By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Your browser seems to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser.


Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.




Regarding your editorial (AJ 20.07.06). In a consumer housing market, society is not served by energy-efficient, ugly buildings that will be rejected by a discerning public. We should recognise that many of us choose cars not because of their low fuel consumption but by their appearance. There is no reason to assume a society told to be more discerning in design decisions should park its sensibilities when looking at the largest investment of its life.

We have to make being green a mainstream concern that can be delivered in an attractive package. Buildings that can happily serve two centuries of housing demand, such as the London examples of Regency and neo-Regency housing, albeit without the lowest energy rating possible, must stand on an equal footing with poorly designed housing meeting ambitious energy targets, which may be demolished and rebuilt many times over in two centuries unless they meet the test of consumer attractiveness.

This is not a vindication of reactionary architecture, but can we guarantee to provide dwellings on a par with the best of what the housing market was providing in 1820?

Tony Edwards, EDCO Wimbledon

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

The searchable digital buildings archive with drawings from more than 1,500 projects

AJ newsletters