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