Government guidance states that "demolition of any Grade II* building should be wholly exceptional and require the strongest justification". Demolition is tested against a set of criteria laid out in the guidance. In the case of the Baltic, there is no doubt that the Exchange Hall could be rebuilt - this is agreed by the developers, the architects who oversaw the dismantling and the City Planning Officer, who pointed out that many City churches were in far worse condition after the War when they were rebuilt.. One key test is viability. The developers argue that the failure of the first post-bomb scheme to find a buyer demonstrates that restoration is not viable. But frankly that was an awful scheme and it only tested the use of the Hall as part of an office. What about restaurant or bar use as part of a mixed use scheme for the site?

Since SAVE's Mappin and Webb campaign, it has been held that the architectural merits of a replacement building cannot only be held to justify the demolition of a listed building. If it can be demonstrated that demolition would also result in substantial benefits to the community, then this can be weighed against arguments in favour of preservation, but even Swiss Re and the developers weren't able to make the benefits of the Gherkin appear as anything more than feeble.

Many worry that the case of the Baltic Exchange sends out the message that if a developer lobbies hard and high enough and finds a prestigious enough architect then they can still secure the demolition of a listed building, regardless of guidance and legislation. The Architects' Journal ran a story this summer that at a breakfast meeting at No. 10 between leaders of City institutions and Tony Blair, Swiss Re complained about the delays with the Gherkin and Blair intimated that he would see what he could do. This case has the potential to undermine some of the great progress that has been made in the last twenty years to ensure that the conservation of the historic environment comes before mammon. Does this case indeed mark a return to the bad old days of the 1970s?