“It’s not so bad,” offered an architect who has a window facing the building.
Alas, it is.
Like the corporate campus and plaza it shares, 1 World Trade 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.
— The New York Times
10 Comments
This criticism is stupid. He offers no concrete reasons for his dislike. Only obvious thing IS his dislike.
Kimmelman isn't very good at talking about the often very subtle aesthetic, historical and experiential aspects of a design. He is much better at talking about the political optics, the ethics and the urban planning theory around a particular building.
...which is a very valid way to critique a building like 1WTC.
An analysis based on archi-politics only paints part of the picture. This is one of the tallest buildings in the world and yet it still somehow looks stubby. The antenna on top is hideous and ironically the only reason it achieves its symbolic height of 1776'.
To Kimmelman's credit, he does touch on the importance of form itself in this review.
"Many New Yorkers hated the twin towers, but their sculptured corners captured sunlight at dawn and dusk, creating immaterial ribbons of orange and silver that floated up toward the ether. The towers changed, depending on where you stood, at what hour. The space between them shifted, too; it opened or closed as you moved around the city.
One World Trade is symmetrical to a fault, stunted at its peak, its heavy corners the opposite of immaterial. There’s no mystery, no unraveling of light, no metamorphosis over time, nothing to hold your gaze. By comparison, Britain’s tallest tower, the 95-story Shard in London, by Renzo Piano, dissolves and shimmers as day passes into night. Screens cluster at the top to make a sharp point, completing the glacial spire. Immense, overlapping planes of extra-white glass give the building a prismatic, luminous transparency."
The article is full of references to the form of the towers, I dont understand how someone can not see it.
I was waiting to read a theoretical treatise, but was surprised that he spoke very directly about the architectural and urbanistic faults.
Its mirrored exterior is opaque, shellacked, monomaniacal.
It looks as if it could be anywhere, which New York isn’t.
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.
I wonder how he would have criticised a building that didn't have these faults. My guess is it would have leaned more on the "political optics, the ethics, and the urban planning theory".
that south lobby is appalling! how could anyone go to work in a building that reminds you twice a day that you're working in a bomb shelter built upon a tragedy?
other than that, it's a mild, sort-of tasteful building. I'd probably like it as just a form in the cityscape - its the significance of the site that makes this seem disappointing. But it's unreasonable to expect too much of any one building. As Kimmelman says, the failure was in the planning process and lack of support for a meaningful urban vision.
If you remember those WTC designs were all nuts. Even the mediocre result is better than all of those monstrosities. That Kimmelman would use the Shard as a foil makes me glad it could have been worse as well as better.
Still, I think that the CCTV building was meant for the WTC site, that would have been perfect for the site.
As for Kimmelman, I think he does lack knowledge to speak about architecture issues--it is much easier and more attention grabbing to write a political diss piece. Yes it isn't formally crazy but there are subtle moves that will probably grow on us over time. Looking at it as part of the site, with the memorial park, it's vastly improved from what was there before.
My favorite proposal for the site was a recreation of the twin towers turned into a giant double-bar dollar sign.
I just would have liked to see an illuminati reference in the NYTimes...I mean come on, it's so obvious...ha
The pharaohs live
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.