Sir, To cite the demolition of the Portsmouth Tricorn Centre as some form of cultural vandalism equal to “the burning of books” (Obituary, Rodney Gordon, Aug 15) reflects the architectural arrogance that led to its original design. For a building — brutalist or not — to fail in its purpose says more about the failure of architectural thinking than “a sinister constituency of philistine tricoteuses”.

As the marketing specialist charged in 1969 with reviving what was already a moribund building three years after its opening, I can claim the right to comment on what I found. Despite a budget equal to £2 million in today’s money and three years’ hard work, I could not achieve the impossible. Despite extensive marketing and effectively bribing retailers with long rent-free periods and fitting-out costs, it was all short-lived. The Tricorn was brutalist in every sense: poorly designed, badly built, leaking like a sieve from every joint, dark — satanic, even — it was attractive neither to retailers (except for the Market Street frontage) nor shoppers. Its corridors and dark corners were ideal for muggers. I needed a 24/7 security team to keep crime to an “acceptable” level. The flats above were soulless. Even driving up and down the steep carpark ramps was a challenge for any sober motorist.

Fine for taking arty photographs at acute angles, and maybe useful as a multistorey car park, but a failure in terms of why it was designed — as a shopping centre and a place to live.

Bernard Stewart-Deane
Cambridge

Explore Letters

• Feedback