It’s not an exaggeration to say that every day of the year, from maybe noon to midnight, these buildings are surrounded by people enjoying the city - walking along the river, going to arts events, eating out, walking between offices. It’s a hugely popular free public resource that is a massive good for Londoners. Previously (not here but at other points on the river) the water front was private - accessible only to people inside buildings - or derelict, like the areas around Tate Modern and Tower Bridge. This is one of the most human and whatever the opposite of alienating spaces in London today.
The Southbank Centre is one of the cultural gems of London and, I'd argue, the world ... you can have your opinion on what it looks like from the outside, but what goes on inside and around it make it incredibly valuable ... so what I assume is your off-the-cuff remark is way off.
I was talking about the architecture, which is the topic of this thread. Of course it's the home to great art, but that does not make it a *building* worthy of architectural distinction or historical protection.
That's fair, but arguable. At this stage I think the architecture and it's reason to be are now so deeply intertwined that you cannot separate them (or would ruin it with the attempt).
I've seen instances where a building is all about what takes place there, demolished, re-built, and lose their soul and former purpose.
I can easily see that happening with the Southbank. It's iconic and embedded so deeply at this stage, despite the the various opinions on its looks.