Owen Hatherley (We trash our modernist heritage on a whim: why is Britain so in thrall to the wrecking ball?, 31 March) is right that our cities will only flourish if we get the balance right between conserving everything and giving developers a free-for-all. In theory, the listing system ensures that the best of each era is saved from destruction, and the overall mix gets richer and richer. But, as Hatherley notes, listing is a “blunt instrument” and one that developers are all too skilled at manipulating. It’s true that it suits them to maintain that listing 20th-century buildings is still controversial.
In fact, conservation is now pretty broad-minded and has got over the fact that many of the outstanding modernist buildings now listed sit on top of the rubble of great Victorian ones – none of them is going to be magicked back into existence by the punitive demolition of the former. We have a great chance to make sure we don’t make the same mistake again.
Now that we understand the impact of demolition on climate change, there is all the more reason to prioritise reusing structures on environmental grounds – there are still plenty of sites for new masterpieces (only 2% of building stock is listed). As with cherished buildings of previous eras, the best 20th-century examples deserve gentle conservation. We should stop trashing our modernist heritage.
Catherine Croft
Director, Twentieth Century Society, London
• The problem with Owen Hatherley’s plea for preserving the modernist buildings of the 1960s and 70s is that at almost no point does he mention the people who have to live or work in them. Does he live in a concrete tower block 25 storeys up, where the lifts break down, or shop in a bleak, windswept precinct with bits falling off the facade? While no one would dispute that towns and cities need to evolve, the reality is that many examples of modernism were plonked down without regard to history, geography, local materials or traditions, or to the practicalities of everyday life.
The whole Le Corbusier idea of modernism was basically monumental, inhuman in scale and rather authoritarian. Architecture can be both functional and attractive. If we have to still look to the distant past for beauty, so be it. But modernism was never about compromise with the past, or even how people want to live. It failed for the same reason that the Victorian gothic style ultimately failed. They were better in small doses, not the often large-scale blitzkrieg of urban centres and communities.
Garth Groombridge
Southampton
• Owen Hatherley expertly highlights the dilemma facing town planners, who seem to fall into two distinct groups – those who approach each building as a separate design problem to be solved, and those with a long-term vision for whom the completed city centre was a concept influencing their design approach. I grew up in Coventry, where wartime destruction gave architects the opportunity to produce a grand plan. What happened was more like a series of changes which, in many cases, had to be rethought. Parts of the shopping area within the Precinct werelater demolished or reconfigured, as it became apparent that the first floor, reached by an external stairway, was highly unpopular with shoppers.
The contrast with Birmingham is striking. There, someone saw the bigger picture and a walk from Brindley Place along to Symphony Hall is a pleasant experience for anyone attuned to the visual stimuli afforded by attractive buildings situated in harmony with each other. I wish I could be more loyal to the city of my childhood, but the older parts will always be what I remember most fondly.
Bob Caldwell
Daventry, Northamptonshire
• The third letter in this package was amended on 7 April 2022 to clarify, in relation to Coventry, that it was parts of the shopping area within the Precinct which were later demolished or reconfigured.
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
