i am going to send an essay, one of
several i was planning to write about
the WTC site and 9/11 memorial as it
is and, conversely, how it must be.
today there is the unveiling of the
WTC skyscraper by David Childs. it is
a stunningly beautiful building, and
in itself if it was placed anywhere
else in NYC it would be a gem. maybe
even on the WTC site - yet not within
the current 'master plan', which is
nothing more than a euphemism for a
developer's agenda for the site, of
which the memorial is an afterthought,
as nothing relates to anything else,
and the memorial is just another piece
of sculpture among the many others.
so a post will follow about why the
zoning realm should no longer be
called 'Ground Zero' because that is
the branding which symbolizes what is
the current and failed approach to the
site, based not on the organizational
logic of serving 9/11 and the new WTC
community, but instead a real estate
agenda which determines the results.
the post i've written takes aim at
the skyscraper as a building type,
and yet maybe it is right if it may
lead to a compromise for the larger
master plan. it could stand on its
own and still the master plan could
be reconfigured around a new design
for a WTC memorial park.
a second post was going to convey what
such a memorial park would be like, in
words (not images) to open up the mind's
eye and imaginations and compare it to
what exists, or ceases to, today. the
role of 'citizen architects' would be
needed to go on what amounts to a type
of suicide mission: suicide architects
(ref. suicide commandos) are needed if
this is going to be made a possibility.
at least to try, to do everything it
takes to present a better future for
this site and the goals and aims of
serving, remembering, and rebuilding
with a new sense of purpose, where
the architecture serves ideas and not
the commercial marketplace and money.
citizen architects vs celebrity architects.
architectural ideas vs architectural ideology.
private commercialization vs public commemoration.
so i send the contribution anyways,
even in the current context, as while
one piece may be truly beautiful, the
overall plan is weakened by the choices
which will be outlined, which leaves all
buildings unrelated and the large idea
of transcending the parts into a whole
experience, lost by the design decisions
being, or not being made.
suicide architects wanted.
first part:
* WTC Memorial Park vs Ground Zero.
* definitions
next part:
* about the WTC Memorial Park
next part: (if any movement occurs)
* sketch of what would be necessary to
make it happen, in terms of orchestration
an actual 'preface' or introduction was going
to precede these posts but that may be put
together after this. it was basically going
to frame the WTC site plan as not a developer's
decision making in NYC but instead as the most
significant foreign policy decision available
today in which to shape the future outcome
and direction of dealing with today's issues.
(ref: based on architecture of UN hypotheses)
brian