First off, I must apologize for not blogging in a while. I’ve been quite busy with a number of different things, one of which was watching the U.S.’s political system reach an astonishing level of dysfunction. (I’ve blogged before about architecture and politics — the two are closely linked.) My views on this summer’s debt ceiling debacle can be found in an article of mine in the Hartford Courant here.
On September 12 of this year, after literally a decade of wrangling among an ever-expanding group of officials, developers, victims’ families, planner and architects, the National September 11 Memorial will finally open. No one in the world of architecture is particularly excited about the occasion: though it’s certainly an important event for the country, the selected design for the memorial isn’t really a favorite (though it is not nearly as hated as the site’s largest new tower, 1 World Trade Center, which was designed by David Childs of Skidmore, Owings & Merill and is an abomination).
This week, the architecture critics from the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times, Blair Kamin and Christopher Hawthorne, respectively, reviewed the new memorial. (Side note: where’s Michael Kimmelman, the new architecture critic for The New York Times?! He’s still got a few weeks, but he’d better start off strong.) Kamin and Hawthorne’s conclusions about the memorial are both similar and predictable, but also quite legitimate. To read Hawthorne’s review, continue past the break.
The review below came under fire from Steve Rosenbaum of the Huffington Post. Rosenbaum points out a small factual error in the review that is entirely legitimate. It should be noted, though, that Rosenbaum is wrong in claiming that the Times did not respond effectively. It did publish a correction, which is included here at the end of the review. His larger point, that Hawthorne is not really understanding the scope of what is planned for the site, is not credible or legitimate — Hawthorne is reviewing the memorial, not the as-yet uncompleted museum.
Feeling the void: The National September 11 Memorial by Michael Arad and Peter Walker has weathered a long process of design changes intact enough to be effective.
by Christopher Hawthorne, Los Angeles Times Architecture Critic
Published August 12, 2011 and available online here
If you were hoping that the National September 11 Memorial might turn out to be a visionary or uncompromising monument to human tragedy and architectural destruction, you probably haven’t been paying sustained attention to the process that created it. And who could blame you? The rebuilding effort at the World Trade Center site has been marked by enough grandstanding, backbiting and power grabs, among politicians and designers alike, to push even the most dedicated optimist toward utter cynicism.
At its core, though, the memorial — designed by architect Michael Arad and landscape architect Peter Walker and set to open next month on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks — has managed to preserve at least a kernel of genuine and affecting meaning.
The central idea of Arad’s original design remains intact: to keep the footprints of the twin towers open to the sky as massive, sunken fountains. Approaching either of those voids through the long rows of oak trees that Walker added to the site and encountering the names of the 9/11 victims carved into a dark-bronze parapet along their outer edges, as I did earlier this week, is to be reminded in visceral fashion of the immensity of the events of that day and the sheer scale of what was destroyed.
Covering 7.5 acres in total, or just less than half of the World Trade Center site’s original 16 acres, the memorial is the first part of the massive, many-headed reconstruction plan for ground zero to be completed. It will be joined next fall by a museum, designed by the Norwegian firm Snohetta, occupying a relative sliver of space between the memorial’s twin voids.
Rising just north of the memorial is the 1 World Trade Center tower, in its early versions, a tense, ham-handed collaboration between Daniel Libeskind, the master planner of the overall site plan for ground zero, and architect David Childs of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, and later given to Childs alone. Also under construction to the east of the memorial are a skyscraper by Fumihiko Maki — so-called Tower 4 — and Santiago Calatrava’s transportation hub, a sadly compromised symbol of the ground zero planning morass that is now pegged for a 2014 completion. A potential performing arts center by Frank Gehry, meanwhile, remains in a preliminary, conceptual phase.
The memorial has its roots in a design that Arad, then an unknown 34-year-old architect, submitted to the 2003 memorial design competition, which drew 5,201 entries in all. Arad’s proposal was as stark as it was simple: those two huge voids, filled with rushing water, set into an empty, monumental plaza. It was also remarkable for its disdain for Libeskind’s master plan, which called for the area around the tower footprints to be sunken well below street level. That promised to keep ground zero an open wound even as new skyscrapers rose along its edges.
The leaders of the memorial competition made clear that they would consider only those proposals that respected Libeskind’s master plan. But that meant essentially trying to design a memorial inside a memorial. Arad’s design, determinedly ignoring the competition brief, suggested raising the plaza around the footprints back up to street level.
After being named one of eight finalists in the memorial competition, Arad was directed by the jurors — including Maya Lin, designer of the highly acclaimed Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., and a champion of Arad’s proposal from the start — to bring an experienced landscape architect on board to flesh out and humanize his rather barren scheme. He chose Walker, who is based in Berkeley and known for a crisp, minimal style. At 71, he was at that point more than twice Arad’s age.
The pair’s victory in the competition, in early 2004, was a serious blow to Libeskind’s master plan and its notion of a submerged memorial; combined with the decision by developer Larry Silverstein to give the 1 World Trade Center design to Childs, it essentially left Libeskind as a spectator at the site where he was still nominally master planner.
In the seven years since, the design for the memorial has changed markedly. Originally it called for visitors to descend a series of ramps to an area beneath the voids, where they would read the victims’ names while facing a wall of falling water. But the entire lower section was eliminated in 2006, both to eliminate a potential security bottleneck, as members of the public waited to be screened, and to cut the budget of the project, which had ballooned to an estimated $1 billion for the memorial and museum.
A raft of other changes altered the design of benches, lighting and other details. But by all accounts the process of planning and building it stabilized once New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg assumed control of the memorial foundation, the body raising money to help fund the project, five years ago. The final cost estimate is a still-hefty $700 million.
The completed memorial, which will open to the families of victims in a Sept. 11 ceremony and to the public on Sept. 12, pairs the vast scale and emptiness of the tower footprints with a park-like landscape of 415 swamp white oak trees. That combination reflects the tricky path Arad and Walker have had to walk here, producing both a memorial to destruction and a usable green space for a part of Manhattan that has grown increasingly residential since 2001.
The oaks are planted in neat rows running east-west, but seen north-south they dissolve into a less ordered grouping. Walker and Arad have worked to extend the sense of flatness that marks the granite sections into smallish grass areas, treating the entire plaza as a single, taut plane.
For the first several months, if not longer, all visitors will enter the memorial at a single point, at its southwest corner. A few years from now, once the streets that are being rebuilt along its edges have opened up, it will be accessible from every direction, with the oak trees marching out to the curb or even past it.
After moving through the grove of oaks, which will eventually grow roughly 60 feet tall, creating a thick canopy overhead, visitors will emerge in front of one of the voids, which are each nearly an acre in size. At the bottom of each footprint is another, smaller square opening, through which the water from the fountain disappears, as if dropping into an unseen abyss. The names carved into the bronze panels ringing the voids mark not just the ground zero victims but also those who died at the Pentagon, on United Flight 93 and an earlier attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.
Unlike Lin’s devastatingly simple design in Washington, this is far from a brilliant or transformative memorial. It lacks the sharp conceptual force that an artist, rather than an architect, might have brought to the job. Though certain details — the simple, square granite benches, the narrow light poles — are suitably spare and deftly executed, others, particularly the parapets, are overly polished, even handsome, right where they should be most stark.
Arad, alone among the eight finalists, produced a design with a strong conceptual backbone, but he did so only by grabbing and holding tightly to the notion of the tower footprints as the foundation of his entry.
As a result, his memorial operates both as a pared down, abstract design and as a literal representation of what once covered the site. That was a smart, strategic design move more than a profound or searching one — one that allowed him, essentially, to protect his minimalist bona fides while also playing in a much broader way to an audience expecting to find at the memorial easily legible cues about memory, loss and architectural scale.
For The Record (Correction):