YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections


Compromise versus vision?

Winning the World Trade Center design contest was only round one. Now Daniel Libeskind must fight to preserve the integrity of his ground zero plan.

March 01, 2003|Nicolai Ouroussoff | Times Staff Writer

If you think this week's announcement that Studio Daniel Libeskind has been selected to redesign the World Trade Center site is a victory for architecture, you are partly right.

Libeskind's design was chosen over a proposal by Think, a team led by Rafael Vinoly, Frederic Schwartz and Shigeru Ban. And of the two finalists' proposals, Libeskind's was the more promising. When it was unveiled in December, Libeskind's scheme seemed to capture the complexity of a site layered with contradictory meanings.

Its central concept -- the creation of a dense cluster of faceted towers anchored by a vast memorial pit -- embodied the dual themes of memory and resurrection that could potentially imbue the development with genuine symbolic resonance.

But the design selected by the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. was not the same design that was unveiled to the public. Both teams were forced to significantly revise their proposals to meet conditions set by the development corporation and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

In the process, both projects lost a great deal of conceptual clarity. The results were timid, polite versions of the original designs.

Those who care about architecture may take solace in the fact that Libeskind's design is not final. Officials, for example, have yet to settle on the site's specific cultural components. Once they do, it remains unclear which buildings Libeskind will get to design. But more important, the competition process has demonstrated the degree to which political considerations still threaten to compromise the creation of any strong architectural statement at ground zero.

Libeskind is essentially the survivor of an architectural competition that ranks among the most contentious in American history. The political jockeying began last July, when the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. unveiled the first six proposals for the site. Those designs -- a banal collection of pseudo-traditional schemes designed by the architectural firm Beyer Binder Belle -- were met with widespread public derision.

Since then, the development corporation has struggled to prove that it is willing to invest in first-rate design. The selection process took a promising turn in September, when the agency launched a limited competition that included many of the world's most celebrated architectural talents. The agency narrowed the field to the two finalists in early February.

At some point during this final round, however, the process seems to have reverted to politics as usual. Both teams faced often hostile public scrutiny. Both became well-versed in the skills of self-promotion. Meanwhile, they have spent endless hours adapting their designs to satisfy the concerns of city, state, development corporation and Port Authority officials. The architecture suffered.

In Libeskind's initial scheme, for example, the site was anchored by a vast 6-acre void that descended 70 feet into the ground, exposing both the concrete slurry wall that protected the site from the Hudson River and the bedrock on which the city rests. A museum, enclosed within a shimmering glass-and-steel cube, would hover over the void's northeast corner.

Opponents of the plan have attacked the void as a morbid reference to the past -- a gigantic tomb for the nearly 3,000 dead. In fact, the void's power stemmed from the ambiguity of its meaning. The exposed bedrock, according to Libeskind, is meant to represent the foundations of American democracy. The slurry wall acts as a metaphor for the moral strength needed to support those values. As the country marches toward war, the void also conjures a more chilling image: It serves as a reminder that Sept. 11 was also the moment at which America began to aggressively defend its interests through military means.

But to accommodate the Port Authority's demand for several levels of underground bus parking, Libeskind was forced to reduce the depth of the void to a mere 30 feet. Libeskind sought to preserve the idea of exposing the bedrock by creating a smaller trench -- this one the length of a football field -- at one corner of the memorial space. He has also added a slender glass wall along the footprint of the former north tower, allowing light to spill into the concourse below. Nonetheless, the overall effect is subdued. The meaning of the original gesture is at risk of being entirely lost.

In another significant compromise, Libeskind had to increase the required commercial space in the towers from 7.25 million square feet to 8.25 million. The bulkier towers lack the slim elegance of the originals. Instead, they share an uncanny resemblance to the World Financial Center across West Street, an unimaginative cluster of 1980s-era corporate office buildings. What is more, the new towers threaten to dwarf the wedge-like parks that carve through the plan and are one of its most dynamic features.

Los Angeles Times Articles