[Effable] I've never been there but I understand it is for shopping and not purely offices. For what it's worth, I quite like it.

Bull Selfridges Ring - it's much nicer in the flesh.

What a visual insult! Come friendly bombs and fall on Birmingham. It makes Croydon look like a pretty little market town, which it ain't.

At the risk of offending someone, that looks about as attractive as a beached whale.

[Duj and other detractors] Like most things - the edifice needs to be viewed in context.

[pen : hot beans] - how's your digestive system this morning?

[Chalky] But OTOH, I like it just on its own. [Btd] I can't resist asking (in the typical debate-starting manner) why this bit of architecture is less intelligent than, say, St Paul's Cathedral. The best reason I can think of is that while this building looks like a jokily scaled-up sequinned amoeba, St Paul's Cathedral looks like, well, a cathedral - which depending on your POV suggests that Christopher Wren was less decadent than Future Systems. Also, some architecture critics have pointed out that Selfridge's is basically a shell-concept, with little of architectural interest inside it, so not a coherent bit of architecture? Are these your reasons for disliking it?

What does Maxwell Hutchinson mean by "architectural integrity"? To me, that would mean "it satisfies the purpose it was built for, keeps out the rain, and doesn't fall down", but he appears to have some moral concept in mind. Googling for some reviews of the place, I didn't see much mention of whether it works in that sense. I did see a lot of photography that one might accuse of lacking in architectural integrity, i.e. shots taken from unusual angles that give no idea of what the thing actually looks like.