Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

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

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more


  • Comment

Your article 'Brewery Heritage Denied' (AJ 09.06.05) argues that a building's designer should influence the indefinite life of said building. I would strongly argue who cares? There are good buildings and bad buildings. Some are fit for purpose at the time of building and remain so, others have outlived their intended use and are frankly an eyesore. The fact is that this building is not attractive.

Nostalgic maybe, but not now able to fulfil any useful purpose.

Why can't we accept redundant, ugly buildings need to make way for new, useful buildings that serve the community as it is today?

Giles Gilbert Scott may have been a major contributor to groundbreaking design in the past, but I wonder, if he was around today, would he be happy with the design of the brewery building in today's world? Or would he ask himself 'can I design something that would better serve the community's needs now?' Better to demolish this building, recycle the materials and build new homes.

Name and address supplied

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.