I must take issue with Adam Trimingham about the King Alfred project and his comparison with the Royal Pavilion (The Argus, July 3).

The Pavilion is certainly a remarkable contrast to its surroundings but it is, nonetheless, a very warm and human building.

The Karis ING plans resemble a scene from a postdisaster movie or perhaps a pile of crumpled tin cans. The Barratt/Brunswick scheme looks like a row of vulgarly packaged Christmas gifts.

There is no hint of warmth or friendliness about either scheme. These are ugly abominations that would blight our seafront for years to come.

Have we learned nothing from the waste-land of Sixties Churchill Square?

What makes a good building? I recently bought a copy of the Royal Fine Art Commission's book of that title.

The first criteria suggested is order and unity of design.

Karis ING offers consistent ugliness but represents a theme of chaos. Barratt/Brunswick is uniformly bland and boring.

Order and unity in a good building must surely also imply stimulating design consistent with a human dimension?

It is very clear to my layman's eye that the most "notable" architects are generally motivated to produce outrageous designs that will be applauded only in their own fraternity.

-Mike Strong, Brighton