I read the article on “broken homes” and Amanda Levete’s article (22 January, page 20 and page 22) and neither discussed one of the main reasons why we should deliver better homes and workplaces

As costs in the NHS are rising, we should be looking at ways to try and reduce it, and one way is to ensure that the social housing stock is correctly maintained. Damp can lead to bronchial infections that require medical attention. If we remove this damp we will go one short step to reducing the burden on the NHS. Poorly maintained homes can also lead to conditions such as stress and depression.

Perhaps we need a team made up of sectors of the community such as GPs, engineers, tenants and architects to guide us in the delivery of better homes. Then maybe we should stop looking for pretty buildings that stand out from the rest and turn our thoughts to good strong robust buildings that will stand the test of time. Cabe refers to such designs in their document “No more toxic assets”, when they point us in the direction of Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian terraces. Perhaps we should take the principle of the design of these homes and use it to develop landmark buildings that deliver a real cost saving to the landlord and tenant while at the same time improving the health and wellbeing of the community.

John Gilmore

Postscript

What do you think? If you have views on anything published in Building, write to: The editor, Building, 3rd floor, Ludgate House, 245 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 9UY. Fax: 020-7560 4004. Email: building@ubm.com. We may edit letters.

Topics