The Stirling Prize judges always like to confound expectations, but giving the prize this year to Wilkinson Eyre's Magna Project in Rotherham is more than usually perverse.

Peter Clash, the original architect of the Magna concept - and conspicuously not mentioned in the citation - must be gnashing his teeth: for this was one of those projects where the architect of the scheme that attracts the lottery millions then loses out in an arcane bidding process actually to build it.

Strange that, given this embarrassing authorial wrinkle, Magna was chosen ahead of Nick Grimshaw's Eden Project in Cornwall. At least at Eden, a single architect was responsible from concept through to completion. And while Magna is an excellent piece of work - primarily a clever lighting scheme of an existing industrial building, to be harsh - it comes nowhere near Eden as a real piece of architecture, nor even as an example of post-industrial regeneration.

But maybe that's just me. Anyone out there prepared to defend Magna as the Stirling winner?

we were watching it here last night and both myself and my partner were surprised at the decision. Personally I regarded the Magna project as more of a very large exhibition display project - it was also very hard to get a feeling for the building through the tv pictures.

Quite liked the surgery myself and I really want to see the Eden project to experience its scale.

From what I saw of the Magna centre, I would tend to agree with Paul. Perhaps in reality, there is more architectural intervention than appeared on tv. For my money the Guinness Storehouse looks much more impressive as an exhibition.