[Insert Soldier Field comment here]

Sunday's Chicago Tribune carried a piece by its architecture critic Blair Kamin that optimistically spoke about the city's young talents, architects that are helping to pull Chicago out of its recent funk of bland developments and neo-traditional design. I bring up the article not for its subject, but because Kamin again mentions Soldier Field, something he seems to do in every one of his pieces no matter what the topic, as my friend Frank has noted in the past.

In the last paragraph of "Ones to watch" he writes, "It's also possible to forgive those in their ranks who admire such flops as Soldier Field...everyone has youthful indiscretions."

Kamin lost his battle against the Mayor and the new design by Wood + Zapata, but now he seems to be using ones opinion of Soldier Field as a measure against how they're judged. Sure, these young architects are forgiven for their indiscretions, but does that mean older architects aren't? If Stanley Tigerman comes out in favor of the recently completed design, has he made Kamin's shitlist, condemned to never appearing in his articles or receiving negative treatment?

Kamin is the only print architecture critic in town, working for the paper with the largest circulation, and therefore has a lot of influence over a lot of readers. Maybe it's time for the Sun Times to replace Lee Bey or maybe it's just time for Kamin to drop his Soldier Field fight and move on.