Category Archives: Memorials

George F. Will weighs in on architecture

This, a model of Frank Gehry's proposed Eisenhower Memorial in Washington, DC, is the project in question. Image courtesy DCist.

Everyone, meet George F. Will. He’s a syndicated right-wing columnist at the Washington Post (although at the rate things are going, maybe not for much longer) and the author of this recent gem, a jaw-dropping exhibition of architectural ignorance and general idiocy. The full breakdown after the break. Continue reading

Tagged ,

A day to remember

Today we’re all remembering the tragedy of 9/11. This has, of course, meant different things to different people. A special feature in today’s New York Times entitled “The Reckoning” examines the impact of 9/11 from a variety of different standpoints. It doesn’t pretend to give definitive answers; rather it recognizes and remembers a tragedy while also helping readers to look at it constructively and objectively.

Not everyone took as good an approach. Many news outlets have basked in the sick glory of finding something to inflate into a week-long nonstop tear-jerker. And some have decided that today is the day to make cynical political points. I’m talking about Paul Krugman, usually a favorite columnist of mine, who posted an obnoxious blog post this morning arguing that we’ve failed terribly as a nation in a multitude of ways since 9/11. Some of his points are well taken, and all are well argued, but I can’t fathom why Krugman felt the need to make them today, or in such a contrary tone. There’s a difference between looking at what we’ve done since then rationally, and disparaging a decade of our history angrily and one-sided-ly.

Today is also the day that the National September 11 Memorial at Ground Zero in New York opened. (I blogged about this memorial several weeks ago.) I’m still not sure the design is as good as it could be, but as I’ve been inundated with more and more pictures of it, I’ve come to like it a little more. I’m reserving final judgement for when I actually go and see it myself. (For an in-depth look at the memorial, check out this feature from the New York Times.)

Since the memorial consists of two voids, it’s hard not to remember the buildings that once stood there. Designed by Minoru Yamasaki, the World Trade Center towers were not good pieces of architecture. They were nervously delicate, huge buildings from a nervous Modernist who was never entirely comfortable with Modernism. Like many of Yamasaki’s buildings, they never seemed sure of their size or their place. Their boldness of size was bizarrely countered with the false delicacy of their narrow windows.

The buildings now rising in their place are also not shaping up to be masterpieces, despite the involvement of more famous architects than I can count in their designs. But there are elements of the plan to be excited about, and the reopening of a road cut off by Yamasaki’s original design is a sign of both progress and healing.

What’s important to remember today is that a tragedy happened 10 years ago, and we need to remember it. We have a grand, somber memorial to do that. We shouldn’t remember it falsely — since their destruction, the twin towers have come to be known as beautiful, which they never were. We should remember the people who died, who were injured or who were affected, the damage done to our nation, and we should remember the lessons we learned.

We can also look backward from a vantage point of ten years later, and try to figure out whether we reacted well or poorly — what we handled properly and what we could have done differently. We can take what we learn with us as we move forward. But today, remembering should come first.

Tagged , ,

Rothstein takes on the King Memorial

Edward Rothstein, the critic-at-large for The New York Times, had an excellent review of the new Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington, D.C. the other day. (It seems that Michael Kimmelman, the paper’s new architecture critic, will not start until September.) It’s only fair to point out that Rothstein makes some of the exact same criticisms that I made here. Read on for the full review.

Continue reading


A New Memorial on the Mall

The National Mall in Washington, DC is chock-full of monuments of various sorts and various levels of architectural quality.

At the top of my list are the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument and of course the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, all of which obtain greatness by expressing defined meanings and ideas through tangible, architectural means. At the bottom of my list, by far, is the relatively new (2004) World War II Memorial, which is a disgustingly exaggerated and filthily official example of knee-jerk historicism.

The National World War II Memorial is downright horrible. Photo courtesy Wikipedia.

Now a new memorial is joining the mix. Read on past the break to read about my opinions of the new Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial. Continue reading

National September 11 Memorial

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).

The National September 11 Memorial just a few weeks before opening. Photo courtesy Los Angeles Times.

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.

Continue reading

Tagged , , ,