Thank you for your editorial last week and, against Ken Powell's and Gavin Stamp's inaccurate views, for underlining that listing would make regenerating the Brunswick 'that much more difficult'. They have also both implied (Letters 10.2.00 and 24.2.00) that some years ago I favoured a listing for the building. In fact, evidence exists to the contrary.
In the early seventies, its concrete still clean, the Brunswick was entered for an riba regional award. The late Michael Powers, a founding partner of Architects Co-Partnership whom I knew well, chaired the jury. Afterwards Michael kindly called me to explain why they could not honour the building: 'It's such a ghastly mess, isn't it Patrick?', he almost wept. Strange that his own son's Society sees it so differently now, when we have a bumpier road to travel.
For myself, nostalgia is death to life. The Brunswick might test the real implications of listing, as you suggest, but I and she would rather not. It's the easy but wrongheaded 'art' hyperbole that's dangerous - the type that likens a sensible dream to Park Hill, Sheffield, Trellick Tower, Kensington and Alton Estate, Roehampton. My initial concept entailed a heartfelt protest against all that, most particularly the last. A pity the taste guardians cannot understand why, in their popular narrow-mindedness, they constitute the bumps.
I ask that anyone wishing to support my cause should write to dcms as notified on page 14 of last week's aj.
Patrick Hodgkinson, Bath