In response to your article on saving London’s Smithfield Market from John McAslan’s proposals (News July 19), I felt there was a lack of middle ground between the arguments

Yes, McAslan is one of the best-qualified to carry out this kind of job and, yes, it is a shame to lose the heritage and use of the famous market (which incidentally is a stone’s throw from where I am writing this in my flat).

Many large period buildings are gutted and replaced with a new invigorated use. These may have been good for a time, but London has numerous amazing period buildings. I will feel sad if they all receive the same treatment as Spitalfields, to name just one: “Let’s scrape out all the filling and just leave the decoration.” On cue, Zara, Topshop, Pizza Express all appear and the legibility of this “landmark” redevelopment is reduced to the same as any other middle-England town centre.

Architects, planners and developers should take care to reinstate as much of the original use as possible. Why can’t Smithfield retain some of the character that only its use provides? The overall joy of buildings is not just provided by the aesthetic. If that was the case, any seemingly vibrant street market would be utterly dull.

Tom Greenfield
London EC1

Topics