London's commerce-riddled sky-line. Of all the proposals for Paternoster Square, only John Simpson's Georgian fantasy, complete

What's behind the new fee schedule? By Charles Greenberg

III Octoi¥r of lost )'ltl1; the OAA Practice Committee i5JlIed a revised Olltlilll of Services alld Schedule of Rtcolllmended Fees. 7liis new schedllie "presents the firstlllajor revisioll ill 10 )"ean. The followillg article is inrellded 10 provide sOll/e backgroIllld to the Ill/dol' (:htlllges.

The revisions are based on rec­ommendations from the OM Practice Committee which began reviewing the fee schedule sever-al years ago.

The fee schedule is meant as a gu ide 10 both clients and archi­tects for what constitutes fair and reasonable fees so that architecrs are adequately compensatcd for their services and the health of the profession is maintained. Fair and reasonable fees ensure that archi­teClS wi ll have reasonable compen­sation to carty our the fu ll service they are committed 10 provide as professionals.

Architects' fees may be bascd on a percentage of construction COStS. While this method of calcu­laring fees has served in the past as a hedge against rising operating COStS, increased demands on [he profession including the effecrs of changes in building required revi­sions 10 the previous method of structuring fees when based on a percentage of construction COSts. The key issues underlying the fee increases are as follows:

1) StatiStics Canada figures show rhat overhead costs relatcd to operating an architectural prac­tice have been increasing faster that the COSt of construction. According ro the Consumer Price Index, the increase in office over­head CostS has been 1 S per cent greater than the increase in con­struction COStS during the period 1980 to 1989. No adjustment was made for this differential in the 1984 fee schedule.

2) I t is estimated that between eight and 13 per cent of an archi­tect 's time on a project is now

spent in researching, analyzing, meecing, report Lng and preparing documemation to meet the grow­ing requirements and complexity of government legislation, an increase of in the arch itect's time involvement of 40 per cen t. For example, new legislation related to toxic materials has had a major effect on the cons[fuction industry and has placed increased liability on architects and engineers. The regulatory process has become increasingly complex and govern­ment promises to streamline the process have yet 10 be fulfilled. This factor has resulted in an increase of three to five per cem.

3) The fee schedule has been increased by five per cent to account for the increased profes­sional scrvices required because of the greater complexity of building technology. (In 1984, the fee schedule was increased by five 10

10 per cent ro account for this facro r. )

4) The const ruction industry has become more litigious, result­ing in a necessary increase in the time an architect mUSt spend at meetings, making additional site visits, doing research and solving problems. The extra time is also made necessaty because of a decline in the quali ry of workman­shi p. The majority of this time fa lls within the construction and post-construction phases. As a result, contract administration and general review have increased by 50 ro 75 per cent of the consul­tant's time involvement which relates ro a 10- ro IS-per-cent increase in the tOtal fee.

The time spent defending direct claims and third-party actions, many of which are frivo­lous, cannot be assigned a percent­age in relation to the petcentage fee. However, the number of hours of a principal's time can be sub­stantial and is a non-recoverable COSt even if the action is suc­cessfully defended and cosrs

awarded. In addition, there can be legal COStS iov.llved as noe all actions contain allegations for a negl igent ac t, error or omission (the only actions covered by pro­fessionall iability insurance and the OM Indemnity Plan). The architect's deductible is also a fac­ror in developing the contingency COStS which musr be assigned ro the ope raEi on of a practice.

An architect does nor have to be incompetent or gu il ty of professio­nal misconduct ro fi nd himself lia­ble in a civil action as transfer of risk is also a facror, in thaE the law of negligence can makc architects 100 per cent liable for a matter where there was only one per cent fault on their part, but all of the other parties were judgment-proof.

S) Architects repon they now spend substantially mOte time than they did in the past negotiaE­ing the wording of the Client! Architect Agteement. Besides requiring addit ional timc, this often involves hiring legal counsel. Many revisions impose a greater liability on the arch itect than rhat which exisrs in law. One practice reports having been presented with 33 significant amendments to Document 6. The 33 were ulti­mately reduced ro one but only after the architect spent consider­able time educating the owner and his legal counsel.

The OM Indemnity Plan has found that many proposed amend­ments in the contracrs are actually to the detriment of the cl ient bccause they prejudice the archi­tect!s insurance coverage.

6) The requirement under the Archi tect's Act effective Aptil 1987 for mandaroty indemnity against errors or omissions added a cost to the operation of an archi­tectural practice of twO to thtee per cent of [he architect's gross fee. Prior ro J 987 less than 50 per cent of all Ontario pracrices car­ried professional liability insur­ance. For those who were carrying

such insurance there has been a tWO- to three-per-cent increase for those who carry excess insurance over the mandatory requirement.

7) Architectural practices have reported that more clients believe thaE fee competition should form part of the selection process for an architect. As a result, architects' non-billable time has been sub­stantially increased in responding to such situations. In addition, architects cannot assess the likeli­hood of success for the various proposals other than where the recommended qualification and experience factOrs are considered. In order to maintain a viable oper­ation, the cOSt of marketing ser­vices and preparation of proposals must be recovered and this can only be achieved by increasing fees .

8) There has been an acute shortage of qualified staff in the last several years and arch itectural firms have found themselves incurring heavy overtime costs or paying premium dollars to at tract new sraff. Many firms have been faced with high turnover which has seriously affected operating costs.

I ncluded in the Committee's review process were extensive con­sultations with the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (APEO). The discussions focused on twO issues: J) Co-ordination of professional services and resulting documents ro obtai n compatibiliEY between the various disciplines with regard ro the provision of ser­vices for the protection of the public intcres t. 2) APEO concern that architects' selection of profes­sional engineers and other clients was heavily influenced by price, thereby creating pressures to limit professional services. Resulting from these discussions was agree­ment on rhe srandardization of cenain aspects of professional ser­vices, the terminology and the adjustment of the relationship of categories of buildings to reflect

COll/illued Ofl page J

their complexity and ro provide the public with a more stan 4

dardized description of professio­nal services in both professions.

The Committee's review pro­cess also relied on the results of a Goldfarb survey comm issioned by the OM in 1987 to learn more about how architectural practices were operat ing. The survey found that rhe COst of doing business had increased about 4j per cent over the previous five years with the major causes being liability insur­ance and computerization. Almost all practices reported providing the same or a greater level of service than they did during thc prcvious five years. In addition, many prac­tices said they have more difficulry collecting fees. More than 80 per cent of respondents were con­cerned about the incidence of fee cutt ing and wanted the OM ro do something about it. Overall, the survey found that there is a spiral­ing problem with fccs that shows no sign of abating. The reduct ion in profit margins has great implica­tions for the future of the profes­sion in terms of what architects can expect to earn and the services they will be able to afford ro pro­vide for their clients.

In conclusion, the profession of architecture in Ontario is self­governing and arch itects have a dury ro protect the public interest. As the environment in wh ich architects work changes and becomes more complex and costly, so the renumeralion must change to maintain the level of service the public expects and ro which the pub lic is entitled for its protec­tion. (For more details on the new fee schedule, please see Practice Bulletin 17.c issued Februaty 1990 by rhe Ontario Association of Architects.) Charies Crelllberg is the Director of Practice 0I1l1 Clnims Mall­ager for the OAA.

Responding to the Prince A Vision of Britain: An Architecture For All? cont'd

Contil/ued from pagt 2 with an octagonal baptistry-cum-corn exchange closing an arcaded piazza ro the west of the Cathedral - one of many Disneyland hybridizations ro which Charles seems ro be quite inexplicably blind - manages ro escape his wra th.

But what of these ten royal commandments which Brirons henceforth can build upon? The First Principle is Place, ro respect and protect the land, an echo, we might think, of

the first tcnets of the 1933 International Congress of Modern Architects' Alh,"s Charter on the City and its Region, or, we might hope, of the lessons learned from Patrick Geddes' Cilies in Evoll/tion of 1915, or even of Thomas Sharp's English Pal/oramo of 1936. But no, the idea of Place is illustrated here with a church spire punctuating rhe flamess of England's Fcn cou ntry, and conrrasring Burford's tranquil shopping sueer with Newcastle's Metro Mall, less profound but srill unacknowledged lessons learned from all those Gordon Cullen T{)ff;l/scape articles from rhe Architeclural Rtviews of long ago.

The Second Principle is Hierarchy, which requires, first, quite reasonably but quire unre­alistically, thor buildings be sized according ro rheir public importance - "churches, public buildings, halls and pubs (shown ornately four-square on an Islingron street corner) all have [heir scale and special sites ... they emphasize our va lues as well as our social organiza­tions" - and second I that they express the sign ificance of {heir various pans in such a way thar we can undersrand rhem and find the front door. Amen ro thar!

The Third Principle is Seal" which recommends a respect for existing street parrerns and lot sizes, and a reintroduction of suitable height limitations, which once made for an orderly and elegant cornice-line, above which "rose turrets, spires and cupolas rhar we all can appre­ciare." The need for this royal command is illusuared by rhe "sacrilegious" mass of casually placed, undistinguished buildings wh ich dwarf Gloucester Cathedral. A post-card view of Sal isbury Carhedral, however, re-assures us rhat it , at least, is still being "shown due respecc."

The Fourth Principle is Hannol/)', which, by all means, calls for a lirtle humility - ro "sing with the choir and not against it" - evoking Barh, Georgian London, Cheltenham and Edinburgh as the examples ro follow, door details, wrought iron and all. Here the idea of "concord" is illusuated wi th steep dormer windows establishing pious rhythms above the cortage cubes of Castle Combe in obeisance ro the late Gothic mini-steeple rising above the cube of an earlier period church tower, and the idea of "discord" with a Shell filling stat ion rhtusring its garish cri mson and chrome-yellow canopy rudely inro the foreground of a nineteenth-century Gothic revival church. By now we should be absolutely clear that the Prince will take seriously his future responsibili ties as "Defender of the Fairh." Recall ing the extended hand of Adam in Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel "Creation" fresco , Charles ' hand ges tures across the Thames to protcct St. Paul's Cathedral in the background of the dusr jacket illustration, and images of God's holy santuaries asse rt and re-assert their pres­ence on almost one-thi rd of the 150 pages of this book.

The Fifth Principle is E1Je/osul<, which contrasts rhe medieval market place of Richmond, North Yorkshire, pedestrian Georgian rerraces in London and 1950s collegiare Gothic in Oxford wi th a typical agglomera tion of contemporary speculative housing, this example 'found in rural Berkshire, drearily epitOmizing Pete Seegers "little boxes, little boxes, little boxes all the same." Few of us would dispute the joys of well-conceived intimate enclosure and itS capaciry ro creare a recognizable community of neighbours, but neither can we over­look the rigours of social decorum that co-existence in such urbane spaces necessitates. Is the Prince not aware that even the mildest of English suburbanites wi ll object to the removal of his Euromarket motor-car from the premises, and his teenagers (Q the confisca­tion of rheir JaJ:iancsc ghetro-blasters? Bur wait, there's morc!

The Sixth Principle concerns local Materials, and requires that concrete, plastic, alumi­num, machine-made bricks and reconstituted stone, the productS of industry that have "created an overall mediocrity: a kind of architectural soap opera" be banished in favour of another kind of soap opera, namely, "let where it is be what it 's made of . ... a detai led li sr of local building materials and Ihe wily (my italics) in which rhey are used," to become a bible for local planning authorities and a model for developers and their architects. These lists are to be accompanied by a nation-wide resolve to revive Britain's eighteenrh century past, perhaps with a reopening of its stone quarries, but certainly with the resuscitarion and nurturing of itS flint-knappers, thatchers and blacksmiths. Perhaps the Prince, in looking, as he says, W engender an economic revival based on ancient local self-sufficiencies, is here amicipat ing the advent of a post-industrial world bereft of its fossil fuels, shunning the menace of nuclear energy, turned back in on itself and restored once again (Q a pre­Coalbrookdale tranquility. One wonders what William Morris might say to this Luddite fantasy.

The Sevemh Principle is Decorotio!l - "a bare oudine won't do; give us the derails)) - an admonition to retrain the architect in the ru les of ornament and the study of applied deco­ration, both classical and gothic, to give pleasure and delight to rhe "Iatem national interesr in decoration,)) long revealed in the Briton's Celtic forebears and confirmed by "the thriving do-it-yourself induStry!"

John Ruskin would have quite diStinct difficulty with this. The Eighrh Principle is, simply, Art, which requires the architect and the artiSt to go

back to school tOgether, rake life drawing and nature study tOgether, and then produce tOgether public buildings adorned with appropriate scu lptural and pictOrial iconography,

Report on the Elliot Lake CAUSE

both inside and our, as an essential complement to and an integral part of public architecture.

As I reca ll , one of the last powetfully moving examples of this kind of co-endeavour was Jose Luis Scrt's Spallish PatJilion (with Luis Lacasa) at the 1937 Paris World 's Fa ir, which was adorned wirh Picasso's huge monochromatic GIIemico mural in the entry hail, Alexander Calder's mercury fountain in the covered area near the emrance, Joan Miro's large panel, Colufoll Peastllli ill/h, Rtvoll on the main stair wall and, outside, Julio Gonzalez's bronze MOII­lserral, tWO sculptures by Picasso and a latge, rotem-like sculpture by Alberto. All of these artists had taken life drawing and nature study, as had Sert himself. Bur this is not quite what the Prince has in mind. Whar he really wanrs is a new guild of litr1e Rubenses to aid his growing guild of litrJe Inigo Joneses ro ennoble the banquet rooms of. ' . the Holiday Inns?

The Ninth Principle concerns Signs and lights, specifically, 'don't make rude signs in pub­lic places,' a complaint abom the ugly man ifes tations of [l..ventierh cen tury progress in [he forms of excessive advertising, traffic signs and sueet lighting designed for the automobile. Good lettering is to be taught and learned in the schools.

We look forward to tbe improvement this will bring to the quality of spray-can graffiri in all our [Owns and cities.

The Tenth Principle is Commullil)" and this is the Prince's "golden rule - we all need to be involved together - planning and architec ture are much too important to be left to the profess ionals." If the Prince has demonstrated anything with this book, it is the tru th of this democratic affi rmat ion. If adopred together with a massive bur equally democratic attack upon the issues of architectural and environmental education and a criti cal re-appraisal of the role of the developer, it might, finally, provide the key ro "an architecture for all."

It is the hope of His Royal Highness that "these ground rules may provide a return to our rootS and an enlightened view of the way ahead." He offers them as a necessary first step toward clearing away the undergrowth of worthless rules and dogma to allow beautiful archi­teCture ro flourish again in the Kingdom.

Havi ng demonstrated the need for his rules in the firsr third of the book and provided them to us in the middle, the Prince, now on [he home stretch, rakes us rhrough numerous examples of their application by the members of his new academy - which, whether offered in earneSt or whimsy, have produced uniformly implausible, pedestrian or Dis­neyworld results - together wirh an account of his family's long interest in architecture and his own increasingly commirred involvement in serring things right. It is in the final pages, where he dwells on the virtues of Siena as the embodiment not only of enlightened building codes, but also of spiritual va lues - "Except the Lord build the house, they labour in va in that build it" - that his near-messianic religious fervour about architecrure and the city becomes most explicit.

What is sad about these energetic and quite courageously public-spirired init iatives of the Prince is that they are, for all his earnest references to his identity of feeling with those of the common cirizen, so bl inkered by an unconscious desire to rerurn Brirain [0 irs eigh­teenth cemury days of glory, a world of Georgian grace and stability populated with an exclusively Anglo-Saxon Protestant fantasy of proud and pious kings and merchants, and contented and pious clerks, artisans and labourers, that he is obliged to deny the forces that have shaped the industrial and post- industrial revolutions, shrunk distances, annihilated national borders and intermingled goods, services, ideas and races on a global scale.

The real pity is that his advisors have not attempted to alert him to some of the critical subtleties and dilemmas that surround the issues of architecrure and building in the late twemierh ccn;:ury, bur would seem, on the :::GilU:UY, to have eneouruged him as one might a trust ing child, to atrach himself ro the appearance rather than the substance of things. There is ample evidence in the pages of this book that he shares in the pains of our rap­acious and ugly Western civilization. Ilis new ground rules and his academy of adherenrs, however, cannor turn us back to a marc human fuwre any more than King Canute, another Ch ristian by conviction, but who knew what he was doing, could command the rising tide of the Thames at Westminster ro ebb before its time. The tides of ou r age are st ill rising. We must learn to navigate them, to stay afl oat on them, using past human experience with imelligence and discriminarion. A code that binds us ro past formal organizations, to hollow modes of expression and to bygone technics is a sea-anchor that will certainly sink us.

\\That is a[ issue is nor a code for arch itecture bur rather the question of how we are to

live in a global economic system facing finite and rapidly dwindling resources. Now that there seems ro be universal disenchantment with the communist approach ro this problem, perhaps we in the West need no longer feel obliged so impassively to suffer the strident defence of consumer-society capitalism, irs wasteful urban apparatus and inhuman out­comes, the ills to which tOO many of us have simply become accustomed and inured, and to which Prince Charles now rightly makes objection. This, ultimately, is the small mi racle of A VISion of Briloill, offered to us by a nor yet disestablished prince who can sti ll proclaim his objection with impuni ty. Though his prescriptions for our ills may be architecturally child­ish and socio-economically myopic, the urgency of his objection cannot be so readily dis­missed. The architect has a cri tical role and an obl igation to participate in a renewed search for more viable ways of life and for more poetically fulfilling means of expression.

AI/lhony Eardley is Deall of the School of Architeclur, and LOlldscape Architeclllll, Ullroersiry of Torollto.

By Bruce Downey In an autumn setting above the

north shore of Lake Huron, mid­way between Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie, remote lodges and camps are populated on extended weekends with humers of grouse and bear. Logging trucks labour up steep grades and carriers from the Uranium mines bearing processed ye llow cake move south to refineries.

On the morning of September 28, 1989 Phil Dunn of CKNR radio is host ing an open line pro­gram aimed at collecting public opinion on the future of the tOwn and generating interest in a CAUSE study that is to begin later that day with the arrival of the team, and finish OctOber 1 at a public meeting.

Assist for an Urban Study Effort and is a volunteer program of the Ontario Association of Architects aimed at, as the name states, assisting communities to arrive at concepts for future development. The eight-member team com­prises architects, planners, a land­scape architect and three students, one from each of the Ontario schools of architecture. The team will visit the communiry for five days and in that time (through public input, review of previous planning documents and combing the area by plane, boat, car and on foot) wi ll arrive at a report to be presented at noon on the fifth day.

resulting decrease in Ell iot Lake's popularion of 18,000. In January this year a member of the OM CAUSE Commirtee visited the community to review the concerns and ensure that the [Own was pre­pared to hoS[ a study. A local com­mirtee had already been formed, funds secured, and representatives from a cross section of the commu­nity were on hand with a srrongly expressed desi re to stay in the area.

commitment, support and gener­osity. Most team members had never been to Elliot Lake. The program stipulares that no team member can practise in the area, so, other than the written informa­tion sent to each member previ­ously, most were coming in cold. The inrroductory public meeting lasted for more than three hours in a room which would be converted to the team's work space the day after, and then rearranged as a public meeting hall by a sleep­dep ri ved team three and a half days later.

member on the Kingston and POrt Stanley CAUSE teams, and I acted as a liaison between the team and the community. The remainder of the team were new to the process, as well as to one another.

Citizens continued (Q express concerns on Friday and Saturday through phone call s, writren reports and many interviews.

Community walks, a boat ride on Elliot Lake, bush plane advcn­wres and drives through the town and the surrounding area on Friday and Saturday provided a phys ical overview, Sawrday night and SUIl­day were spent sketching and drafting the report. Assisting the Team was a film processor who was ass igned for the weekend and stayed with rhe team nighr and day to provide immediate service. Typists laboured through the Phi l informs his listeners that

CAUSE srands for a Communiry

About one year earlier a Ierrer was sent from the [Own's Eco­nom ic Development Office to the OM outlining concerns related to the town's image and the impact of the possible mine closing and a

Over the summer a study team was formed, and a second visit was made by the team chairperson and the OAI\. CAUSE liaison to con­firm all was in readiness for a studv in the fall.

Weeks prior to the visit, the radio and newspaper solicited pub­lic input and involvement. Forces were mustered that met the team on Thursday with unbel ievable

The team met fo llowing the public meeting to assess the input and arrive at a course of action for the weekend. The next day a pat­tern of prcvious CAUSEs evolved with the breakdown of areas of focus. Phillip Carter chaired the team with experiences gained as a COlilinued on poge 4

President's Message On Friday April 20, 1990, we

will conclude our centennial year celebrations with the 100th annual general meeting and it is my plea~ sure as President to invite you to join us and to participate in this imporranr event.

The theme of this year's con­vention "Towards OUf Second Century" is most appropriate.

We are all very conscious of the forces of change sweeping through society and our professional world. It is the mandate of our associa­tion to assist our members and help them adapt to the changing needs of the future to ensure that the public will be well served by OUf members and the environment they create.

Predicting futute needs, how­ever, is a tricky business. The future is not something that JUSt happens; it is something we mold by our actions now. I see the OAA's mandate, both at the pro­vincial and national levels, as onc of initiating action to help us pre­pare for the next century. Here is an update on [he major issues. • Talks are underwav between the Committee of Can'adian Architec­tural Councils (CCAC) repre­senting the provincial associations and the RAIC to achieve a single national organiza­tion before the end of this year so that the profession will enter the next century strong and unified.

• We are esrablishing nadonal reci­procicy for registration. This long-awaired achievement is the result of extensive effort by the provincial associations and will facilitate the registration of quali­fied architects across Canada.

• Talks are currently underway between CCAC and NCARB in the United States to finalize common registration examina­tions and the final element the NCARB Building Design exam­ination, will be universal by 1991.

• Within the context of the Free Trade Agreement, meetings have been underway for several months to push forward with the final details for Canada/U.S. reci­procity. Although there are some fundamental differences in licensing practices and archircc­rural education, we are encour­aged that both countries are dedicated to resolving the differ­ences. Thus with the advent of provincial east/west reciprocity and north/south reciprocity, these changes to the context of architectural practice will remove current limitations for individual firms to pursue markets across North America.

• Final agreement on a common accreditation sYStem for the uni­versities across Canada will be resolved and in place in the next year. All of these changes to the infra­

structure of the practice of archi­tectute locally and nationally will not be achieved without difficulry and compromise. But I am confi-

dent that they will emerge. I would like to add one post­

script to these significant plans that are underway. For many years our members have volunteered endless hours in the development of the infrastructure of the profes­sion in this province and with the capable assiStance of our headquar­ters staff have paved the way for these events to become a reality. The Ontario Association of Archi­tects has played and continues to playa pte-eminent role in these events.

While the resolution of these broad national and global issues is taking place, our association staff and volunteers continue to deal with the practical and immediate concerns of our members as they affect our day to day business affairs.

The OM's current concerns are focused on: 1) the heightened intensiry of

competition between architects and other professionals and the erosion of our traditional areas of practice

2) the difficulties in achieving profitability and obtaining suffi­cient personal income

3) greater intervention by govern­ment bureaucracy in the way we practise, leading to the practical problems of getting projects approved for construction

4) the new skills required as a con­sequence of exploding technol­ogy and the increasing complexity and scale of building types

5) a better understanding of the liability of the professional and obvious pitfalls to avoid As we begin the OM's second

century of service to its members and approach the 21st century, it is my hope that these issues and the actions being taken will serve as a springboard for debate and discussion as we pause [Q take a hard look at ourselves and our future in the rapidly changing world.

Report on the Elliot Lake CAUSE cont'd

Continutd Jrom page 3 night. The local organizing com­mittee was on hand at all times to arrange special visits, and obtain additional information and equip­ment as needed, as well as provid­ing an open abundance of food, friendship and support.

The report was sent to the printer on Monday morning, three hours prior co the presentation. h contains a list of 21 people on the local steering committee and an additional 68 people who contrib­uted. There were representations by the Mayor, Councillors, town staff, the MPP, government minis­tries, the mining companies, local groups, business people, citizens and visitors. The report focuses on development strategy, the town's identity in the area, the town centre, recreation and tourism.

Conclusions reached in the report identified Elliot Lake as a community in transition with industries diversifying from those dedicated to serving the mining of uranium. Elliot Lake was recog­nized as being well positioned to develop as a service, business and tourist centre for the surrounding East Algoma diStrict.

The report recommendations include improved signage at the injunction of the town's access road and the Trans Canada high­way as well as a more direct and obvious access co the town centre from this access road. The town centre is now a shopping plaza. It was suggested that it needs to intensify its uses with more community-based activi ty. Land development along waterfronts has been still for many reasons, send­ing people south to the Blind River area. Suggestions were made to provide avenues for developing prestige residential and business locations to encourage develop-

ment around Elliot Lake. Tourism and recreation have recently been studied in the area and an imple­mentation strategy enacted. The CAUSE study encouraged this direction, and suggested that Elliot Lake should build up tour­ism gradually, using the town's strong base as a touring centre and a location for special events.

The Elliot Lake CAUSE was the 25th study. It occurred in the year of the OM's centennial celebration-celebrations that included presentations to seven communities who had received a CAUSE in the early eighties and whose citizens continue the spirit of CAUSE.

Generally, the Elliot Lake team expetienced the ptide and com­mitment the citizens have in their community. That same commu­nity spirit was expressed in the supportive efforts and oveJ\vhelm­ing generosity felt by the team.

The community has already struck an implementation commit­tee and action is being taken. There is no doubt thar such com-

mitment will help carry Elliot Lake through any changes the town may face.

The Elliot Lake team included: Phillip Carter as Chair­person; Bruce Downey OM Liai­son; Mark McBurney, and James McCullam, architects; Judy Mor­gan, a planner from Toronto; Glen O'Connor, a landscape architect from Toronto; and students Brian Dietrich, Kenneth Chooi, and Andrew Ortwein.

Bruce Downey is principal in the Jirm lng/is & Do,""e] Architects, Inc. in Kingston and the OAA liaison Jor the Elliot Lake CA USE team.

1990 Executive takes office The OAA's 1990 Executive

Committee took office janual)' 25. Members of the Committee are President Douglas Neville, Senior Vice-President and Treasurer john C. Houghton, and Vice-Presidents David P. Lienert (Communica­tions Portfolio), Rocco Maragna (External Affairs), Blaine M. Nicholls (Admissions/Discipline), Eliseo Temprano (Practice).

Douglas Neville Doug is a director and officer of

Dunlop Farrow Inc. in Toronto. With branch offices in Ottawa and Brampton and a graff of 85, the firm does a variety of commercial, insrirurional , educarional and housing projects across Canada. Doug served as a member and chairman of the OAA's Services and Fees Committee from 1978 to 1987. He recently served as a member of the Complaints Com­mittee and Council liaison to the Professional Development Com­mittee. Elected to Council 1987, he served on the Executive Com­mittee as Senior Vice-President and Treasurer before being elected this year to the office of President.

John Houghton john has his own firm, john C.

Houghton Associates, Architects & Planners, a Toronto-based general practice in the private commercial sectOr with projects ranging from new buildings and interior com­missions to restOrations and pro­jects in the far north. john is also vice-president of Dynar Architects Inc., an Ottawa-based firm spe­cial izing in commercial and insti­tutional projects.

As a bilingual member of the Order of Architects of Quebec, john served seven years on the Architectural Commission of the Town of Mount Royal in Mon­treal. As an OAA member, he served on the Services and Fees Committee responsible for prepar­ing the new Schedule of Fees. In 1988 he was elected to the OAA Council and the fo llowing year became vice-president responsible for the Practice portfolio. He also serves on the Professional Educa­tion Committee as reprcsenrative to the University of Toronto. This year he Starrs his first term as the OAA representative to the Cana­dian Accreditation and Certifica­tion Board (CACB).

Immediate Past-President E. Ronald Hershfield passes on the badge of office to incoming President Douglas Nevi lle. Mr. Neville became President of the OAA on janual)' 25, 1990.

David P. Lienert David comes to archi tecture

from a previous career in invest­ment banking. He established his own pract ice in Peterborough last year after gaining professional experience in Toronto working with NORR Architects and with jim Strasman Arc hi tects Inc. He has been responsible as ptOject architect for a number of larger commercial and nansportarion related projects including the Sf. Andrew's Court building in Ottawa for the Bank of Canada.

Since moving to Peterborough, David has been active as a mem­ber of the Trent Society of Archi­tects. He joined the OAA Council in 1989 as the representative for East Centtal Ontario Region.

Rocco Maragna Rocco established his own prac­

tice in 1977 after achieving a Mas­ters of Architecture in Urban Design from Harvard University. His Italian heritage has brought him back to his birthplace on var­ious occasions. In 1972 he studied architecture in Venice and in 1977 he became involved with the

reconstruction of a number of tOwns destroyed by the earthquake.

His firm's projects include the development of the City Centre of the City of York and the restruc­turing of a medieval tOwn in Italy. In 1982, he helped organize the International Festival of Musical Architecttura in Agui la, Italy. Rocco has served on the OAA's Public Information Committee and on the Complaints Commit­tee. This is his first year on Coun­cil and he represents [he: Province of Ontario.

Blaine Nicholls Blaine is a partncr in the firm

Stefura Nicholls Yallowega Associ­ates Architects in Sudbul)'. He joined the firm in 1977 at which time it was Townend Stefura and Baleshta Architects. The firm is responsible for a wide range of pro­jects throughout northeastern Ontario.

Prior to joining Council as the representative fo r the Northern Ontario Region, Blaine served for six years on the CAUSE (Commu­nity Assist for an Urban Study

Effort) Committee. He has been a member of five CAUSE teams and was chairman of the committee during his final year.

This is Blaine's second year of the Executive Committee, having served his first year as vice· president responsible for Communications.

Eliseo 1l!mprano Eliseo established his own prac­

tice in 1983 and has worked on a variety of insti[Utionai , commercial indusniai projects. renovation/ feasibility studies and master plans.

Eliseo considers travel an inter· gral part of his development and has worked and travelled through North and South America, Europe, Africa and Asia. He is qualified to practise architecture in Spain and speaks fluent Spanish. His profes­sional activities have included serving as chairman of the Ottawa Regional Society of Architects and president of the Ottawa Valley Bid DepositoI)'. He is currently a member of BILD (Building Indus­tl)' Liaison Development) Com­mittee for the City of Ottawa.

OAA Executive Committee. Standing from left to right: David P. Lienert, Rocco Maragna, Blai ne Nicholls; seated from left to right: Eliseo Temprano, Douglas Neville, john Houghton.

Calendar Viewpoints: 100 Years of

Architecture in Ontario, an exhibition of the built environ­ment through photOgraphy and art. Sponsored and organized by the Ontario Association of Architects to celebrate its Centennial year. March 16-April 22, 1990, lon­don Regional Art and Histori­cal Museum; May 10-June 10, i 990, Burlington Cultural Cen­tre, July S-Aug. 2, 1990 Art Gal­lery of Algoma, Sault Ste. Marie; Aug. 23-Sept. 23, 1990, Arts Court Gallery, Ottawa; Oct. 5-0ct. 28, 1990, Rodman Hall Arts Centre, St. Catherines.

Reception in honour of Storm Library to be held April 19, 1990 at the Thomas Fisher Rare Book LibraI)' at 120 Sf. George Sf. 5-7 p.m. to celebrate the OAA's acquisition of this rare collection and to present the col­lection to the Fisher libral)' fo r safekeeping. Guest speaker is Phy­llis Lambert. Any OM member who would like to attend this event should call Karen Black at 968-0188.

OMs 100th Annual Meeting to be held April 20, 1990 at 9 a.m. at the Old Mi ll , 21 Old Mill Road, Toronto. The Annual Meet­ing is part of the OAA Convention focused on the theme 'Towards Our Second Centuty." Kenneth Frampton is the guest speaker (Guildhall, Old Mi ll , 3 p.m.) Deadl ine for registration to the convention is Apri l 6, 1990.

First Canadian Symposium on Architectural Research sponsored by the Royal Architec­tural lnstitute of Canada, Alberta Association of Archi tects, Univer­sity of Calgal)', Employment and lmmigtation Canada will be held May 10-12, 1990 in Cal gal)'. For more information contact: Tang Lee or jim Love, Faculty of Envi­ronment Design, The University of Calgal)', Calgal)' Alberta, TIN IN4.

1990 UIA World Congress hosted by the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada and the Order of Architects of Quebec will be held in Montreal May 27-June 1, 1990. The theme of the Congress is "Culrures and Technologies." Contact: Montreal UIA XVI I, Congress Secretariat, c/o Societe la Cle Inc., 640 Sf. Paul Street West, Suite 102, Montreal Quebec, H3C IL9, Telephone (514) 676-1055; FAX (514) 874-0199. The RAIC Annual Meeting will be held dur-i ng the Congress on May 31 , 1990 4-6 p.m. at the Palais des Congres in Montreal.

Housing on Main Streets Competition Awards and Public Forum to be held at Harbourfront June 27, 1990. For more informa­tion call Lorne Cappe, Competi­tion Co-ordinator, (416) 392-0101.

People Barton Myers AlA, FRAlC,

was designated by the Royal Aschi­rectural lnsriwte of Canada as its national nominee for the pres­tigious International Union of Architects' Gold Medal. The Gold Medal was established in 1984 to recognize outstanding merit, tal­ent and achievement of interna­tional imporrance and is awarded by the Internat ional Union of Architects every three years.

Awards City of Kana ta Awards for

Design Exce llence: J.E. Emmell, Architect for Katimavik Plaza; R.E. Winter & Associates for Van Leeuwen Cemre; Kohler, Dicky Edmonson, Matthews, Architects for Kanata Corporate Business Park; James A. Colizza Architect Inc. fo r the Links of Kanara Lakes, George Nichols Architect [nc. for Ayton Lane.

National Association of Home Builders MIRM award for best International Project of the Year: Gabor & Popper Architects for BALM ORAL residential commu­nity in North York.

North York Urban Design Awards: Jones and Kirkland Architects for Mel Lastman Square (Award of Excellence); Adamson Associates Architects for Place Nouveau; Peter Turner Architect Inc. for Wilson Corpo­rate Centre; Petroff Partnership Architects for Lawrence Square; Young & Wright Architects for rhe Howard residence.

Univers iry College (1856-1959) was the masterpiece of the celebrared arehirccrural firm of Cumberland and Srorm. A new book describes rhe history of irs design and building.

Karen J. Goldenberg has been appointed by the Ontario Lieuten­ant Governor to the OM Counci l, effective january 23, 1990. Ms. Goldenberg is Executive Vice­President, corporate planning, for [he Dynacare Health Group Inc. A graduate of the University of Toronto, Faculry of Medicine, Physical and Occupational Ther­apy, Ms. Goldenberg's interests have incl uded the development of several rehabilitation programs in areas of mental health, psycho­ge riatrics, pediatrics, and alterna­tive models of housing and home care. City of Waterloo Site Plan

Awards: Peggy Ann Brock, Architect for Waterloo Toyota; Louis A. Gere for Shantallow Properties Inc.; Gabor & Popper Architects for Treetops; Procter and Redfern Limited for Laurel Water Pumping Station; Svedas Koyanagi Architects Inc. for City of Ware rio a Fire Station #3.

New book describes design history of University College

As rhe OM closes irs Centen­nial year with the acquisition of the library once owned by irs firS[ President, William G. Swrm (and his successorsL it is very fining rhar rhe archirecrural hisrory of ,me of Srorm's best known build­ings, Universiry College, be pub­lished in a lavish book ro be released rhis spring.

publication was a private drcam. Peter Richardson is also an Honor­ary Member of the OM, having received the honour in 1987 for his work as chairman of the Ontario Association of Architects/ Association of Professional Engi­neers of Ontario Joint Practice Board. The book has been dedi­cated ro him.

ing in architectural hiswry is a nar­rative hisrory of the College and Premier's Awards for Acces­

sibility: NORR Partnership Ltd. for Kitchener Health Care Village (Amethyst Award); Lori Burns, Architect for WindReach Farm, Ashburn.

its place in the municipal and social life of Vicwrian Toronto and an insrirurional history writren by the well known historians j.M.S. Careless and G.M. Craig.

The heat[ of rhe book, A NOT UNSIGHTLY BUILDING: Univcr·­sit] College mid Its Histol)' is Douglas Richardson's account of designing and building the original Unive r­siry College (1856-1859), rhe mas­rerpiece of rhe celebrated archirectural firm Cumberland & Srorm.

The book includes the surpris­ing and lit de-known history of ear­lier schemes from which (he College grew - projects for the University of King's Collegc in Upper Canada - by Charles Fowler (famous for Covent Garden Market, London), and by Thomas Young. Incorporated as well is the srory of University College's destruction by fire and its rcbuild­ing by architect David B. Dick. Introducing Richardson's account of these buildings and their stand-

The book contains more than 150 illuStrations including original architectural drawings, rare early phorographs and specially commis­sioned contemporary phowgraphs by John \\",Ison. Half ,he illustra­tions are color. The book is sched­uled for release this spring.

Ktlfell 1. GaMel/berg

rior. Never reproduced before, the perspective is being used with per­mission of [he National Gallery of Canada.

Ken MacPherson) and The OpCll Gate (edited by Richard Bebout).

The original idea for the book came from Richardson 's brother, Peter Richardson, who was princi­pal of University College from 1977 ro 1989 and for whom such a

A special Limited Edition of 250 signed and numbeted copies will be printed on premium paper, hand-bound in fine cloth, stamped with gold fo il and protected by a handmade slip-case. The Limited Edition also includes a poster-sized facsimile in full colour of Swrm's perspective of the College exte-

Douglas Richardson has been teaching architectural history 3[ the Univers ity of Toronto for 20 years and has been University Col­lege archivist for nine years. His other publ ications include Ontorio Towlls (with Ralph Greenhill and

A NOT UNSIGHTLY BUILD­ING: University College ol/d Its His­tory can be ordered through

niversiry College (416) 978-2968. The prepublicarion price for the trade edi tion is $25. The prepubl ication price for the Limited Edilion is $250.

Responding to the Prince Prince Charles and The Visual City cont'd

COlltilllltd 1ro/ll page I of a reputation. Unfortunately or fortunately! that is the price we pay for living in a demo­cra tic society. Why then should the Prince of Wales nOt have the righr to cri ticize individual architects as much as they have the right to defend [hemselves? Architects are privy to the same public forum. I don't think there is any constitutional or moral just ification for the profession to take such a position. In fact, it is healthy that debates on these issues are being held. Far [00 li ttle public attention is paid [0 architecwre and even in a critique on the best of buildings, it is impossible to mention only positive attitudes. Negative issues can be discussed as wel l. If we achieve the maturity to see such remarks in the right light, then meaningful architectural criticism can develop.

The second argument from the cognoscenti is th3[ the Prince does not have specia li zed training and therefore cannot deal wi th the complex issues of archirectural philosophy. A series of disparaging remarks have been made:

.[TheJ Temple of [he 10 Principles in rhe 'Palladio meers Sergeant Pepper' "yle with which rhe Royal Family feels so at homeJ' The Prince seems incapable of making the perceptual leap required for projecting dewy-eyed theory into hard real ity.7 [TheJ 'Barrie of rhe S,yles' unleashed by ,he Prince of Wales .. .induces a feeling of deja vu, nOt say intense boredom.s

.. . the Prince's erratic taste: it is not that he likes both classical pastiche and some contemporary works, but that he blithely lumps together buildings of very differing quali[y.' If there ever were a case of a litt le knowledge bei ng a dangerous thing, it is the Prince Charles' na·jve crusade against Modern architecture.1o

Last year this killer wi t [Prince Charles] fleshed out his views to the length of a is­minute BBC documentary . .. . 1!

Anyone who!s spent time on the scepued isle will recognize with a shudder the mixture of heavy cream laced with bile that Charles pours OUt in his prose: the fa lse modesty ... the scribble, scribble, eh, Mr. Gibbon? contempt for achievement ... the ostrich Stance toward the present. .. and the utterly charming loopiness. 12

"There is nothing wrong in learning from the past," Charles POUts. There certainly isn't. One day he ought to give it a whirl. lJ Prince Albert, of whom it was sa id "he has a lot of tas te, all of it bad.!! The prince has a great deal of vision and all of it d i st~red.14

Prince Charle's vision of Britain has not broadened the architectural debate; it has narrowed it.1 5

Sadly, [he book .. . (The VisiOIl oj Bri/ain) . .. rarely reaches ,he inspired silliness of ,he original T.V. documentary.16

Let us deal with the argument that the Prince lacks the knowledge to discuss architec­ture. Perhaps [he architectural profession has missed [he point. It is not a platitude to say that archi tecture is for people. Good bui ld ings should, as some critic said, put a spring in your step when you walk past one. Architecture should not project despai r within a dreary urban monotony. Everyone has to live with it. Thar is not to say that all good architecture has been or will be immediately accepted.

What Charles attemped to do was not to write the ultimate theory on architecture (even though ir smacks of it), bur to evaluate architecture from a layman's visual point of view. I don't think that there can be any argument that Modern architecture has been found want­ing as an all-embracing solution. That is not to say that there haven't been magnificent so lu tions and compositions. One would be a fool to reject the Tugendhat house or the Villa Savoie.

Where Modern arch itecture has failed is in irs understanding of archirectu re in [he urban sening, where architec ture ceases to be an isolated object and where it is necessary to put building beside building and create urban spaces. It is here where the stark presence and functional logic of Modern architecture has left us with monotony; a monotOny that we do not find in the Georgian Squares of London despite their reperitiveness.

And not all invest igations of the past result in Disneyland. Much can be learned. That the past simply cannOt be repeared and regurgirated is beyond argument but where the past clearly has communicated to us in a better way simply cannot be written off wi th a shrug, insisting that such ideas cannot be properly applied any more. There are moments in archi­tecture where it is appropriate to repeai [he past and some of the best examples of contem­porary architecture are those where this has been done.

One must also take exceprion to the argument that new beginnings cannOt be based on what has happened in rhe past. Our Queen's Quay Terminal in tegrated an existing bui lding into the texture of new urban social pattern. Canada Place in Vancouver is Modern archi tec­lure and yet at the same time it uses detai ls that are a memory of the past. One aspect of the bu ilding pays homage to the theories of Modern architecture, thar form fo llows function (or construction ). At rhe same time, looked ar it in a different ligh t, many th ings were nOt a necessiry of funcrion but their forms were emotional (narrative) reca lls of nautical mera­phors, sai ls! ocean liners, etc.

COl/til/lied 011 page 7

Field Guide approach helps make architecture accessible By John Bfumenson Fitzhenry & Whiteside $50.00 Review by Karen Black

Ontario Architecture by John Blumenson is a wekome addition to the lirerarure available on Ontario architecture. Subritled "A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 1784 ro the Present", ir concerns itself with the stylistic grammar of Ontario's architecture from its ea rliest colonial days ro rhe present. As rhe first book intended as an actual field guide co Ontario archirecrure it succeeds admirably and fills a gap in the existing lirerarure.

Taking an almost textbook approach, Blumenson identifies 27 different styles and prcsents them in chronological order devoring a chaprer to each. He defines style simply as buildings sharing com­mon design characteristics of $nucrure, form and detail. Some hisrorical context for each style is provided but the emphasis is on

the recognition of building fo rms and stylistic details rather than on rhe history of how those styles came [Q be.

The mosr useful feature of rhe book is the presentation of numerous photographs (about 450 in total) representing a variety of building types from all areas of rbe province. After describing a partic­ular style, Blumenson provides abour a dozen examples and points out the features we should observe. The approach is so clear and systematic that even the uninitiated wi ll come away from this book at ease with mueh of rhc jargon while feeling a new famil­iarity with Ontario's buildings.

Blumenson, who has been a Heritage Planner with the City of Ottawa and is now Preservation Officer with the Toronto Histori­cal Board, is very sensi rive to the mixing of vernacular and local influences on style and often gives textbook or "high-style" examples and compares them with their ver~

nacular and regional variations. For example, in the section on An Moderne, Blumenson includes a photo of a house in Tweed built in the Art Moderne style except for its block-like cornice moulding. He cxplains that while rhe Art Moderne purists scorned such his­toric detailing, its inclusion on an Ontario building is nor unusual. This approach helps to resolve the problem of categorizing rhe eclec­ric variety of architectural detail rhat anyone building may exhibit.

The result is a very useful book rhat goes a long way in making architecture accessible to rhe gen­eral reader. h is nor however, a photographic show piece. The images are well composed, but (he reproduction quality is merely functional. The effect is photo­graphs rhat impart information rhough not necessarily inspiration.

Rather than using high-profile buildings, Blumenson has chosen to show less well known examples of each style and rhe result is

House in Mallory town from John Blumenson's Ontario Architecture.

refreshing. Instead of showing the Ontario Legislature buildings as examples of Romanesque Revival, we are treatcd to churches and public buildings in Nonh Bay, Hawkesbury, Gananoque, I-Iam­ilton , and SL George. All photos are exteri or·facade view in keeping with the book's field-guide nature.

There is one major disappoint­ment with rhe book. Wirh a few exceptions, Blumenson has not identified either the buildings or the architecrs rhat designed them. The exceptions arc a few well known buildings such as Univer­sity College, Toronto, by archi­tects Frederic Cumberland and Vlilliam Storm. Blumenson says he included the names of the build­ings and architects where known bur didn't spend rime researching rhose he didn't know. The result is very haphazard, ieading readers to assume thar some buildings and architccts arc worth naming but others are not. For example, the John P. Robarrs Research Library

Responding to the Prince - Prince Charles and The Visual City cont'd

at the University of Toronto is identified as are rhe archireers (Warne r, Burns Toan and Lunde, with Mathers and Haldenby) bur a few pages later there is a photo identified simply as an office building in Markham. It happens to be rhc AllState building by Webb Zerafa Menkes and Housden Architecrs which recentiy won an OM Design Excellence Award. The omiss ion of the archirecr and building name is regrettable. A little extra effon would have provided a book far richer in information.

The book docs not include a glossary of rerms bur Blumenson says he's working on an illustrared glossary which will eventually be published as a companion.

Despite (hese shortcomings Omario Archilecillre is an admirable anempt to provide a layman's guide to architecture rhar is both accessible and fun and will likely encourage further reading and . interest.

COl/lil/utd from page 6 The power of the narrative as defined by Jean-Fran,ois Leotard cannor be denied. I think

Modern architecture has suffered under rhe delusion of the rime wedge that Leger defined, postulating rhat rhe anist was 50 years ahead of popular understanding and rherefore had to suffer the fate of wait ing rhat long to be understood. Many ofrhe theories of Modern archi­ture and panicularly of Modern urban planning, even after 50 years, have proven they were never ever righL We must entenain the idea rhar it may not be people that were wrong, but rhe rheories.

statements, and even more imponant, that a poll in the Architects' JOllrnal reported rhar architects' responses have done more harm to rhe image of the profession rhan the Prince.

Perhaps Charles has identified something that architects seldom consider. In a democtacy it is essential that there is a broad understanding and demand for good architecture because mhenvise it can never be created. Richard Rogers, et at, are quite right when [hey wail that the architects shou ld not be blamed for the shoddy archirecture that has destroyed our envi­ronment. Despite the condemnation with which the profession attacked the comments of Prince Charles, no viable alternate route was demonstrated. Neither can we as architects neglect the statistics of the public reaction. The Prince pointed out that he received 5,000 letters, 99 per cent agree ing with his position. This number cannor be belittled. Ir is a remarkable response to any television presentation. Independent public polls done by var­ious groups showed that some 67 per cent to 87 per cent of the population agreed with his

The debate was important and the Prince has brought a matter ro our a([emion and to rhe anention of rhe public, which has been neglected by the press, and hopefully can now be reawakened. We have to evaluate architecture on its public acceptance as well as rhe merit that it may have wirhin rhe profession. Richard Roger's anicle in 1I!e Timts discharged the examples of the Prince as a Disneyland approach. The arguments that Rogers puts for­ward are those rhat we endlessly debated 40 years ago, nor realizing rhar rhey dealt only with one side of reality. It is nor enough just to respond to the scientific and technical needs of our times, and subordinare all aesthetic expressions as a result of the progress of science and technology. We must accepr rhe failures of Modern architecture. It is rhetorical and one-sided to state that:

We delude ourselves if we think that returning to a make believe the past can solve {his crisis. In fact the danger we face is not being toO modern but rather nOt being modern enough in architecture as elsewhere. It is only through [he development of {he most modern ideas and techniques [hat we can solve [he problems {hat confront us. We have made great progress on barh science and art. As a result, for the first

C011li/1ued 011 page 8

Responding to the Prince - Prince Charles and The Visual City cont'd

COIllinrltd from page 7 rime, we have {he power to transform OUf society.17

This is correcr as far as ir goes, bur ir only discusses one side of our problem, which has many sides. I don'r rhink rhar rhe discussions of rhe Prince have eirher dealr wirh or openly denied such a posirion. Ir is simplisric to link progress wirh Modem archirecrure, and rhe search for rhe pasr as regression. " The reasons rhar lie behind rhe acceprance or rejecrions of archirecrural form are always more complex rhan a simplistic formu la. The failure or suc­cess of contemporary architecture cannot be simply equated with progress. It could be argued that Richard Roger's exciting Lloyds of London Build ing is, in fact, nOt Modern but Posr-Modern, because it uses the formal elements of industrial Modern architecture as decoration.

The discussion that the Prince began was a purely visual and emotional response. Has such an approach any validity? When, as accused, the Prince only talks of these images and his reaction is echoed by the public, then it is essential for us as architects to search for the reason why rhis is so. Some crirics belinled ir and said rhat people agree with him because he only showed examples rhat everybody would agree with anyway. But then, isn'r rhat the issue: [Q find an environment-a man-made environment- that we can agree with, or bet­rer, in which we can live and unfold.

I believe that Modern archirecture began to fossi lize into a code some three decades ago and as such is dead, and so is Posr-Modem archirecture. The correctness of may srarement, of course, relies on a cenain definirion of Modem and Post-Modern because "Modem" can be inrerpreted in many ways. The word has been used as early as rhe Iralian Renaissance. I wou ld like to define Modern as rhe sryle that starred with the Gropius Werkbund Building in 1910. It was the architecrure that Mies van der Rohe defined in his formula: Function and Construction equals Architecrure. It was an understanding of architecture as the expres­sion of a positivistic philosophy, a philosophy that bel ieved in the ultimate power of science- that everything can be resolved and understood through science. Mies van der Rohe's formula described architecture as a science, following a linear route of progress. Any­thing which could not be explained was rejected as mysticism. Philosophy and arr were in the tOw of this powerful and singular force of logic and science.

However such belief stumbled and was quesrioned, nOt only by scientists, bur by philoso­phers and architects. It became obvious that there were other forces at play and architecture could not be explained - nor designed - by function and conmuction alone. The narrow band of aesthetic delight that Modern architecture had produced did nOt cover the broad specrrum of the man-built environment. History was not the bunk, as Henry Ford said. Its memory is an imprinr that still is a parr of us. Perhaps Sir Karl Popper was one of the early questioners when he said that science was nor veri fying our world, but science was a limited field that only emcompassed those issues that could be falsified. Those lying outside this scientific realm were therefore not unimportant. They were JUSt nor a part of science. Hans Georg Gadamer was one of an important group of phi losophers whose Hermeneurics liber­ated philosophy from being considered as an appendage of science and evaluated it again as an independent force outside the realm of science. . Such ideas filtered into architecture. With the demise of Positivism, positivistic archirec­cure, namely Modern archirecmre, was questioned and substituted with an architecture that paid heed to people's emotions. Great words were spoken. Perhaps construction and func­rion were 1I0t rhe masters of architecture but the slaves of the architectural idea. The other side of rhe archirectural coin was explored, namely rhat emorions could dicrate architectural form. A Modern archirect would never have enterrained rhe idea that archirectural form could be developed from emotions. Suddenly critics could explain the phenomenon of the fa~ade, as an emotional reaction to our urban environment totally independenc of internal functional needs. The failure of this Post-Modernism was thar it relegared science ro the role of slave.

Hermeneutisrs never discarded science. On the con[tary they saw science as a viral parr of life, not as a limited linear force but as a polar force, opposed by rhis orher realm rhat was outside rhe boundaries of science, which [call "emorion" and jean-Fran,ois Leorard cate­gorized as the "narrative" (versus [he cognitative). Obviously this narrative or emotional side is dealing, among many things, with culture and therefore with his wry. This magnetic field in which archirecrure is suspended berween polar forces, influences the future of archi­recrure. The Prince has brought ro our attention (influenced perhaps by his Posr-Modern advisor, Leon Krier) rhe pure visual emotional way ro feel abour archirccrure. But must rhe cognirive, the logical, rhe scientific side also not be considered? We cannot resolve architec­rural problems by dealing with one side or the other alone. It is not a question of using one att irude or another. It is the necessity of imegraring archirecrure from rhese twO opposire poles.

It was right of rhe Prince ro single our rhe architect as rhe one who broughr rhe Modern as well as Posr-Modern rhought imo sociery. It was also right of Rogers to sal' that rhe archi­tecr is not the sole power that creared rhe demise. Others, such as developmenral forces, bureaucraric forces, and so on had an equally powerful influence in rhe rravesries which have appeared in rhe urban environmem.

In a posr-indumial sociery, rhe social srrucrure is based on "economizing": rhe belief rhat the most viable economic solution is the best. The other secrions of our society move in seemingly opposing ways; politics drives towards participation; culmre moves towards individual fulfilment. '9 In this confusion of a post-indusrrial society we are looking for answers. The simple answers have been raken away from us. The tenets of Modernism thar condemned hisrory and equared archirecrure wirh science are as useless for rhis rask, as is a regurgitation of the pasr thar is nmhing more than a quixotic srance. We must not forget thar the standard of life rhar we are roday creating is only possible because of our advanced rechnology wirhin an open market sociery, and we mUSt also accept thar rhe freedom rhar we have rhrough this achievement now demands a fulfilment of our emotional desires.

No, rhese rhings arc all for rcal and cry for a solution, bur architecrs can never reach them wirhour a public rhat undersrands rhe necessity of a visually satisfying environment and will demand it} particularly in the urban simarian which we cannot escape, and which more and more engulfs us and becomes part of our lives.

I rhink we can only applaud the Prince for having starred this debare and having Sfarred ir from rhe only angle in which ir can be debated in the public arena: thar rhe past is essential to undersranding the present and rhar the environment affecrs us srrongly in a visual way. This is a long way from agreeing in all aspecrs wirh rhe conclusions rhat were drawn by rhe Prince, his assessmem of the lessons one should learn from rhe past or rhe areas of the archirecrural process which he entirely omitted.

And the archirecr musr also be defended. He alone cannor be blamed for this failure. Because we are lacking a culrural oligarchy thar, for example, in Georgian times controlled architecrural rasres, we need a public that understands and calls for a better environmenr and supporrs a finer vision. Architects are rhe handmaidens of a free economy. Unless the public recognizes rhat the visual environment plays a vital part in their lives, any arrempts by architects ro achieve rhis must fail. There is such a thing as a visual city. Ir is as power­ful in its influence on us as rhe funcrional city. However, borh wi ll fail if they cannot be integrated.

Eberhard H. Zeidler ~ principal In the firm Wier Roberts Partllership, Architecls.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Bayley, Srephen. "Princely Vision Dim and Dangerous," Sunday Times (London), Sep­

rember 17, 1989, p. B7. 2. Bell, Daniel. The Comillg of the Post-Industriol Society: A Vellttlre in the Social Forecosting.

New York: Basic Books, 1976. 3. Buchanan, Peter. "Phamom Prince," Architectural Review, Yol. 186, No. 1112 (Ocro­

ber, 1989), pp. 4, 9. 4. Fisher, Thomas. "The Princely Vision," Progressive Architecture, Yol. 70, No. 13

(December, 1989) , p. 9. 5. HRH Charles, Prince of Wales. A Vision of Britain: A Personal View of Architectllre. Lon­

don: Doubleday, 1989. 6. Hurchison, Maxwell. "Towards the Nexr Millennium," RlBA Journal (September,

1989), p. 40. 7. Hutchison, Maxwell. The Prillce of Wales: Right or Wrong? An Architect Rtplies. London;

Faber and Faber, 1989. 8. jenkins, David. "A Principled Profession?" Architects' Journol, Yo l. 190 No.2 (Seprem­

ber 13, 1989), pp. 14-15. 9. Morrish, john. "On HRH v. Modernism," Time Ollt, o. 1012 Uanuary 10-17, 1990).

10. Muschamp, Herbert. "The Winds of Windsor ism," The New Rtpllblic, Yol. 201, No. 24, December 11, 1989, pp. 30-35.

It. Rogers, Richard. "Pulling Down the Prince," The lImes (London), july 3, 1989, p. 10. 12. Rogers, Richard. Foreword ro Hurchison, Maxwell. The Prince of Wales: Right or Wrong?

An Architect Rtplies. London; Faber and Faber, 1989. 13. Sramp, Gavin. "Inrelligent [ntervenrion," The Spectotor, Yol. 263, No. 8410 (Septem­

ber 16, 1989).

FOOTNOTES Herberr Muschamp, "The Winds of Windsor ism," The New Rtpublic, Yol. 201, No. 24 (December II, 1989) p. 34. Rogers, foreword to Hurchison, The Prince of Wales: RighI or Wrong?, p. vi. "[n 1984, I said ... that rhe proposed exrension ro the Gallery was li ke a 'monsuous carbuncle on rhe face of a much-loved and elegant friend.' " Charles, Prince of Wales, A V~ioll of Britain: A Persollal View of Archilecrure (London: Doubleday, 1989), p. 7.

4 "[The] j. and j. Beicher's Mappin and Webb building ... was ro be demolished for a Mies van der Rohe 'glass srump' ... " Ibid, p. 66. Hutchison, Maxwell, The Prince of Wales: Right or Wrollg? An Architect Rtplies, (London: Faber and Faber, 1989).

Richard Rogers, "Pulling Down the Prince," The Times London Uuly 3 1989) p. 10. David jenkins, "A Principled Profession?" Architects' Journol, Yol. 190, No.2, (Sep­tember 13, 1989) p. 14.

7 Ibid, p. 14. 8 Gavin Sramp, "Inrelligenr Inrervemion," The Spectator, Yol. 263, No. 8410 (Septem­

ber 16,1989) p. 49. Perer Buchanan, "Phanrom Prince," Archittcrural Review, Yol. 186, No. 1112 (Ocrober, 1989) p. 4.

10 Thomas Fisher, "The Princely Vis ion," Progressive Architecture, Vol. 70, No. 13 (December, 1989) p. 9.

11 Muschamp, p. 30. 12 Ibid 13 Ibid., p. 3t. 14 Srephen Bayley, "Princely vision dim and dangerous," London SUllday Times, (Sep-

rember 17, 1989), p. B7. 15 Ibid. 16 john Morrish, "On HRH v. Modernism," lime Out, No. 1012, January 10-17, 1990. 17 Rogers, "~ulling Down the Prince." 18 Hurchison, ''Towards rhe Nexr Millennium," RlBA JOllmol (Seprember, 1989) p.40. 19 Daniel Bell, The Coming of the Post-Industriol Society: A Vt11tart in the Social Forecoslillg

(New York: Basic Books, 1976).

mnm~mnnnnnn~ THE NEWSLETIER OF THE ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF ARCHITECTS

Produced by the Ontario Association of Architects 50 Park Road, Toronto M4W 2N5 (416) 968-0188

Articles may not be reproduced without permission of the Association.

Editor: Karen Black B.A., B.A.A.

Editorial Board: David P. Lienert, B.Comm. MBA, BArch., OM; Roberc B. Stiff, B.Arch., OA-\', MRAIC, james M. Wrighc, B.Arch., OM, MRAlC.