I agree wholeheartedly with Will Alsop (AJ 5.7.01).Why anybody would want to pursue a career in architecture in this country is beyond me. The profession is rife with mediocrity, hypocrisy and confusion. Architects spend time and energy fine-tuning their design skills only to have anything they do diluted to an almost indistinguishable level.
Many planners, committee members and Lottery 'pundits' have a problem identifying with anything other than 'traditional' values. Their 'recommendations' and 'advice' discourage inspiring architecture. 'Lions being led by donkeys' is, I think, the old quote.
You only have to show a 'lay' person a copy of The Architectural Review or the AJ to see their eyes open a little wider with the realisation that possibilities are available. Let us amaze, let us excite, let us inspire - if only they would let us.
Does the AJ have no morals?
You have been told in no uncertain terms about the readers' refusal to accept blatant images of sexuality and eroticism that have adorned your pages - and what is your reaction? You now employ a more devious and underhanded approach of inferred and subconscious imagery obviously designed to titillate and arouse readers and trick them into believing it is the architectural discourse and imagery that is the cause.
You only have to look at the front cover of the 5 July edition to see two enormous phallic objects entering a female-like orifice in the fashion of a double header. I hoped it would stop there, but I only had to turn to page three to witness a so-called 'monumental land drawing' in the fashion of a double-headed rubber appendage that can be used for the gratification of women of an alternative nature.
This and the 'flaccid' plan view and 'erectile' sectional view of the National Space Centre caused me concern for the future of a once great publication.
Root out these pernicious infiltrators and get back to the real work of flat-roofed extensions, listed demolitions and traditional house building.
Lee Davies, Sealand