I enjoyed your soundoff. Also, you write in a way that reading it makes me feel like the still moments of laying down after a day in the ocean. After each woosh is a good, sturdy point that, much like the tide, sucks in and then outwardly displays yet another good sturdy point. I might read a novel by you if I didn’t suffer from easy motion sickness.

Yes.

The following comments do not apply to this entry alone, but are of a general nature, applying to many, perhaps the majority of Archdaily entries:

Most unfortunately in the field of architecture, plain description has become displaced by extraordinarily self-conscious flights of language replete with inane word twists and juxtapositions and those who would appreciate a design must suffer foolishness masquerading as importance, along with the photos of the thing itself. If a picture is worth a thousand words, and the website allows some dozen or so of them, why muck it all up with this absurdity? And believe me, it is absurd.

Few, if any of the entries here at ArchDaily come without some measure of it, and it is a source of continual wincing amazement to me that architects, who are artists, of all people, would allow or even encourage the immaterial addition of anything at all to the plain, quiet appreciation of a design. Who is better equipped than a painter, sculptor or architect to understand that, once a creation is brought into existence, the thing itself speaks for itself and is its own best testament?

Since we all cannot witness each of these buildings first hand, the ‘lens’ through which we take them, here at ArchDaily, a website, is photos and words. So, in short: let’s have as many pictures as possible, especially of the buildings during construction; and more facts – as many as possible, with no wordiness.