Ours is definitely city of brutal concrete blocks

FOLLOWING Jeremy Vine’s visit to Coventry and its ‘brutal concrete’ post-war architecture, there is a general debate that some architects generally praise this style, but most of the population loath it. We are now informed by Maxwell Hutchinson that it is “not concrete, it’s rare oolitic limestone from upper Umbria”. Did he take an early turn off the motorway and visit Oxford or Cambridge by mistake? Coventry is most definitely a city of post-war unattractive concrete and glass rectangular blocks. Yes, there are buildings such as the Council House, those to the rear around Bayley Lane and also Spon Street, that are constructed of limestone and attractive to the eye, but these are all pre-war. Yes, Coventry was rightfully praised for innovating pedestrianised precincts, but why surround it by ugly ‘brutal concrete’ architecture? Other European cities were also flattened in WWII, but chose to rebuild in an attractive pre-war style (and have a thriving tourist industry). Concrete is indeed a very important structural material and you absolutely do not have to build in brick, but concrete can be moulded into any shape you like. The important façade can then be finished in any material that you wish, to make the structure attractive. Whenever Coventry shows simulations of ‘wonderful new developments’ like Friargate (another concrete, steel and glass block), they always obscure the ugly view with computer-generated images of large trees in front of the building. If the building is so attractive, there should be no need to disguise it with trees and people wandering around or lying on the grass. Clive Birch Tile Hill