Back to the drawing board for stadium
I wholeheartedly endorse the adverse criticism of the rugby stadium and associated retail space plans, made by several correspondents in previous weeks. All the designs (which are almost identical anyway and remind me of a once popular picture puzzle called spot the difference) are entirely inappropriate in both style and scale. The architects and developers demonstrate astonishing arrogance and insensitivity in placing functional, utilitarian mediocrity next to Pulteney Bridge and other outstanding buildings, and attempting to dwarf and dominate them by brute size Fortunately, the buildings associated with the rugby ground are at present screened by trees. It appears from the illustrations that these would be cut down, and the monotony of the new building’s facade relieved only by small patches of green. As one correspondent pointed out, why does Bath Rugby need a stadium bigger than other clubs’ of comparable status? Why should the wishes of a minority take precedence, particularly when it seems unconcerned about destroying the character of a vital part of a World Heritage site? In my opinion, this plan should be rejected by the council at the earliest opportunity. But I fear the worst. Recent councils have allowed The Baked Bean Tin (aka the bus station) and other unlovely buildings. I urge anyone who dislikes this current plan to protest in the strongest possible terms, both now and in the future. Richard Olver Fairfield Park Road Bath