This week's comments update is led by a debate between readers over the significance of sexual identity within the workplace, after an LGBT+ survey revealed that the number of British architects that are "out" at work has fallen.
Loud and proud: the results of the Architects' Journal's LGBT+ survey showed the number of architects who are openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender at work has fallen to 73 percent, but some readers believed this was irrelevant.
Guest was not interested by the results of the survey: "How did we ever manage to function without such information at our fingertips? A little more architecture and design, when you get a chance, please Dezeen."
"So what? Why does this have any relevance to the field of design whatsoever? I'm a heterosexual man, and I'm 'out', should that make a difference to you? No," agreed a seemingly agitated Steve Florida.
"It does make a difference, Steve. People's fundamental humanity and dignity should not be up for debate. Respect matters. Visibility matters. And so does a healthy, welcoming professional environment." responded Jon.
"Dezeen is geared toward the architecture profession. This survey addresses issues faced by the LGBT community in said profession," wrote Barry O Shea, simply.
"Design is political. Saying otherwise is just plain ignorant," added Marco Sosa.
Mr Walnut Grey suggested the figures had revealed that change was needed: "I'm infuriated by some of the disrespect shown by many commenters on here. We need to challenge the idea that sexuality in the workplace isn't an issue. It very much is."
One reader took the survey as a chance to reflect and remain optimistic.
What do you make of the results of the LGBT survey? Have your say in our comments section ›
Brave new world: reader's were unimpressed with a 130-metre-tall spherical concert hall, planned for near the Olympic park in Stratford, east London, which was published by Dezeen last week but gained traction over the past few days.
Rthko felt the plans belonged in the past: "Honestly, I'd appreciate this more as a never-built conceptual design from the 60s."
While Chris Becket pondered: "Does London really need this?"
Malgorzata wasn't a fan of the design either, highlighting some perceived impracticalities: "It seems to me impossible that such a huge, wide and heavy building could really stand on only three thin, narrowly placed legs. It looks unstable."
"Futurama's Madison Cube Garden comes to mind," joked Kryštof Hejný.
The plans had sparked the imagination of this reader, who had a different location in mind.
Not bowled over: ahead of the Super Bowl, commenters offered their critique of the Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta by architecture firm HOK, which will host next year's NFL championship game.
Fabian Künzel felt the project missed the mark: "In my eyes, it doesn't appear contemporary. It has a 2000 look and feel. And it's not that sensitive to the surrounding space. I like the idea of the roof, but the result of this thought is rather monstrous."
"Why are all modern American stadiums so eye-searingly, gleefully hideous?" asked Jon.
Hexagons had a theory: "The answer may be that these stadiums are not intended to last. Sports teams require new stadiums every couple of decades or they move to other cities."
"So many architects are more concerned with staying in business than a lasting legacy," bemoaned Cubbiesseven.
This reader didn't hold back with their evaluation.
For the birds: MVRDV unveiled renderings for an office block with an interactive mirrored facade, but readers were more concerned about the welfare of the local wildlife.
"I have heard of similar buildings causing birds to lose their lives. They don’t need any help dying with our world as it is," lamented Sheila Lynch.
"Honestly people, stop making mirrored buildings," wrote an angry Simon.
This reader needed to put the kettle back on after seeing the images: