Letter: After Corbusier
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: I fear that you encourage a repeat of the very failure that you so roundly condemn. The issue is not whether to demolish high-rise slums, but with what to replace them (leading article, 16 September).
You suggest that Le Corbusier's model does not easily transfer from the Mediterranean to Hulme and that the Unite Habitation at Marseilles was built "for the rich on the Riviera". No, sir. It was built as public housing.
The reason that these blocks were so desirable was that they were not just blocks of apartments. Each building also contained shops, school, swimming-pool, sports hall and gymnasium, hairdressers and coffee shop. It was a splendid illustration of the concept of mixed development, a heresy both to British planners and British developers. If the Unite had been recreated in its entirety to provide council housing for Manchester in the Sixties, then, I suggest, it would now be highly desirable, albeit in owner-occupation, as it has now become in Marseilles.
Historically in the UK, both planners and developers have resisted the idea of mixing land-uses in a single development. Many of us believe that this is the conspicuous failure of post-war development, particularly housing. It may or may not be a good idea to demolish the worst of our Sixties towers, but nothing should be done until we have given serious thought to what might become sustainable replacements.
GERRY METCALF
School of the Environment
Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education
Cheltenham
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments