Another view of the Terry/Windsor concept

Here's another view by and courtesy of the Quinlan Terry office:

I am by no means a classicist. I am open to the surprise of a modern building, so long as it is designed to fit-in and to support a walkable, pedestrian-oriented street. I especially like the contrast of modern and traditional, say, bright red metal windows and corrugated siding with stone or (in my experience) cedar shingles.

I am trying to digest the drawing above. The elevation is certainly charming; the Terry plan clearly has vastly more "curb appeal" than does Rogers' — maybe that's why we only saw a bird's-eye view of Roger's in the media? There are no (or minimal) useless setbacks from the sidewalk. 

Terry's also has a lot of practical advantages: 

• what appears to be more usable open space (though I assume it is only for residents and not the public): 

• better light and views from the flats — I assume that they are "through-flats" from street to courtyard:

• lower buildings more in context with the neighborhood (not that I care much about height but neighbors do and the less social tension the better). 

The Qataris and the Candys should thank Prince Charles. He has helped them, I believe, avoid a huge mistake and make a lot of money. The old project looked like a dud. This one is a winner if for no other reason than the vast majority of people love the implied status which goes along with tradition.

Many questions, of course, and the one which jumps out:

• Not to put too fine a point on it but where are the poor people? i.e. the social housing? I am all for subsiding the poor but I think it is nutty to lose the tax benefits of housing for rich people. Why use a primo-luxo site for poor people when you could rent/sell that same space to rich ones, which I believe will produce a greater net social benefit? I think it is patronizing and prissy to think that having poor and rich live cheek-by-jowl is some sort of great thing as if what poor people lack in their lives is propinquity to the rich. Better that the social housing component be market rate and generate more money to subsidize the poor by soaking the rich through property taxes etc etc. (Then again I am retrograde in a lot of ways.)