Prince Charles's Poundbury fire station is a daft mess

This royally-appointed, Parthenon-meets-Brookside hybrid is architectural dabbling of the worst kind

Justin McGuirk | guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 31 March 2009 13.31 BST
Article history


Freakish... Prince Charles's new Poundbury fire station. Photo: Phil Yeomans/BNPS

Prince Charles, that purveyor of fine Duchy sausages and scourge of modern architecture, has just completed his first building: a fire station in the twee village of Poundbury, Dorset. And I must say it's a superb creation: a dumpy neoclassical Georgian palace with three garage doors attached to it. It's the Parthenon meets Brookside.

Everybody knows that the prince likes to hold forth, mostly disapprovingly, on the architectural state of the nation. A quarter of a century ago he branded the proposed extension to the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square a "monstrous carbuncle", and the phrase has lingered on infamously as an emblem of British conservatism. Nowadays, he prefers to lead by example, and Poundbury is his vision of the ideal town: ie a traditional Georgian village. It's an escapist fantasy that is somehow no more authentic than one of those Japanese Olde England theme parks, despite being home-grown.

But Poundbury is his pet project, and why shouldn't he have a play? Throughout history, lots of heads of state have indulged their architectural visions: Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein and, of course, "mad" King Ludwig of Bavaria, who commissioned the Walt Disneyesque castle of Neuschwanstein. Even Kim Jong Il dabbles a bit. Interestingly, in his own sandpit, Charles reveals the same weakness for pretentious kitsch as his totalitarian forebears. But you have to pity him a little – all he got to exercise his talents was a fire station.

Now, there's no doubt that Charles has skim read the odd architecture pattern book, and can crank out a few pediments, pilasters and oculi windows, but a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If you were momentarily fooled that this was the work of an architect, check out the two black drainpipes dropped down on either side of the faux balcony. Nice. Like designing a Bentley with the exhaust pipe sticking out of the roof.



But let's not nitpick. The real problem here is not the detailing, it's the underlying project. Exactly what aspect of our heritage is this mess trying to defend? It's just daft. It's not even post-modern. Post-modernism was essentially Pavlovian: you see columns and you think "civic architecture". It was supposed to help people understand the city. But if you stumbled across this freakish hybrid, you'd be deeply confused. And that's because it's embarrassed about what it is.

I think the good firemen of Poundbury should be forced to wear Regency breeches and powdered wigs, and rush to their infernos in a red barouche carrying water in wooden pails. The poor, hapless souls. Kill this building. Kill it with fire.

My opinion is not unanimous, though. The comments on the Daily Mail's website testify to that. "I like it. It looks nice," writes Don, sweetly. "That is a rather stunning piece of work, well done Charles!! Much better than the modern tat inflicted on us in city centres!!!" writes Stef. Come on, your highness, we know that's you.

Justin McGuirk is the editor of Icon magazine.

>> 자세한 내용은 원문링크를 따라가세요.