Roy Appleyard (Letters, 1 March), who believes the Palace of Westminster should be pulled down and replaced with a modern building, cites the Scottish and Welsh parliaments as exemplars. He has forgotten the financial saga of the building of the Scottish parliament? The Scotsman reported in 2003 that it had achieved possibly the most embarrassing accolade, being ranked as one of the worst building projects in the world for cost overruns. It opened three years late and substantially over budget. Other options before it was commissioned included St Andrew’s House on Calton Hill. It was large enough, but not new enough.
Last year the Pritzker prize for architecture was won by the French team Lacaton & Vassal, who say “never demolish”. They show that even the most unprepossessing tower block can be made desirable and environmentally friendly. In this era of galloping climate crisis, I would add “never build, unless absolutely essential”.
Every existing building contains vast amounts of embodied energy. Every demolition entails waste, upheaval and yet more energy. So many of the big London estate “regeneration” schemes are exercises in privatisation. The energy involved in creating a new parliament building is immense.
What is wrong with the Palace of Westminster plans is that MPs have insisted on continuing the old ways of working, with division lobbies and the rest. Government could be modernised within the parliamentary estate, and the historic building restored merely to stability, not to excess. The roof has already been replaced, under budget. The right scheme could ensure that is the case for the rest of it. It needs careful conservation architects and engineers, not grandiosity and ego.
Judith Martin
Winchester
Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
