OK that explains your comment, no offense.
Did you read the article I linked? It may provide some insight into the significance aspect.
No one is saying this is a beautiful structure by conventional standards. But it has historical significance on several levels.
There is a possibility it was discussed in my Architectural Theory class and I just don’t remember. Although I am pretty sure I would, I was always pretty, vocal about what I thought was bad design or just a crap building. I loved theory class because we got to be honest without judgement. I did a presentation on cyborg architecture. Basically, architecture with no soul. I was particularly brutal to today’s residential housing. I had a great source that I would have to look up his name. He was equally brutal to residential cookie cutter neighborhoods.
As far as this is concerned? This is just a hut. It is not interesting to me. If I had never seen this article and just happened upon this structure, I would never think anyone extensively studied it.
Side note: One of our first assignments was to take a picture was a building that we considered to be “architecture” and a building we considered to be “just a building”. These had to be local so Georgia or Atlanta. My building that I considered architecture was The High Museum of Art. My “just a building” was the Atlanta Marriott Marquis. I took some heat for that one. I think John Portman is a hack architect and hate all of his buildings. I was also pretty vocal in my hatred of one of the more famous architects Frank Lloyd Wright (I have always called him Frank Lloyd Wrong.)