zlacker

This is the starchitect shtick - build sculptural forms that can, incidentally, be used as buildings. It's literally the most superficial kind of architecture.

It's much harder and less self-indulgent to start from a human-scale brief for a working and/or living environment and build a functional triumph that is also visually striking and original.

You can get away with being transgressive and challenging™ for art galleries and museums, but offices and homes need a whole other level of integration.

>>TheOth+(OP)
I don't disagree. There's a good reason for overall rectangular/cubical forms for a lot of purposes. (And you can do that in ways that also have innovative and interesting architectural details which don't compromise function.)

Stata ended up costing a lot and having a lot of issues.

It was also somewhat justified at the time as being the showcase northeast entrance to the campus but ended up being overshadowed by several other bigger and blockier buildings.

>>TheOth+(OP)
Yes, I think this is what seems to be missed by everything I've read about Gehry in the mainstream. As I said in another post, I worked in the Stata Center at MIT for five years. It was indeed a fun space to walk around in and explore, but it failed to satisfy as a workspace.