the failure at the WTC is, at its core, a failure
of the master planning by Daniel Libeskind and Co.
the master plan as stated amounts to nothing more
than a series of guidelines as outlined recently
by Mr. Libeskind: the buildings rise around the
memorial in a spiral and peak at the supposedly
symbolic 1776' tall skyscraper aka Freedom Tower.
if this is the extent of master planning a check
should be cut for the thousand dollar idea, and
get back on track with much more serious issues.
there is no master planning, per se, in street
design, approach, ritual and procession, spatial
experience, infrastructural connections, meaning
and symbolism, and a unique purpose of the site
that is self-evident in the architecture. not in
the architectural public relations spin machine.
the essence of the WTC redevelopment is basically
that of a flight deck on an aircraft carrier with
supersized jump elevators that were the footprints
of the two fallen towers that once were inhabited
by life a thousand feet tall, now the empty voids
with requisite water feature, falling waterwalls.
there is no meaning in the designs themselves, of
the buildings or the landscapes or master planning,
in relation to the speaking to the events of 9/11
within the architecture- the symbolism is largely
tacked-on with labels, to instruct that this new
building will be about freedom, this other one is
about culture, this next building about business.
'that there is Hero's Plaza, so says the signage.'
* it is plain and clear- the banality of the 9/11
memorial, an outcome of a biased jury led by none-
other than modernist memorialist Maya Lin, and the
result of pursuing an ideological approach is empty
of architectural possibility and instead becomes a
decision of style that is detached from any other
meaning beyond formalist approaches to questions.
what kind of answers does one get when assuming
the entirety of architecture rests in materials,
structures, and natural light? no meaning beyond
these for the special considerations of this site.
Not one building could not be built another place,
and do equally well at what it is doing- there is
no greater purpose than the engineering of forms,
a pragmatism to perform specified duties which to-
day amount to a retrograde approach. There is no-
thing which speaks to the events of 9/11 on this
site, by itself, in itself, without an architect
who needs to interpret it for other persons- if
it does not speak it is because the viewers have
yet to share the spiritual revelations that the
architect says are the essence of this design.
which, for any self-respecting architect, is
absolute bullshit. this is equivalent to using
abstract expressionist painting as architecture
and then determining the meaning as clear as day.
it is smoke and mirrors of an ideological conceit.
modern ideology can be thoroughly discredited (in
another post) in relation to claims being made,
that this architecture is symbolic of anything
other than its own aesthetics of materialism:
it is not transcendent, it is without meaning.
or, if it is to have meaning that is shared in
an architectural context, this should at least
be accessible to those literate in the field...
case in point is the Culture Museum by the firm
Snohetta. it makes great claims for spirituality
and transcendence, birthing first-person effluvia
to give meaning to the masterwork of architecture.
it is a unique horizontal structure, that rises up
into the sky, it has an open roof, it has light,
air, space, circulation in its form, materiality.
and yet, beyond the words what is the origin of
this 'unique' type of design? the parking ramp.
any citizen will recognize the slanting floors
visible with the modernist transparency of the
curtain wall to see the ribboning of the street
rise next to and above the 9/11 memorial voids,
in a traditional perpendicularity just like all
the other, disconnected, buildings placed about
the site as if a series of dice thrown by god-
men of architecture, men of planning, who now
have created a site so unspectacular that most
cities would reject its lack of employing the
particular context to the betterment of design.
each building is a universe unto itself, another
reality, as if anyplace in the world. how would
anyone know that two thousand+ foot towers were
cremated on that day along with its inhabitants?
there is no remnant, no ruin, only an overriding
abstraction and evenness that makes this place
as disconnected and unengaged, if not more so,
than anyplace in the global modernist siteplan.
for the typologies involved, the lack of programs
which would inform unique character and purpose
upon the site and within the building, instead it
is an arbitrariness of design choices by corporate
architectural firms who are picked to commercialize.
there is no love in this architecture, no soul, no
freedom - it is devoid of ideas and of imagination
for the site -- the buildings are not related to
the events of 9/11 or the WTC, they act as just
another of an infinite variety of replacements.
there is no architecture substance, these forms,
structures, in no way are contingent to the site.
they could be placed anywhere, designed anywhere,
built anywhere, designed anywhere, by most anyone.
a new series of buildings could be design by any
practicing architect which could replace these,
as a commission, and the meaning itself would not
change in its substance if driven by the modernist
approach to the questions involve: which have no-
thing -- absolutely nothing -- to do with 9/11.
the view from inside the Snohetta Culture Museum *
could be used for anything at all, and if considering
its specific typology as a parking ramp (that is, the
totality of its symbolism as architectural meaning)
it could well be a car dealership, or showroom for
some high-end cars, say an Audi Dealership which
could be under franchise to Mr. Libeskind as his
first decision upon obtaining the WTC commission
was to advertise himself for the Audio car company.
remembering the parking ramp as building type, here
is what the Audi website quotes of Mr. Libeskind:
"It's not only how things look, but also how they
really are in our everyday life. I often think by
doing something very subtle, like shifting a window
by a couple of degrees, you can recreate what the
world really looks like."
Never Follow - Daniel Libeskind
on having a different perspective
http://neverfollow.com/libeskind.html
* (which does not even have tenants right now, so how
can it be generated for a specific client anyway?
note: NYC Mayor George Pataki has recently warned
the arts organizations that would be here to beware
free art-speech, that it has limits because the WTC
site is unique. if so, the same rule should certainly
apply to all political speech and advertisements then,
harnessing this memory for national political agendas).
SO maybe it is no mistake that an everyday parking
ramp is occupying the WTC site, which enframes the
9/11 memorial below with all the concrete brutalism
of an aircraft carrier deck elevator, that it may
all be part of some 'master plan' that is symbolic
of something. but what? that might only be knowable
to those who believe in Mr. Libeskind's metaphysics,
whose ideas have been said to be those of a prophet **
if without peer-review of the architecture involved.
instead, maybe what is seen is actually what exists,
sublime or most definitely not: extremely profane.
the sum total of meaning of the site planning and
building designs show no relation as architecture
to the events of 9/11 and through their use of the
tenets of modernism, have no need to engage ideas
outside of a formulaic approach to making buildings.
that is, these buildings have no relation to 9/11.
they are academic exercises in architectural design,
arbitrary in their form and irrelevant in meaning.
** Libeskind(s): the Twin Towers Image
http://www.architexturez.net/FILES/archive/sub.gate.archive/bc- twin_towers.shtml
THE greatest symbolism in the architectural design
is a parking ramp and two big voids unrelated to the
city which thrives around them, a site that could be
uniquely interwoven and yet is made discrete as if
any other site, there is no invention, innovation,
imagination, it is now entirely business-as-usual.
as mentioned in John Young's informative briefing on
the NIST WTC Collapse findings and recommendations,
the issues of architecture and development, special
interests and real estate agendas are paramount to
what happens on this site, and what does not happen
next, anywhere else. the missing piece would seem to
be an outcome, again, of modern ideology for there is
a clear lack of any insightful planning going on in
these deliberations which would address most issues
which have since disappeared. is it possible that a
lack of planning is to blame for the mess as it is?
and what of this moniker of 'master planner', how
can this be seriously entertained by anyone with a
nominal understanding of what is involved- and what
is obviously not occurring in the execution of the
plan as it was marketed, by way of the celebrities
of architectural design from a bygone era, pre-9/11?
the plan has no procession, no interconnections, no
spatiality, one drives a car by and through the site
as if going past a giant shopping center in Manhattan.
where are the lost dimensions that cease to exist in
this 'master plan' innovations which have architectural
meaning and which are the necessary requirement if this
is to truly become a statement of how best to rebuild?
AT this point it is proposed that a black-budget be
accumulated to fund a core group of architects to
meet for one month's time in lower Manhattan to come
up with an alternative vision for the site, which is
based in a new memorial design and a master plan that
is specific at the level of planning and not details
of fictitious advertising for architectural designs.
this intermural secret architectural group, expertise
of young and old, would then be prepared to present an
alternative version for the WTC site and 9/11 memorial
and present these in a debate format with those that
currently exist for the site, with Mr. Libeskind as
the progenitor of the master plan as it now exists.
funding would need to include housing, resources for
computer work and meetings, food and transport needs,
and a contribution of firms modelers, renderers, and
others who can put the spirit back into this project
and deliver a viable alternative for redevelopment,
which is centered on the symbolism of the cathedral
ruin inhabiting center stage in a WTC Memorial Park.
i'm in, and i'm serious. it's time for architects
to deliver, and time for NYC to speak its mind!
through architecture, through the heart, to
recapture the imagination and spirit and hope:
to do the impossible, because it is necessary.
brian thomas carroll: research-design-development
architecture, education, electromagnetism
http://www.mnartists.org/brian_carroll
http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/
of the master planning by Daniel Libeskind and Co.
the master plan as stated amounts to nothing more
than a series of guidelines as outlined recently
by Mr. Libeskind: the buildings rise around the
memorial in a spiral and peak at the supposedly
symbolic 1776' tall skyscraper aka Freedom Tower.
if this is the extent of master planning a check
should be cut for the thousand dollar idea, and
get back on track with much more serious issues.
there is no master planning, per se, in street
design, approach, ritual and procession, spatial
experience, infrastructural connections, meaning
and symbolism, and a unique purpose of the site
that is self-evident in the architecture. not in
the architectural public relations spin machine.
the essence of the WTC redevelopment is basically
that of a flight deck on an aircraft carrier with
supersized jump elevators that were the footprints
of the two fallen towers that once were inhabited
by life a thousand feet tall, now the empty voids
with requisite water feature, falling waterwalls.
there is no meaning in the designs themselves, of
the buildings or the landscapes or master planning,
in relation to the speaking to the events of 9/11
within the architecture- the symbolism is largely
tacked-on with labels, to instruct that this new
building will be about freedom, this other one is
about culture, this next building about business.
'that there is Hero's Plaza, so says the signage.'
* it is plain and clear- the banality of the 9/11
memorial, an outcome of a biased jury led by none-
other than modernist memorialist Maya Lin, and the
result of pursuing an ideological approach is empty
of architectural possibility and instead becomes a
decision of style that is detached from any other
meaning beyond formalist approaches to questions.
what kind of answers does one get when assuming
the entirety of architecture rests in materials,
structures, and natural light? no meaning beyond
these for the special considerations of this site.
Not one building could not be built another place,
and do equally well at what it is doing- there is
no greater purpose than the engineering of forms,
a pragmatism to perform specified duties which to-
day amount to a retrograde approach. There is no-
thing which speaks to the events of 9/11 on this
site, by itself, in itself, without an architect
who needs to interpret it for other persons- if
it does not speak it is because the viewers have
yet to share the spiritual revelations that the
architect says are the essence of this design.
which, for any self-respecting architect, is
absolute bullshit. this is equivalent to using
abstract expressionist painting as architecture
and then determining the meaning as clear as day.
it is smoke and mirrors of an ideological conceit.
modern ideology can be thoroughly discredited (in
another post) in relation to claims being made,
that this architecture is symbolic of anything
other than its own aesthetics of materialism:
it is not transcendent, it is without meaning.
or, if it is to have meaning that is shared in
an architectural context, this should at least
be accessible to those literate in the field...
case in point is the Culture Museum by the firm
Snohetta. it makes great claims for spirituality
and transcendence, birthing first-person effluvia
to give meaning to the masterwork of architecture.
it is a unique horizontal structure, that rises up
into the sky, it has an open roof, it has light,
air, space, circulation in its form, materiality.
and yet, beyond the words what is the origin of
this 'unique' type of design? the parking ramp.
any citizen will recognize the slanting floors
visible with the modernist transparency of the
curtain wall to see the ribboning of the street
rise next to and above the 9/11 memorial voids,
in a traditional perpendicularity just like all
the other, disconnected, buildings placed about
the site as if a series of dice thrown by god-
men of architecture, men of planning, who now
have created a site so unspectacular that most
cities would reject its lack of employing the
particular context to the betterment of design.
each building is a universe unto itself, another
reality, as if anyplace in the world. how would
anyone know that two thousand+ foot towers were
cremated on that day along with its inhabitants?
there is no remnant, no ruin, only an overriding
abstraction and evenness that makes this place
as disconnected and unengaged, if not more so,
than anyplace in the global modernist siteplan.
for the typologies involved, the lack of programs
which would inform unique character and purpose
upon the site and within the building, instead it
is an arbitrariness of design choices by corporate
architectural firms who are picked to commercialize.
there is no love in this architecture, no soul, no
freedom - it is devoid of ideas and of imagination
for the site -- the buildings are not related to
the events of 9/11 or the WTC, they act as just
another of an infinite variety of replacements.
there is no architecture substance, these forms,
structures, in no way are contingent to the site.
they could be placed anywhere, designed anywhere,
built anywhere, designed anywhere, by most anyone.
a new series of buildings could be design by any
practicing architect which could replace these,
as a commission, and the meaning itself would not
change in its substance if driven by the modernist
approach to the questions involve: which have no-
thing -- absolutely nothing -- to do with 9/11.
the view from inside the Snohetta Culture Museum *
could be used for anything at all, and if considering
its specific typology as a parking ramp (that is, the
totality of its symbolism as architectural meaning)
it could well be a car dealership, or showroom for
some high-end cars, say an Audi Dealership which
could be under franchise to Mr. Libeskind as his
first decision upon obtaining the WTC commission
was to advertise himself for the Audio car company.
remembering the parking ramp as building type, here
is what the Audi website quotes of Mr. Libeskind:
"It's not only how things look, but also how they
really are in our everyday life. I often think by
doing something very subtle, like shifting a window
by a couple of degrees, you can recreate what the
world really looks like."
Never Follow - Daniel Libeskind
on having a different perspective
http://neverfollow.com/libeskind.html
* (which does not even have tenants right now, so how
can it be generated for a specific client anyway?
note: NYC Mayor George Pataki has recently warned
the arts organizations that would be here to beware
free art-speech, that it has limits because the WTC
site is unique. if so, the same rule should certainly
apply to all political speech and advertisements then,
harnessing this memory for national political agendas).
SO maybe it is no mistake that an everyday parking
ramp is occupying the WTC site, which enframes the
9/11 memorial below with all the concrete brutalism
of an aircraft carrier deck elevator, that it may
all be part of some 'master plan' that is symbolic
of something. but what? that might only be knowable
to those who believe in Mr. Libeskind's metaphysics,
whose ideas have been said to be those of a prophet **
if without peer-review of the architecture involved.
instead, maybe what is seen is actually what exists,
sublime or most definitely not: extremely profane.
the sum total of meaning of the site planning and
building designs show no relation as architecture
to the events of 9/11 and through their use of the
tenets of modernism, have no need to engage ideas
outside of a formulaic approach to making buildings.
that is, these buildings have no relation to 9/11.
they are academic exercises in architectural design,
arbitrary in their form and irrelevant in meaning.
** Libeskind(s): the Twin Towers Image
http://www.architexturez.net/FILES/archive/sub.gate.archive/bc- twin_towers.shtml
THE greatest symbolism in the architectural design
is a parking ramp and two big voids unrelated to the
city which thrives around them, a site that could be
uniquely interwoven and yet is made discrete as if
any other site, there is no invention, innovation,
imagination, it is now entirely business-as-usual.
as mentioned in John Young's informative briefing on
the NIST WTC Collapse findings and recommendations,
the issues of architecture and development, special
interests and real estate agendas are paramount to
what happens on this site, and what does not happen
next, anywhere else. the missing piece would seem to
be an outcome, again, of modern ideology for there is
a clear lack of any insightful planning going on in
these deliberations which would address most issues
which have since disappeared. is it possible that a
lack of planning is to blame for the mess as it is?
and what of this moniker of 'master planner', how
can this be seriously entertained by anyone with a
nominal understanding of what is involved- and what
is obviously not occurring in the execution of the
plan as it was marketed, by way of the celebrities
of architectural design from a bygone era, pre-9/11?
the plan has no procession, no interconnections, no
spatiality, one drives a car by and through the site
as if going past a giant shopping center in Manhattan.
where are the lost dimensions that cease to exist in
this 'master plan' innovations which have architectural
meaning and which are the necessary requirement if this
is to truly become a statement of how best to rebuild?
AT this point it is proposed that a black-budget be
accumulated to fund a core group of architects to
meet for one month's time in lower Manhattan to come
up with an alternative vision for the site, which is
based in a new memorial design and a master plan that
is specific at the level of planning and not details
of fictitious advertising for architectural designs.
this intermural secret architectural group, expertise
of young and old, would then be prepared to present an
alternative version for the WTC site and 9/11 memorial
and present these in a debate format with those that
currently exist for the site, with Mr. Libeskind as
the progenitor of the master plan as it now exists.
funding would need to include housing, resources for
computer work and meetings, food and transport needs,
and a contribution of firms modelers, renderers, and
others who can put the spirit back into this project
and deliver a viable alternative for redevelopment,
which is centered on the symbolism of the cathedral
ruin inhabiting center stage in a WTC Memorial Park.
i'm in, and i'm serious. it's time for architects
to deliver, and time for NYC to speak its mind!
through architecture, through the heart, to
recapture the imagination and spirit and hope:
to do the impossible, because it is necessary.
brian thomas carroll: research-design-development
architecture, education, electromagnetism
http://www.mnartists.org/brian_carroll
http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/