Readers of the Evening Times will have been horrified (or not) recently to see its normally reasonable reporters slagging off RCHMS and Lighthouse publication Architectural Maps Scotland, Inner Glasgow (£3 from the Lighthouse) for including such wonders as the Kingston Bridge and the Anderson Centre. Click here to read the article. Then join in the debate (with pictures preferably).

Thanks to Dougie Ferguson for alerting me to this.

We love Glasgow's 60s and 70s architecture

Regular readers of JoC will certainly enjoy the magnificent cathedral-like vista as you enter the underside of Kingston Bridge from the north.

But Neil Greig, head of policy unit for the AA in Scotland, says in the Times: "Anything that merits inclusion in an architectural map should really be pleasing on the eye and the Kingston Bridge certainly isn't."

So, architecture simply has to be pleasing on the eye. Not challenging or uplifting then.

Gordon Urquhart, assistant director of Glasgow West Conservation Trust, said: "I wouldn't say this [the Anderston] tower block is the most splendid post-war building. It doesn't look very good from a distance but maybe it has important architectural details I'm not aware of."

Shouldn't a director of a conservation trust generally be aware of what are and aren't important architectural details, so that he or she doesn't accidentally allow something that has them to be wrecked?

We hate Glasgow's 60s and 70s architecture

The Times likes Templeton's Carpet Factory. Why? They don't say, merely commenting that it is modelled on the Doge's Palace. So, copying good, innovating bad. Well, not quite — they do like the Science Centre, althought they don't explain why, except to describe it as high-tech. It's just a dome and a tower for God's sake.