We, in the US, have such "civic monstrosities" too, even here in PDX.
Sometimes it's an architect's eqo, sometimes it just pure $.

So, I'm sorry to offend the Brit Dwellars about this one,
but London fell short twice with this huge tourist trap.

First in allowing the thing to be built in a post-card location,
and second in naming it.
It should be called the "The London Eye Soar"
... or better yet, a homonym thereof.

:bolt:

I love it!
I'm not being contradictory for the sake of it, I just find it a wonderful addition to the Southbank. And BTW, have you seen the National Theatre?

I spent my childhood holidays learning to skate there, and to me it's a welcome addition.
It honestly isn't in front of anything all that exciting - the Shell Centre?

Video of Dani and me on a much, MUCH smaller and temporary version in front of the infinitely more picturesque "Versaille on Sea"; Greenwich. Imagine if we'd been on the Eye Wheel!

Continuity = Stagnation.

I get where Lamplighter is coming from. Its such a tough thing for urban planners - especially for a historic city like London, to move into the 21st century, without being in jarring contrast to the past. However all those brilliant historical buildings were once brand new shining examples of architecture and moving into the new century. If you don't as a city continue to move forward you become stagnant. OTOH ... things like Toronto's R.O.M. make over are an abomination.

Take this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...2C_2005%29.jpg

then stick this on it:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...OM_Crystal.jpg

.. I'm not sure I know the answer, I don't envy them the question.

How do you differentiate merely old from historically significant?

I *think* perhaps the water test is whether there is some OTHER attribute as well as being old..

Whether it's a particularly fine example of an important architectural style, or the who owned / built it, or significant event(s) took place there...

We own a 120 yr old house - it is old, it is not however historically significant - or at least only minorly so. It having been owned and built by one of the community's original prominent families - but it's a small community, and it's built in an unusual and distinctive look for the area, but not built by the well known architect of the area for that period - although he too was a member of the same extended family. It's more an interesting curiosity than a landmark.

The Gherkin
 

Quoting Wikipedia:

30 St Mary Axe (widely known informally as "the Gherkin" and previously the Swiss Re Building) is a skyscraper in London's main financial district, the City of London, completed in December 2003 and opened in May 2004. With 41 floors, the tower is 180 metres (591 ft) tall and stands on a street called St Mary Axe.

That Toronto thing is about as bad as the Glass Pyramid in front of the Louvre. The Louvre is beautiful, the pyramid is cool, but it's like salmon and chocolate.

But they both can be made into mousse, so therefore all doctors are tall.

The corollary being that mousse is not tax deductible unless consumed in the Louvre.

What about green mouse ice-cream?

I will not eat it, Sam am I am.

Picture please! :angel:

Glad you all had so much fun with the image and thank you for excusing my ignorance! I did not confuse it with the other Dubai building that looks like a sailboat and I don't know how I got it associated with Dubai. I don't remember London even being mentioned in what I had been looking at.

The funny thing is that it is that I saw the building in a panoramic view of London last night. It was in the Fast and Furious 6 movie that I watched with dear hubby last night. (Never thought I'd be watching one of those kind of movies, but I actually enjoyed it.)

I came across the link I used for this image. The caption is: "famous buildings in Dubai." Someone needs to do a little fact checking at Unique Things!