Architecture is a form of art, it is a taste, an acquired taste. Once a person has understood something enough, tried it enough times, they see the beauty in it, understand and appreciate it. Like food or music, it takes a few tastes to like it and appreciate it.

What makes something exceptional anyway? Is it because it is new, different, unique? Who finds something old and already-done interesting? It is the innovative breakthroughs in culture and art that are worth attention. For example cubism, or modernism, or the discovery of spatial depth and perspective, etc. These were all new and different during their time and therefore they are exception and in history books.

Zaha Hadid is new, innovative, interesting, pushing the limits, discovering, and making breakthroughs; she is therefore exceptional.

Furthermore, in the US 90% of the architecture that Americans see is completely and utterly utilitarian and lacking all levels of artistic expression. Most buildings, lacking $, build for function; they are built to hold heat and use water, etc. So is that a good design, is that architecture? Is something that has been designed purely for a function a good design, is it art, is it “good” architecture?

Our tastes in architecture are misinformed.

the name of the client is not a misery because the name of the project capital hill gives it away cleary, of course if you live in moscow .

The problems oriented from the nature of this design are complicated, but it pushes people to get more innovative. As a result, a lot of unheard solutions will come up and be executed. I think those solutions will be imitated by many people in the future and maybe some of them will be industry standards.

I think this matters most.

By the way, actual building will have slight differences, but yet again, you may never know=).

zaha is god of form and presentation.