In the pantheon of classic modern buildings, Utzon's creation has the status of myth. The myth states that the unknown architect, then in his early thirties, submitted rough sketches to the competition judges, that he ignored most of the rules, that his design was only selected after being plucked at the last moment from the reject pile by one of the judges, and that the design was unbuildable.
Utzon is a great Danish architect who designed the Sydney Opera House. Notice the last sentence:
and that the design was unbuildable
The passage is on my book, and there is a translation after the paragraph, it says the meaning of the last sentence is that "the design was thought to be unbuildable. Truely, the design is surely only thought to be unbuildable, because the Sydney Opera House is right in Australia. The translation is correct. But how can I interpret the passage? Regardless the truth that the Sydney Opera House is really complete, I can only translate the last sentence as "the design was really fanciful and unbuildable". I think the sentence should add thought to after the word "was", just as followed:
and that the design was thought to be unbuildable.
But why is there only a "was" in the sentence? Is the sentence incorrect?