what's with the fucking architecture

It's so stupid that it's pretentious to even call it architecture.  It would be a tragedy if the character and skyline of our capital city were to be further ruined and St. Paul's dwarfed by yet another giant glass stump, better suited to downtown Chicago than the City of London.  I would understand better this type of high-tech approach if you demolished the whole of Trafalgar Square and started again with a single architect responsible for the entire layout, but what is proposed is like a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend.

Do you ever wish you were a dog so that you could "accidentally" sniff another dog's butts?

>>2
Bizarre and crude non-sequitor there, chief.

Not to defend >>2-kun, but what would be particularly sequitorial here, >>3-kun?

>>4
Something relating to architecture in some way, duuhHHHH

The architects in London are really stoopid.

>>1
St. Paul's is protected you cannot build a tower directly next to the site and there are a series of protected views allowing people to see St. Paul's from a distance.  London actually has a lot of restrictions of building sites and what are known as landmark towers have only a few potential sites.  I worked on a project to build a tower in SE1 and there are only two locations allowed in the Elephant and Castle restoration project.