August 28, 2006

© Steve Hall/Hedrich Blessing

David Childs, Daniel Libeskind, Michael Arad, and others have been at the center of attention as they continually redesign the components of the World Trade Center site. The scrutiny they face is immense, and no one knows that better than Chicago architect Carol Ross Barney, FAIA. The principal of Ross Barney Architects designed the federal building in Oklahoma City, replacing the Murrah Federal Building that was bombed in 1995. In this interview with RECORD, she discusses the challenges and pressures of rebuilding in the wake of terrorism and comments on the World Trade Center design process.

Based on your experience with the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, how do you respond to developments at the World Trade Center site?

There are a lot of similarities, some of them uncanny. I was just reading about the inability to attract tenants to Freedom Tower. The Murrah bombing created a market void for office space on that site. GSA had to persuade Federal tenants to move into our new building; it looks like government is going to step in and fill the market void [at the Freedom Tower]. For these buildings, the symbolism of the place overwhelms the functional role for which they are constructed, at least initially.

Did your client, the General Services Administration (GSA), encounter hesitancy in rebuilding the Federal Building?

The largest protest was from employees of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which was located in the Murrah and had the most casualties and fatalities. Some people were not emotionally comfortable being so close to the site of the bombing.

GSA is more distinct than the factions at the WTC site. Is that a key difference in the success of a project of this scope and attention?

In a way, Oklahoma City was more democratic. From the beginning of the design process, GSA provided an open forum for stakeholders, but no single stakeholder was able to override the process. GSA gave us a lot of latitude to address all parties and to explain why we were doing what we were doing. I think that promoted intelligent consideration of controversial issues like security, instead of knee-jerk solutions.

What type of pressure comes with a project of this scope? Any lessons you learned for moving through the obstacles and remaining true to your design vision?

The pressure is huge; it’s mostly emotional. We tried to concentrate on the long view and consider how our building would benefit and influence Oklahoma City in 5 years and in 50 years, rather than design to negate the latest threat or fear.

How did you deal with the spotlight when you were selected for the Oklahoma City project?

At first, it made me uncomfortable. But it did give me a forum to talk about design and the importance of livable environments. I had to set my defaults promoting that prime objective—i.e., good design is essential to life quality—because there’s a lot of clutter along the way.

What’s your opinion of the design of the Freedom Tower? Other buildings on the site?

Look at the base of Freedom tower. How does that add to the urban quality of the area? It’s not a friendly urban building. The police forced a solution according to their notion of threat. That unfortunate base is there because of what happened in Oklahoma City, a vehicle bomb parked near a building. And that has happened only once in recent history. What a price to pay for a single event! It is sad that this building doesn’t break any new ground about security design or make this intense land use more livable.

From what you have seen, are the designers of the buildings and memorial at the World Trade Center site incorporating the most effective means for a secure yet open and inviting place?

No, security design is not rational at all and it has limited effectiveness. If you did a cost-benefit analysis on security upgrades, the stuff doesn’t pay. The government standards are written to prevent another Oklahoma City, but a future terrorist attack is unlikely to be anything like Oklahoma City. “Open and inviting” always trump “secure” when you are talking of our cities. It creates secure.

John E. Czarnecki, Assoc. AIA