RECORD’s Los Angeles–based contributing editor Sarah Amelar had her doubts. But, on a private visit ahead of LACMA’s opening, she was enthralled, despite acknowledging many of the building’s drawbacks. At press time, other reports by those who got a sneak peek have concurred. A Los Angeles Times headline called it “divisive, disorienting, and radically alive.” Glenn Lowry, the former longtime director of the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, told the New York Times that, in addition to “scale, ambition, and promise,” the new building has “quality,” though he didn’t specify what that quality is.

So what should we think? The nature of criticism has become faster and looser in the age of social media, but if everyone is going to be a critic, some opinions should count more than others. Critics who are thoughtful, reveal their criteria for judgment, and back that up with a strong argument are still needed in informed debate. And, possibly, there are still occasions when an adventurous client—in this case LACMA director Michael Govan, and his architect, Pritzker Prize–winner Peter Zumthor—could pull off what may well be more triumphal than disastrous despite all the naysayers.

The New Museum’s new building is a fraction of the size and an even tinier fraction of the price tag of LACMA. Its design, by the New York office of OMA (which had, coincidentally, won the 2001 competition to design LACMA with a scheme that was never to be realized), faced none of the backlash that LACMA endured. That is, until it opened. Comments were flying about how poorly constructed the building is, seemingly held together with Scotch tape. It could have . . . it should have . . . it would have been better to wait just a little longer to reveal itself.

I visited the New Museum 23 days after that initial press preview that had journalists—including our writer, Ian Volner—clamoring about all the tape, of which there was no longer any evidence, just lots and lots of visitors. There were still plenty of punch list items, but what got lost in the hoopla was that it’s a pretty good little building, which does exactly what it needed to do to address the original SANAA building’s shortcomings, specifically the lack of comfortable circulation and expansive galleries.

Getting these cultural projects built at all is an achievement, flawed as they may be. In turn, they transform neighborhoods and reshape cities. Some critics rise above the noise, and you should listen to them (even if some of the people behind these projects don’t). But the best thing to do is experience the buildings, and their impact, yourselves. That is the aim of criticism—to have a well-versed public, clients, and design professionals to create better architecture.