First, I am an avid opera-goer. That, according to AP, makes me a stakeholder. Hence, my opinions must matter, since that appears to be his only indicator of worthwhile input. I guess that since I did not donate in the range of certain other persons, my opinions may not be worth as much as theirs, but minor shareholders have their input as well, no?
I guess that must make me a K-Mart shopper, since my ideas, being what they are, are in disagreement with the self-imposed standards of an obviously meticulous, finely honed design aesthetic. Oh well, so much for rational discourse on that front...
Secondly, my arguement was always with APs statement that a building's role is exclusively functional - I think it is no stretch to say that many roles, of varying importance, can be ascribed to a building. As has been stated, zoning bylaws, building codes, and now putative design review panels, are all attempts to ensure that buildings fulfil these roles.
While I admit that function is, rightly, the paramount role for any building, that paramouncy does not exclude other roles.
Indeed, one can ascribe an importance to a building's form in the very nature of architecture, which seems to me to consist of managing a dialogue between form and function. As such, architectural criticism is valid as a criticism of this dialogue. If function were the only measure worth talking about, then frankly, architecture would be obviated as a profession, insofar as engineering (civil, mechanical, electrical, etc.) would dictate form entirely, and there would be no dialogue at all.
Lastly, let me be clear, I never suggested that what was lacking was some sort of Starchitectural wunderbau, all aglitter and aglow, gracing the glossy pages of magazines near and far. This is nothing but an attempt to translate disagreement into a false dichotomy, and thereby discredit that disagreement. I merely pointed out that I found elements of the building's architectural treatment unsatisfactory.
Moreover, my concerns are NOT representative of some sort of unease with functionalist or deconstructivist architecture. I beleive that it is possible for someone to appreciate this sort of architecture, and still find things lacking in the current building.
This discussion is increasingly being framed in terms that suggest that this building is the Platonic expression of functionalist architecture - that situations have conspired to produce a perfect, idealised form that admits of no criticism.
Let me be clear - I don't hate this building, and I certainly don't think it is an architectural failure. I merely have some (relatively) minor quibbles with it based on my subjective impressions. Your arguements presuppose such (self-evident!)perfection that these quibbles must be either nonexistent or irrelevant.