03/04/02 – 2:42 am
A new Hungarian arhitectural Web page

Welcome everybody ! I'm from hungary. If anybody is interested in the hungarian architect, please visit www.builders.hu. It is not a commercial page, there are many news, stories and many good links like that. Only Hungarian language. Thanks all.

Jimhun

12/19/02 – 10:41 pm
Why don't we create a greenspace?

think Frei Otto's idea has potential: instead of creating another building to choke the skyline and obscure the horizon, why not create a greenspace geared toward contemplation? After all, there are enough towers full of offices where people spend a full third of their adult lives-there should also be a place where one can escape the cramped spaces of office buildings and appreciate the beauty of nature.

Why not put some architectural insight into the creation of a relaxation space; a place to go where one can feel the peace that exists in the world, not the battle which tries to hide it?

Robinson Thompson rob1nson@tbaytel.net
Thunder Bay, ON

09/18/02 –1:31 am
where can I see all of the wtc proposals ???

is there an exhibit being held somewhere in NY??

Marc Aparicio marcaparicio@yahoo.com

09/02/02 –8:25 am
What should be done at Ground Zero?

I have looked at some of the prospective designs and disapprove of some as they appear to be the typical architectural ramblings one sees on a day to day basis.

The few that struck a chord were by Michael Sorkin ( which is my favourite ), Frei Otto, but particularly the sentiments made by Daniel Libeskind.

There can be no guaranteed safety in tall buildings any longer. What you need is space - lots of it - to contemplate, reflect and most importantly, remember.

I love NYC, but you wonderful people disappear into the grey masses all too easily. Create a "green" area which will exist for a reason to be enjoyed by all, even me!

It is easier to cut grass than re-build a monolith.

Steve Brady steve.brady@nats.co.uk
Troon, Scotland.

08/07/02 –2:54 pm
Another WTC Proposal

I am not an architect, nor am I a developer, a marketer or a loud mouth. I'm your average New Yorker, an Ironworker at that. I do understand that architecture is the art of engineering. I do understand the need of an open discussion on the WTC proposals, however there are some concerns I have with the process.

It seems to me, while perusing your page with the new designs, that there are several proposals, which a vast majority of people would agree, are either unbuildable, unrealistic, or out right ugly.

It is my opnion that the "artists" of these designs, knowing their drawings are not at all realistic, have their own agenda, and therefore are trying to capitalize upon a human tradgedy.

I would hope your site could filter out such "artwork" so that all of your readers could begin to debate the merits of the mainstream proposals.

Chris
NYC

08/03/02 – 6:05 pm

For the last 6 months I've been following the planning guidelines, design debates, and comments in this particular section of Record, regarding rebuilding the WTC site, and what strikes me most is the relative absence of really imaginative, global vision. The public responded so badly to the six design proposals for the simple and obvious reason that such a project requires the "vision thing." But among today's generation of architects and urbanists the vision thing seems in short supply.

Not merely the six 'official' proposals are at fault here. Take a look at the supposedly more creative, speculative proposals offered by currently "hot" architects, exhibited by the Max Protetch gallery in January/February of this year (you can see them all here). With only a few exceptions, none of these projects get to the core of the issue.

The World Trade Center WAS ATTACKED. And the WTC was attacked for a very, very simple reason: it was a SYMBOL. It was a symbol that meant something. In only a few of the proposals did the architects address this issue in a somewhat indirect way. For instance, read Zaha Hadid's short, elegant description of the cultural and economic context (the post-war Long Boom) that lead to the construction of the original WTC.

But like many of the other architects exhibiting, it's clear that Hadid is profoundly ambivelant about both the sociological-functional, hermetic aspect of the traditional skyscraper, and so too she appears ambivalent about the confident post-war, neo-imperialist capitalist culture that produced skyscrapers like the WTC.

In fact, it seems as if almost ALL the architects exhibiting shared this ambivalence. Furthermore, it seems apparent from the six 'official' design proposals presented by the Lower Manhatten Development Corporation, that even some very powerful business and political figures in New York are equally ambivelant. Which means - yes, follow the bitter logic through.... Which means that many, if not most intellectuals, businessmen, politicians, etc. ALSO do not believe in the values, or the worldview, symbolized by the old WTC.

Which means that, at some vague level that I would never be so rash as to precisely specify, many Western intellectuals, architects among them, and and figures of authority actually AGREE with the anti-modernist outlook (if not the methods) of the terrorists.

And so, as so many of those posting to this site state, the designs say it all: the terrorists have won. They have won because the modern West is no longer an optimistic, vibrant civilization, and can therefore no longer produce buildings like the original WTC towers, nor can it dream up equally confident replacements.

But why should anyone feign surprise? For decades now Western culture has been saturated with skeptical postmodernism, usually anti-modernist and relativist in tone, if not explicitly so in detail. The connections between postmodern relativism, political conservatism in international relations, support for illiberal regimes, and toleration of oppressive practices in the Arab world, all of this has been explored at length in Haideh Moghissi's superb short book, Feminism and Islamic fundamentalism : the limits of postmodern analysis. If as Lyotard claims, we are now a civilization that has lost all faith in metanarratives, in particular the modernist, Enlightenment metanarrative of global peace and prosperity through science, technology, trade, and capitalism, then our vunerability as a civilization is more than merely military.

It is absolutely obvious that for the terrorists the World Trade Center symbolized this metanarrative. It is absolutely clear that they see this metanarrative as a profound threat to their way of life. Do we agree with them? Do we still have the courage to say, as Moghissi thinks we should, that some aspects of their traditional way of life SHOULD be questioned, should be threatened, by Enlightenment liberalism? And if we don't have the courage to say this, do we have any right to rebuild at all?

So how about this as a new design brief for the WTC site:

What did the old WTC represent? How could a new complex of buildings on the site re-interpret and re-invigorate its symbology?

And yes, this would mean taking MODERNISM seriously again. It would mean taking seriously the global, universalist aspirations of modernism to create a planetary society based on peace, trade, and prosperity for all.

As one of the previous commentators remarked, Why have none of the monument proposals adressed the multinational nature of the tragedy? People from over 50 nations died in this tragedy... And yet not one of the designs alluded to the planet, the globe.

If 6 months from now architects and planners still present trite, safe post-modernist pastiches, none of them boldly embracing and celebrating the modernist, confident prometheanism which built the World Trade Center in the first place, then one thing will definitely be certain: THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON.

Laurence Koppe
Paris, France

07/17/02 – 11:47 am
simila replica

The city looks awkward someone.. we need something with atleast a similar replica of the old WTC...

ken
nyc

06/27/02 – 6:13 pm
WTC

The designer on the wtc2002 site has some good ideas, but it looks like it came straight out of sim city. A gawdy expression of this type is nothing but an insult to the nearly 3000 innocent people that were murdered that day. Nothing of the type will ever(hopefully) be built.

Rebuilding the towers in their pre-existing(or similair state) is not the answer either. This would only dismiss the fact that September 11th even happened

I've just recently started looking through projects, and this one imho is VERY promising: www.maxprotetch.com/SITE/PREVIOUS/ANEWWTC/1100/

L. Johnson
3rd yr. Arch. student, USA