| Memorial or Money? What to do with the World Trade Centre site |
|
||||||||||||
As the year-long operation to clear the 16-acre World Trade Centre site continues, politicians, developers, business leaders, architects, victims' families and survivors are starting to reflect on what should be done with the gaping hole in the heart of New York City. To many, the twin towers were not just 110-story assemblies of concrete, glass and steel but icons of city and nation, near spiritual embodiments of American economic wealth and freedom. And as feelings turned from grief to defiance in the wake of the events of September 11th, angry voices were raised, demanding that the towers be rebuilt, that the USA should not give in to the will of terrorists, that the near-4,000 deceased are not 'victims' but casualties of war and as such should not be memorialised. But the passing of time has allowed for greater reflection, and the tone of the debate has shifted as the enormity and complexity of the problem starts to fully sink in. Important questions are being aired. Were the towers good for lower Manhattan? Would rebuilding them invite further tragedy? Would businesses return to such an infamous piece of real estate? Who will finance the estimated $3 to $4 billion needed for such an undertaking? Surely the dead should be commemorated? A new architectural sobriety As New York officials start unveiling plans for the formation of a redevelopment commission, most urban design experts are in agreement that replicating the towers is not an option, and are underlining the need to promote a new architectural sobriety devoid of brash image-making. Upon their opening in 1973, New York Times critic Paul Goldberger described the two austere monoliths as "blandness blown up to a gigantic scale", and the detractors never fell silent - the surrounding plazas were windy and inhospitable, there was a lack of street-level retail activity, poor connections with commuter transportation, few leisure facilities. So for architect Bruce Fowle, FAIA, a participating member of a committee of New York architects commissioned to think about how the urban design community can assist officials and planners in the recovery process, the opportunity is here to holistically improve the area. Fowle argues that to rebuild as an act of symbolic defiance is not necessary - "I think we're more sophisticated now - we don't need to do that. And it's the people that make New York work, not the buildings. So it might be better to create a powerful symbolic space that is defined by architecture, rather than the architecture itself being the symbol". |
Real Audio
