How 'The New York Times' controls architecture criticism in America, whoever its critic may be

View this article on one page

Comments (2)
Lightvixen wrote on March 5, 2012, 10:15 AM [Link]

No matter what kind of structure is erected, if it doesn't serve the purpose it s meant for, practically, affordably, handsomely, and acceptable to occupants and contents, it does not contribute to improved quality of life and productivity.
Just being weird is not good design.

Gersil N. Kay, IESNA, AIA/HRC
Conservation Ltg. Int'l Ltd.

cstallwitz wrote on March 5, 2012, 12:07 PM [Link]

Without putting the value of this article in its entirety in too simplistic of terms, I cannot for the life of me understand how the "old way" of architectural criticism could be considered an avenue to make architecture "relatable" to general readers without factoring in the occupants and neighbors.

Regarding the future of architectural criticism, I'm putting my faith in your statement, "But in the new way of thinking, architecture is not architecture unless there are people interacting with it, and therefore the experience of interacting with it matters, and the context, and the process."

Carrie Stallwitz
Witz!PR

Post your comment