Where Are the Michaels?

In 2001, the National Arts Journalism Program at Columbia University published “The Architecture Critic: A Survey of Newspaper Architecture Critics in America.” With the input of 40 full- and part-time architecture critics, the survey made numerous findings, but one is particularly prescient today: “Despite their small numbers, architecture critics feel their work is respected at their papers and by readers, though more than half believe their newspapers would not replace them if they left their jobs.” The ensuing 24 years have seen the latter statement come true as newspapers around the country have been bought out and downsized, and have shifted their editorial coverage. While there are still architecture critics in some traditional newspapers (Inga Saffron at the Philadelphia Inquirer, Mark Lamster at Dallas Morning News, Michael Kimmelman at the New York Times, etc.) and “architecture columnists” in others (Lee Bey at the Chicago Sun-Times, Edward Keegan at Chicago Tribune), the number of people writing critically about architecture in such venues is so small that a survey of them today would be in single digits. 

This isn't to say that architectural criticism is dead; it has migrated to websites, online newsletters, and other media outside of newspapers, as indicative of wider shifts in media as of architectural criticism itself. One of the most promising recent developments has been the success of New York Review of Architecture (NYRA), a six-year-old print publication featuring highly critical and articulate voices. Free of advertiting, the paper is maintained by subscriptions, donors, and classifieds, and is run as a worker cooperative. A few critics that would have been in the 2001 survey can actually be found in the pages of NYRA today.

I had the NAJP survey in mind when I headed to the Center for Architecture a couple of weeks ago to listen to the panelists ponder “The State of Architecture Criticism.” The selection of panelists made the divergence of today's situation compared to 2001 explicit:

• Molly Fulghum Heintz is an editor but spoke in her capacity as chair of the MA in Design Research, Writing & Criticism program, or D–Crit, at the School of Visual Arts.
• Sukjong Hong is editor at Curbed, the website that was founded in 2006 but since 2020 has been part of New York Magazine, where Justin Davidson serves as architecture critic.
• Samuel Medina is editor of NYRA and a former editor at The Architect's Newspaper and Metropolis, and he also edited manuscripts for Michael Sorkin’s Urban Research imprint.
• Philip Poon, an architect and artist, is a 2024–25 fellow of New City Critics, a program “empowering new, fearless, and diverse voices to challenge how we design and develop our cities.”
• Jennifer Krichels, editor of Oculus, the AIANY magazine, moderated the event; Oculus's latest issue, which was released at the event, happens to focus on “Architecture and Communication.” 

It's interesting to note that this panel on the state of architecture criticism featured one educator, three editors, and one architect/artist who sees criticism as an extension of his practice — no full- or part-time architecture critic, in other words. As such, the event was as much about how publications incorporate criticism as about what architecture critics are actually writing about or how they view their craft.

This finding from the 2001 NAJP survey is also prescient in the context of architectural criticism today, especially if the AIANY panel is any indication. Near the end of the evening, which basically found the panelists speaking at length about their own experiences and work, Krichels asked them to highlight a favorite recent piece of architectural criticism. None of the answers pertained to capital-A architecture or buildings designed by known architects: Medina mention two pieces, both of which he described as serious yet humorous, one on the aborted masterplan for Sunnyside Yards in Queens and one on the Wegmans grocery store that opened in Manhattan in 2023. Hong singled out an article, though admittedly “not purely architectural criticism,” about two buildings in Chinatown, one flourishing, one languishing. Although Poon did not mention a favorite, preferring to reiterate the qualities of the Curbed article, he did speak about his own semi-related “Seeing Chinatown as a Readymade” earlier in the evening. Heintz mentioned two papers from the Class of 2024 that were “architecture adjacent”: “The Eyes of Texas: Interstate Surveillance and Bodily Autonomy in Amarillo” and “The Wrights at Manitoga: Reverse-Queering American Modern Domesticity.” 

These writings singled out by the panel foreground how both critics and editors today are interested in writing about buildings, cities, and spaces, but not necessarily those that pertain to name-brand architects or formally striking architecture. Such criticism parallels wider societal shifts that have given more attention to minorities and other underrepresented voices and subjects. Architecture criticism has moved away from the work of popular architects, in part because their work is promoted by public relations companies that provide readymade content for publications, a point that was made by more than one panelist. Medina mentioned, for example, how NYRA's decision to incorporate illustrations rather than photographs was deliberately a means of helping them not be beholden to PR or whatever is being pushed at that moment; instead they opt for thoughtful critiques that take time to shape and refine.

This part of the 2001 NAJP survey listed numerous familiar names, from Le Corbusier and Rem Koolhaas to Michel Foucault and Kenneth Frampton. Most influential to the 40 newspaper critics were Jane Jacobs, Ada Louise Huxtable, and Vincent Scully. If a similar question were levied at the panelists, one critic would have jumped out ahead of the rest: Michael Sorkin, the Michael of this article's title. While the heyday of Sorkin's criticism was in the 1980s at The Village Voice, before a few of the panelists were probably born, the collections of his writings at the Voice and other publications in subsequent years have given longevity to his acerbic critiques and his unwavering ability to hold truth to power. Sorkin was mentioned numerous times during the panel discussion, and there was a tangible feeling that there should be more critics taking up the torch since his passing in March 2020; more Michaels writing today. While Kate Wagner, known for McMansion Hell, is Sorkin's successor at The Nation, that post elicits just a dozen pieces per year, and it reaches a progressive audience that is most likely in agreement with her takes. Therein lies the importance of newspapers and other venues, print or digital, that reach a wider public: for architecture criticism to remain relevant, it needs to shape public opinion on matters of the built environment, on matters not normally discussed by other journalists. As the second Trump administration moves to solidify architecture's place in conservative culture wars (oddly, a timely topic not addressed by the panel), I'm looking forward to seeing how critics rise to the occasion and give truth to power — fighting the way Michael would if he were here now.