Design 
  Community 
  Architecture 
  Discussion 
 

Message - Re: WTC: General Observations

    Responses | Architecture Forum | Architecture Students | Architecture Scrapbook | ArchitectureWeek    
   

Posted by  lavardera on September 18, 2002 at 09:29:49:

In Reply to:  Re: WTC: General Observations posted by lavardera on September 18, 2002 at 08:45:32:

Everybody has been so consumed with what to build there, what the design is like, what the planning is like. I have not seen any discussion that takes one step back and asks Why are we going to build there. To me this seems like the natural first step before you can figure out what you are going to build there.

I'll confess - my first gut reaction to what to build there was Nothing. I don't think anything would be more appropriate than the jagged hole we have now, but despite the fact that this would probably be the best thing (aside perhaps the pile of rubble which we know could not remain for much more important reasons) to capture what I think is most important. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Why should we build there. Everybody will have different reasons - but I want to list some that should be of consensus. Some I think are more important than others:

To remember what happened: it can sound silly, but I am thinking of a long view - how do we remember what happened at Gettysburg for instance. When nobody here today was there. I think we should do everything we can to make it possible for others in the future to experience the horror, the outrage, the sorrow we have all felt. I think this is the overriding priority. Some may typify this as negative or looking back but I disagree.

To reinhabit the site: Whether that means how to use it, how not to use it, to not use it at all. I think this agenda needs to be in service to how to best remember, but that should leave plenty of latitude for creating great things on the site.

To make a really great piece of architecture/urban design on this important site: It deserves our best, but I don't think it should be so for its own sake but because of the situation. For instance we can build the best tallest building anywhere if thats what the goal is - I don't think it has to be here becaust the WTC once was our best tallest building.

We have to show them they can't put us down: Aside from the fact that I don't think this is a terribly healthy or mature motivation, its not something that I believe is not already proven without any reaction on our part. I don't think we collectively need to prove anything to anybody about anything in regards to this, and at least, don't need to do it here.

We have to recover the economic value of the site: I suppose. I guess we ought to raise the Arizona too cause there is a lot of decent steel goin to rust down there. On the other hand I think we can sacrifice a few very precious acres in the middle of the most valuable realestate in the world. In fact I think that would be an incredibly appropriate gesture.

any more thoughts?

 
 
ArchitectureWeek     Search     Buildings     Architects     Types     Places     Pix     Free 3D Models     Store     Library

Search GreatBuildings.com by name of Building, Architect, or Place:   
Examples:  "Fallingwater",  "Wright",  "Paris"           Advanced Search

Responses:




Post a Response -

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:


This is an archive page. Please post continuing discussion to the new Architecture Forums.

To post successfully to the new membership-based DesignCommunity Forums:

    1) Go to the new forums area.
    2) Register with a valid email address.
    3) Receive and respond to the confirmation email.
    4) Then login to the new forum system.



 

Special thanks to our Sustaining Subscribers including BuilderSpace.com .

Home | Great Buildings | CAD Outpost | DesignWorkshop | Free 3D | Gallery | Search | ArchitectureWeek
This document is provided for on-line viewing only. /discussion/21797.html