I have been following with interest the debates round the plans to demolish the Marks and Spencer building on Oxford Street and replace it by a very standardised and totally undistinguished building by Pilbrow and Partners (who ?), instead of refurbishing it. The case is well put by Nicholas Boys Smith in the article below. The current building is not especially important, but representative of thoughtful, somewhat classical design of the 1920s, which has not been much studied or esteemed, but is not without historical interest; and isn’t it better and more interesting than the planned replacement ? I don’t think it’s Euston Arch, but Westminster should be doing more to promote refurbishment than needless and environmentally damaging demolition. And so too should Marks and Spencer.