In the last year or so, reading or watching the news has become a game of roulette. Taking my chances, I scan pages or flip channels hastily in an attempt to avoid disturbing imagery and narrative in favor of landing on something meaningful and at least slightly optimistic.
Therefore, I was surprised today to find myself enticed by a beautiful, powerful image of the New York skyline on the cover page of the Sunday Times, only to read further to find a scathing article by Michael Kimmelman titled “A Soaring Emblem of New York, and its Upside Down Priorities; 1 World Trade Center is a Cautionary Tale.”
While the article lacked any mention of hostile takeovers or race riots, the negative tone of the article suggests that the newest, tallest building in North America “speaks volumes about political opportunism, outmoded thinking and upside-down urban priorities...It’s what happens when a commercial developer is pretty much handed the keys to the castle. Tourists will soon flock to the top of the building, and tenants will fill it up. But a skyscraper doesn’t just occupy its own plot of land. Even a tower with an outsize claim on the civic soul needs to be more than tall and shiny.”
Kimmelman goes on to discuss the building’s lack of mixed-use programming, pedestrian engagement, as well as a symmetrical, relatively generic composition that suggests “New York is a metropolis bereft of fresh ideas.”
“Stripped of prospective cultural institutions, as well as of street life and housing, the plan soon turned into something akin to an old-school office park, destined to die at night — the last thing a young generation of New Yorkers wanted...Mr. Childs faced a nearly impossible task: devising a tower at once somber and soaring, open and unassailable, dignified but not dull,” states Kimmelman, regarding the Skidmore, Owings, Merrill architect David Childs that designed 1 World Trade amidst many stakeholders and competing priorities.
... architecture, in its purest form and definitions, should and must remain a symbol of unrelenting optimism Situating Kimmelman’s article in the context of the current media sphere and a recent Wednesday night in New York that I spent standing at the building’s base only to be told that “areas weren’t open to the public yet,” I am left with a relatively stale taste in my mouth. Despite living in a world where violent history continues to repeat itself and old and new battles are being forged daily in highly graphic means of representation, I still believe that architecture, in its purest form and definitions, should and must remain a symbol of unrelenting optimism.
While I can’t disagree that street level may not yet be deemed a success for 1 World Trade, I would like to make a general plea that critics’ switch their syntax and thinking in the way that both critique and candor are being applied to architecture.
In looking at the image in the Times, what drew me to the picture was the scale of the tower as well as the presence and strength that it holds in filling a long and painful void in the New York skyline. In this image, it is the gesture, not the detail that may be deemed most important.
To speak generally, all architecture projects are comprised of scales to consider and agendas to reconcile, areas for innovation and opportunity, and strategies considered that are already tried and tested. I can only imagine the list of priorities that 1 World Trade entailed, but am still celebratory of the feat that it was realized despite perhaps the greatest obstacles any project could possibly have—fear and memory.
Architectural projects resulting in buildings are a manifestation of hopes and aspirations. Many architects, as serial optimists and idealists, are still attempting to be brave and bold in a climate much like medicine and education, in which reporting and accountability often trump a general respect for creativity, innovation, and the idea that each project requires a unique approach and related outcomes.
As a current resident of Denver, a city that will double in size by the year 2030, I often drive around the city and find myself taking note of each new multi-family, mixed-use, office, grocery, or retail building that didn’t exist upon my relocation to Denver a little over two years ago. While I may not agree with the aesthetic or form of each development, I try to remain respectful that these projects are a result of growing and projected needs, and a general belief that as a city grows, its desire for resources, community, and transportation-oriented development will also continue to grow. Each of these developments is an optimistic response to a city investing in the future—perhaps the most optimistic concept of all.
I would argue that 1 World Trade, despite some mishaps and perceived “flawed” aesthetics, is still a successful symbol of stakeholders working with a lead architect and an architecture firm to create the most appropriate response to a tragedy at a discrete moment in history. This is the nature of creating a building meant to define a skyline view—i.e. a view that is most often captured by a two-dimensional photo in which a building is defined by its height and profile- two features that quickly become both icon and symbol.
While New York and its Financial District at street level will continue to organically change and evolve, I believe that the new tallest building in North America provides a moment of order and solemnity amidst the foreground of people, chaos, and life that remains the primary illustrative medium of any city at any given moment.
12 Comments
wow... is this a pulse, shoulder or the knee?
I must respectfully disagree with this piece. Two points, first, "filling a long painful void", is that remotely possible, by building what has essentially become a glittering headstone for such a violent act? If this tower succeeds in doing anything, it's become the most offensive roadside memorial in American existence. If this building does anything, it only reinforces the loss, and does so sans plush teddy bears, and touching notes, or photos.
Secondly, this paragraph kind sums up how much a glaring failure this project is for me.
"I would argue that 1 World Trade, despite some mishaps and perceived “flawed” aesthetics, is still a successful symbol of stakeholders working with a lead architect and an architecture firm to create the most appropriate response to a tragedy at a discrete moment in history. This is the nature of creating a building meant to define a skyline view—i.e. a view that is most often captured by a two-dimensional photo in which a building is defined by its height and profile- two features that quickly become both icon and symbol."
Honestly, stakeholders were not the people of NYC, they were Bloomberg, Pataki, Silverstein and any of the handful of others with deep, moneyed interests in leaseable square footage.
The building is a touchstone for the future of large scale bunker buildings in America; all buildings of this scale, and import, will have ridiculous safety measures taken, which will certainly preclude the kinds of mixed use that Kimmelman's real critique addressed.
Lastly, perhaps this building does solve the problem, albeit rather cynically, thousands lives were lost, but we can all take comfort that at least this building does this;
"This is the nature of creating a building meant to define a skyline view—i.e. a view that is most often captured by a two-dimensional photo in which a building is defined by its height and profile- two features that quickly become both icon and symbol."
Thousands died, two wars waged, but we've got our post card view, our symbol, our icon, our Freedom Tower. How picturesque.
The building is a perfect metaphor for US policy and the corporate-financial-military complex. After a horrendous crash and burn that was the direct result of national policy it has been rebuilt with a hardened structure capable of withstanding all but the most extreme attacks. In the meantime those same policies that caused its destruction have become even more widely and intensely used, not just globally but also on the domestic population.
There is no way to separate this building (World Trade Center, the very definition of capitalist globalization) from the politics it represents. For many this memorial is not just for the victims but also for the ideals that this country is supposed to represent.
Like the Kennedy assassination, whether or not this was an inside job will never be proven, but there is certainly enough evidence to indicate foreknowledge of the event and it wouldn't be the first time such an event has been contemplated. For historical reference I refer you to the Operation Northwoods, a1962 DoD plan for staging domestic terror attacks that would be blamed on Cuba. The technical term is "false flag".
The building is nothing more than a giant flagpole waved in the face of the rest of the world. All it's lacking is a 400' by 600' flag. Unless they turn it into the World Peace Center it will never be more than that.
the elite sprung another steel and glass erection...
"As a current resident of Denver, a city that will double in size by the year 2030, I often drive around the city and find myself taking note of each new multi-family, mixed-use, office, grocery, or retail building that didn’t exist upon my relocation to Denver"
This made me shiver uncomfortably.
Driving around and pretending that it's a valid way of experiencing the city is beyond problematic.
Beth is only expressing the global experience of a global city. How many of us have formed a strong opinion on a building like CCTV or the Guggenheim Bilbao without visiting? And lets not forget the buildings we can't visit like the historically significant private homes or buildings that have been demolished or destroyed by fire. Architecture is local and global.
Um, driving around is one of many valid ways of experiencing a city. I've driven in Manhattan, plenty, as well as taken the subway and buses and taxis. Never done one of those horse-drawn carriages, but that's valid too, as is skateboarding, walking of course, bicycling, helicopter, and tuktuk.
While I will grant each person there opinion on the stylistic choices of 1 World Trade, I myself struggle to overlook the blatant closed off nature of the project. I had always hoped that the site the world trade centers would transform into a new heart for the city that embraced a mindset of open mindedness and tolerance. This building is, in many ways, the physical manifestation of the opposite ideals. It is closed off and presents a boundary to the streetscape that is more bunker like than anything else.
I remain hopeful that this site will grow to embody this ideal overtime, however, when that occurs people will look back at this tower in regret that it doesn't align with the ideals it was meant, in my mind, to embody.
1 WTC was to be a simple solution - Child's play simple
As an architect myself I can only say: "You can please some of the people some of the time, but never everybody all of the time."
In the end for any architect the acid test is whether the building conforms with the needs of the users and whether they are satisfied with the outcome: It does not serve any purpose to try and please every Tom, Dick and Harry, but your client is unhappy with the result.
This Op-Ed appears to be a call to lower the bar on one's standards for architecture; that we consider each new development as an attempt to fulfill some goal or set of hopes and aspirations, and whatever the outcome be optimistic that what was built is the best that could have been done. This is ludicrous.
"1 World Trade implies (wrongly) a metropolis bereft of fresh ideas."
The key word, wrongly, was conveniently omitted from the above statement, which speaks to Kimmelman's optimism about what the design community of New York is capable of. One World Trade Center doesn't even speak to what SOM is capable of as a firm. The same firm who did the Burj Kalifa (I lived in Dubai during it's completion and can say that it is surely an impressive piece of architecture), or the Al Hamra Tower in Kuwait, just to name a couple.
Given that this is the most expensive tower in the world, the argument that it's somehow great that there's something there period is severely off-putting. Kimmelman closed, and I couldn't agree more, by stating that "Not so bad should never be good enough." To me, that is optimism.
Nico, this building was supposed to be more than the sum of its parts. It was promised to be more, and it fails.
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.