Ignoring fossil fuels

Earlier this year, a book appeared celebrating the first ten years of the Stirling Prize for architecture. Back in 1996, recession was only just ending and the National Lottery just beginning. It was the end of a bleak time for architects, doubly afflicted by the criticisms of the Prince of Wales. One unexpected benefit of the Prince’s attentions, however, was that the public was eager for stories about architecture, and the Stirling Prize managed to change these from bad news to good. A building that wins will always be a hostage, and this year, for the first time, the glitter looks a little tarnished in places. Last Saturday’s Guardian carried a full-page article itemising faults in some of the winners, while others have pointed out that despite a general commitment to sustainability by the RIBA, which awards the prize, this consideration is usually placed well back in the priorities of the judges. Even the immediate past president of the RIBA, George Ferguson, was quoted saying that ‘to some extent the Stirling Prize has become a graphics competition of brilliant images of buildings that don’t necessarily perform’.

Is the honeymoon period of the Stirling over? At the prize-giving dinner, you needed to read between the lines to find out. The Guardian comments were brushed away by the current president, Jack Pringle, and by the winning architect, Richard Rogers, as trivial matters. We know best was their message: real quality rises above everyday snags such as lack of temperature control (Laban Centre, Magna), oppressive darkness (Peckham Library) and excessive glare (Lord’s Media Centre). It’s not so much the message that is wrong here, for the complaints were rather trivial, but the mode of delivery. We seldom hear architects say sorry, or that they will try to avoid such problems in future. Their remarks tend to be more in the spirit of the twice past president, Owen Luder, who famously commended the Richard Rogers design for the National Gallery extension because it said ‘sod you’ to anyone who disagreed.