NY Times review of its new building

I read an article in "Editor & Publisher" at the Poynter Institute Web site about how the New York Times' architecture critic had to review the paper's new building. According to the article, the institute's ethics group leader said it was OK that the paper's critic reviewed his own building. But I think it was a tad unnecessary considering that it may have looked slanted to the public and other media professionals. The E&P article said the critic opened his review discussing the questionable position he was put in, which is why the institute's ethics leader cleared him of subjectivity. Personally, if I was a copy editor or editor at the paper, I would have ran just a news story about the new building, with commentary from other architects, people on the street and perhaps other papers' architecture critics. That would have sufficed in place of the paper's own commentary. As a copy editor/designer at the Times faced with the review, I definitely would have placed it on the op/ed page or made it the paper's editorial for the day. It might have even needed a disclaimer. I don't know where the Times ended up placing it, but I'm sure it was accurately labeled as commentary. It seems the paper may have threatened its own credibility for a review that perhaps wasn't all that important. What does everyone else think?