SAINSBURY'S SUPERMARKET IN CROSBY, LIVERPOOL BY HADFIELD CAWKWELL DAVIDSON

A plaintive cry reaches Nairn's inbox. "Help us BBA, you're our only hope... well nearly. This 'ethical business' has just put in this absolute crock of white box and car parking hell for planning." I'm assuming the ethical business is Sainsbury's, but the architect Hadfield Cawkwell Davidson also has a thrilling 'culture' statement on their website that I urge you do go and read. The hyperventilating rhythm of 159 words of flatulent good intentions goes beyond the normal corporate bollocks and enters the realm of protesting too much. "We believe that good design can make a positive difference to economic and social value [sic]," they pant. "We are good people, please believe us. We just want to make some money before we retire..." - that's me interpreting. The culture statement should come with that spread better's caveat: "while good design can make a positive difference, we also do some bad design, which can make a negative difference..."

Happy to oblige you, dear reader from Crosby. The funniest thing about this piece of crap is that the image comes in the middle of a long and comprehensive Design and Access Statement that shows how sensitively the architects have considered the urban context and so on. They did loads of research, photographed the area meticulously, etc etc. Then they dumped this cereal packet on the site. They did design some elevations, though. Let's take a look (you might need to click):

I sometimes think that on projects like this, the architects don't really draw elevations, which is why they turn out so awful. In this case, they drew the elevation, had a meeting about it, thought "that looks great!", buffed it up in photoshop and sent it out. Stop guys! Listen to that voice inside that you've been trying to kill for decades. You're designing shit, and all the ethical company statements in the world won't save you from the devil at the final architectural reckoning.

Oh yes, they've also designed a few other buildings around the store, including another cereal packet-like transport interchange with a cladding of grey sticks. But this is one caught my eye.

This is a 'community use' building for da community. Presumably this is the section 106 payoff for letting Sainsburys dump on Crosby in such offensive style. The architects explain the elegant form by saying: "The massing and scale of the design responds to the building's purpose and surrounding context as well as providing extensive landscaping and planting around the proposal."

Let me translate.

"We are hoping that this piece of undesigned crap that we have imported from a business park we did in 1997 will serve as some kind of public building, and we have specified some trees that will eventually cover it up so you won't have to look at it. Don't push us on this - our client will just walk away. There's a recession on, haven't you heard? This building is for the people. They can do whatever they like in it. Just don't ask us what - we don't hang out in community centres..."

TESCO, IPSWICH BY MOUNTFORD PIGOTT

Wow, check out this bad boy. The supercar in the foreground (how many supercar owners shop at Tesco? In Ipswich?) tells you everything about the fantasy world that Mountford Pigott were living in when they designed this one. I'll cut to the chase. Only a man with a very small penis could design this building.

Quite where all the shopping is in this incredible monstrosity is a bit of a mystery to me. But the dynamic roofs and the transparency and all that other jazz must have really got them going around the boardroom table. Perhaps the clients had small penises too.

A proper journalist (here) has written before about how bad Tesco is at doing buildings, and in that story, he quoted the head of CABE as saying: "From an aesthetic point of view, there is a lot of snobbery surrounding Tesco. In fact, the company works with some highly respected architects." Don't know about you, but I'm really looking forward to CABE under Mr Finch leading us into a brave new future for architecture in this country.

The above building is a planning application, and is pending a decision. Check it out here if you want to make a comment.

But because democracy is not really what we're all about here at BBA, I instead urge you to check out Mountford Pigott's website, navigate to the retail section, and belly laugh with all your work colleagues about how fucking proud they are of the incompetent approximation of architecture that earns them their daily bread.

With many thanks to a correspondent for this...