I assume Hal-Luke Savas鈥� letter (17 October, page 32) was in some way meant to be ironic.

As a society, we insist that processes for maintaining historic buildings need to continue. However, to propose that architects should only be 鈥渁llowed鈥� to work in stone and wood is clearly preposterous. Are we looking forward, or glancing back into a rose-tinted rear view mirror first polished in the eighties and now (hopefully) dusting over?

To remove modern materials from the supply chain (under what legislation?) is Luddite in the extreme, especially as most manufactured enclosure systems provide better thermal performance than any stone castle or drafty church I鈥檝e ever been in.  

Are we looking forward, or glancing back into a rose-tinted rear view mirror first polished in the eighties?

David Tomlin

The challenge is for architects to use modern materials in a sustainable way.   Otherwise, ask Mr Savas how we are to accommodate modern manufacturing, commerce, education and hospitals in stone and wood structures. Barmy.

David Tomlin

Topics