In this week's comments update, readers discussed an underground house in the Netherlands and debated conservation groups' calls to save a 1960s stadium in Ahmedabad, India.
Groups including the Twentieth Century Society and World Monuments Fund made statements following the news that the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Stadium, designed by Indian architect Charles Correa, is set to be demolished as part of Ahmedabad's bid to host the 2036 Olympics.
Commenters debated whether or not the stadium should be demolished.
"Icons come, icons go"
On one side of the argument, Marius wrote "only a few of the best buildings survive long time tests; you can't keep them all".
Whateverandeveramen was unfazed by the idea of the stadium being knocked down, writing "icons come, icons go – even Wembley was demolished".
Commenter dwg was thinking about the bigger picture, stating "what I find really interesting is Western pseudo-intellectual organisations telling other parts of the world what they should do with their own buildings and infrastructure because of the perceived significance".
However, other readers were concerned about the environmental impact. "Demolishing a stadium to build a new stadium for an Olympics that you don't even know if you are going to host is not only wildly optimistic but extremely wasteful," wrote franky four fingers.
They weren't the only readers to side with the conservation groups. "There are many good reasons to save something: cultural, but also a lot of embodied carbon," commented Ronnie Murray.
To save or not to save? Join the discussion ›
"The metal cladding makes it look clinical and institutional"
Commenters were also split in their opinions about a 124-metre-long block of social housing in Paris clad in steel.
Designed by architecture studio Christ & Gantenbein in collaboration with Margot-Duclot Architectes Associes, the linear building is in the city's 15th arrondissement and contains 104 apartments split across five floors.
"The metal cladding makes it look clinical and institutional," commented AlfredHitchcock. "It also singles the development out as being something different and not in a good way."
Ken Steffes was in the same boat, commenting that "it may look better in person, but the steel cladding facade on this structure makes it appear very cold and unwelcoming. Grey in a grey environment".
However, Croissant Day thought that Parisian social housing like this "looks ten times better than the luxury condos we build here in Vancouver and sell at $2,000 per square foot".
Dreary or beautiful? Join the discussion ›
"The control of natural light is masterful"
Readers were delighted by a house that is partially buried underground to blend in with its rural surroundings in Eindhoven.
Appropriately called The House Under the Ground, the Netherlands home was designed by WillemsenU to "enhance the beauty" of its site and act as a retreat for the couple who own it.
Archi was all for it, exclaiming that "the control of the natural light here is masterful. Simple small moves can be dramatic".
Meanwhile, Marius called the project "subtle and gutsy". They continued that they thought it was a "lovely retreat, I want one. Gotta love Dutch".
For Jacob Volanski, the house was "a beautiful work, though I can't imagine what the cost per square foot turned out to be!"
However, commenter james felt that "the bedrooms seem cold (more underwater than underground)".
Are you a fan of the underground house? Join the discussion ›
Dezeen is the world's most commented architecture and design magazine, receiving thousands of comments each month from readers. Keep up to date on the latest discussions on our comments page and subscribe to our weekly Debate newsletter, where we feature the best reader comments from stories in the last seven days.