Report comment

Adam, quite, I'm glad we agree on the finger pointing. I think its very important however that the way the building projects itself to the city has been very well considered. You can view the planning info and design statement on the planning portal (or at least it used to be there) and its staggering the amount of stakeholders involved.

The building was considered from 50+ LVMF views around London and designed to work aesthetically from each one, Southwark, CABE, the GLA, local interest groups, Other LA's etc all had a hand in the outcome as well as the developer, builder, sub contractors, letting agents, banks, social housing providers, TFL, Railtrack, structural engineer, mechanical engineer, fire engineer, turbine consultants, roof cradle consultants, and of course the banks, financiers and the budget. I'm sure the list goes on. What I'm trying to say is that the architects will have had a whole host of interested parties to consider and integrate and its a miracle the building looks as good as it does.

I think its a shame that the BD and some readers have jumped to conclusions like this without understanding the process' involved. Every building has a story to tell and its unfair to lash out without proper understanding, more empathy between architects and other designers should be exercised. The process today is far more complex than it used to be. When I look at a building I try to understand 'why' what were the reasons for a particular detail or feature, what made the architect choose that route, even in aesthetically challenged buildings, a process and reason can be deciphered.

Everything has a reason and purpose, I think its time to stop this Carbuncle nonsense and concentrate on the positive and not the negative!