I first met Peter in 1978, when I joined Christopher Beaver Associates shortly after qualifying. He was already an Associate, and clearly way ahead of me professionally. In my eyes, he always remained so. We formed our practice with John Prior in January 1981, 25 years and two weeks before Peter's death.

I never quite knew what he saw in me. What I found in him was a rock-solid partner, one who shared my anxiety that the worst could befall our practice at any time, yet one who, when the chips were down, would fight our corner to the last. We had a healthy rivalry. This was sometimes misunderstood by other practice members, but was in reality a way of keeping each other on our toes. As Peter would readily agree, we were fortunate that in John Prior we had someone who would maintain a sense of balance if things became strained between us. I can honestly say that over 25 years there were very few disputes that were not immediately resolved by talking things through, and none that reached an impasse that could not be negotiated, always leaving our friendship intact.

Peter was a good talker, and would steadfastly defend his point of view. This stemmed from a deeply held belief in what was right, and in matters of design he usually knew best. He was a natural-born architect. If work ran short he would muse sadly about his inability to earn a living any other way. He was a much better designer than me, with a fresh and authoritative style, which may partly be explained by his left-handedness. He was also tactful to a degree when offering a better solution to some design problem than others had been able to come up with. I learnt this in our early days when we were collaborating on what was for us a very large housing scheme in Bethnal Green. Peter saw that I was struggling to come up with the right idea on which to hang the project. With disarming grace, he suggested a solution that was clearly a winner, which we immediately adopted.

From early on we each developed our own client base, so that we worked on only a few projects together. But we remained very aware of what each other was doing. Peter was always hugely supportive during moments of stress or crisis, even when something happened that might threaten the financial well-being of the practice. He was slow to allocate blame, quick to point out similar experiences that he may have had, and always prepared to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in defence of our case.

Although it sometimes escapes the notice of clients, architecture is a never-ending process of prototype development. We rarely have the luxury of working on a building twice, learning all the lessons the first time round. Peter was very conscious of this fact, but accepted the risk that architects have to carry. Partly because of this, he always advocated practicing 'defensive architecture', assessing and eliminating risk early in the design process. The project he was fully involved with at the time of his death, a £20m ground-breaking mental health building, was the epitome of his thinking in this respect. With the solid help of a similarly-minded client, every detail was gone over two or three times to eliminate possible problems. It is therefore not surprising that Peter became the champion of quality control in the office and was responsible for putting in place our quality management systems.

Peter used to say that he was good at the 'big idea' but less good at seeing it through in detail, a quality he generously tended to ascribe to me. My experience of him was that this was not the case. From conversations over the years I knew of his tendency to worry things through at night. In reality, he was good at both aspects of the job. He was also an inspiring and positive team leader, commanding affection and respect from everyone who worked with or for him. I would often arrive in the office at about 9am to see him with his team in the conference room. They had clearly been there for some time, and Peter would be setting out what was to be achieved that day. At the same time he was a conscientious family man, and never felt it fair to his wife to stay late at the office if it could be avoided.

Peter was proud that his workload had recently expanded significantly, which was a major factor underlying a series of good years financially for the practice. A few years earlier, when the tide was running the other way, my work was increasing while his was on the wane. But he never lost heart and set about building the relationships that would later flower so successfully. He was always an excellent 'people' person. I have already mentioned his ability to talk. His mobile phone bill was usually three or four times that of any other partner, or anyone else in the office. But this was just Peter, doing his work in the way that suited him best.

To be honest, I never quite got to the bottom of what made him tick, despite having him as a partner for 25 years. He was a private person in many respects, not given to making statements about his personal beliefs. But we all knew that his credo was very much one of 'live and let live' and of not harbouring grudges. He was indeed a very fine human being, with more than the normal share of love and warmth and less than the normal share of pride and anger. He was basically conciliatory, and possessed a rather longer fuse than me. If I felt inclined to write a stiff letter to a client, I learned the sense of showing it to Peter before sending it. Invariably it came back, supported in principle, but softened in tone, and I would always be grateful for this later.

Peter was planning to carry on in the practice for some time, and was very closely connected with recent changes to the structure of the partnership, including the introduction of new blood. It is simply not fair that he does not have the opportunity to be part of this, and to enjoy his years at the peak of his creative, analytic and management powers. But the practice that he has put so much of himself into building is certainly strong enough to survive him. We will redouble our efforts to ensure that it carries on as he would have liked.

We have all been blessed by Peter’s contribution and fellowship over the years, and we will miss him sorely. His buildings will remain as a testament to his professional vision and skill. The love and respect given him by colleagues and clients alike will remain in our collective memory.

It has been said that there are three great essentials for happiness in this life: something to do, someone to love and something to hope for. If these are truly the measures, then Peter was indeed a happy man.

Peter Tuke, London, February 2006

Back to About