Letters

Architectural Review, The, July, 2000

NOT NOBLE

SIR: I always enjoy your articles in the AR, especially their historical dimension, so I was disappointed by the howlers in the opening paragraph of 'View', April 2000, p4.

First, it was the trade in slaves, not slavery, that Parliament abolished in 1807; second, it was not 'noble' arguments that achieved this but the belief that it was in the national interest to use all available shipping to support the blockade of European ports and to tackle the sugar glut, itself a product of the Napoleonic Wars.

The moral argument had always focused on the trade, especially the Atlantic Passage, the horror of which is captured in Turner's painting, and had long been won: both nationally in terms of public opinion, and in Parliament on at least four occasions in the eighteenth century, when the 'West India interest' had blocked abolition in the Lords.

That this 'party' allowed abolition in 1807 was indeed a triumph for humanitarians, but it is stretching it to suggest it was a triumph of humanitarianism. The eventual abolition of slavery itself in the Empire also had more to do with economic self-interest than morals, however well this was disguised. Sad but true.

Yours etc

MARK BLOOM

Northolt, Middlesex, England

ESCAPE CLAUSE ...

SIR: In discovering that you had missed out one of the floor plans in your review of Mr Pawson's beautiful house I became involved in carefully examining the circulation (AR May, p93). It appears to me that this house can in no way comply with the means of escape requirements. Do you think Mr Pawson knows something about means of escape that has escaped the rest of us or is the Review encouraging us to believe that the regulations are very constricting and we should ignore them?

Yours etc

PHILIP MERCER

London NW3, England

... THE WAY OUT

SIR: I write in response to Mr Mercer who correctly identified the absence of details of means of escape from floor plans of Pawson House published in AR May. We should like to apologize for the confusion and assure Mr Mercer that these key details, while not included in the drawings printed, are integral to the design of the house and approved by Building Control.

The drawing of the raised ground floor should show a fire door between the living room and the staircase protecting the exit route from the upper floors, a swing on the terrace door facilitating rapid egress and a ladder leading from the terrace to the yard.

Yours etc

VISHWA KAUSHAL

John Pawson, London NI, England

UPHILL STRUGGLE

SIR: I was most disappointed that you chose not to illustrate the National Cycle Network in your recent 'UK 2000' issue (AR April 2000). While it may not be a glamorous building it does provide for sustainable transport, which surely should be an integral part of every modern architectural project.

Britain's National Cycle Network.

Taken as a whole its cost is second only to the Millennium Dome. It encompasses the whole of the UK and includes numerous wonderful bridges, an extensive collection of public art and literally hundreds of new public spaces.

I fear that its exclusion from the Review means that we have failed to persuade architects to build this most modern and appropriate means of transport into their thinking, although the National Cycle Network does link almost every one of the millennium projects you chose to cover!

Yours etc

JOHN GRIMSHAW

CURRENT TRENDS

Bristol, England

SIR: I was highly delighted to read the article of Juhani Pallasmaa in AR May (p 78). In some kind this article reflects all the psychological interactions between men and architecture which are important for my work.

Congratulations for the publication of this wonderful article, which is very important to me in a time where the main stream of architecture becomes more and more boring. Sometimes we feel as if we are swimming in an ocean of total misunderstanding. But as the Chinese proverb says: Those who are not swimming against the current, will never reach the spring.

Yours etc

PETER HUBNER

Neckartenzlingen, Germany

QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY

SIR: You seem to have been premature in your laudatory article on the Foster pedestrian bridge (AR April 2000, p 106). As everyone knows, it wobbles. As everyone didn't know, the fault (according to the architect) is that of the engineers, Ove Arup & Partners.

Before it started to flex, Norman, Lord Foster, was the bridge's great originator. Now, it seems that this daring structure, his blade of light, was only possible because the engineers were the 'lead consultants'. And a decent chap from Arups has stood up and said that he will take the blame. He proposes to sort the flexions with shock absorbers. The trick of stiffening a very thin plane of structure may work, let's hope it does, and the bridge becomes as popular as the Pont des Arts. But, whether it does or not, Foster has grievously let down his profession. Architects used to regard themselves as leaders of the team. When the officers start to hide behind the NCOs, there is something very wrong.