While Scruton maybe "pleased as punch" with himself, his column in the Times have a few in Britain "cream crackered." Both the Guardian and BdOnline have prepared their own commentary to Scruton's salacious, if not shallow, reading of contemporary architecture. As reported in this Bdonline.co.uk article "Philosopher mauls 'starchitects'," Scruton's column can be summed up by a few quotes:

"'New architecture… is designed to stand out as the work of some inspired artist who does not build for people but sculpts space for his own expressive ends.'

He claimed the resulting designs resembled 'vegetables, vehicles, hairdryers, washing machines or backyard junk' and added: 'The typical starchitect building is without a facade or an orientation that it shares with its neighbours.'

'It is designed as waste: throwaway architecture, involving vast quantities of energy-intensive materials, which will be demolished within 20 years.'"

Of course, a cage rattle of this severity usually does not go unnoticed. Jonathan Glancey, of the Guardian, responded with this in his column, "Roger Scruton is on shaky ground slating modern architecture:"

"The point – one that Ludwig Wittgenstein, a thinker admired by Scruton, understood well – is that certain ideas, such as aesthetics, cannot be put adequately into words and are best expressed through demonstration, which is exactly what architects do. Equally, Scruton is on very shaky foundations when he accuses contemporary architects of sculpting space for their own expressive needs. What of Borromini, Guarini, Vanbrugh, Hawksmoor and any number of baroque masters?"

While Glancey went on to further dismiss Scrunton, the author of books such as The Classical Vernacular: Architectural Principles in an Age of Nihilism and I Drink Therefore I Am: A Philosopher's Guide to Wine, a keen commenter on the site pointed out this: