Your remarks are superficially plausible and fit many people's pet theories about architects. The only flaw is that they don't have any relation to the reality of the construction of the actual Sydney Opera House.
The internals of the building were not built to Utzon's design; they were redesigned and built after Utzon resigned in 1966.
> The internals of the building were not built to Utzon's design; they were redesigned and built after Utzon resigned in 1966.
My understanding is that Utzon's original design was, basically, impossible. The new design was a compromise made during intense negotiations with physical reality after Utzon had quit.
The further point is that those compromises rule out little things such as the ochestral pit or the tower. Things that are sorta kinda really really useful for ochestras.
If it was up to me I'd build the usual mausoleum somewhere else and turn the "opera house" into something else. A museum perhaps.
> Your remarks are superficially plausible and fit many people's pet theories about architects.
Availability bias. We never hear about the vast majority of architects who stick to designing safe, sensible and non-hideous buildings. We do hear about self-promoting designers of monuments to their own egos, such as Gehry. And naturally this tilts the public view of architecture.
As a kid I wanted to be an architect. Maybe I'm suffering from armchair expertise. "I use buildings, therefore I'm an architect".
But sometimes mistakes are so visible that end users can point them out. My personal bête noire is the business school building at the University of Western Australia. Just a stunning array of dumb details, but it's visually bold and jaunty. I guess that's what sold.
The internals of the building were not built to Utzon's design; they were redesigned and built after Utzon resigned in 1966.