To me, this says more about the egos of architects and gullibility of funders (and NY Times reporters).  How exactly do a building that is discordantly stark, cold and largely asymmetric with what appears to be a lot of wasted space, the choice of name for it and the usual, pompous architectural bafflegab accompanying it show that things have changed?  The only side that looks someone attractive (to me, at least) is the one overlooking the lawn - precisely because it is less asymmetric.  Toronto’s largest museum added an asymmetric extension a few decades back.  The “creative” design looks almost identical to many of the starchitect’s other designs, the space utilization is terrible and it leaks.  The design was derided and we were confidently told Torontonians would come to love it.  I would imagine there are some who do, but I still have yet to meet any of them.

To me, this says more about the egos of architects and gullibility of funders (and NY Times reporters).  How exactly do a building that is discordantly stark, cold and largely asymmetric with what appears to be a lot of wasted space, the choice of name for it and the usual, pompous architectural bafflegab accompanying it show that things have changed?  The only side that looks someone attractive (to me, at least) is the one overlooking the lawn - precisely because it is less asymmetric.  Toronto’s largest museum added an asymmetric extension a few decades back.  The “creative” design looks almost identical to many of the starchitect’s other designs, the space utilization is terrible and it leaks.  The design was derided and we were confidently told Torontonians would come to love it.  I would imagine there are some who do, but I still have yet to meet any of them.

user
no
assistant