That isn’t intended to be a specific criticism; I am of the belief there is an inherent futility in trying to create a memorial for the WTC site. The Times, which has played a complicated role in trying to set an agenda about the discussion and process that stands awkwardly among providing a populist voice(something they are never good at) for the families, maintaining their preeminence as cultural arbiters by championing various ‘high design’ concepts and appeasing the money (in the form of developer interests, something the they are better at than most think), is trying to maintain an open dialogue by asking Landscape designers to offer alternative proposals organized around the simple query ‘Why Not a Park?’(offered as part of their ‘Architecture’ issue of the Magazine; it’s also nice to see that the issue isn’t simply a survey of high-end interiors). The proposals manage to look both naive and hyper-aware of the simple absurdity of the program (would you have a picnic in such a park?). They tend towards the ‘activist’ response, though Ken Smith, who has the favorite (at least in terms of web voting) is least inclined towards this, evident in his title (‘Respite’). Field Operations proposes a complete reimagining of lower Manhattan that looks like rejected Superstudio imagery or story boards for ‘The Day After Tomorrow.’ Julie Bargmann and D.I.R.T. Studio have a well-reasoned idea, one that might even be the genesis of a ritual that could perhaps be an act of remembrance and honor that has enough precedent in our culture (tree planting as act of hope and remembering) to make the campaigning for such an idea palatable, but it is undermined by cartoony visuals, which I expect were intended to try and make the project as explicable as possible to people other than fussy architects. It’s an impossible presentation quandary, and their response is not a failure, but nor does it resonate in the same way as the concept itself.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
No one can get it right.
That isn’t intended to be a specific criticism; I am of the belief there is an inherent futility in trying to create a memorial for the WTC site. The Times, which has played a complicated role in trying to set an agenda about the discussion and process that stands awkwardly among providing a populist voice(something they are never good at) for the families, maintaining their preeminence as cultural arbiters by championing various ‘high design’ concepts and appeasing the money (in the form of developer interests, something the they are better at than most think), is trying to maintain an open dialogue by asking Landscape designers to offer alternative proposals organized around the simple query ‘Why Not a Park?’(offered as part of their ‘Architecture’ issue of the Magazine; it’s also nice to see that the issue isn’t simply a survey of high-end interiors). The proposals manage to look both naive and hyper-aware of the simple absurdity of the program (would you have a picnic in such a park?). They tend towards the ‘activist’ response, though Ken Smith, who has the favorite (at least in terms of web voting) is least inclined towards this, evident in his title (‘Respite’). Field Operations proposes a complete reimagining of lower Manhattan that looks like rejected Superstudio imagery or story boards for ‘The Day After Tomorrow.’ Julie Bargmann and D.I.R.T. Studio have a well-reasoned idea, one that might even be the genesis of a ritual that could perhaps be an act of remembrance and honor that has enough precedent in our culture (tree planting as act of hope and remembering) to make the campaigning for such an idea palatable, but it is undermined by cartoony visuals, which I expect were intended to try and make the project as explicable as possible to people other than fussy architects. It’s an impossible presentation quandary, and their response is not a failure, but nor does it resonate in the same way as the concept itself.