Report comment

It seems a pattern is emerging - most of the comments that claim that Strata to be a good building are based on a questionable aesthetic opinions, and represent the very attitude to London (''It's in Elephant and Castle for Christ sake!'') that has produces such a bad building as the Strata tower. I don't mean bad by personal aesthetic standards, but in its absolute disregard for place and surface engagement with its supposed social and environmental contexts, all of which suffer as a result of a tunnel-vision obsession with plot ratio.

The typical floor plan of the Strata tower - http://www.archdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/1279904082-typical-floor-plan-528x373.jpg - shows elongated individual flats which appear to have only one window at the end, bathrooms without windows (damp mouldy and claustrophobic even when the ventilation system is working), and some awkward pointy corners that have no justification other than that make an exterior like a vacuum cleaner. It feels like it's been designed by a product designer rather than an architect, and what does that mean? How long is it before a vacuum cleaner looks outdated, is treated badly and breaks, and is thrown away only to be replaced by a new one? Product design in this case is about maximising the intial appeal of a product without regard for its long term use - I would therefore ask those who feel they like the tower, to question whether it's more the designers tricks that attract them and not something more integral.

The wind turbines do little more for its sustainable credentials other than provide a green-wash icon, producing 8% of the building's power or as the engineers excitedly claimed recently 11% - what about all the extra energy needed to power the air-con for the half of the rooms that don't have windows?