Latest Pritz Prize building--The triumph of mass and opacity...  

My, what
an enlightened point of view ! I must make sure to re-examine my guardedly positive opinion of this work. . .
Perhaps the writer has been to the site and toured the structure -- the most reliable way of judging a building ? I have not, so I will refrain from commenting further.
For myself, I value weight in a building -- it seems a positive attribute for a supposedly permanent object to have. In today's world, where conservation of material and energy could be expected to result in less substantial objects, a light-weight building that nevertheless projects weight would seem to be a positive accomplishment. The art of architecture evolves with the times, yet certain ideals persist ?
But what do I know.

I don't experience the...
I don't experience the building as heavy.
The shifting in volumes makes it apear coming off the ground.
The design maybe to basic, to simple, to much of an anekdote.
But as is SDR states, you can only judge by being on site.
I for one would have played much more with the transparency of the volumes, made it more visible.

C'mon guys...
The exterior of the building sucks and know it. You're just scared as sheep to speak out professionally and possibly make an enemy of someone down the road that might hire you. Pathetic. Grow a pair, would you? 🙂

I designed almost that exact...
I designed almost that exact piece of crap to no aplomb in kindergarten, but couldn't find a pre-bailout financier.
Dirtbomb!
The building pretty much sucks lamb, as dc said. It's six blocks, each on top of the other, slightly offset. As an old buddy of mine is famous for saying, maybe I am right.
Oh, the humanity.

Gang... play nice now
I'm all for a spirited discussion, but I have to agree with SDR's sentiments that one, you should evaluate a piece (building, sculpture, painting, etc) in it's entirety before passing judgement and two, DC's dismissive condescending tone makes it hard to follow with any thoughtful response or (oh, no!) a positive assessment.
Now, I'm not an architect. My master's degree is in painting. But I kind of like some aspects of the building. I don't know what the exterior is clad in, (but I like the moiré patterns it creates) and I'm curious how it changes as you see its different elevations and at different times of day. I don't know that I understand or like the seemingly limited windows (no natural light?) or their placement. But I do like the curious off-kilter almost unbalanced composition.
I took a quick look on line and saw a couple other images of the building that were kind of compelling. I also saw some other projects they did that I thought were very interesting.
I'd like to hear more critiques of the building, but maybe some that are more considered or don't include expressions like "piece of shit". I'm pretty sure feces is not an approved building material in New York.

If it's not Scottish....
It's CRAP!!!

On a more positive note, the ...
On a more positive note, the building reminds me of Jenga. I was never very good at Jenga, on a more negative note.

Architects are just now
playing for real with design concepts that remained on paper for decades. With an assured technology as support -- there seems to be no limit on what can be accomplished with any material old or new -- designers are finally freed to play with ideas that were formerly held as abstract possibilities, not for "real building."
And why not ? What better way to express man's self-assurance as builder and artist. Better late than never ?
I like the idea of building as Tower of Blocks. Isn't that the literal description of what we've been building for a century, now ? How about Building as Art -- conceptual art, even -- Poetry, as Wright would have it. . .?
I haven't seen this building in the flesh, but I've looked at enough photos (over months) to be concerned that its gossamer perforated cladding is more of a sacrificial surface, like the silk pajamas of the geisha in her boudoir ? It looks a bit impermanent, or at least fragile.

It has a very precarious...
It has a very precarious look, as towers of blocks go. Even with different views, I still don't care for it much (although the night photograph seems to make it look better). On a partially related note maybe, I do like a number of other SANAA buildings a lot, including the O-Museum in Nagano.

Think of it
as a pre-wrapped object by Christo.
No ?

I don't have anything witty, ...
I don't have anything witty, or overly intelligent to say. But I do know that I don't like this building. Not at all. In fact, it's aesthetic makes me feel a little stressed out. I can't explain it. I just find it unpleasant.

Seriously, it looks to me to ...
Seriously, it looks to me to be pre-wrapped by Parker Brothers, a division of Hasbro. I imagine on site it is not unremarkable in many ways, but at least as far as I can see it here two-dimensionally on the street (and as a non-architect) it seems unrealized, childish.
I can accept - and may even be charmed by - the notion of architecture as an extension of fun with blocks, but when you get right down to it in the great big world, that idea can become a little disarming.
But I'm not mad at the Pritzker prize people, just disappointed.

I like this building.
Quite a bit in fact. I am a New Yorker and pass it a few times a month.
It sits well. A nice approach is by foot from the south. The photos you post
are odd. Not much life to them.
"... Its interior is largely a no-frills space; its layout is straightforward and user-friendly; the building's use of relatively inexpensive materials is comfortable, accommodating, and?above all?unpretentious. ...
The overall effect is that of finally being able to cough after a painful visit to the opera."
- Christian Viveros-Fauné
http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-11-27/art/the-new-museum-of-contemporar...

I like this new New Museum
Outside the stacked blocks don't look precarious or random but reminds one of the satisfaction felt when the sweet spot of asymmetrical balance is found with wooden building blocks, or my own game of Slabes and Cubes. The silhouette breaks up the hardedge verticality of tall buildings at the same time as it mimes the smaller storefronts around it. It is good to see a building uses the airspace in a logical but non-frontal manner. It is a bold but polite critique of the 19th/20th buildings around it- with their embellished front facades and the other 3 naked, undeserving, sides.
I haven't felt the building- but friends have assured me. The interior is what it i: art gallery spaces, storage & preparatory space; offices. The ground floor doen't disguise the function but exposes it happily. The building is the largest work in the collection but once inside it is a functional building that gives the art its rightful space. Unlike the Zaha Hadid museum in Cincinnati, or the one being built now in Ann Arbor. the New Museum building serves honestly and with visual modesty as "white walls" for the art object.
In Halid's museums stairs have shallow risers and extend low distances between floors wasting valuable gallery footage or space for contemplative viewing and random floor plans cut up spaces into small galleries that rabbit warren galleries box in works of art (particularly large works) offering limited vantage points for the viewer and isolating works.
Architecture may be the mother of all arts, as Frank Lloyd Wright believed, but good mothers don't dominate their offspring. The new New Museum is a respectful vehicle for artist, curator, viewer and object.