Posts Tagged Qatar
Prince Charles accused of pressurising Qatari royal family over residential development
Posted by The Sheet in Architecture News on May 18, 2010
Royal letter allegedly marked opening salvo in campaign that led to scrapping of Chelsea Barracks plan, high court hears
The Qatari royal family was forced to scrap plans for a £3bn housing development in central London for "political and diplomatic" reasons after the Prince of Wales urged the emir of the gulf state to abandon them, the high court has heard.
The Qataris "floundered" after Prince Charles and his aides launched a "fight to the finish" to derail designs for more than 500 apartments on the former site of the Chelsea Barracks by Lord Rogers, the modernist architect with whom the prince has repeatedly clashed.
The court heard on Monday that during a face-to-face exchange over tea at Clarence House, the prince "pissed in [the emir's] ear about how awful the scheme was", causing him to order aides to withdraw the designs.
The claims about Prince Charles's intervention came on the first day of a trial in which the Qatari government's former development partner, CPC group, owned by Christian Candy, sought to recoup up to £81m in alleged lost earnings after the prince became involved last spring.
At the time, the prince's intervention sparked accusations he had overreached his constitutional role by interfering in a live planning application that was shortly to be considered by the planning committee of Westminster city council.
The emir met the prince at Clarence House on 11 May 2009 with his second wife, Sheika Mozah. A note of the meeting by Sir Michael Peat, the prince's private secretary, said: "The emir was surprised by Rogers's design for Chelsea Barracks and said that he would have them changed."
The impact was dramatic, with the emir described in court papers as issuing "a bollocking" to the managing director of the Qatari Diar real estate firm, Ghanim bin Saad al-Saad, about the architecture.
An email from Candy shortly after the meeting said the emir "went mental at Ghanim, telling him how awful the design was and to withdraw ASAP".
In the same email, Candy related how al-Saad told his own planning director that the prince had been "pissing" in his ear.
The decision was made to scrap the scheme and develop an alternative, and the emir assured the palace in more graceful language and through intermediaries that "he was keen for the development to be a lasting legacy which will reflect well on Qatar".
Representing CPC, Lord Grabiner QC said it was his client's case that the designs were scrapped "for diplomatic and political reasons between the emir and the Prince of Wales". That, Grabiner said, constituted a breach of contract.
Prince Charles began his campaign two months earlier with a private letter to the Qatari prime minister, the emir's cousin, stating: "I can only urge you to reconsider the plans for the Chelsea site before it is too late. Many would be eternally [underlined] grateful to Your Excellency if Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment could bequeath a unique and enduring [underlined] legacy to London."
He objected to Rogers's glass and steel design which had been commissioned by the emir's property investment vehicle, Qatari Diar, and attached a sketch of an alternative design by one of his favourite neoclassical architects, Quinlan Terry.
The project had been proceeding well until Charles's intervention, the court heard, and the Qataris were not even put off by the global financial crisis, shaking off the collapse of Lehman Brothers and writing to CPC Group that they were convinced the prudent course of action was to continue with the Rogers plan.
Candy, 35, sat in court today opposite representatives of the Qatari royal family to hear his company's case that the prince's intervention denied it a payment due upon planning permission being granted of between £68.5m and £81m.
The Qataris had tried to assuage the prince's fears with a secret undertaking to revisit the designs after planning permission had been secured. That was not enough for the prince, and John Ward, a Qatari Diar executive, was told by Peat that Charles was "going to fight to the finish".
Peat told Ward: "It [is] an enormously important site and it was difficult for many people to stand by and let, in their view, an inappropriate scheme go forward on an informal understanding."
The court papers show that Charles met two key planners, Sir Simon Milton, the deputy mayor of London, and Robert Davis of Westminster city council, the next day.
Charles's intervention was "a hand grenade requiring serious attention", according to Joe Smouha QC, representing Qatari Diar. But the Qataris denied Candy's case – that their decision to scrap the Rogers scheme was a breach of contract.
Smouha said the payment was dependent on planning permission, and it would not have been obtained either from Westminster city council or the mayor of London, Boris Johnson. "The claims advanced by the claimants go nowhere because they have suffered no loss."
The trial continues and is due to last two weeks.
A brief history of Charles's monstrous carbuncles
In 1984, Prince Charles launched his now-famous attack on Peter Ahrends' proposed extension to the National Gallery in London. At the Royal Institute of British Architects' 150th anniversary he lambasted the design as "a monstrous carbuncle". He got his way: the "carbuncle" was never built.
In the same speech he criticised the plans of his friend Lord Palumbo to replace the Victorian Mappin & Webb building in London with a skyscraper. But he was no happier with the Sir James Stirling alternative, which, he complained, looked "rather like an old 1930s wireless".
In 1987, Charles scorned Richard Rogers' redevelopment of Paternoster Square, London. He locked horns with the architect again in 2008, using Rogers' 44-storey "cheese grater" tower in the City of London to warn that historic cities were being wrecked.
In 1988 Charles described Colin St John Wilson's British Library reading room as like "an academy for secret police". He criticised the 1974 Brutalist central library in Birmingham, saying it looked like "a place where books are incinerated, not kept", and in 1991 resigned as president of patrons of the Museums of Scotland over the selection procedure for designs for the new National Museum. In 2008, he said the Ivor Crewe lecture hall at the University of Essex – later a RIBA award winner – looked "like a dustbin".
The Prince of Wales, the Emir of Qatar and the £81m Chelsea Barracks lawsuit
Posted by The Sheet in Architecture News on May 17, 2010
Property tycoons take dispute over prince's alleged torpedoing of £3bn Richard Rogers residential development to high court
A bitter dispute involving the Prince of Wales, the Qatari royal family and architect Lord Rogers, who claims a multibillion-pound property project was wrecked by the prince, will come to a head in the high court this week.
Luxury property tycoons Nick and Christian Candy have lodged a claim for breach of contract over the withdrawal of plans for their Rogers-designed residential scheme at Chelsea Barracks by Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment, a property company backed by the emirate of Qatar.
The Candy brothers' company, CPC group, and Rogers had planned to develop the 5.2-hectare (13-acre) site, opposite Sir Christopher Wren's Royal Hospital Chelsea near Sloane Square, London, into a £3bn mix of luxury flats and more affordable housing.
But the planning application was dropped last June, after Prince Charles wrote to the head of the Qatari royal family's firm, which owns the site, branding the design of 548 flats in 17 blocks unsympathetic and unsuitable for the area.
At the height of the dispute some of the world's leading architects, including Frank Gehry and Lord Foster, criticised the prince for using his position to interfere.
While the prince, whose outspoken views against modern architecture are well-known, will not be called to the stand, his presence is expected to loom large in the proceedings as letters and other documents reveal his influence over development at one of the most expensive pieces of real estate in the UK.
The brothers claim it was the prince's interference that persuaded the Qataris to abandon the project, and are suing for a reported £81m.
The controversy was sparked after the leaking of a letter the prince had written on 1 March last year to Qatar's prime minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jasim, the chairman of Qatari Diar. It emerged he had voiced concerns over "one more brutish development" and that, in May last year, he invited the Emir of Qatar and his wife, Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser Al Missnesd, for tea at Clarence House.
In an interview last June after the project was scrapped, Lord Rogers told the Guardian: "Up to two months ago we were pretty convinced we were going to get out scheme through Westminster's planing committee. We enjoyed some of the strongest support I have ever had from Westminster and the Greater London Authority ... I thought we were home and dry. I just don't know what happened."
The scheme had been opposed by a residents' group, though much of the local opposition had been assuaged by changes to the scale of the blocks of flats.
The row carries echoes of previous disputes where Prince Charles has made his views on modern architecture plain. Twenty-five years ago he described a planned extension to the National Gallery by the architectural firm of Ahrends, Burton and Koralek as a "monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much loved and elegant friend".
Today, a spokesman for Clarence House said: "Prince Charles is entitled to his private opinions. Any dispute between the Candys and the Qataris is for them to resolve, not us. The prince knows the emir and his wife extremely well and the meeting would have happened anyway as part of his royal and diplomatic role.
• This article was amended on 17 May 2010. The original said that the target of Prince Charles's "carbuncle" remark was a Richard Rogers design for the National Gallery extension. This has been corrected.
When this gaseous burp explodes in the desert air, we’ll still have the Burj Dubai | Simon Jenkins
Posted by The Sheet in Architecture News on January 4, 2010
The 818-metre tower is a true wonder of the world, a fitting monument to Dubai as the capital of excess and irrational exuberance
The scaffolding has cleared from the most astonishing man-made structure I have seen. It is outrageous, wasteful, egotistical, ridiculous; but ask if the Burj Dubai is beautiful and I cannot deny it. When it formally opens (mostly empty) early next year, this Dubai tower will, at 818 metres, be the highest building anywhere, its "sneer of cold command" thrusting a finger at the outside world even as its Ozymandian surroundings sink beneath the economic waters of the Gulf.
With the Dubai property market plummeting, the Burj is the final grandiose gesture of the emirate's ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, on his long campaign to make Ludwig of Bavaria seem like a jobbing builder on the North Circular Road.
Unlike most new skyscrapers, the $8bn (£5bn) Burj Dubai does not rise until the point where an accountant calculates the lifts can take no more. Its 20-acre base has the plan of a six-leaf desert flower, from which it launches itself into the sky in a diminishing cluster of rocket-like cylinders, spiralling and soaring to a celestial climax.
This is no pastiche Mies, pastiche Corb, pastiche Foster, like the postmodern blobs, slices, wedges and cornets that crowd every Gulf skyline, screaming "look-at-me" at the brain-dulled passerby. Burj Dubai, designed by the Chicagoan architect, Adrian Smith of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill and closely watched by the sheikh himself, leads the eye ever upwards. It has the exhilaration of a Gothic spire. At the top, a spike rises further, swaying 1.5 metres in the wind and appearing to bend towards the viewer, as if appalled at its own presumption in puncturing the heavens.
Dubai this week lay in the shadow of its new tower, a partygoer still dancing in the streets hours after the party has ended. Its hyperbolic malls are crowded, its freeways jammed and its latest attention-grabber, an international film festival, mobbed by crowds. On Monday Dubai's more sober neighbour, Abu Dhabi, tossed its defaulting property market a $10bn note for one last drink, with another $1bn in pocket money for the embarrassed Maktoum family.
The sheikh's obedient media barely mentioned the humiliation, as a drunk cares not who pays for the last round. The construction sites, once host to a quarter of the world's cranes, are mostly still building, but no one holds out much hope for the sea-girt ocean palms and "cities" planned at the height of the most reckless property bubble in history. The chairman of Dubai World, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, might cry earlier this year, "Dubai has a vision like no other place on earth," but it is a vision few want to share just now.
A quarter of new residential units stand empty and 34,000 are still under construction. Nothing is heard now of a plan to build a tower higher even than Burj Dubai in the port area. An archipelago in the form of a map of the world remains as piles of sand offshore, crazily shipped like coals to Newcastle from Australia and rumoured to have disgorged antipodean snakes into the Gulf. The capital of irrational exuberance has embarked on an almighty hangover.
Since I have long seen Dubai as a speculative accident waiting to happen, I could not resist a debate on its future, held on Monday in the rival statelet of Qatar up the coast – and held with not a little schadenfreude. Dubai's protestation of open markets, an open society and western freedoms have long been absurd. Its rulers reacted to the debate (broadcast next month by BBC World) by trying to have the Qataris suppress it and ensuring that three Dubai speakers and all Dubai journalists boycotted it.
This was absurdly self-defeating, since a motion critical of Dubai's breakneck expansion was defeated 60-40. Twitter and Facebook were flooded with the good news for Dubai, in a week when there had been precious little. Yet none of this was allowed to be reported in Dubai's censored media. Never were so many well-groomed heads buried in so much desert sand.
The surest sign of a polity that has lost confidence in itself is when its rulers cannot tolerate a debate on its affairs. Even the word default has had to be replaced in the Dubai press by "debt restructuring" or "new legal framework". Outsiders are routinely blamed for the property market collapse, which the emirate's buccaneers and paid stooges have for years been stoking with hyperbole. Property values are reported to be 50% down from their peak and are predicted by UBS analysts to be heading for 75%. Those who mimicked the 17th-century Dutch who believed that tulip prices could never fall are left with the paranoid's last gasp, blaming foreigners for their woes.
The most mesmerising thing about Dubai is not its present but its future. Will it be Machu Picchu, Angkor Wat or Fatehpur Sikri? Will it become a place of sand and weeds, so many "trunkless legs of stone" lost on a scorching Gulf shore?
What will happen when the world's funny money starts to flow elsewhere? What happens when a future sheikh goes either environmental or religious and tires of boosterism, returning to tents and camels, to order and respect for his ancestors? What happens when some political whirlwind sweeps across the Gulf from Iran, or down from Iraq, or across from Saudi Arabia?
At a certain point in the decline in property values, it no longer pays owners to maintain lifts, services and utilities (as on a British tower estate). More likely Dubai will be a desert Detroit, a place of widespread dereliction with some money remaining at the centre but with ghost towns and squatted housing in the sweltering suburbs. The smart money is already on the more cautiously developed Qatar and Abu Dhabi stealing its financial thunder and leaving Dubai with its bizarre hotels: Las Vegas to Los Angeles, or Atlantic City to New York.
There is a touch of Vegas to the gold-plated atrium of the "seven star" Burj Al-Arab hotel, with its casino baroque and computerised fountains like leaping dolphins. There is more than a touch of Disney to the $1.5bn Atlantis hotel, opened this year by Kylie Minogue, with shark-filled aquarium wall, garden gnome interior and giant conches for capitals.
Already the office towers of Dubai look like those of a pre-cyber age, when the rich had to live near the oil, and celebrities could be induced to buy off-plan and sell before the fireworks ended. Why live in Dubai and shop at an ersatz Harvey Nichols when you can live in Knightsbridge and shop at the real one?
Dubai is a gaseous burp about to explode in the desert air. But when it explodes it will leave behind the sensational Burj, standing visible across the desert, gleaming proudly in the sun. One day the cost of keeping it up will exceed its income, its steel will rot and the swaying summit will become dangerous. The mother of all demolitions will have to begin. Then Shelley can have his moment and Ozymandias his epitaph. But for the time being Dubai can at least boast a true wonder of the world.
Architecture, Art and design, Burj Dubai, Business, Comment, Culture, Dubai, Dubai World, Global economy, Global recession, Le Corbusier, Qatar, The Guardian, World news
No Comments