In reaction to your cover story on the Massachusetts Institute of Technologys building program, "MITs $1-billion Metamorphosis," I agree that several of the buildings seem to be innovative, attractive, probably effective, and with final costs and future maintenance, realistic (ENR 1/27 p. 32). But what are we to think of the Computer Science Building? What advantages in function, or even appearance, warrant the arbitrary irregularities and distortions in configuration which assail any sense of beauty, any impression of strength and do not produce any of the qualities normally associated with good architecture? And at what cost?