Readers are passionately debating three distinctive architectural projects featured in this week's design discussions, with a wood-lined diabetes health center in Copenhagen sparking the most polarized reactions. The building, created by Danish studio Dorte Mandrup Arkitekter, has divided the architecture community between those who praise its sophisticated execution and critics who question its overwhelming use of timber.
The Copenhagen diabetes health center features a curved, gabled form with interior walkways organized around a towering 15-meter-high central atrium. Supporters of the design have been vocal in their admiration, with reader Marius describing it as "lovely, clean and sophisticated" while praising the "flawless execution of space." Another commenter, Ben, enthusiastically declared "This is damn nice – a new era is here," and Tom Roberts highlighted the center's "stunning interior."
The most poetic praise came from Design Junkie, who branded the structure "a cathedral of wood." However, the wood-dominated aesthetic has drawn sharp criticism from other observers. HeywoodFloyd expressed frustration with the interior, stating "The interior is relentless – that wood paneling is everywhere. It reminds me of a Meier interior from the 90s, but like, not as good." The harshest critique came from T Foxe, who dismissed the project as "a lot of wood and wasted space for no reason but architect ego."
Meanwhile, a community cafe and bar designed by SML Studio Architecture inside Vancouver's modernist Waterfall Building has generated its own wave of commentary. The project's minimalist approach has been met with mixed reactions, with Design Junkie suggesting "the walls are begging for greenery and art." Commenter Todt agreed with this assessment, noting that "the effect appears sterile and doesn't link the beautiful exterior of that location with the interior space at all."
However, not all feedback on the Vancouver project was negative. Don Bronkema offered a more balanced perspective, describing the interior as "stark but flawless," suggesting that the minimalist approach may have its own merits despite the sterile appearance that troubled other commenters.
The third project generating discussion is a shingle-clad woodland house in Quebec, designed by Canadian studios Oyama and Julia Manaćas Architecte. The residence, spread across three distinct volumes, has created another division among readers regarding its unconventional form. Critics like Idracula called it an "awkward, confused massing," while AlfredHitchcock acknowledged it as "a disparate collection of parts, harmonized only externally by the shingle cladding" but argued that "this was obviously intentional."
Miller Matlock provided constructive criticism, calling it an "interesting design" while expressing disappointment that "the swoop didn't resolve as some sort of lightwell – a missed opportunity." Conversely, supporters like Design Junkie called the house "a beauty," and Ben questioned "what's not to like?" about the sculptural composition.
These discussions reflect the ongoing debates within the architecture community about design philosophy, material choices, and spatial organization. The polarized reactions to all three projects demonstrate how contemporary architecture continues to challenge conventional expectations and provoke passionate responses from both professionals and the public. The commentary reveals fundamental questions about the balance between aesthetic innovation and functional practicality in modern architectural practice.
