This article sums up the current state of things...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifest...tre/article.do
What a site: trouble at the World Trade Centre
Rowan Moore, ES Magazine
19.06.09
America can be good at monuments. The Lincoln Memorial, with its 36 Doric columns and the few words of the Gettysburg Address, makes a dignified tribute to the Civil War president, became a natural setting for future momentous events, most famously Martin Luther King's 'I Have a Dream' speech.
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial, with its reflective wall of 60,000 names of the dead, created a sensitive way for people to deal with loss. The two, both in Washington DC, are utterly different, yet both memorable and successful.
Sadly, the wisdom of these two works has not rubbed off on the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site in New York. There, more than seven years after the Twin Towers were destroyed, the public and private bodies involved in the site are still wrangling over fundamental aspects of the reconstruction. Two of the mighty towers planned for the site are in danger of being shrunk to a mere 5 storeys. The astoundingly expensive National September 11 Memorial & Museum has had its projected completion put back so that it is now due to be finished, just in time for the tenth anniversary of 9/11, in 2011.
The Freedom Tower, the emblem of the rebuilding, is now rising towards its symbolically significant height of 1,776 feet (to recall the year of independence), and it is due for completion in 2014, but it has lost its resonant name. It was recently announced that it would be called One World Trade Center for marketing reasons. 'We will ensure that the building is presented in the best possible way,' said the chairman of the Port Authority, which is building it, evidently believing that commercial tenants would rather not rent space in a symbol. The news has provoked outrage: 'Freedom is out of fashion at Ground Zero,' said the New York Post.
The reconstruction of Ground Zero,in other words,once intended as a defiant riposte to terrorists, as a demonstration of the invincible might of American freedom, has turned into something else. It is now a demonstration of the baroque manoeuvres in which New York specialises when it comes to large-scale construction schemes. It shows what can happen when political, commercial and architectural egos tangle.
There have always been two aspects to the rebuilding of Ground Zero.
On one hand it is a site of global significance,which demands a physical statement to match the shocking events that took place there. On the other hand it is a large piece of real estate in a part of Manhattan, Downtown, that has struggled to attract businesses as successfully as other parts of the island. The slow decline of the area was long-standing - the Twin Towers were themselves conceived in the 1960s in order to revitalise it.
This dual nature was reflected in the main aspects of the brief for the rebuilding, and in the personalities and players involved. The 11 million sq ft of office space lost on 9/11 were to be put back, together with hugely improved public transport to help them work better, but there would also be a fitting memorial. It was a project in which mayors and governors and press could, should and would get involved, but also one in which a private property developer, Larry Silverstein, would assert his need to make a commercial return on his property.
The Brooklyn-born Silverstein, now aged 78, had built his fortune in part by buying out-of-favour New York landmarks, including office buildings on Wall Street and Fifth Avenue, a pattern to which the World Trade Center would have conformed. He bought the lease on the complex in July 2001, seven weeks before the terrorist attacks made what might have been a relatively straightforward commercial transaction into a spot-lit role on the stage of history. The attacks also made him a partner of the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, the freeholder of the site, in the reconstruction. The cantankerous relations of these uneasy bedfellows, their peevish snatching of bits of metaphorical duvet from each other, has characterised the project since, and is still going on.
Soon after the attacks, hundreds of ideas for rebuilding came forward, many mad, a few inspired and none with a chance of being realised. Meanwhile, the unsung practice of Beyer Blinder Belle was commissioned to produce a master plan for the site, which was revealed in 2002. An uninspiring array of dim blocks, it was widely condemned, then dropped, and a competition announced for ideas for the site. The fees on offer to competing practices were modest in comparison to the work expected of them, a sign, perhaps, of how seriously they would be taken. But many big names entered, including our own Lord Foster, the leading American architects Richard Meier and Steven Holl, and the Japanese Shigeru Ban.
There was one requirement, significant and barely questioned, which was that skyscrapers should be put back on the site. This was despite the fact this was not an area in which there was a compelling commercial case for building very tall towers. The old Twin Towers had not commanded the highest rents, and it had been a struggle to fill them. This requirement also glossed over the obvious and still-unanswered question: would anyone want to work in towers that would clearly be on the top of al Qaeda's hit-list? Would you? Could you sit at your desk and not flinch each time you saw a plane?
There might have been a case for a more subtle response. To have created a new district of New York, perhaps, with the rich, humane and diverse intricacy of people and activities at which that city excels, a piece of urban civilisation to answer the crude brutalities of the terrorists. But in 2002, with George W Bush high in the polls and the country still feeling a huge sense of national hurt, there was little chance of subtlety. The mood, which also brought the invasion of Iraq, was for a demonstration of might. George Pataki, governor of New York until 2006, would call the tower idea 'a symbol of our freedom and independence'.
The competition was run by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the public agency charged with regenerating the area. The winner was Daniel Libeskind, the son of Polish-Jewish holocaust survivors who made his name as an academic and theorist before realising, as his first ever building project, the acclaimed Jewish Museum in Berlin. He pushed the right buttons. He appeared on Oprah, spoke of his arrival in Manhattan as a young migrant, and wore cowboy boots.
Although plainly of a liberalintellectual-Democrat bent, he happily adopted Bush's use of language in the wake of 9/11: 'freedom' to mean 'America' and 'heroes' to mean 'victims'.
Libeskind proposed a spiralling arrangement of towers ascending to the pointed, offcentre pinnacle of the Freedom Tower, whose profile would echo that of the Statue of Liberty. He assigned it the height of 1,776 feet, to recall the year of the Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately, however, his was a victory as symbolic as his design. Silverstein's contract with the Port Authority entitled him to employ whichever architect he wanted, and he wanted someone with a stronger record in commercial buildings than Libeskind.
Silverstein wanted the giant multinational practice of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), and its partner David Childs. Born in 1941, Childs had produced a series of competent office buildings, including Westferry Circus at Canary Wharf and airport buildings in Toronto and Tel Aviv.
For a while the owlish, suited Childs and the black-clad Libeskind worked together, but it was clear who was calling the shots. The two started feuding, and then called in lawyers. When the smoke cleared, Childs was in possession of the battlefield. Libeskind later claimed that: 'There was never disappointment. What I learned is that you have to work with everybody and come to a compromise. Even if you don't want to work with those people, even if you think they are subverting your vision. There are always struggles to build a piece of a city.' But the fact is that Childs developed a plan that contained only the merest nods to Libeskind's ideas, such as the 1,776-foot height and the location of the Freedom Tower. The spiral became a more rigid line-up of four towers, in ascending height order, without the dynamic sweep of Libeskind's plan.
The Freedom Tower became a symmetrical monolith, of the kind that SOM has been turning out for 50 years, without the off-centre twist. Childs said that 'the pure simplicity of this building will be seen as the proper symbol for the memorial', but it was less Lady Liberty, more an investment banker in a suit.
The Tower, its design modified after objections from the police about its vulnerability to terrorism, had elaborate safety precautions. It would have extra-wide escape stairs and a hefty concrete base to protect against truck bombs, sheathed in shatterproof glass. It would be set back from the street, also to protect against truck bombs. The effect, argued critics, was to create a 'Fear Tower'. 'It speaks less of resilience and tolerance than of paranoia,' wrote the architecture critic of The New York Times. 'It's a building armoured against an outside world that we no longer trust.'
The three further towers were then designed by the British architects Lords Foster and Rogers, and the Japanese architect Fumihiko Maki. All three are winners of architecture's most prestigious award, the Pritzker Prize. Rogers, 75, and Foster, 74, are the most famous British architects of their or most generations, while the more reticent and professorial Maki, 80, is highly respected.
The relative heights of all four towers reflected the relative status of the architects designing them, as seen from Manhattan: SOM, the local practice, being the tallest and most important; followed by Foster; then Rogers; then Maki. Each has its stylistic tics, and refers not at all to its neighbour.
The towers, if they are all built, will stand over a tree-covered space containing the National September 11 Memorial & Museum, designed by Michael Arad, son of an Israeli diplomat who, as a previously unknown architect, beat 5,200 others in the 2004 competition for the project. Arad, now 40, proposed pools of water set 30 feet deep in the square outlines of the sites where the twin towers once stood, with water cascading down their sides.
This project has also attracted controversy. Early price estimates put it at an astounding $1 billion, including its associated museum, while some victims' relatives objected to its being below ground. Galleries that would have carried the names of the dead were taken out, as a cost-saving measure. The budget was reduced to $510 million, but according to some reports is now heading upwards again. London's 7/7 memorial, an array of 52 stainless steel pillars (each representing one of the victims killed) by the young practice of Carmody Groarke, by contrast, will open next month in Hyde Park, four years after the bombings, and at roughly one 500th of the cost.
On another part of the site, nestling between the Foster and Rogers towers, would be the extravagant, porcupineshaped roof of the new $3.2 billion transport interchange which, it is hoped, will raise the desirability of the area. The roof is designed by Santiago Calatrava, the Zurich-based architect/engineer who is often brought in to introduce glamour to public projects, such as the Olympic stadium in Athens, and the astounding winged roof of the Milwaukee Art Museum.
Under these plans the World Trade Center site will become a collection of glittering objects - four towers, the memorial, the interchange - that bear little relationship to each other. The plan reflects the increasingly unfashionable idea that the way to get good architecture is simply to hire good architects. Here, some of the biggest names in the world are each allowed to do their own thing.
Foster is crystalline, Calatrava spiky, Rogers filigree, SOM sleek. It is a Babel of egos, whose incoherence reflects the weak and divided leadership of the site. And even achieving this plan now looks doubtful. The estate agents Cushman & Wakefield, commissioned by the Port Authority, recently predicted that One World Trade Center would not be fully occupied until 2019, and the Rogers tower not until the very distant date of 2037. From the perspective of a commercial developer, this is as good as saying never.
The $3 billion One World Trade Center is going up only because the Port Authority, a public body, is paying for it. There is little sign of enthusiasm from businesses for occupying it, and it is likely that hapless employees of governmental institutions will be shuffled into this glittering ninepin, to avoid the embarrassment of it being empty. The Foster and Rogers towers, which Foster had hailed as 'the renaissance of the New York skyline', face the sane but humiliating decision to reduce them to stubs. They will resemble the miniature Stonehenge produced when Spinal Tap's set designers confused inches with feet.
Rogers and Foster do not now comment on the subject, referring inquiries to Silverstein Properties. The latter still want the Rogers and Foster towers built, but they lack the will and/or means to pay for it themselves. They want the Port Authority to 'backstop' the financing, which would mean the Authority would carry some of the risk if Cushman & Wakefield's gloomy predictions turn out to be correct. They are upbeat about the desirability of the area, and say that 'New York will bounce back strongly over the next five years while we are building these buildings... Nobody at Silverstein is ever going to give up on New York'. They cite the fact that a neighbouring building is 85 per cent let three years after its completion. This is not wholly compelling evidence for their case.
For its part, the Port Authority, which is already investing billions in the transport interchange and the main tower, is reluctant to pump more into the site. This month and last, Mayor Bloomberg has invited Silverstein and the Port Authority into Gracie Mansion, his official residence, in an attempt to bang their heads together and make some progress. 'We want to create a roadmap that would create progress at the site,' said Bloomberg, but no news has yet emerged as to how he is doing.
In the end the current state of Ground Zero is a classic example of what happens when symbolic aspirations and commercial practicalities collide, and when political grandstanding gets in the way of common sense. It will not be all bad - Arad's memorial will eventually provide a fitting place for remembrance, and the transport interchange will be an asset for Lower Manhattan - but the botched development around them will be a poor return for the hope and huge sums, perhaps $12 billion in all, invested in it.
Prev
Nobody could have summed it up better than you! 
Linear Mode
