You printed my letter responding to David Canning the week before, but in changing the last paragraph from two to three sentences, rendered the whole letter incomprehensible. My point was that the supposed arrogance of Future Systems, to pursue advanced technology, is inspiring.
This remains the case despite their work being qualified by environmentalist notions of developmental responsibilities. The final paragraph should have read as follows:
Sustainability qualifies the buildings Future Systems propose, with their own notable exception of the Lords Media Centre, but their maligned individuality raises the promise of material advancement for a mere six billion of us. Instead we need such Ego-architecture if future generations are not to despise our loss of nerve develop new resources and greater infrastructure.
Ian Abley, London E8