The unveiling of the eight finalists for the WTC Memorial was met with a range of reactions, from inspired and pleased to underwhelmed and disappointed. The NY Times has had excellent coverage of the competition and they have a special section on the Memorial. Times architecture critic Herbert Muschamp gives his assessment both in print and in an audio slide slow: Muschamp credits the WTC memorial competition staff for running the competition well and the jurors for not only insulating themselves from the heated politics, but also for choosing young designers. However, he feels the designs are "overproduced," but there is potential in a few designs, it would be better to err on the side of simplicity. He suggests that we're still too close to September 11 to really digest what a memorial should be like. His favorites, though both are busy, are Suspending Memory and Reflecting Absence, which both use water but in inverted ways.
greg.org does a Google search on the 8 finalists for the competition in his WTC memorial discussion.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
yo! fix that link!!
:)
Augh! Fixed! Thanks.
i noticed water as a recurring motif in quite a few of the submissions and was puzzled as to what it had to do with sept 11. seems like a bit of a stretch...
Water and light were two popular motifs in the work, and both have very strong symbolic meanings. Water can mean restoration, rejuvenation, rebirth; light can be associated with life, reckoning, potential... Also the physical properties of water - reflection, movement - can give added dimensions to projects.
I agree with Mr. Muschamp's assessment: many, if not all, are "overproduced." I haven't read his article, so I can't bounce off from there, but I know from the the Vietnam War memorial that simple elements of design give the visitor an opportunity for reflection rather than education, or, in so doing, both allows reflection and teaches the visitor about the enormity of the various tragedies. It's a hard line to cross -- whether to be so esoteric as to avoid any link with the actual event, and whether to be so factual that the visitor loses any opportunity to personalize the space.
I think the WTC Memorial should stay away from hackneyed symbols: water as life, mirror as self-reflection, yadda yadda yadda. The memorial must be somber, accessible, and non-academic. My suggestion (and it is indeed quite a humble one) would be to go as Zen as possible, make it a spiritual place where you will be reminded not of the architecture that represents the trajedy, but of the trajedy itself.
Paris, you hit the nail on the head. Simple is good. The power of the Vietnam memorial is its lack of gizmos and distractions- allowing each individual to react in an individual way. Also, gizmos (water fountains, LEDs, all those hackneyed things) break and cost a lot to maintain. How is going to look when the LED lighting your Dad's/freind's/Some stranger's name has gone out? Or the reflecting pool has algae or is otherwise broken? There is a reason people used to carve memorials in stone.
I also agree that they are overproduced. I think it needs to be simple and monolithic.
Maybe gothamist needs a category just for emo glasses.
Any memorial beats the dumbass thing Somerset County NJ has planned for Somerville: a clock tower in the center of town, with a steel pole from the World Trade Center towers underneath, and called "a time to remember".
While people around the immediate area have been reflecting on how to do this right, people out in the far suburbs have been grabbing for pieces of the gravesite, like some goal post after the big game . . .
As a participant in the competition (reject pile), I have been involved in this project since 2002, when I first started working on a design.
My suggestion is to evaluate the finalists by comparing them to the temporary memorial Tribute in Light. I was in NYC when it was lit up for the first time. Everyone around me was awed by its simplicity and beauty. I was hoping to see something equally extraordinary that captured 9/11 in its totality, yet without beating you over the head with a programmed message. Regretably, I did not see anything comparable.
I am concerned that in the rush to build something, they will build something that does not age well. I hope they take time to pause, go back through the reject pile (the Sydney Opera house languished in the reject pile until one of the jurors spotted it). With 5,193 rejects, there are surely some that attempt to do something more than create a soothing place for grieving.
If there aren't, then perhaps they should simply turn it into a simple open space, give the families a place to go, and try again in a year or so. The competition started only 18 months after the attacks, so we need time to put all of this in perspective.
I'm not sure if anyone is thinking about the logistics of some of those memorials. For example, how does one change a burned-outlightbulb without causing a disruption? Or should we just let the bulb stay unlit, which would look really bad and be insulting to that ulit person's family?
And those pools of water--imagine how dirty and algae-filled they're going to get. People are going to piss and shit in there. Or those waterfalls--if I were homeless, the WTC memorial would look like one giant bedet.
I'm kinda surprised that no one has thought about the fact that even erecting a memorial is kind of acknowledging the efforts of the terrorists. Not that we should IN ANY WAY forget the lives of the victims and officers/firefighters, but it kind of seems to play into the hands of the attackers by making the site important as a result of their destructive efforts. Maybe what I'm saying is too left field to be understood the way I'm trying to get this across. Anyway, I would prefer they just build a new WTC area, and put the memorial somewhere else in manhattan. Putting it right on the site kind of feels like giving the terrorists some sick sort of defacto medal.
“We’ve got to think about it from the point of view of a soaring, beautiful memorial” - Mayor Rudolph W. Guiliani: farewell address at St.Paul’s Chapel, Manhattan: 12/27/2001.
Eight designs -- no soaring memorial. In fact, none of the designs rise above street level and all embrace the concept of the void -- the opposite of “soaring.”
The language of Maya Lin-minimalism was appropriate for the Vietnam Memorial. However, reductive "nothingness" does not speak to 9/11 and this site, now or 100 years in the future.
The public deserves to see more proposals from the 5201 submissions, and then be provided more choices. Here is one that the public has not seen: a soaring fountain symbolic of the Twin Towers, Pentagon and Shanksville, PA.: http://www.endurancememorial.com