The MIT building is perfect for an institute of higher learning because it challenges the viewer and user to think about their relationship to the building, as opposed to the typical mind numbing structures we see too often, ie big boxes dotting the horizon.

Very interesting piece and there is certainly grounds for questioning and arguing about architecture that tries to push the envelope too far. But unfortunately Kurt Anderson ended it by glibly characterizing all architects as crazy geniuses. Most of us work long hours trying to creat spaces and buildings that work, come in on time and on budget as well as create delight and comfort. Most of us are also dedicated to doing our part to change the paradigm for how buildings are designed, built and operated to reduced their energy usage.

Any coverage of architecture is welcome, but there is so much more to the profession than starchitecture.

Chaos and disruption of positive thought seem to be the focus of the MIT structure, odd for a supposed institute of higher learning, to distract from progress with a fixture representing something akin to structural failure, and acceptance of judgement and design without regard for human needs.