I’m not going to write about the design of the Freedom Tower. It’s not because I’m resigned or too depressed. Rather, plenty has been written, and penning my own diatribe would be redundant, when Adam Greenfield and Nicolai Ouroussoff have done the job so well. But yesterday’s presentation serves as the best interim site plan available in some time, effectively displaying the myopic vision of the LMDC, and underscores a few questions that are unaddressed by the limits of the rendering.
First, I have to wonder about the untorquing of the tower and its relocation. The major concern over security was vulnerability to a vehicular bomb attack, and thusly was the tower ‘set back’ 90 feet. Except that 90 feet is the average. Tell me, do you think a truck bomb attack will be effected statistically? The nearest distance is the only one that matters, and so the building is set back 65 feet, not 90. And the restored Fulton Street runs directly in front of the south entrance, and, presumably, Vesey on the north, meaning the building is not set back at all. Presumably these streets will be vehicular access controlled — the current master plan available from the LMDC is, well, an exercise in irony at this point (look at the cover shot for my reasoning), and provides little clarification. So either the streets are not being restored for traffic, or the site need not be moved back 90 feet, since the hardening of the base was satisfactory for security purposes. Why the previous incarnation could not have simply been wrapped in a layer of concrete I don’t understand.
One useful bit of detail is the consistent representation of the additional office towers, which are shown in all their useless glory. As a presentation convention they are show in faceless grey, which is apropos, since that is probably as interesting as they will get and are likely to remain empty. But what is important is to note how they, with the Millennium Hilton, affect the PATH station. The site overall is not as Cartesian as one might think – the convention is to make Vesey Street a true East-West axis, when in fact it is offset some 30 degrees. This, along with the bulk of the adjacent towers, means the amount of direct light available will be far less than the sunny renderings Calatrava prepared, and perhaps the dingy atmosphere implied in this rendering, which was done to foreground the Freedom Tower, may be close to accurate.
And no one is talking about the amorphous, squat form squoze into the space bounded by the Lack of Freedom Center, the Freedom Tower, and Freedom Tower 2 (has anyone considered nomenclature? Since the outlying buildings at the WTC were WTC2, WTC3, etc, can’t we expect the same here? Maybe it should be the Freedom Plaza), which is ostensibly Performing Arts Center. Considering its budget woes, a possibly recalcitrant Ghery and the recent announcement that HUAC will be reformed to curate all the cultural facilities, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was nixed altogether. I mean, the Joyce Theater might want to stage The Crucible or something similarly anti-American. It’s also interesting that even though one of the stated challenges was fitting such a large and complex program into the envelope -– the previously more prominent siting, if my recollection is correct, mandated it –- but now that it’s pretty much the loading dock of the Freedom Tower, why not allow a larger volume? It’s not like you will be obstructing any views from the Freedom Tower. Or 7WTC, which sports it own bunker base (and ironic inversion of Giuliani’s $15 million aerie).
All of which leads me to a rather gruesome and blunt question. I know everyone is worried about the appeal of the FT as a terrorist target. Since it’s been rechristened in a less megalomaniacal way (though, certainly, no less incorrectly), perhaps it will be less appealing. But if one were a terrorist who was being more pragmatic or interested in symbolism (or had just watched The Siege), wouldn’t the collective, $4 billion worth of glittering art and hope — in the form of the Performing Arts Center, the Memorial, the Freedom Center and the PATH station — surrounding the Freedom Tower present targets just as attractive and effective? Or are we going to wrap the entire site in a 200-foot concrete wall? Or the island? The country?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.
I’m not going to write about the design of the Freedom Tower. It’s not because I’m resigned or too depressed. Rather, plenty has been written, and penning my own diatribe would be redundant, when Adam Greenfield and Nicolai Ouroussoff have done the job so well. But yesterday’s presentation serves as the best interim site plan available in some time, effectively displaying the myopic vision of the LMDC, and underscores a few questions that are unaddressed by the limits of the rendering.
First, I have to wonder about the untorquing of the tower and its relocation. The major concern over security was vulnerability to a vehicular bomb attack, and thusly was the tower ‘set back’ 90 feet. Except that 90 feet is the average. Tell me, do you think a truck bomb attack will be effected statistically? The nearest distance is the only one that matters, and so the building is set back 65 feet, not 90. And the restored Fulton Street runs directly in front of the south entrance, and, presumably, Vesey on the north, meaning the building is not set back at all. Presumably these streets will be vehicular access controlled — the current master plan available from the LMDC is, well, an exercise in irony at this point (look at the cover shot for my reasoning), and provides little clarification. So either the streets are not being restored for traffic, or the site need not be moved back 90 feet, since the hardening of the base was satisfactory for security purposes. Why the previous incarnation could not have simply been wrapped in a layer of concrete I don’t understand. One useful bit of detail is the consistent representation of the additional office towers, which are shown in all their useless glory. As a presentation convention they are show in faceless grey, which is apropos, since that is probably as interesting as they will get and are likely to remain empty. But what is important is to note how they, with the Millennium Hilton, affect the PATH station. The site overall is not as Cartesian as one might think – the convention is to make Vesey Street a true East-West axis, when in fact it is offset some 30 degrees. This, along with the bulk of the adjacent towers, means the amount of direct light available will be far less than the sunny renderings Calatrava prepared, and perhaps the dingy atmosphere implied in this rendering, which was done to foreground the Freedom Tower, may be close to accurate. And no one is talking about the amorphous, squat form squoze into the space bounded by the Lack of Freedom Center, the Freedom Tower, and Freedom Tower 2 (has anyone considered nomenclature? Since the outlying buildings at the WTC were WTC2, WTC3, etc, can’t we expect the same here? Maybe it should be the Freedom Plaza), which is ostensibly Performing Arts Center. Considering its budget woes, a possibly recalcitrant Ghery and the recent announcement that HUAC will be reformed to curate all the cultural facilities, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was nixed altogether. I mean, the Joyce Theater might want to stage The Crucible or something similarly anti-American. It’s also interesting that even though one of the stated challenges was fitting such a large and complex program into the envelope -– the previously more prominent siting, if my recollection is correct, mandated it –- but now that it’s pretty much the loading dock of the Freedom Tower, why not allow a larger volume? It’s not like you will be obstructing any views from the Freedom Tower. Or 7WTC, which sports it own bunker base (and ironic inversion of Giuliani’s $15 million aerie). All of which leads me to a rather gruesome and blunt question. I know everyone is worried about the appeal of the FT as a terrorist target. Since it’s been rechristened in a less megalomaniacal way (though, certainly, no less incorrectly), perhaps it will be less appealing. But if one were a terrorist who was being more pragmatic or interested in symbolism (or had just watched The Siege), wouldn’t the collective, $4 billion worth of glittering art and hope — in the form of the Performing Arts Center, the Memorial, the Freedom Center and the PATH station — surrounding the Freedom Tower present targets just as attractive and effective? Or are we going to wrap the entire site in a 200-foot concrete wall? Or the island? The country?