IMHO this is something that looks like great architecture but is in fact a counter-example. The test is very simple. What is it supposed to do? Support human life within its confines, hopefully provide an inspiring space to live out your days. With what constraints? Maximizing space, aesthetic experience? To that end fundamental things like space, air conditioning, hot water, structural integrity and yes beauty are all essential. In every case this property demonstrates a complete subservience of those elements that are essential to its purpose being subsumed by its "iconic" gimmick. Yes, Frank Lloyd Wright's designs have also been plagued by some such issues, some doorways and ceilings were too low, some roofs leaked, some concrete construction deteriorated. Yes, without taking risks how can you truly innovate? Totally agree with taking risks but for God's sake, when you design a building consider the fact that people will spend a good portion of their lives confined in the space you design. Good God give me a tent any day over that hell hole. Dehumanizing is a word that comes to mind.
Incidentally the Gimmick is interesting, and maybe if that building were used as some sort of commercial space with lots of little shops or a co-working space it would have been more of a success. The gimmick is not the problem, scale it up, integrate hot water, AC, and more livable space into the original design and perhaps people will want to live in it, so long as it does not fall apart.