However, it is not the public’s fault that we do not have enough good design and architecture in our cities, and it is not the public’s non-engagement with the politics of design that results in poor urbanism. The public have been deliberately ostricised from the debate for many years. Nimby is a term invented by planners, developers and architects to denigrate any member of the public that voices an opinion.

And so, when a group of pre-eminent designers, developers and politicians get into a huddle for a bit of soul-searching about what has gone wrong, the best they can come up with is “architecture needs to be more popular”, or reading between the lines, “we as architects should be more popular”. This is nonsense.

Instead of talking about the value of architectural design in subjective terms and how it is understood by others – why not talk about what architecture is for? Is it for developers to make a big profit? Is it for politicians to make a mark? Is it for designers to make themselves feel good about themselves, and have an exciting career – make them feel like artists? Or is it about making our cities better, healthier, successful and interesting places to live?

The public only really care about the latter, though clients and architects seem to focus on the first three, then use all of their acquired skills to convince us otherwise. That is the problem.

In terms of architectural heritage, the original Broadgate buildings are fantastically important. They were the first that heralded a new wave of City office buildings that addressed issues of public realm and context in a way that was progressive at the time, and very successful. And they are only 25 years old for chissakes! These are great buildings, still fit for purpose – leave them alone. There are plenty of sites around the Bishopsgate area with buildings on them that are more suitable for replacement.

The point of heritage listing is not to preserve the City in aspic, but to prevent good quality buildings being replaced by potentially inferior stock. It is an external force that provides balance, preventing a commercial free-for-all in the historic centre of our city. In this sense, conservation of good quality buildings, from all eras, should be seen as progressive – not the enemy of progress. It is a policy designed to ensure that the overall quality of our built environment makes net gains over an elongated time period.