Excuse me, but this is just too vapid to qualify as architectural critique: "Indeed judging the precise gap between these two pavilions - finally resolved at 65 yards from wall to wall, close enough for visitors to be able to cross yet far enough to maintain visual independence - was an essential part of the initial scheme, with Ben Fortson, vice president of the board even measuring out the ideal distance himself." -Really? What makes Mr.. Fortson an expert in these matters?
Readers might want to try:
"The architectural qualities of the Piano addition are entirely beside the point, and I will not discuss them. If there are nice galleries inside the addition, the fact remains that those galleries, and the addition they are in, could have been built on the Kimbell-owned site to the southwest, and thus co-existed with the original park and trees. There was never a need to choose between the park and the addition; this was an invented problem, and is the opposite of what I would argue architects must do, which is to find a way to do the right thing, to do what is appropriate, however difficult that proves to be, and however long it takes." Robert McCarter
Or: "One can easily imagine an outcome better in several respects—a shelter lighter, more ethereal, and livelier than this dull affair." -Martin Filler