With regard to the proposed monstrosity on the King Alfred site (The Argus, March 24), I suspect Mr Gehry's brief was: "We want to build a large tower block on a totally inappropriate site. How do we make it not look like a large tower block on a totally inappropriate site?"

The answer was: "Throw in some weird extrusions and say it's futuristic and the shape of the 21st century.

Underneath, it'll still be the commercially viable tower block you're after."

I suspect its supporters are right in one respect. It will attract tourists, who will come to marvel and say, "How could anyone let that be built there?"

It may well be that in 40 years' time, people will look back wistfully at the comparative beauty and congruity of the Brighton Centre.

Malcolm Blunt
Varndean Drive, Brighton

Regarding the go-ahead for Gehry's development of the King Alfred site, I wonder had Brighton and Hove not been amalgamated prior to becoming a city, would Hove have allowed this project to materialise?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

Gerald Oxley
Seville Streeet, Brighton

There was a time when the casting vote of a committee chairman would, by convention, be used to preserve the status quo.

The rationale was that it would be wrong for the chairman to use his or her second vote to initiate a change which had clearly failed to gain the support of the majority of elected representatives.

The bigger or more contentious the change under consideration, the stronger the rationale for the status quo to be preserved.

How times have changed. That the King Alfred proposals should have gained planning approval solely as a result of a casting vote is outrageous.

Whatever the scheme's merits, it had clearly failed to gain the level of overall democratic support that alone could justify approving anything of this magnitude. The decision deserves to be overturned.

Peter Reeves
St Keyna Avenue, Hove