I don’t hate modern art and don’t feel as strongly as the author of the tweet above, but he raises a valid point. You can read the whole rant here.
It seems that a building which was hailed as a paragon of sustainability was in fact a fraud. It isn’t just water-stained but dissolving. Well, maybe ‘fraud’ is too strong a term. Rather, the appearance of sustainability and modernity was the important thing, the actual sustainability and modernity not so much. So the diocese which wanted to strike a popular pose got, in fact, what it wanted… for a while.
The tweeter expounds the benefits of traditional architecture and natural materials but lets face it, if we attempted to build everything out of natural materials construction costs would be prohibitive, and then who would get their McMansions? So modern architecture has two benefits, you can both strike a popular pose and pay less doing it. Of course you should not expect your building to last more than a decade or two, but then you can just tear it down and replace it with another “sustainable” building.
So if you accept that everything is provisional and that all values are self-interested poses, architecture like the above is a good deal.