>>Without intending to defend Eisenman or Goldberger, let me say that you
>are in the minority from all accounts I've heard.
>
>/I wouldn't doubt it.
>
>Frankly, I can't understand Goldberger's use of the terms "revolutionary"
>to describe the building, or "radical" to describe Mr. Eisenman. I suppose
>this is Goldberger's politically correct (and libel-immune) way of saying
>the building isn't revolutionary and the architect isn't radical.
>
>Well, what do you expect of Cincinnati? While President Joseph Steger is
>commissioning "famous architects" to design university buildings, he
>doesn't seem to have figured out how to tenure a female design instructor
>in his School of Architecture (ACSA Directory, 1995-1996).
>
sounds like Goldberger's not the only one with a stake in the politically
correct... (snore...)
>are in the minority from all accounts I've heard.
>
>/I wouldn't doubt it.
>
>Frankly, I can't understand Goldberger's use of the terms "revolutionary"
>to describe the building, or "radical" to describe Mr. Eisenman. I suppose
>this is Goldberger's politically correct (and libel-immune) way of saying
>the building isn't revolutionary and the architect isn't radical.
>
>Well, what do you expect of Cincinnati? While President Joseph Steger is
>commissioning "famous architects" to design university buildings, he
>doesn't seem to have figured out how to tenure a female design instructor
>in his School of Architecture (ACSA Directory, 1995-1996).
>
sounds like Goldberger's not the only one with a stake in the politically
correct... (snore...)