the authors do not explain which is the material-technology proposed. it is not enough to say that evolution techniques have been applied. evolution has a certain technique, not seen here. is this building organic in its materiality? then, they say it is adaptable to contextual parameters. which parameters? historical, socio-cultural? economical? the city context is not shown here, not even scale, not even . if the exterior changes, lets say even more than a chamaeleon, what happens inside? if theres people inside, how do they live the changes? in my opinion this is an artistic exercise, nothing to do with architecture, not because of the shape, after all, the image is part of the architecture, but it is not architecture in itself, the authors must read the definition/s of architecture and then post this building in another appropriate web site. unless they resolve the missing items.