You see, America has not really changed that much in the profesional world in terms of Architectural studies and multi-practitioner “critique”(huh)? but Eric recognizes the fallacies involved in the structure and apparent costs involved) and is not afraid to voice a professional opinion.

Perhaps Viera could be a little more honest, and decide formally what he considers to be real change, and the effect that change has upon normal, everyday, U.S. government working people -and also decidedly experienced architects and architecture as a profession. Heiman’s comments are “timely” as well as accurate, in my own opinion. Sustainable “green” architecture is in truth a misnomer and if Viera knew who really is behind all of the work, maybe he could see clear to “changing” his own mind about why true conservatism and “archaic notions of formal critique” are taught at college and university levels so profoundly.

Since you didn’t address this in your reply, I’m curious to know if you find one’s individual experience of a building to be a worthy lens in which to critique? I do admire (and laud in the post) both the Federal Building’s sustainable and formal accomplishments. I have no axe to grind with buildings of concrete and steel, nor was I looking “to be dazzled by glamor (sic) of excess.” I’m simply trying to put into words how it makes me feel as a citizen, rather than as a design practitioner or architecture lover. If anything, that seems most important to me riding by this building on my bike as often as I do.

Granted it has a different purpose and much more forgiving site, but Renzo Piano’s California Academy of Sciences, also here in San Francisco, is a possible foil in this discussion. This building is equally ambitious on the sustainable front, and while Piano’s forms may be more muted (though also rendered in concrete and steel), the experience there feels much more in line with the building’s intent and surrounding context.

Nevermind that this building accomplishes – at its scale – what no other building on earth has done to make tangible use of theories on sustainability; defending the promise of Obama’s stance on our “green” future as a nation. The irony of this editorial lies in the author’s inability to see past archaic notions of formal critique, that somehow steel and concrete represent the solid, cold hands of conservatism. Equating the presence of this building to the past two terms of American presidency is absurd. Do your research. Understand that both the form, and function of this building – so dependent on one another that they can not be seen as separate – are an answer to the call made by the Obama administration for a revitalization of American inventiveness. Perhaps the “state we are in” is the problem – still begging to be dazzled by glamor of excess as opposed to the unsettling nature of change.