I am not entirely sure what Rasmussen means when he talks about ‘taking over the beautiful architecture of a past era’. He surely cannot be referring to the fact that we allow buildings created in bygone times to remain standing and in use. The logical conclusion of that reasoning would require us to abandon and demolish historical buildings because they no longer fit in with our lifestyle and fashion, or more correctly, because we no longer fit in with their lifestyle and fashion. I would agree that there is a place for certain forms of architecture, and that his second example of the Danish street is not the place for the Venetian building. But I think that he is wrong to suggest that architecture from a past era should be out of its time. I don’t think it matters that students of Oxford University live in Elizabethan halls and yet wear trainers and use mobile phones. What matters is that the college buildings are situated amongst other similarly grand, ornate or formal examples of architecture.