Letter: Architecture for tomorrow
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Richard MacCormac ('Look at our monuments and weep', 9 December) argues that competitive bidding is further depriving us of public works of architectural excellence. In my opinion the cause is more fundamental than this. It is due to market failure leading to short-sighted decisions.
Architecture suffers more than most from the general tendency to under-invest in projects where the cost to society is less than the benefits. In large part this is because much of the benefit is obtained by future generations, whereas the cost is borne by the current generation.
The problem is to find ways of taking future generations into account, both in terms of providing more of what they want and in making them pay for it. This would result in better buildings funded in greater measure by issuing public debt. In this way the total cost of public projects would be met by taxes levied on both the current and future generations.
One way of encouraging better- quality privately funded building would be to grant tax concessions for private projects deemed to be of special architectural merit, on the grounds that there is a charitable element to the additional social benefits.
Similar arguments support greater protection for Britain's artistic, architectural and environmental heritage and, possibly, for institutions such as the BBC.
Yours faithfully,
MICHAEL WICKENS
Centre for Economic Forecasting
London Business School
London, NW1
9 December
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments