I just saw the new WTC proposal and I'm rather disappointed with the new design which looks like a regular tower, understandably to conform to NYC's safety issues and all that. But to me the more disappointing fact is that the new proposal made the whole competition look redundant. I was hoping to see at least a landmark design or some Rem-like CCTV innovation for the new proposal - it's NYC's WTC after all! Although Libeskind's proposal wasn't my favorite, it was, at least, in some ways an interesting one. I must admit that I'm just saying this on a first impression basis without really scrutinizing the proposal to give it any merit. I am also not really surprised with the final proposal which is so typical of the profession - great designs often falls under economical and political pressures as architects try to sell an invisible commodity.
5 Comments
its pathetic.....is what this whole thing has evolved into, a pathetic gesture. the new times photographer lined up the shot with the flag behind the model so the eagle would show as a part of the models tower, i think that is enough commentary......its a sad day for architecture.
it's not a tumor..........
http://words.grubbykid.com/2005/06/29/freedom_bunker.html
To tell you the truth, im not surprised that it came to this. I was rather horrified at how architects clamored over each other like vultures to get their design chosen right after 9/11 while the ruins were practically still smoldering and thought it was rather in bad taste that they did that (just my 2 cents). The whole issue with liebskind and childs was sad as well. Seems like both wasted a lot of time and effort only to get some compromised building that neither ended up liking, and now this huge change made the whole issue moot. Seems like the higher ups didnt really plan this one too thoroughly. and i agree, the new design is pretty bleh.
It's basically the Empire State building gone techno.
The whole rebuilding process was started too quickly. Yes, the architects climbed all over each other but I would put more blame on the state and city officials who were so quick to initiate the process for rebuilding the WTC. The event was still too fresh. This project was doomed to ordinariness from the start. Not to mention how it was slowly privatized. Larry Silverstien marginalized Liebeskind to the point where he had his pet architect do exactly has he wanted. The Port Authority should have bought Silverstein out, ensuring a more open, public process. (Well, maybe not totally open but at least a little more subject to public scrutiny, beleive me, I don't have too much faith in the Port Authority either).
This NY Times article says it all:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/arts/30appraisal.html
I think an interim rebuilding plan would have been more prudent. Bring back the necessary infrastructure, buiild an appropriate memorial. Seeing as how Silverstein's new #7 tower remains completely empty, the need for office space in Lower Manhattan is not what it used to be, however, if the design process proceeded at something other than break neck speed, perhaps the outcome would have been more appropriate, more inspriring.
At this point, I'd much rather appreciate the void, the emptiness.
Tthe winning memorial design is rather good, and will be an appropriate space for remembrance. And I don't think they mucked it up too much...yet...
I am a lifelong New Yorker, I grew up in NYC. When I go down to the site and close my eyes, I can still feel the Towers there, it'll always hurt, no matter what gets built.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.