The article described how the flats were designed for middle class purchasers, offering a modern solution that satisfied the developer who had the successful sales of the contemporary styled housing estates in mind and the mounting propaganda of the “better living” magazines.

Stirling and Gowan point out how only three or four out of the 30 flats were furnished and fitted in a contemporary manner. On talking with the owners, it seemed “modern” was approved for the outside of the building but the architects were concerned about how the owners personalised the interiors regardless of the existing design. Stirling and Gowan mention how the servery and kitchen fittings were designed in accord with the external expression and provided with the hope that they would influence and assist the occupiers in completing the furnishing of the flats. The lack of understanding between the intention of the designers and occupants worried Stirling and Gowan.

In speculative development it is quite usual for the building owner to make lease conditions regarding the colour and material of curtaining, so that the variety of individual taste does not obtrude on the exterior, destroying the balance of a repetitive window pattern.

Ultimately the two architects describe how the chances of the exterior of the flats surviving a design entity are slight, if the multi-variety of the occupiers’ taste obtrudes on the outside of the buildings and in the grounds. Unless this is prevented from happening by close co-operation between the occupiers and the building owner, and by the conditions of the lease, any housing of modern design may rapidly become a visual shambles, as has already happened with some post-war local authority developments. At a period when there is anarchy of taste, only a strictly maintained lease can ensure survival, whether it be a Georgian Square, the Nash Terraces or the SPAN estates.