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

I am honoured that my letter (AJ 15.09.05) has generated two direct responses and an indirect one.

There is a difference between respecting a building as a historical artefact and building in a historical style when the intellectual foundations for that style have been eroded. I would not disagree that a particular medieval cathedral should be conserved as a good example of its time. Nor am I denying that conservation should be informed by an understanding of the construction of the period. But to develop a Gothic cathedral and spend £3 million when 95 per cent of the population does not go to church, except for births, marriages and deaths, and when parish churches are left derelict or converted to cafés and arts centres, is an anachronism. The question is not how should St Edmundsbury be extended but should it be extended at all if three worshippers, some tourists and a handful of architectural geeks are the only congregation?

Indeed, it would be an anachronism to build new office blocks if home working becomes a major employment pattern;

or shopping centres if they become an outmoded retail pattern.

I used the word 'unfortunate' to describe the erosion of Christian philosophy because a lot of imperial aggression has been committed in the name of a historical faith.

Ian Robertson, via email

  • 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.

Related Jobs

AJ Jobs