AB: What do you think of people’s whose vision is very exclusionary? Who want to alienate?

CR: I don’t think anyone would say they want to “alienate”.

AB: They may not admit it.

CR: I think probably what you’re referring to are a lot of these upper condo projects that are private by nature – and we’re certainly dealing with public projects, so there’s a difference - but even a private project could be engaging and thought provoking and contribute to the culture of the city: the cultural architecture. Not much of that is happening here. I could look at a couple of corporate private projects and say there are some really good examples: I’d say the New York Times building [right] is a great example, while the Hearst example [left] is a terrible example of that – both have been receiving rave reviews. I think Frank Gehry’s IAC down here is a pretty good participant in the city in opening that event space up, but it’s not really open. It’s kind of an electric collar – you think you can do what you want to do, but you get shocked every time to get in the building. It’s this disciplinary space.

AB: Yes.

CR: The condo projects that you see going around that are giving a lot of attention to architecture, such as 40 Bond Street and 40 Mercer Street – it’s weird that they share the same number – are unfortunate in there street presence. In 40 Mercer Street, it’s simply just retail. On Bond Street, you’ve got the fence that says “Do Not Enter”. Old townhouses in New York City – their front gardens were really approachable. If they had fences at all, they were really low. Stoops were open to the street. Herzog & de Meuron had reinterpreted the townhouse, but instead of making this transition zone between public and private, they’ve made a hard line between public and private, even while they’re saying they’re reinterpreting the tradition of the New York townhouse. All the Europeans coming here – do they really understand the tradition of something like a stoop? I don’t know.

AB: What do you think of the New Museum?

CR: Beautiful on the outside: fantastic new form for New York. It’s slightly disappointing on the inside given that it – you don’t understand the form from the inside. Plus, I’m just frustrated that there’s not a singular route to take you from top to bottom to all the galleries.

AB: What do you think of it in context?

CR: On the Bowery? I think it’s great. I think this is a great example of an institution that is completely open to the street and participates in the life of the city. Yeah, it’s going to cause gentrification or it’s the result of gentrification, yet I think it’s doing what it can not to be an elitist institution. The loading dock is right on the street: you see everything going into that building, just like you see everything going into the kitchen supply places next door.

AB: I find your work fascinating because – both in terms of the porous nature of it, but also the integration of the environment on a larger scale, specifically with regard to the High Line. There's shift in zeitgeist. It’s no longer conquering nature. It’s finally a realization that we have to live with nature. The High Line’s a perfect example, because the trains were key to industrialization.

CR: We’re turning it back to nature.