Dear Editors of the New York Times:

We are writing to voice our enthusiasm about an opportunity that has arisen at the New York Times. It is an opportunity for your newspaper to again break journalistic ground by bringing a new perspective to an important subject. But it is also an opportunity to make a contribution to improving the quality of cultural expression and public life across America and the world.

In finding a replacement for architecture critic Herbert Muschamp, you have the unique chance to broaden coverage of the design world in a way that reflects many new currents erupting in the field. Just as Mr. Muschamp himself reinvented architecture criticism with stylish writing that wove intellectual and cultural strands from many disciplines into passionate statements about particular works, the Times' next critic could push the boundaries of what design is and, even more boldly, explore its deepest purpose. The New York Times is the most powerful voice in architecture today, read and referred to by influential people in all corners of the country. The urban landscape in Tampa, Tacoma, and Toledo is shaped in part by opinions disseminated in the Sunday edition of your newspaper.

The distinguishing feature of this new direction in design is the subtle but significant shift from the "project" to the "place."

Both inside and outside the formal boundaries of architecture there is today a tremendous energy being devoted to rethinking how buildings, streets, and green spaces shape our lives, our communities, our economy, our democracy, and our sense of ourselves. The distinguishing feature of this new direction in design is the subtle but significant shift from the "project" to the "place." This small recalibration in focus delivers an enormous change in results. When creating a place becomes the goal, then important questions about what happens all around and throughout the building or development move to the forefront. It's a step away from the 20th Century vision of the architect's work as an isolated triumph of aesthetic devotion (even fetishism) to a more inclusive 21st Century idea of the designer as part of a vibrant, messy, exhilarating process of creating a living, breathing community.

In many ways this is more akin to the beginning of a social movement than an architectural movement, but its influence is being felt and reacted to by designers all over the country. There is a trickle-up effect at work here. So far, this new current of thought has been outside the range of most architecture critics. The brand-name architects doing big-ticket projects probably comprehend the escalating impact of these ideas to a much smaller degree than their less-insulated colleagues on the frontlines of the field? those trying to create comfortable but affordable inner city housing or suburban developments that enhance the integrity of nature and the spirit of community at the same time as fulfilling market needs.

It's a new world, and the Times deserves a critic happy to let go of old idea formations in order to wade into the middle of it.

Making this leap from project to place has profound implications for the profession. Architects lose the Howard Roark supremacy in setting out how things shall be. Ideas, decisions, and even inspiration will come from a wider assortment of sources, including people who live there, work there, or visit there. And a number of disciplines must be drawn upon to create places that meet the various needs of people using them. Architects, landscape designers, traffic engineers, community development advocates, and economic development authorities, among others, will be in the mix, jostling and debating about how to best make a place where people will want to be.

This is different. This is unprecedented. And it's scary to some. It's a new world, and the Times deserves a critic happy to let go of old idea formations in order to wade into the middle of it. Many critics today, however, take just the opposite tack--clinging to the heroic ideal of the architect as the master, and holding on for dear life to the traditional view of the architectural masterpiece as a triumph of abstract ideas and ideals.

We urge the Times to name a new architecture critic willing to engage with these new currents in design. America's most influential architecture writer should be ready to critique this emerging movement, criticize it, prod it. This is the most exciting and hopeful future for design.

Sincerely,

Project for Public Spaces

Update: "Voices" loud and clear

Since publishing this open letter to the Times, PPS has received very positive responses from architects and members of the media who cover architecture. In particular, we'd like to thank ArchVoices, a weekly e-newsletter for architects and architecture students that ran PPS's letter as the main story in their July 2nd edition.

The debate over the role of iconic architecture is gaining a higher profile. In the Guardian, journalist Graham Morrison examines how 'landmark' buildings are ruining cities.

We have also learned that the Times will hire former LA Times critic Nicolai Ouroussoff to replace Herbert Muschamp. Though Mr. Ouroussoff's previous work is a matter of public record, it is too early to judge how he will use the pedestal of the Times. What we do know, based on the responses to our letter, is that there is a massive audience ready to act as a watchdog, engaging Mr. Ouroussoff and encouraging him to consider qualities of place in his criticism.