Doing things for style alone that compromise ultimate durability of the structure is the work of a poor architect. Without knowing more about this apartment complex, it’s a bit difficult to blast it that badly… yet. It does look like it might fall into that camp, though.

btw, when Rainer was built, the same sentiment was driving it that droves these other absurd designs - i.e. a need to be chic, “cool”, “different”, “edgy”, etc. It was a poor design then, and it still is. The beauty of the human spirit is that it can adapt to poor design, and begin to take it as second nature.

If anything, crap like Rainer and the Singapore concept are paeans to the human spirit; proof that we can adapt to almost any pile of crap that egomainiacs plop in our midst.

http://www-world.cac.washington.edu/admin/reo/images/metro/rainier.jpg

Seriously, places like Dubai, Singapore, Shanghai, and a few others have a seriously flawed idea about what “innovation” in architecture really means. These are primarily imitative cultures that are essentially doing Supersize MacArchitecture. It’s crap; it’s full of fat; and it’s toxic to the communities that house it.

The whole thing looks like beehive culture. Buying a property in one of these monstrosities signifies two things: 1) the owner is wealthy; 2) the owner has no taste.

Of course, the mindless architectual drones who designed this thing - and others like it - will also delight in the criticsm they’re sure to receive (except for the hopelessly banal and inbred architectual They will say the criticism indicates that their design is radically great, because, like the atention-getting lackies they are, they equate criticism with “vision”.

The architects who designed this are dumbasses, and so are the developers and residents who build and buy the units.

–TwoDragons