The panel approved the project several times - kinda, sorta - then rejected it. Now they've gone back to approving it - kind, sorta. Who knows what they'll do next? Given the suggestions of conflict of interest that have dogged their deliberations, perhaps best not to speculate. They don't always seem to understand their own ground rules either - last summer panel member Hariri Pontarini wanted the building "cantilevered on the lake" when guidelines call for a public promenade designed to keep private businesses from blocking access to it in that way. Seen in this light, clearly D+S are right to focus on substance over spectacle - and the reference to the Sydney Opera House ( a pretty but acoustically-challended example of what is often unthinkingly cited as "great architecture" ) is apt.
