Libeskind's childish rationalization for the destruction of the original facade is embarrassing. Irrespective of the museum's program, or the architectural context, he was always going to "design" an inappropriate, scaleless, proportionless and ugly crystal-shaped form. Superficiality is all this clown knows how to do.

Contrary to Libeskind's preposterous claims, the meanings he ascribes to his work are non existent. He contradicts himself with every new project as he applies the same superficial gestures to all projecrs regardless of their widely differing purposes. He may impress weak architectural students with his sophmoric "theory", but it's hard to believe any one else would give credence to his infantile logic.

Alas I have to agree with most of the critical comments. I am profoundly saddened by seeing a great architect submit to sheer juvenile self-indulgence.
The stair handrails, for example, might easily serve in a temporary exhibit about the how war destroys dignity, nobility, quality, etc., but hardly as a serious architectural solution of a simple design problem.

I have to say, however, that I found the great shard of glass thrilling, in a perverse way.
It is even beautiful, but it is inappropriate in this context as a permanent installation of form. The displays, as shown seem timid by comparison.

Yet it may even attract a whole new generation of younger visitors who otherwise might not be interested in the serene classicism of the context.
And that is probably a good thing.