Without being tiresomely self-reflexive, I do think it’s necessary to preface this with a comment about pre-existing prejudices. I have never liked Calatrava’s work. His stature has grown exponentially over the past five years, and has been on a steady climb for considerably larger. When I first saw his work, as a student, I remember a certain amount of excitement about the synthesis of engineering and what I could best call a formal virility, or virtuosity. The daring and striking forms he created were accepted uncritically as presumably ‘well-engineered’, using the yardstick that fell somewhere between the proverbial ‘engineers aesthetic’ celebrated by Le Corbusier and an actual assessment of efficiency in material that was nonetheless dramatic. The historic antecedents would clearly be Nervi and perhaps Eiffel.
But I’ve never heard evidence that his work is actually an economic and engineering marvel using the strictest of standards. In other words, are his soaring structural members simply a fashionable gesture that inspires the additional ‘expense’ (be it literal or simply a more complex design or construction to accomplish his soaring feats)? I presume there is some economy, and allowed myself the grudging respect that he has mastered the difficult craft of engineering while also bringing a particular sensibility to the visual execution. I say particular because I’ve never found it particularly evocative, though many have (and, yes, that I don’t know the answers to these questions in a substantive way indicate a lack of scholarship, diligence and engineer expertise).
This overlong preface is to arrive at a point about subjective formalism. Because Calatrava is all about that, much like the other near universally lauded ‘master’ Frank Gehry. In Calatrava’s case, his possibly entirely arbitrary gestures are given more credence initially because they are presumed to be an efficient or rational solution that is also appealing. Though it seems that Gehry likewise can do pretty much anything and suffer little critical or popular resistance, his work still garners opposition. Though in the end we prefer our architects as unquestioned geniuses dispensing brilliance with élan, it can take some work to get there. Calatrava has skipped ahead of much of those trials by producing highly subjective forms legitimated via dubious functionality.
We are about to get a big dose of his soaring and whatnot forms as the PATH terminal at the WTC moves inexorably toward construction. The lack of opposition is stunning, considering the magnitude of the project, physically and economically, one that could be characterized as an infrastructure engineering failure, making the hosannas to Calatrava’s skills and the Port Authority’s vision in commissioning him all the more inexplicable.
How is it a failure? First and foremost, it does next to nothing to improve transit interconnections. Early rebuilding plans incorporated a truly visionary, but none to impressively visually, concept of an underground transit mall that would provide a single level transfer node among four train lines (maybe even an airport connector) and the PATH. Almost as soon as it was sketched, it was discarded, excused for being excessively expensive. While this was going on, a temporary station was constructed, and plans were made for a grandiose follow up, to the tune of over $2 billion, with no outwardly promoted improvements in access or circulation. Basically, it’s a $2 billion door. Taking a page from the PATH playbook, the MTA in jumped with their own $700 million turnstile over on Fulton Street. They are promising some improvements on subterranean circulation, but otherwise, expect a lot of glass atop the existing warren that is the Fulton Street Station.
The planning is so acontextual that it manages to proceed even as the other major elements at the site remain unresolved. It will need to connect to the Freedom Tower, whatever sort of underground plaza that is created, a large amount of retail that no one wants to show plans for, and, presumably, the Memorial. I would add also the tenants of eight million square feet of office space, but, well, there aren’t any right now. Regardless of how this might impact circulation, the plans seem to have proceeded with little deviance from the original concept. One that seems driven mostly by a single, dramatic gesture: a large room surmounted by two fins that spread an incremental amount so that they ‘open’ What this feature will add to the cost is worth knowing given how abbreviated its impact will be.
Most unfortunate of all is the preferred mode of expression for all this energy: repeating bilaterally symmetric concrete members that read like nothing besides ribs. Take a look at the rendering available at Calatrava’s site (requires QuickTime): if you don’t think ‘roof of bones’ immediately and repetitively, you are far more imaginative than I. I am not ascribing malicious intent, and find biomorphic forms off-putting in most executions (too many H.R. Giger drawings as a teen? Maybe.), but in a site as loaded as this one, it seems shockingly clumsy.
The spatial effects that are impressive are completely disconnected from the form. Three expansive levels, which do not read as formally logical in any way, and are best understood if you are familiar with the existing and former stations, appear to be impressively broad spaces. But they also lack any signage or evidence of retail, security or public amenities. This is not unusual for renderings, but if we are going to bother to put a clearly identifiable BMW 325 in the film, how about a Hudson News?
And it’s impossible to determine if there will be anything to the cavernous spaces (which the former WTC station could seem like, particularly in off-hours) besides acres of white that are hard to maintain, and disconnected commuters standing amidst organic lumps of concrete. Any time a large room is made in this town, it gets a certain amount of credit, but for every Grand Central Station, you also get a Winter Garden.
Atop the various platforms, which are sure to change in response to whatever the rebuilding plan looks like this week, is the money shot, the glass hat that looks like it crawled off the set of a Ridley Scott film. We should hold a glass hat competition just for fun. Grimshaw, Foster, hell, find Helmut Jahn, just for kicks. They can all take turns. It makes the ‘hairdresser’ dig from MVRDV (who know how to do an engineering marvel without resorting to the obvious) all the more prescient.
In many ways, this project is the canary in the coal mine, indicative of how the Port Authority really does operate: with an aristocratic mien, and one that favors the unilateral presumption of expertise, even when presented with obviously contrary information. There is little critical opposition to this project, in part because very little can stop it, and because the ‘glory’ of Calatrava’s gesture is being used to paper over possible complaint regarding the lack of vision in design from the PANYNJ over the past four decades. It’s amazing what you can get away with when you append ‘soaring’ to your story.
A few images from the Project Rebirth site (the balance can be found both there and at Calatrava’s site.)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
I don’t see how ‘roof of bones’ won’t be the inevitable epithet.
Without being tiresomely self-reflexive, I do think it’s necessary to preface this with a comment about pre-existing prejudices. I have never liked Calatrava’s work. His stature has grown exponentially over the past five years, and has been on a steady climb for considerably larger. When I first saw his work, as a student, I remember a certain amount of excitement about the synthesis of engineering and what I could best call a formal virility, or virtuosity. The daring and striking forms he created were accepted uncritically as presumably ‘well-engineered’, using the yardstick that fell somewhere between the proverbial ‘engineers aesthetic’ celebrated by Le Corbusier and an actual assessment of efficiency in material that was nonetheless dramatic. The historic antecedents would clearly be Nervi and perhaps Eiffel.
But I’ve never heard evidence that his work is actually an economic and engineering marvel using the strictest of standards. In other words, are his soaring structural members simply a fashionable gesture that inspires the additional ‘expense’ (be it literal or simply a more complex design or construction to accomplish his soaring feats)? I presume there is some economy, and allowed myself the grudging respect that he has mastered the difficult craft of engineering while also bringing a particular sensibility to the visual execution. I say particular because I’ve never found it particularly evocative, though many have (and, yes, that I don’t know the answers to these questions in a substantive way indicate a lack of scholarship, diligence and engineer expertise). This overlong preface is to arrive at a point about subjective formalism. Because Calatrava is all about that, much like the other near universally lauded ‘master’ Frank Gehry. In Calatrava’s case, his possibly entirely arbitrary gestures are given more credence initially because they are presumed to be an efficient or rational solution that is also appealing. Though it seems that Gehry likewise can do pretty much anything and suffer little critical or popular resistance, his work still garners opposition. Though in the end we prefer our architects as unquestioned geniuses dispensing brilliance with élan, it can take some work to get there. Calatrava has skipped ahead of much of those trials by producing highly subjective forms legitimated via dubious functionality. We are about to get a big dose of his soaring and whatnot forms as the PATH terminal at the WTC moves inexorably toward construction. The lack of opposition is stunning, considering the magnitude of the project, physically and economically, one that could be characterized as an infrastructure engineering failure, making the hosannas to Calatrava’s skills and the Port Authority’s vision in commissioning him all the more inexplicable. How is it a failure? First and foremost, it does next to nothing to improve transit interconnections. Early rebuilding plans incorporated a truly visionary, but none to impressively visually, concept of an underground transit mall that would provide a single level transfer node among four train lines (maybe even an airport connector) and the PATH. Almost as soon as it was sketched, it was discarded, excused for being excessively expensive. While this was going on, a temporary station was constructed, and plans were made for a grandiose follow up, to the tune of over $2 billion, with no outwardly promoted improvements in access or circulation. Basically, it’s a $2 billion door. Taking a page from the PATH playbook, the MTA in jumped with their own $700 million turnstile over on Fulton Street. They are promising some improvements on subterranean circulation, but otherwise, expect a lot of glass atop the existing warren that is the Fulton Street Station. The planning is so acontextual that it manages to proceed even as the other major elements at the site remain unresolved. It will need to connect to the Freedom Tower, whatever sort of underground plaza that is created, a large amount of retail that no one wants to show plans for, and, presumably, the Memorial. I would add also the tenants of eight million square feet of office space, but, well, there aren’t any right now. Regardless of how this might impact circulation, the plans seem to have proceeded with little deviance from the original concept. One that seems driven mostly by a single, dramatic gesture: a large room surmounted by two fins that spread an incremental amount so that they ‘open’ What this feature will add to the cost is worth knowing given how abbreviated its impact will be. Most unfortunate of all is the preferred mode of expression for all this energy: repeating bilaterally symmetric concrete members that read like nothing besides ribs. Take a look at the rendering available at Calatrava’s site (requires QuickTime): if you don’t think ‘roof of bones’ immediately and repetitively, you are far more imaginative than I. I am not ascribing malicious intent, and find biomorphic forms off-putting in most executions (too many H.R. Giger drawings as a teen? Maybe.), but in a site as loaded as this one, it seems shockingly clumsy. The spatial effects that are impressive are completely disconnected from the form. Three expansive levels, which do not read as formally logical in any way, and are best understood if you are familiar with the existing and former stations, appear to be impressively broad spaces. But they also lack any signage or evidence of retail, security or public amenities. This is not unusual for renderings, but if we are going to bother to put a clearly identifiable BMW 325 in the film, how about a Hudson News? And it’s impossible to determine if there will be anything to the cavernous spaces (which the former WTC station could seem like, particularly in off-hours) besides acres of white that are hard to maintain, and disconnected commuters standing amidst organic lumps of concrete. Any time a large room is made in this town, it gets a certain amount of credit, but for every Grand Central Station, you also get a Winter Garden. Atop the various platforms, which are sure to change in response to whatever the rebuilding plan looks like this week, is the money shot, the glass hat that looks like it crawled off the set of a Ridley Scott film. We should hold a glass hat competition just for fun. Grimshaw, Foster, hell, find Helmut Jahn, just for kicks. They can all take turns. It makes the ‘hairdresser’ dig from MVRDV (who know how to do an engineering marvel without resorting to the obvious) all the more prescient. In many ways, this project is the canary in the coal mine, indicative of how the Port Authority really does operate: with an aristocratic mien, and one that favors the unilateral presumption of expertise, even when presented with obviously contrary information. There is little critical opposition to this project, in part because very little can stop it, and because the ‘glory’ of Calatrava’s gesture is being used to paper over possible complaint regarding the lack of vision in design from the PANYNJ over the past four decades. It’s amazing what you can get away with when you append ‘soaring’ to your story. A few images from the Project Rebirth site (the balance can be found both there and at Calatrava’s site.)