Americans will never forget the violent tragedy of September 11th, but over time, memories will dull and the new skyline will become familiar. Of course we must all move on with life, yet the notion of the site becoming another bland office complex with a predictably restrained memorial is also tragic.
I've heard many ideas from prominent architects and average New Yorkers. The two most bold concepts, elegant in their simplicity, are to leave the site a blank scar or to rebuild the towers exactly as they were. My issue with the first point is the void on the skyline will not be a void to future generations. Something must represent the space left by the twin towers. The second point is striking. Certainly the Eiffel Tower or Chrysler building would be rebuilt without hesitation. In my mind, the World Trade Center is of equal beauty and significance, but the practical issues are considerable. Who would want to work there? Would it be doomed to repeat history?
The fact remains that office space in lower Manhattan is in high demand. Any new development must take this into consideration. However, the proposal to build a cluster of 400 to 600 foot towers is nothing short of an injustice to the victims and an admission of defeat. Then how do we properly represent the loss of over 5000 lives and two of the world's greatest buildings, while addressing the practical needs of the financial district and not putting more lives in danger?
I believe the most important aspect to any memorial/redevelopment is that it must occupy the precise volume of the original towers. This will be the symbol America and the free international community needs to properly pay tribute to the victims, the former buildings, and to the spirit which brought the World Trade Center into existence 30 years ago. Secondly, it must recover most of the office space and services so needed in lower Manhattan. Third, it must be designed for the future. Lessons learned over the past 30 years, and especially on September 11th need to be considered.
The proposal here is an outline. The architectural styling, engineering, etc. is simply to provide a vehicle for the concept.
1) Two glowing white cubes to occupy the exact space of the top floors of towers 1 and 2. Built on top of an airy superstructure, the cubes will appear to float over the city at night. They will serve as a memorial to the victims and become an international symbol of freedom and hope greater even than Liberty's torch.
2) The superstructure which suspends the cubes also contains new office space, suspended in blocks up to a maximum of 600 feet. The structure is the same size and proportion of the original towers, but is constructed with the latest building technology and is mostly open space. This bridges the arguments to rebuild the towers exactly, and to build a cluster of shorter [safer] towers. The unique aspect to the blocks is the ability of tenants to lease a building within a building.
3) Expanded office space deep below street level with light wells. The safest building is underground, but who wants to work in basement level 25? 250 foot deep light wells bring sun and fresh air to the lower offices. Underground office space can recover the total square footage of one tower, while the hanging blocks account for another 37.5% of the total space lost.
Presented on the following pages are some crude drawings to visually convey this proposal. I leave it to real architects to design the actual building, but I do hope this concept is seriously considered. The events of September 11th were unprecedented and we need unprecedented architecture in response.
-Michael Doyle New York, Sept. 28, 2001
appendix: about skyscrapers - Oct. 3, 2001
After reading countless articles arguing the virtues of skyscrapers this week, I feel compelled to add my two cents as a New Yorker and a design critic. Up front, I agree with most principles of new urbanism and I love skyscrapers. It's generally agreed that sprawl is the single biggest evil threatening the American landscape, our natural resources, sense of community and general quality of life [quality of design]. Blame Frank Lloyd Wright for inventing the suburb. Blame ourselves for perpetuating it. As everyone moves to the country, the country disappears. We don't bring with us the city - a vibrant, complex organism of steel, sidewalk cafes and multiculturalism, but a choking tarp of blandness, big box stores, SUVs and an isolation that breeds ignorance. For every person that doesn't build another neo-whatever castle to celebrate their illustrious ascent to middle management, there is another 1/4 acre of wetlands or forest - so cherished in the American psyche - that is preserved. What more efficient use of our precious land than buildings that go straight up? New urbanists agree that density not only preserves nature, but promotes diversity and community. Skyscrapers get mixed reviews due to a general lack of human scale and can be viewed as "vertical gated communities". I agree there. As beautiful as the WTC was on the skyline, the plaza was indeed one of the coldest, most unpleasant places in Manhattan. Don't blame the skyscraper though. Huge buildings can be designed with human scale, which are sustainable and promote interaction. It's a challenge for sure. We first need to get over our modernist tendencies to over-simplify everything. Life is extraordinarily complex. I could ramble on here about molecules, solar systems and all that good Gestalt stuff as it relates to designing systems instead of objects. What I'm getting at, is a skyscraper can be a friendly, accessible, sustainable, living place if we approach our drawing boards thinking about how it will work instead of what it will look like. There is also an argument against skyscrapers because they are symbols of arrogance and power - a man vs. nature scenario. Yeah. We cannot resist the drive to advance in any direction we can. It's the "why do you climb mountains?" question. We have to. We have to play God. There's nothing wrong with that in general. It's human ambition. What we can do is be smarter and consider all consequences of our actions. It is entirely possible build bigger, expand the limits of technology and feed our urge to create more daring and sophisticated examples of human ingenuity, while at the same time being sensitive to how our creations fit into the universe as a whole. As designers, we can be bold without being brash. We can be exceptionally intelligent and sensitive on a grand scale. We must be.
appendix 2: response - Oct. 28, 2001 Much thanks to everyone who has taken the time to respond to and share this concept with others. I've had only positive feedback on the idea. The one item of criticism has been the impracticality of building 25 stories down. Yeah, that was a bit far-fetched :) I'd like to especially thank Archinect.com, Core77, Artkrush and Urbanism.org for posting this proposal. Also, much thanks to all the positive feedback from the staff at Yamasaki Associates, especially from Patrick Doyle (yes, that's my dad) and Henry Guthard, Senior VP and member of the original design team, who called this proposal "genius." I'm flattered beyond expression. Quite inspiring is the number of ideas revolving around the notion of light. Creative Time's Towers of Light project, an installation to take place on the Hudson River, will create a ghostly image of the towers as vertical columns of white light. I was moved to discover the similarities, and quite humbly acknowledge it's more eloquent and simple execution. A few weeks ago we had a plumber come over to our Brooklyn apartment to fix our temperamental New York heating system. Discussing the view from our front window, he said, "I think they should rebuild, but not exactly the same. Maybe offices up to 60 floors and a lit memorial where the top used to be." My wife and I were certainly stunned by this unprovoked comment. Getting endorsements from both Yamasaki and a Brooklyn plumber is quite something. Most importantly, it seems there is enough enthusiasm within the design community to ensure something truly intelligent and significant [whomever's design it may be] will someday reside at this site. I hope so.
