I came across this article about how Prince Charles is coming out with a “green” movie (titled Harmony) similar to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. The article reveals Prince Charles’ willingness to advocate environmental strategies and mentions his commitment to organic farming. All of this is very commendable and I applaud him for using his influence to promote an obviously noble cause, but I had a very hardy chuckle with the last sentence of the article:
“The publishing house said they expect the book will draw on the prince’s commitment to organic farming, as well as his opposition to genetically modified crops and modern architecture.”
He really dislikes modern architecture. My previous post gets into that a little. I’m not too sure what his argument will be in proving how modern architecture lacks the ability to confront our environmental issues.
The truth (dare I say inconvenient truth) about architecture and the environment is that bad architecture is bad for the environment, and by bad I mean a stylized architecture that lacks any reference to the local climate and culture. I just wanted to share my belief that architecture, despite the style fused into the aesthetics, can easily be made “green” by effectively responding to its specific locale. Despite Prince Charles’ tastes, a historic architectural style reminiscent of a simpler and more optimistic time in history will not create a simpler and more optimistic contemporary society. Creating design solutions for our environmental issues will greatly improve our society, whether it’s done with a brick building or a glass and steel building.