[hanklazard]

What a strange article—it really goes out of its way to just try to insult every element of this building. It looks pretty incredible to me and I’m glad I live in a country where people push the boundaries of what can be built.

[amenhotep]

Some of it's a matter of taste for sure but I found the repeated griping about how it tapers at ground level a truly bizarre complaint. Would he really prefer it if it took up its entire monolithic footprint to the total exclusion of pedestrians?

[appreciatorBus]

This is just standard nimby style writing, describing every element of a proposal in a maximally negative and catastrophic light.

That the writer studied architecture tells you all you need to know - they have nothing of value to add and can only critique endlessly out of a misguided belief that the aesthetics of buildings can bring about a collectivist utopia. It’s the original home of social engineering and central planning.

[alimw]

The country doesn’t have much to do with it. Norman Forster travels all over.

[hanklazard]

Sure, I was just giving a different perspective. Congrats to Norman Foster for having such strong opinions about architecture, I also have an opinion and in this case it runs contrary to his.

[alimw]

Norman Foster is the architect not the critic! His firm is based in London and does its stuff all over the world.