THE MONSTER OF PICCADILLY CIRCUS THE MONSTER OF PICCADILLY CIRCUS

would like to make a few comments on Ber- nard Levin's article and Mr. Patrick Hutber's letter on this subject, but first I ought to declare my interest —or rather, lack of interest—in one of the parties concerned. I was chairman of Central Commercial Properties Limited until its ordinary capital was acquired a few years ago by Mr. Jack Cotton's concern, and I retain only a few preference shares which I have held for many years. I have had no contact with the company or those concerned with it or the Piccadilly scheme since the 'take-over,' and I express no opinion on the merits of their building.

This explanation would hardly appear necessary, but Mr. Levin has a suspicious and baleful eye which directs its gaze indiscriminately upon the just and the unjust.

In his peevish article he makes statements which show that he does not really understand the back- ground against which these matters move.

He says that Mr. Toole, the London County Valuer, 'has set his face resolutely against large-scale public development' by the LCC, and elsewhere Mr. Levin declares that Sir Isaac Hayward 'has to give his approval to any decision he does not make him- self.' When he grows a little older, Bernard Levin will perhaps learn that neither Mr. Toole nor Sir Isaac Hayward has the power to make decisions in this way. Councils and their appropriate committees, after hearing the opinions of their professional

advisers, give the decision when the matter has been debated in detail—indeed often ad nauseam—to the annoyance of the impatient developers waiting to get on with their work. /

It is equally inaccurate to say that it is practically impossible, and almost treason, for a rank-and-file member of the LCC to examine 'a decision'—doubt-

less Mr. Levin means 'a scheme'—in any detail. Of course,, it would be physically impossible for all

rank-and-file members to do this individually, but who does he imagine will, or can, stop a member from making what inquiries he wishes in any depart- ment of his own Council? Will the big man from the front door be brought in or will he be confronted by Mr. Toole's resolute face?

Mr. Levin now shows his erudite knowledge of architects and tells us that Mr. Blow is a Registered '(not Chartered)' Architect. Unfortunately he pro- ceeds to show that he does not know the difference. He quotes an Article from the Code of Professional Conduct of the Royal Institute of British Architects directed against architects who carry on certain other business, and says that Mr. Blow and his associated architects do not contravene this rule because they 'do not themselves carry on business forbidden under the rule.'

He evidently does not know that Registered Architects are nothing to do with the RIBA and that the rule has no reference to them at all.

Mr. Cyril Walker next falls under the baleful eye. The only way in which Mr. Walker could find eni-

barrassment by reason of being a retired Valuer of the LCC and a director of Mr. Cotton's companies would be by attempting to further the interest of himself or his companies by improper action in the direction of his former office. Those who know Mr. Walker will know him to be utterly incapable of this sort of thing.

Of course, he is useful to his companies and his expert knowledge must be an advantage also to the Council's officers in facilitating the complicated negotiations between the parties. What would Mr. Levin have Mr. Walker do? The household shopping at Bournemouth in the morning, sleep in the after- noon and doze over the television in the evening?

Bernard Levin's financial genius is displayed in full flower in dealing with the tip of the triangle. I expect an independent Valuer would not quarrel with the valuation of £180,000 for 5,471 square feet of land at Piccadilly Circus, and the Council want this land and, of course, would have to pay for it—we are not yet a Communist State.

If the developers sell it for 180,000 they will lose £100,000, and the proposal of an appropriate ad- justment of the plot-ratio to compensate them would provide a happy and sensible solution.

The Council will gain—not lose, Bernard— £100,000 without any breach of regulation. In the course of his further education Mr. Levin will learn that the plot-ratio is not the subject of an inflexible rule at all, but is one arrived at to fit the circum- stances of each case.

Apart from Mr. Hutber's innocence on the,subject of the Chairmen of Committees, his letter shines most brightly in its postscript.

.Before writing it he ought really to have got in touch with Mr. Levin, who thinks a lot of the LCC architecture, which of course implies also its architects.

Mr. Hutber says that the same architects think their own scheme nearly as bad as the Monster. Per- haps he thinks that the Chairman of the Town Plan- ning Committee or the Chairman of the Council got busy on the drawing board. • The plain truth is that what is bad today will probably be good tomorrow. Beethoven's last quar- tette and the paintings of the Impressionists were reviled in their day, but are now worshipped.

We who live now will never know if the Monster is good or bad, but one day it may be the subject of a Preservation Order.

Let us meanwhile criticise to our hearts' content, but bearing in mind that uninformed and immature statements, ill-nature and innuendo 'are not criticism.

10 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, WC2

ill v th cc in Pc ha qi

[Bernard Levin writes : 'Mr. King is indeed astonishingly naive if he really believes that "neither

Mr. Toole nor Sir Isaac Hayward has the power to make decisions in this way' (quite apart from the, fact that I never said they had, as Mr. King's quotation from my article makes immediately clear). He obviously has not the slightest notion of wlio! actually happens at the Town Planning Committee the London County Council, where literally se%•'1.'' score of planning decisions frequently have to he .■P; proved or rejected in less than the same humbei minutes. The idea of the decisions or the advie: the professional advisers being "debated in detail-- indeed often ad nauseam" is comic, like Mr. King's belief that nobody "will, or can, stop a member frorh making what inquiries he wishes in any department of his own Council." When Mr. King grows a little older, he may come to learn that the London CounlY Council is a caucus dictatorship, and any of the majority party's members who strike a blow io practice for the rights which they possess in theofY speedily find that the dictatorship's arm is long anti strong. He should familiarise himself with the dictw torship's recent decision to forbid its subjects to write letters to the press or otherwise publicly dissent froth party decisions, upon pain of withdrawal of the whip (which means expulsion at the following election). 'I don't quite understand Mr. King's point about illy reference to the RIBA rule, unless he is suggesting that Mr. Blow is the only qualified architect in the firm, which is not only untrue but was stated to be so in my article. I think the RIBA rule is a good one: doesn't he?

'I don't know with what an independent valuer would or would not quarrel; all I said was that the Council relaxed its rule about plot-ratio (of course I know the rule is not inflexible; if it had been it could not have been given such a thundering great flex in this case) for £100,000, which is exactly (( hat happened. 1, tco, said they gained, not lost.

`Mr. King displays something a lot sillier and less pleasant than naivete: when he criticises Mr. Hutber (for whom I do not of course speak) for disagreeing with me. No doubt in the course of his further educa- tion Mr. King will realise that it is perfectly possible for two people to hold the same views on some points and different views on other points.

'Beethoven's last quartette (or quartet, as it is more generally known) was not reviled in its day. I don't know how you worship an impressionist, or who does, but Mr. Jack Cotton paid 00,000 for a Renoir not long ago, so perhaps it was he whom Mr. King had in mind.

'And finally, Mr. King should speak for himself: some of us who live now know perfectly well that the Monster. is very bad indeed.'—Editor, Spectator.]