 |
Review Proposals for New York World Trade Center
THE PROPOSALS:
1. Proposal of Studio Daniel Libeskind, Berlin, Germany
2. Proposal of Foster and Partners, London, England
3. Proposal of Richard Meier, Peter Eisenman, Charles Gwathmey,
and Steven Hall
4. Proposal of UNITED ARCHITECTS:
Reiser Umemoto (New York, NY), Foreign Office Architects (London, England), Greg Lynn FORM (Los Angeles, CA), Imaginary Forces (New York, NY and Los Angeles, CA), Kevin Kennon Architect (New York, NY), UN Studio (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
5. Proposal of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, with Partners
SOM (New York, NY), Tom Leader (Berkeley, CA), Michael Maltzan (Los Angeles, CA), Neutelings Riedijk (Rotterdam, Netherlands), SANAA(Tokyo, Japan), with artists Inigo Manglano-Ovalle, Rita McBride, Jessica Stockholder, Elyn Zimmerman
6. Proposal A (Sky Park) of THINK:
Shigeru Ban (Tokyo, Japan), Frederic Schwartz (New York, NY)
Ken Smith (New York, NY), Rafael ViÉxly (New York, NY)
7. Proposal B (The Great Room) of THINK
8. Proposal C (World Culture Center) of THINK
9. Proposal of Peterson/Littenberg Architecture and Urban Design
Steven K. Peterson, Barbara Littenberg
THE MOSTS:
-------------------------------------------------------
*The most popular:
THINK's World Culture Center
-------------------------------------------------------
*The most beautiful towers:
Foster and Partners
-------------------------------------------------------
*The most creative:
Richard Meier, Peter Eisenman, Charles Gwathmey, and Steven Hall
-------------------------------------------------------
*The best concept:
Studio Daniel Libeskind
Richard Meier, Peter Eisenman, Charles Gwathmey, and Steven Hall
-------------------------------------------------------
*The simplest invention:
floor of cross-buildings for larger area of refuge
Foster and Partner, United Architects, SOM and Partners
-------------------------------------------------------
*The best memorial:
Studio Daniel Libeskind
Richard Meier, Peter Eisenman, Charles Gwathmey, and Steven Hall
-------------------------------------------------------
*The best site plan:
Richard Meier, Peter Eisenman, Charles Gwathmey, and Steven Hall
Studio Daniel Libeskind
-------------------------------------------------------
*The most uncompromising:
Richard Meier, Peter Eisenman, Charles Gwathmey, and Steven Hall
-------------------------------------------------------
*The best skyline:
Studio Daniel Libeskind
UNITED ARCHITETS
THINK's World Culture Center
-------------------------------------------------------
*The most possible winner:
Foster and Partner
------------------------------------------------------
*The best money making machine:
THINK's World Culture Center
------------------------------------------------------
*My favorites:
Studio Daniel Libeskind
Richard Meier, Peter Eisenman, Charles Gwathmey, and Steven Hall
-------------------------------------------------------
THE GOSSIP
-------------------------------------------------------
Sloping and Entwined:
The most obvious trend among those designs is the sloping and entwined forms. Since Frank O. Gary already took the proprietary of wriggling curve form, others are competing to "create" the first sloping, entwined skyscraper. The proposals of Foster and Partners, UNITED ARCHTECT, and SOM, are all of this kind.
-------------------------------------------------------
Strategy for Skyscraper's Safety:
Also, many proposals are concerned about building the most safe skyscraper in the world; however, the only strategy the can come up with is making two or more towers connect with each other on some different floors in order to create some floors of cross-buildings for larger space of refuge.
-------------------------------------------------------
Concepts for Memorial:
Creating a very special memorial space is supposed to be the most important mission of this project; surprisingly, only four out of these nine proposals really put the memorial design at the first place. Concept is always the most important thing in any design. As for this project, the memorial space should be the starting point of its concept. Regrettably, among those proposals of world's greatest architects, only the proposals of Studio Daniel Libeskind, Foster and Partners, Richard Meier, Peter Eisenman, Charles Gwathmey, and Steven Hall, and THINK's World Culture Center really make efforts on the memorial space.
-------------------------------------------------------
Why Teaming:
Why are there so many architects of top notch willing to team up with others. I am very curious how these big names work together. And, why, why did those big names want to team up together? On the other hand, there are also many proposals made by individual architects who is not as big name as those in teams.
-------------------------------------------------------
Proposal of Studio Daniel Libeskind:
Libeskind's design did not win my attention at first sight; however, I wound up voting for his design at the end. His designs are not good looking. His presentation is not clear, not assertive. However, his designs are very human's scale and not heroism. His strengths are creating targeting concepts and neighbors compatible site plans. This proposal is not exceptional either: a design of a very strong concept and a neighbor compatible site plan. The design starts completely with the memorial space. Its memorial space is the main goal of the design. The memorial space occupies the major space of the site; in fact, Libeskind leaves the ground zero almost intact as it is now. The impact that caused by the feeling of the loss of the twin towers is so authentic, straight forward, and powerful. It is a memorial space right in the grave yard of the event it commemorates. Libeskind cruelly leaves the wound of the twin towers unhealed. The effect is sad but powerful. The proposal's other buildings thus only set back at the edges surrounding the big memorial space, the ground zero. It is obvious that Libeskind put the memorial space at the first place. The other buildings are just the supporting role of the design. The whole design also mingles very well with its neighbors. The volumes, the heights, and the forms of the buildings mix so well with the surroundings. Thus, it creates a very comfortable, but also impressive skyline. Most of the proposals for new WTC are all actually divided into two separate designs. One design is "inventing" a new species of skyscraper, and the other design is working on the twin towers?foot prints. Most of the proposals separate these two designs; and make them irrelevant to each other. In fact, most of the proposals only concern about "inventing" a new species of skyscraper; and put less effort on the memorial space. However, Libeskind's proposal starts with the memorial space; and the whole design integrates the memorial space and the towers. This proposal is one integrate design, not two separate designs like the other proposals.
Due to Libeskind's non-heroic design and poor presentation, this proposal might again be ignored by the public.
-------------------------------------------------------
Proposal of Foster and Partners:
It is rare to see such a clean and simple design of Norman Foster. The form of the towers are very creative and satisfies public's expectation for an impressive land mark. This beautiful twin- tower easily embarrasses Kohn Pedersen Fox's Shanghai World Financial Center by its innovative and original design. The memorial space is the most solemn design among the other proposals. The design of this whole proposal is very clear and simple: sparing the foot prints for memorial and rebuilding the twin towers. Beside this, the design does not make efforts to come up with any other ideas of using this Manhattan's most valuable property.
-------------------------------------------------------
Proposal of Richard Meier, Peter Eisenman, Charles Gwathmey, and Steven Hall:
This proposal is the most daring design among the others. The disturbing appearance of this design's towers impudently belittles your taste for beauty. Their anti-building looks destroy Manhattan's skyline. Obviously, it is Steven Hall's idea to be so rebellious. The design of the towers is extremely heroism. It completely ignores its surrounding neighborhood. It doesn't bother at all to fit into the context of the existing skyline. The towers do not look like architecture. They mess with your perception of scales; and you might want to decide to be a Gulliver or a Lilliputian before you enter Manhattan. Because of its huge scale, its super futuristic form will not only "infect" downtown Manhattan; but the whole Manhattan island, as well as the human beings and animals that live on the island. There are too many old buildings in Manhattan that already made Manhattan a museum of antique architectures. In addition, this Manhattan museum never changed its exhibitions. All of its exhibitions are permanent. However, Manhattan can be used as a big stage, too. So many things, many shows keep going on this big stage. Therefore, any stage setting is only a temporary props on the stage, and will soon be replaced with other settings for next show. The architectures in Manhattan can be the permanent collection of Manhattan or the temporary stage settings of Manhattan. Good museums draw tourists, but good shows draw audience and applause!
Before you got freaked out by this design's disturbing towers, don't forget to pay a look to its extraordinary, aggressive site plan and excellent concept of the memorial's design. The site plan is not limited within the old WTC's site; but reaches out in different directions to the streets beyond the site. (I warned you before about its hidden agenda to "infect" the whole Manhattan!) There are facilities at the different ends of the reaching-out arms of the site plan that really extends the influence of the site to the whole neighborhood. Therefore, this octopus-like site plan makes you have no chance to miss/ignore the site on the ground, just as its giant disturbing towers make you have no chance to ignore them in the air. It is a very aggressive site plan that draws you even from few blocks away to its core of power. Also, the design of the memorial space is goose-pimple-causing creative! Instead of rebuilding giant images of the twin towers, as THINK's World Culture Center, to commemorate the twin towers; they cleverly maintain the last shadows the twin towers left on the ground right before they clasped. Shadow definitely represents the existence of the object that casts it; and the idea of rebuilding the shadows of the twin towers surely surpasses the idea of rebuilding the image of the twin towers in the air. The effect of this design for the memorial is less straight forward; however, it is more intelligent and enormously moving. It will certainly bring so much emotional response to the visitors that over view the twin towers' shadows from a high observation deck. The shadows of the twin towers are still there on the ground; however, the twin towers are gone! This twin towers' memorial design is an excellent combination of memory and loss. Most designs for memorial only focus on conjuring memories; but very few of them can produce the feeling of loss. Nevertheless, feeling of loss is the most powerful element of any successful memorial spaces.
I appreciate this team's proposal so much; however, I am not sure about the ambiguity of the scale of this design. As for a small space, I prefer a simple and clean design; however, when it comes to a large project, I prefer a complicated and intense design.
-------------------------------------------------------
Proposal of UNITED ARCHITECTS:
This proposal almost forgets the design for the memorial space. They try so hard to "invent" a new skyscraper; but to no avail and only ignores the memorial space. The design of their "new" skyscraper repeats the style of sloping and entwined towers. However, they do create an interesting skyline and a fancy urbanscape.
-------------------------------------------------------
Proposal of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM):
This proposal almost forgets the design for the memorial space. They try so hard to "invent" a new skyscraper, but to no avail and only ignores the memorial space. The design of their "new" skyscraper repeats the style of sloping and entwined towers.
-------------------------------------------------------
Proposals of THINK:
A. Sky Park
This is a very mediocre design.
B. The Great Room
A very clean design that offers a huge dust free space. It seems that any glass house of large scale is always welcomed. This super huge glass house is sure to draw many activities under its super huge glass roof. All the big glass houses try to offer a delusion of Utopia because they are protected from the unpredicted and imperfect outside world. This Great Room is therefore the largest Utopia of its kind. This proposal could be a very interesting design for ANY large scale development project; but it is almost nothing to do with the memorial of the twin towers.
C. The World Culture Center
This is the most popular design among the others. It is even the whole exhibition's only design that is reviewed in Village Voice. This design creates many cultural facilities; however, it is still very tourists oriented. Nevertheless, covering commercial with culture or art is always the smartest strategy, and consumers buy it. Village Voice foresees this design is going to be the Eiffel Tower of New York. I also agree and believe this design will increase thousands of tourists to visit New York. The sacrifice/tragedy of the twin towers thus has a valuable compensation or happy ending. On the other hand, the flood of tourists and money might also dilute the sadness, the seriousness, and the solemnity of the twin towers¡¯ tragedy. It is for sure that people will visit this World Culture Center just for fun, but not for commemorating the twin towers. Manhattan can be a museum. Manhattan can be a stage. Manhattan can also be a theme park!
-------------------------------------------------------
Proposal of Peterson/Littenberg Architecture and Urban Design:
This is a romantic but mediocre design.
-------------------------------------------------------
by Tung-Wang Wu
December 30, 2002
*Your feedback is very mcuh appreciate
More Articles
HOME
Send E-Mail to: tungwang@hotmail.com
Copyright © 2009 Tung-Wang Wu. All Rights Reserved