WHILE continuing to support the overall form and layout of the Coppergate II scheme we do not think it has become a convincing piece of architecture.

The 'prow' building and the north end of the site on Piccadilly and the stone building next to the Eye of York are, in our view, particularly weak - at two of the most critical points of the site.

We still believe the scheme is too big to be designed by one practice and that other designers should be involved.

We were pleased to note that the same developer has done this in a comparable situation elsewhere in England.

We have seen schemes of high quality coming forward in York, such as the new cinema buildings off Coney Street, the retail scheme in Davygate and the proposed Stonegate development. The Coppergate project will have a much bigger impact than any of these but fails to match them in terms of quality. We hope it is not too late to think again.

Peter Stewart,

Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment,

St James's Square, London.

...AL FOX (Letters, November 10) poses the relevant question, where will the cars go if the Clifford's Tower site, including its car park, were to become a public open space? The council's chief of development, Roy Templeman, has earlier queried in your columns how the loss of parking revenue will be met.

What Al Fox may not know is that the council's own data reveals that their car parks in and around the city centre operate at an average of only 60 per cent capacity throughout the year. Some at very much less than this; Tanner Row, Kent Street and Foss Bank are examples.

In broad terms the loss of 322 short- term spaces at Castle car park could be accommodated without difficulty at alternative nearby car parks and still leave them well below practical capacity.

By applying sensible traffic management measures there could be no loss of revenue to the council. Even a saving perhaps, with one less car park to manage and the other being operated more efficiently.

In environmental and heritage terms there is an overwhelming case to take this chance to protect the area around Clifford's Tower from intrusive development.

How better than to preserve it as a landscaped open space for the enjoyment of future generations?

Its unique historic setting deserves nothing less. That is exactly what York Tomorrow has proposed as an alternative to further shopping development on that side of the Foss. It will otherwise be lost to York forever.

They will be presenting their case to an open public meeting at Guildhall next Tuesday at 7.30pm. All who value the preservation of York's historic heritage are welcome to attend and be heard.

Ken Beavan,

c/o York Tomorrow,

Albemarle Road,

York.

...BEFORE the recent downpour there was a rumour going round the city that the reason that some of the city fathers' and mothers' were so in favour of the Coppergate II development was that it would completely ruin any chance of York achieving World Heritage Site status and so allow the development of Science Park York.

Some of those in favour of a rapidly- expanding York like to compare it with the city of Cambridge.

A recent horrifying article in the Observer by John Naughton describing what has happened at this part of Silicon Fen may be edifying. It highlighted major traffic problems (six miles travelled in an hour), rocketing house prices that exclude all but better-off buyers and pollution from the standing traffic. It is probably true that this has brought prosperity and some kind of happiness to a minority, but the fact that even young academics can't afford to live there must mean the average working family is in real trouble.

What do the people of York really want for the city? Bigger and better shopping centres or a pleasant city that benefits all, Coppergate II or York Tomorrow? More jobs: but what sort and at what cost? More housing: but for whom, and are we to become a suburb of Leeds?

Mick Phythian,

Monkton Road,

York.