Letter: `Frozen' buildings

Michael Gwilliam
Friday 19 March 1999 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

This election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.

The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.

Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: James Fisher's article "What's the storey?" (Review, 15 March) leaves us with a concern that we are in danger of adopting a rather inflexible approach to modern building.

The essence of a "sustainable" Modern design should be that it has a robustness rendering it capable of a degree of adaptation, whilst maintaining its essential integrity. Yet the suggestion seems to be made that buildings such as Isokon and Keeling House must be preserved in their exactly original form, or they will be of no value.

I am sure it is possible to accept a degree of careful adaptation which brings them back into beneficial use. One of the worst things that you can do to a building is to leave it empty, let alone neglected.

If we are to list Modern buildings, then let us interpret that listing in a manner which allows them to adapt and evolve, at reasonable cost, treating them as places to live rather than as museums.

MICHAEL GWILLIAM

Director, Civic Trust

London SW1

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in