You’ve all seen it, now prepare for the welter of meta-analysis. Since there are folks out there that do this better, I’m not going to delve too much into the reportage (except to say that even though this might be presumed to be another example of the reputed skills of Nina Libeskind, on balance, it is not the most flattering item, and there seems to have been little co-operation from the Libeskind camp). The one point where I think the piece could have really added to the dialog would have been providing a thorough recounting of how Libeskind was picked over the THINK team. The reason being is that Libeskind is given a great deal of credit for his ‘visionary’ approach, though the article notes (and is confirmed by an Port Authority mouthpiece) that his plan was formally the most consistent by the Beyer Blinder Belle concepts (which were presented as massing and site planning concepts only). I was not fan of the THINK proposal, but, after all the hand-wringing about dialog and the will of the people, the most popular design was cast aside (I have heard the Vinoly is even publishing a book of their entry to remind people of this slight). Perhaps we should look more critically at Libeskind’s intentions and actions. Given that most of his lamentedly discarded ‘visionary’ elements were either fabrications (the Wedge of Light) or near impossible (keeping the slurry wall exposed), it seems he provided little more than the charismatic sheen for a plan that was fait accompli. And he collected over $2 million dollars in the process. Given his propensity for speaking, if not bluntly, then at least with some rhetorical flourish, it is interesting how tempered his behavior is now. He has a large book of business elsewhere (indeed, after three decades, his economic propects are positively rosy), and it is the kind of work that wouldn’t be damaged by his going straight at the con job being run downtown right now. And really, it’s unlikely he would find much work in this town anyway (our best local talent hasn’t completed a project in Manhattan in twenty years). Though the Times stops well short of “Little Danny, unhappy at last” we should still be careful about painting him as the victim here.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
It wasn’t because of his diminutive stature, right?
You’ve all seen it, now prepare for the welter of meta-analysis. Since there are folks out there that do this better, I’m not going to delve too much into the reportage (except to say that even though this might be presumed to be another example of the reputed skills of Nina Libeskind, on balance, it is not the most flattering item, and there seems to have been little co-operation from the Libeskind camp). The one point where I think the piece could have really added to the dialog would have been providing a thorough recounting of how Libeskind was picked over the THINK team. The reason being is that Libeskind is given a great deal of credit for his ‘visionary’ approach, though the article notes (and is confirmed by an Port Authority mouthpiece) that his plan was formally the most consistent by the Beyer Blinder Belle concepts (which were presented as massing and site planning concepts only). I was not fan of the THINK proposal, but, after all the hand-wringing about dialog and the will of the people, the most popular design was cast aside (I have heard the Vinoly is even publishing a book of their entry to remind people of this slight). Perhaps we should look more critically at Libeskind’s intentions and actions. Given that most of his lamentedly discarded ‘visionary’ elements were either fabrications (the Wedge of Light) or near impossible (keeping the slurry wall exposed), it seems he provided little more than the charismatic sheen for a plan that was fait accompli. And he collected over $2 million dollars in the process. Given his propensity for speaking, if not bluntly, then at least with some rhetorical flourish, it is interesting how tempered his behavior is now. He has a large book of business elsewhere (indeed, after three decades, his economic propects are positively rosy), and it is the kind of work that wouldn’t be damaged by his going straight at the con job being run downtown right now. And really, it’s unlikely he would find much work in this town anyway (our best local talent hasn’t completed a project in Manhattan in twenty years). Though the Times stops well short of “Little Danny, unhappy at last” we should still be careful about painting him as the victim here.