> If it’s actually a good design, it should stand up to scrutiny like any other building design does. Well, define scrutiny? There's technical criticism from

> If it’s actually a good design, it should stand up to scrutiny like any other building design does. Well, define scrutiny? There's technical criticism from the standpoint of safety, for example. If it's not possible to evacuate this building in the event of a fire, that's an overriding concern. There's also criticism from the standpoint of tradition or aesthetic. If the building is ugly or nontraditional, then that's a social problem. The university will need to choose between the taste of the donor and its own aesthetic. The "natural light is necessary for mental health" argument is somewhere in between. A lot of the reaction seems to be a knee-jerk one about tradition and imagining life in a light-free (not just window-free) room, or rooms with poor ventilation. On the other hand, the article here at least alludes to studies on the matter. > By exempting a design from review and revision I think you're over-reading things? As I understand it, the building isn't exempt from review and revision, but Munger retains co-final approval with the university. It's not a one-shot "build these exact blueprints or nothing" deal. To reflect on your earlier example, Frank Gehry gets design-reviewed, but if the clients want him to do something unacceptable he can still walk away.