One of the questions posed more irregularily about mockitectural theoros is the question of "Should a building make you angry?" I would condonate to say no, however a number of the highest level protopro contemporary mockitectural thinkers say oh heck yes. SO as this debate rages, here is an example of a building that accidentally sets a precifidentalness for buildings that as the author of this arcticle says "is like a bad dream" Enjoy!
Notablier... Notwithstanding, this is not good mockitecture. It is bad mockitecture. Bad mockitecture is bad architecture, expressively badly aestheticizationalled usually commercial architecture. So if bad mockitecture is bad architecture, then good mockitecture has to be... do the analogy. its logic.
I especially like the part about the street that has no room to walk along. At an outdoor shopping mall. Classic mockitecture! Another term i have just stumbled upon is "faccadity" it is ancient roman or something for odd facade, and is one of the greatest and possibly first terms to be associated with mockitecture.
Even bad mockitecture has some theoros apparently. phenominimalism... "Actually, I thought H&H wasn't so much of an ugly building as it is an ugly experience."
(image via Hollywood and Highland)