Ugly schemes at variance with the environment of doubtful practical application have been illustrated in The Argus recently, and famous buildings have been cited as the types of construction Brighton and Hove City Council should emulate.

They all happen to be outrageously expensive, extremely wasteful of usable space or constructed so maintenance is high. There is also the factor of versatile usage.

There is a modern assumption that size equals quality, although quality is not dependent on size.

The Millennium Dome as a work of art would have been as fine, or as vapid, the size of a tea saucer or as its actual size.

This spectacularly unadaptable structure is neither great sculpture nor great architecture.

The Pompidou Centre that was cited as architecture to emulate has cost vast sums to replace whole sections that have decayed through the nature of the design.

Such a structure on the King Alfred site would be a monster of ugliness, as inappropriate to the environment as Piers Gough's proposed flats that would intimidate Preston Park and its neighbourhood.

Councils have a duty to obtain best value, not to squander public funds, so I must disagree with John Wells-Thorpe (Letters, December 2), an architect I respect, and oppose the council's tendency towards the selection of preferred bidders for council work.

This system is open to corruption, with the council in effect handing a blank cheque to the tendering company to fill in. Tendering should be open and public.

-Oscar Thompsett, Ridgeside Avenue, Patcham