John Bancroft is, of course, entitled to his view that the 1960s Paternoster Square development was 'good both in urban design and architectural terms'. The picture that accompanied his letter tells a different story.
I do, however, object to being described as someone who 'dismisses' the architecture of the '60s and even more to being accused of 'denigrating' Nikolaus Pevsner.
Pevsner was a historian and critic of monumental achievement, but even he wasn't always right.
Nor was the architecture of the '60s always good, or worth defending today (while the 1960s approach to urban design was often disastrous). Indeed, Bancroft's somewhat condescending description of my text - 'good in parts' - might be aptly applied to the architecture of that era. With very few exceptions, however, little of value was generated by the post-war City rebuilding campaign and few will regret the passing of its mediocre legacy.
Ken Powell, via email