Though I like it inside, James, I've always thought it was pretty ugly while appreciating the purity of the design. I have a couple of architect friends who visited from Italy and it was near the top of their list of places to see. Apparently it has all sorts of allusions to earlier concrete buildings like the Pantheon (see the roof in the interior photo), which is great if you're into concrete. He says, trying to keep a straight face.
To be perfectly clear, from an architectural standpoint I can understand why it's a relevant structure, and I can also understand why people that appreciate those things would see great value in it. I'll even concede that in my image I've intentionally made it more foreboding than it is in actuality. My "criticisms" (inasmuch as they ARE criticisms, which strictly in the context of the building itself, they are not) are limited to the harmony (or lack thereof) between the building itself and the surrounding aesthetic (and indeed that of the Thames waterfront in general).
I do quite bit of work professionally (photographically as well as architecturally) with modern/contemporary design in the residential sphere, and one of the ongoing problems is the integration of forward-looking construction with the established neighborhoods. Unfortunately, there are too many instances where an excellent designer fails to consider integration into the greater surroundings, and the result ends up being less than it could have been, with the side effect of making neighbors suspicious of modernist architecture in general.
But anyway, back to the original image - it is indeed the National Theatre, and the sign is showing the current performances. Right now, they are "Consent" and another play called "Ugly Lies." Both worked well with the compositions I was playing with in camera, and combine with the architecture to create a "message" that's somewhat ironic.
