The accidental thing seemed implied by the article, that the changes were an act of "resistance", rather than something that was designed for. My comment was m

The accidental thing seemed implied by the article, that the changes were an act of "resistance", rather than something that was designed for. My comment was more a criticism of the article than of Le Corbusier, whose work I mostly like (much more so than many contemporary architecture). A better article would have pointed to those 5 points, rather than simply repeating one pithy quote, which seemed to be the entire supporting evidence.