Paul Goldberger
Paul Goldberger
Paul Goldbergeris an American architectural critic and educator, and a Contributing Editor for Vanity Fair magazine. From 1997 to 2011 he was the Architecture Critic for The New Yorker where he wrote the magazine's celebrated "Sky Line" column. He also holds the Joseph Urban Chair in Design and Architecture at The New School in New York City. He was formerly Dean of the Parsons School of Design, a division of The New School. The Huffington Post has said that he...
NationalityAmerican
ProfessionCritic
CountryUnited States of America
Everything he's produced is ultimately about Donald Trump, and we need a solution at Ground Zero that's going to be about New York, about America and about healing of the city -- and Trump I don't think is suited to that.
It is something akin to boarding the Concorde and then discovering at the end of your trip that you had debarked at Grand Central Terminal.
It fills one with a sense of architectural possibility.
Riding on the IRT is usually a matter of serving time in one of the city's most squalid environments-noisy, smelly, crowded and overrun with a ceaseless supply of graffiti.
This great, glass-enclosed public space embraces a wonderful contradiction: it seems to call at once for a Boeing 747 and for a string quartet.
In the first year, it looked as if we were really gonna aim for the highest thing possible. And then, gradually, sort of like the waves eating away at a sand castle, you know, they just wore away, bit by bit and it's gotten more and more ordinary.
His clarity and creativity are intimately intertwined. In his concise and brilliant way, he's able to say something that in someone else's hands is ordinary but in his becomes special and utterly clear.
New York remains what it has always been : a city of ebb and flow, a city of constant shifts of population and economics, a city of virtually no rest. It is harsh, dirty, and dangerous, it is whimsical and fanciful, it is beautiful and soaring - it is not one or another of these things but all of them, all at once, and to fail to accept this paradox is to deny the reality of city existence.
I don't usually go in for reviews of buildings that aren't yet built, since you can tell only so much from drawings and plans, and, besides, has there ever been a building that didn't look great as a model?
For most of the nineteen-seventies, the official route map of the New York City subway system was a beautiful thing.
Buildings don't exist to be pinned, like brooches, on the front of bigger structures to which they bear only the most distant of relationships.
Los Angeles, Houston, Denver, Atlanta: those are all cities that really didn't get big, didn't hit their stride until the 20th century.
New York grew up before the automobile. And even though it's full of cars, its shape and form didn't get created around the automobile.
I think it's necessary to evaluate a skyscraper at multiple scales, since that's how we experience it: from right next to it on the street to from across the river, as well as at all kinds of points in between. It's important to think of it as an element in a larger skyline, but also as an element in an immediate streetscape.