Rebuilding the World Trade Center.

The case for RoTo Architecture’s design proposal.

“Un fastidio sottile mi procura il vedere pubblicate numerose proposte sul "come ed il perché" ricostruire il World Trade Center. Non me ne vogliano i progettisti, ma mi sembra alquanto fuori luogo in questo momento dare sfogo alle proprie idee prendendo a campione un luogo che non ha ancora finito di curarsi le ferite morali, ben più gravi di quelle materiali.”

From “Speer a Kabul”, storia e critica by Paolo G.L. Ferrara, published in Antithesi, Giornale di critica dell'a architettura.

There have been many proposals about the reutilization/rebuilding of ground zero.Some are official, but also a lot of citizens from around the world have expressed their wishes, suggestions and even designs.After the tragedies of 9/11 a need for a memorial arises, something that reminds us of the void, the absence. Something has been taken away from the city.A space that needs to be regained but also emptiness to reminds us of the loss. In several of these projects this is accomplished by leaving an actual void or building "wire frame" or "placeholder" versions of the towers. Brian Perla in New York, Larry Purtell in Irving, Texas ,David Brick in New York, Leopoldo Padron in Morris Plains, New Jersey, and most notably Jason Freeny in New York  submitted designs for CNN's "Your Proposal" special[i],  expressing this need.One can witness how the desire to respect the space where so many died is constantly struggling with the urge to build over it. Also on CNN it is possible to access the WTC official rebuilding plans, on 2D and 3D representations[ii]. Although these six official designs also follow the philosophy of leaving the actual footprint of the towers relatively untouched and virtually clear of above-the-ground structures, and a couple also feature "wire frame" hollow structures, they are certainly very austere and logical, but none of them expresses the needs of the people in NY and the world for a statement of some kind to be achieved through these proposed new buildings.The Lower Manhattan development corporation (LMDC), established after the attack, offers more on the official plans, along with the Port Authority[iii].

The towers made a statement by themselves, much to the chagrin of their creator, Minoru Yamasaki, who was ambivalent regarding this matter.Should he be alive nowadays, he would be taking a lot of heat.

 

The original World Trade Center was completed in 1973. Its two towers were, albeit for a brief period of time, the tallest buildings in the world. Their creator, Mr. Yamasaki, was a second generation Japanese American, who studied architecture during the great depression of the 1930’s. He “achieved fame in the late 1950s with his sensuous, textile-like structures”[iv].

Yamasaki’s take on architecture was full of contradictions, at first his work was of a minimalist tone, believing that "The purpose of architecture is to create an atmosphere in which man can live, work, and enjoy"[v].Yet he undertook the epic adventure of building the towers, that were instantly criticized for being “urbanistically irresponsible” and “no longer appropriate to convey world power and wealth (Previously they had attacked his work as too "dainty")”[vi].He also declared that the "…grandeur, the elements of mysticism and power, basic to cathedrals and palaces, are also incongruous today, because the buildings we build for our times are for a totally different purpose."[vii].

 

The towers were indeed a symbol of wealth and certainly represented the city’s identity. Lourdes Lluy, a tourist, remembers: “The towers where a self contained universe. With their underground shopping mall, multiple transportation channels converging on them, they were a city within the city.” She also recalls not being impressed by the towers as she stood by their feet.“They weren’t a big deal, looking up from the ground, actually not such a nice building at all. But from the top it was a whole different story.”

Besides the need to replace such a symbol, there is also the challenge to reconstruct one of the most dysfunctional neighborhoods in the world.In this area of town, small businesses can no longer survive. Many have closed their doors. Restaurants with an average 150 patrons now have near none.The economic and social implications cannot be ignored, as many people agree that a project as big as the world trade center could not be cost-effective or successful on today's economy.

So the question is: Can it be done? That is, should the towers be rebuilt?Who would want to return in that case?Many firms have already relocated on other parts of Manhattan and even outside the city. Residential grants are being proposed by the LMDC, offering up to two years of 30% off monthly rent grants. Also small firms attraction and retention grants are in consideration, plus a technical services assistance grants program, taxes relief (liberty zone tax benefits) and the WTC Business Recovery Loan Program.One wonders, besides these economic incentives, if anyone would live there knowing they could be potential sitting ducks.Regardless (or perhaps because of) these facts, the official schedule is to have a final draft on the plans by 12/02.

There is for the rest of the world, and I hope for many Americans too, the necessity of reflecting on why the attack happened, and certainly on the events that led to it.It was so big that it can’t be blamed on a senseless act of terrorism.It was retaliation. To deny it, although understandable, is not healthy.The actions of the United States government and its foreign policy throughout the years are inescapably a part of the explanation.One could argue on what did the innocent persons working inside the towers had to do with any of that.Well, from the viewpoint of the rest of the world, they were the main beneficiaries from those politics and from the damages inflicted to their nations. The towers were the beacon of western culture.Social consciousness is not only here to be used in a moment of need or to be yielded as a grant to claim insurance money from the disaster, but also to help us define the future, to be reflected at the moment of voting, exercising the only power we have in a democracy. The attack was, I presume, to insufflate the American society with the realization of the effect its hegemony has on the rest of the world. American citizens now know they can’t, under any pretense, live their lives ignorant of these facts.

The RoTo project, exposed on the Max Protecht gallery on 02/02 alongside many other excellent others, symbolizes for me the perfect thing to build on the site of the WTC. It has provoked dissimilar reactions in those who have seen it, but never indifference:

“…the RoTo Architects' submission looks like the mutant child of an M.C. Escher painting and a classical Greek amphitheatre.”[viii]

“Of the architectural proposals included in the recent exhibition at Max Protecht, I felt that the one by RoTo architects had the most to offer as a realistic proposal in scale and tone.”[ix]

“In a similar effort to immortalize ground zero, the design from RoTo Architects transforms the subterranean disaster pit into an amphitheater.”[x]

“The project presented at the Max Protecht gallery by the firm of RoTo is another example of void and memory in architecture.Does the void and its representative size act as a cue that can stir the memory?”[xi]

This project has been inspired, according to their creators, among other things, on the shape of an orphic egg, a symbol of rebirth and also of learning from our own mistakes. Its design contours the shape of a “hand” containing ground zero, therefore expressing perfectly the emptiness and the void created by the attack and the absence of the towers and, in my opinion, additionally depicting the innocence lost. The result could be, hopefully, a constant reminder that people should weigh on the outcome of their actions and a meaningful spiritual memorial for those heroes who saved many lives and died courageously on the service. Most importantly, a memorial for the living, the survivors: it would give citizens a space to honor their loved ones.

RoTo also designed the Nagasaki memorial, along with many other beautiful and functional buildings.

Finally we are faced again with the concept of scope and size: Yamasaki had a lot of contradictions on this.His initial minimalist style was later replaced by the construction of huge buildings (both in size and meaning) and ferociously criticized. This should be taken on consideration while pondering on possible designs for the area. The risk of going overboard is still there, echoing on the scale of the attack itself.

The final and most sensible advice is, ironically, Yamasaki’s:

"Buildings should not awe and impress, but rather, serve as a thoughtful background for the activities of contemporary man.”[xii].

 

 

Pedro D’Ardis.

Buenos Aires, Argentina. September 12 2002.