In this week's comments update, readers are discussing the news that musician Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, has gutted a Tadao Ando-designed home in California.
Ye's transformation of the Malibu beach house included ripping out the ocean-facing windows, kitchen, marble-clad bathrooms, concrete hot tub and indoor fireplace.
Commenters were far from impressed.
"A wrecking ball would add a finishing touch"
"This is quite literally a case of more money than sense," wrote Alfred Hitchcock.
Bloibl concluded that "Kanye West is a child", while Vandra found Ye's actions "dumb from a pure real estate standpoint".
Commenter Jb couldn't pass up on the opportunity for irony, writing "it is a cruel and unjust world that castigates a visionary for paying the ultimate tribute to minimalism".
But Andy raised a wider point about luxury homes hogging the beach in Malibu. "Ye's madness is a waste of precious resources, but so are all those houses, lording over what should be a protected and shared natural resource: the beach," they wrote.
Richard simply asked, "Kan-ye not?".
However, not all commenters agreed and Whateverandeveramen put forward "pretty sure he can do whatever he likes with his property," and suspected "I'm sure not one reader knew of the existence of this house before".
Are you a fan? Ye or no? Join the discussion ›
"Yet another example of architecture in spite of environment"Â
Also on commenters' radars this week was a home surrounded by screens of concrete panels in a Japanese forest, completed by design studio Nendo.
Ken Robertson quipped "I think occupants will need vitamin D supplements".
"The house is rigorous in its severity and sterility," determined The Truth.
They continued" "for a house built in a woodland setting, I find it odd that most glimpses of the natural landscape were brutally sacrificed in favour of repetitive views of mechanically produced, gridded-concrete walls."
Other commenters had similar questions. "Why does this house need such brutal privacy screens in the first place?" asked Tony M.
MV called it "a coffin in the forest" before suggesting it was "yet another example of architecture in spite of environment."
Perfectly positioned or puzzlingly private? Join the discussion ›
"Bizarre structure"Â
Readers also reacted to an interview with architecture firm AO about the 581-metre Legends Tower planned for Oklahoma City, in which the studio claimed "we didn't want it to be crazy or gaudy".
Most commenters weren't buying it.
"Their idea of 'not crazy' is different to mine... a building more than double the height of any other around it seems crazy to me," contested Troops79.
Steve Hasler proposed that it was "not 'crazy' but maybe 'irrational'."
Also baffled by the design, Gary Busey called it a "bizarre structure that, once completed, will provide a great view of all the places people would rather be".
However, some commenters could see the rationale behind the studio's plans.
"We have a growing population – to provide housing we either need to build up or out," wrote AJP. "Building up is much more sustainable than building over our forests, fields or rivers," they continued. "Good start and hope to see more projects like this one."
Which camp are you in? Join the discussion ›
Comments Update
Dezeen is the world's most commented architecture and design magazine, receiving thousands of comments each month from readers. Keep up to date on the latest discussions on our comments page and subscribe to our weekly Debate newsletter, where we feature the best reader comments from stories in the last seven days.