(1) On one hand, the interior and exterior perspectives look appealing and may lead an architecture student to think of it as a good project. Things that come to my view as appealing: the objectuality of the building in the site, the melange of materials (i.e. curtains, wood, metal).

(2) Nonetheless, on a quick review of the documentation, it reveals itself as extremely basic. In formal terms, this project is defined by: its symmetry, the repetition of the ‘floor typology’ and the articulation of these spaces through the verticality of stairs.
Judging by these facts, we should value this project as an interesting outcome of an elemental exercise examining some of the basic issues of architecture. Under no terms is this anything new, nor anything valuable to reflect upon (i.e. Japanese architecture has gone farther in these issues than this project). If anything, it should makes us aware of the unreliability of images. Furthermore, it should make us aware of the unreliability of magazines and blogs to actually learn architecture and be critical of architecture.