In a message dated 3/25/00 6:20:41 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< But is it possible that both Jan
Pokorny and Jack Beyer (the principal of a separate firm, Beyer Blinder
Belle) see the completed building in a wholly different way?    ---
Christopher
>>

Christopher-

I think that is absolutely a possibility, if not an absolute fact.  I think
that the possibility of their seeing it in a wholly different way is the
"point" to my whole line of logic (if it can be called that).  Mr. Goldberger
says the restoration was "flat and dull", Mr. Pokorny defends with,
"restoration is fine...neither would do it any different today...".  From
someone who is on the outside looking in, it appears that there is no
dialogue between the two "extremes" (if you will) of opinion and further, Mr.
Pokorny's statement makes it appear that there is no desire for one.  This
brings me back to my AIA Myth #1.  I certainly don't want to take an isolated
incident, that I really know very little about, and use it as an opportunity
to bash architects; but I truly believe that if there is a consensus of
opinion (at least yourself and Mr. Goldberger) that an architect may have
made choices that were questionable, it would serve the architect to be less
defensive of his position and find out what is so objectionable.  I have no
knowledge as to whether Mr. Pokorny gave Mr. Goldberger's comments any pause,
but "restoration is fine", doesn't sound like he did.  I realize that as a
tradesman I have a more simplistic approach to matters like this, but it
works for me. :^)

Mark

p.s.  In which issue of the NY Times did Mr. Goldberger's article appear?