Michael Rothenberg June 10, 2003 Dr. Alyssa O’Brien Rising from Rubble: New York Citizens Engineer the Symbolic Rhetoric of the New World Trade Center “THEIR ABSENCE IS INDELIBLE: the Twin Towers were landmarks, buildings you could not

lose sight of no matter where you were. […] Sometimes sinister, sometimes beautiful, sometimes just banal, they were icons of New York City -- the best-known buildings in the world, the

Everest of our urban Himalayas.” –Michael Sorkin and Sharon Zukin

AN ARRAY OF EMOTIONS overwhelmed New York citizens that catastrophic day,

less than two years ago. Terror, shock, disbelief, mourning—and sometimes even anger—

invaded the homes of people across the nation trying to make sense out of senselessness. When

the gargantuan World Trade Center towers came under terrorist attack on September 11, 2001,

the American values of capitalism and democracy came under attack with them. Feelings of

security and invincibility seemed to come crashing down along with the towers, but the

American people scrambled to salvage pride and dignity from the debris. They were then forced

to begin answering the difficult question of how to approach Ground Zero and all the questions

that stem from that dilemma. What would be the appropriate way to handle the site, to have it

memorialize the dead, to comfort the living, and to send a message to the world community?

Architecture would provide the answer: the World Trade Center site must be rebuilt. Unlike

most architectural projects, the public1 became an active and inseparable part of this design

process to make certain that the new World Trade

Center plans would visually and symbolically

reinforce American values and appropriately

memorialize the victims. The two precedents set in

Figure 1: The Twin Towers dominated the skyline until September 11, 2001. Without them, the skyline has a void that many New Yorkers think should be filled (Disaster Resource Center).

Rothenberg 2

this project—public voice as the primary influence and symbolic architecture’s newly boundless

scope—are significant because together they suggest that regular people have power to build any

symbolic structure they can imagine.

The original World Trade Center symbolized American commerce and prosperity; even

the very name “World Trade Center” is proud and pretentious. Its colossal size inflated both its

symbolic power and attraction as a target, in fact, the Twin Towers were so enormous that

together they encased a staggering 11 million square feet of commercial space (Czarnecki 31).

To contain that massive space, the two towers jutted squarely into the sky, claiming their space

on the skyline as the tallest buildings in the world when they were completed in 1972 (WTC: 9).

Some people loved the buildings; some hated them. Many New Yorkers grew accustomed to

them in the past thirty years, and others never did. However, these towers were meaningful to

their lovers and haters alike. Michael Sorkin, the Director of the Graduate Urban Design

Program at the City College of New York, and Sharon Zukin, Professor of Sociology at

Brooklyn College admit that the World Trade Center’s shape was unimaginative, but they

nonetheless suggest that their meaning transcended its shape: “However anonymous they

appeared, the Twin Towers were never benign, never just architecture” (Sorkin and Zukin 14).

Certainly these buildings could never be “just architecture,” or anonymous. On the skyline, the

World Trade Center experienced the same difficulty in attaining anonymity as a 7-ft man in a

room full of children.

But then these buildings were gone, and the planning for the future of the World Trade

Center site necessitated action as well as thought. New York citizens, in fact, pressed for

immediate retaliation to the terrorist attack by demanding both the construction of a memorial

and restoration of the skyline. After all, they still experienced the swell of emotional loss. Their

Rothenberg 3

desires were articulated by New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani in his farewell to office speech

three months after the attack as he urged the public to “think about a soaring, monumental,

beautiful memorial that just draws millions of people here that just want to see it” (Giuliani 15).

Giuliani helped spread the desire to rebuild on a grand scale to the devouring public. In fact, the

public grew committed to picking up the pieces and began to assert influence by claiming back

the World Trade Center site. For the first time in architectural history, the procedure and

planning of the World Trade Center site could be publicly negotiated thanks to the Internet’s

instant communication of images designs, and ideas. The first designs that were released set off

an avalanche of online discussions and proposals from the public that snowballed into open

forums and conventions that considered how to handle the site. These deliberations, in turn,

influenced the next generation of designs so that they incorporated the public’s suggestions.

Finally, one design emerged on top by encapsulating the community’s suggestions better than the

rest. This design, by Daniel Libeskind, eventually won the Ground Zero commission due to its

meaningful symbolism and careful study of public opinion.

Picking up the Pieces: The First Six Designs

The public had set lofty standards for the new World Trade Center, and so when the

Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) unveiled the disappointing first round of

proposals, the public set out to make sure that this would not be the last round. The overriding

flaw in the design process was that the public was not involved from the beginning; rather, they

only saw final designs. These original designs were commissioned without public input because

there was a confusing web of authority figures with varying claims to the World Trade Center

site (Lower Manhattan 1). First there was the Port Authority, who owned the land, and the

Rothenberg 4

developer with a 99-year lease on the land, Larry Silverstein (2,3). Then there were the political

figures such as New York Governor George Pataki, who formed the Lower Manhattan

Development Corporation, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg(4-6). In their haste

to commission architectural plans, they failed consult the public. Ironically, this decision did not

save time in the long run since as important as these decision-makers were, even they could not

get away with ignoring the public’s input for long.

The LMDC recognized their obligation to please the public and the necessity to design

inspiring and outstanding buildings from the beginning, but at this point they offered only lip-

service. Of course, when the LMDC commissioned the first six designs that were to be released

in July 2002 (figures 2-7), both their chairman, John Whitehead, and their president, Lou

Tomson, expressed interest in gaining public approval (Hirschkorn: Six Options). Whitehead

assured the public that these designs (by Beyer Blinder Belle and Peterson-Littenberg) “will not

be a solid block of boring buildings” (9). In the hopes of gaining approval, he went on to

emphasize their practicality and beauty (10). Additionally, Tomson took his turn acknowledging

the importance of public approval. "We have not considered all the possibilities yet, nor have we

discovered all the answers, but we're committed to seeking them out with the help of the public"

(22). But at this stage in the process, both men were taking liberties with the truth because these

buildings were, in fact, “a solid block of boring buildings” and the LMDC had not consulted the

public.

Not surprisingly, the LMDC’s gamble to posthumously seek public approval did not pay

off—the much-anticipated designs failed to impress the public. Some called them

unimaginative; others were embarrassed by them. One citizen, Gary Yates from the American

Institute of Architects, ridiculed these designs by saying: “Preconceived buildings. It’s not

Rothenberg 5

planning, it’s panic. A concept must be envisioned totally before putting pen to paper” (Yates 4).

Indeed, the lack of imagination in these buildings did not escape the public. As a matter of fact,

there was not even any discernable visual rhetoric in these buildings—they had nothing to say!

These structures look as if they could be made of carelessly stacked Legos. The only inspiration

in each of these six plans comes from the tall tower/spire combination, but even that is

insufficient by itself. Thus, the public soundly rejected these bland, unappetizing buildings. The

drawings in figures 2-7 are stripped of color. They are forced to stand out in contrast to the more

natural coloring of the surrounding buildings. Why the designers chose to handicap their

buildings by poor presentation is puzzling. However, what is important is that the public was

determined to play an active role in the process—unlike the traditional model of architectural

projects—and that they ultimately rejected these designs because they did not embody their

vision for architecture on this site.

Figures 2-7: The public took steps to be involved in the design process to insure more variety and imagination than offered by the original six designs (Hirschkorn: Six options).

Even though the LMDC had ambitious goals for beginning build dates, they learned that

this process could not be rushed. When the LMDC held open city-wide discussions of these

original drawings in the Manhattan area, the public responded with almost unanimous

disapproval of these designs, and so none of these proposals won the commission (WTC

Planning Uncertain 3,4). When their first attempt at arriving at a design fell through the roof, the

LMDC realized the need to include the public in the design process instead of trying to solicit

only final approval. Hence, the LMDC opened up the design competition to the world and all

architects were invited to try out for a chance to develop a compelling site plan for the World

Trade Center site (Lerner 28).

Rothenberg 6

The Public Answers the Design Call

As architects from firms all over the world furiously planned and drew, the public

buckled down to generate plans of their own. The first six designs from the LMDC had been

rejected for what they did not have: symbolism, imagination, and inspiration. So how could the

public communicate their ideas for what the site should have? Beginning on July 30, 2002—the

date that the design competition began—websites such as CNN’s and www.not-ground-zero.org

began accepting proposals for the new World Trade Center site. The subsequent flood of

sketches submitted demonstrated the public’s commitment to getting their opinions considered.

At least 3360 proposals were submitted to the CNN website alone, with detail and complexity

that showed the amount of time and thought that went into them (WTC: Your Proposals 1).

When the next generation of commissioned proposals came out in December, 2002, CNN

stopped posting submissions soon after—but not before receiving sketches from all 50 states and

more than 75 countries (1). People all over the world successfully voiced their ideas for the

new World Trade Center, but would their ideas be heard?

Examination of the public’s proposals shows reoccurring symbols and common themes.

These symbols and themes can be identified by a quantitative scrutiny of the drawings that were

submitted to the CNN website as the second round of major architectural firms drew plans for

the new World Trade Center. For example, many of the designs submitted by the public called

for between four and six tall buildings arranged in a circle and often centered on a garden, park

or memorial space of some kind (figures 9,11). The circular arrangement of these designs seems

to suggest unity and complete recovery while the gardens and parks symbolize life and renewal

through the green lawns and colorful spectrum of flowers and plants. Many of the plans, too,

called for buildings of differing height arranged in ascending order, forming a staircase from the

Rothenberg 7

ground to the sky (figure 9). This design has the advantage of leading the eye across the tops of

the buildings as they ascend, giving movement and life to the buildings themselves. When

combined with a circular arrangement, the full circle reinforces the harmony of these buildings

working together. Other themes came up again and again, too, such as the suggestion to include

glass in the buildings for its beauty and reflective power. When visitors are up close to the glass,

these buildings become a reflection of them and thus each person that looks in becomes a part of

the building. At a distance, the glass reflects other Manhattan buildings, the sky, the water, and

even the statue of liberty. The uniqueness of using glass also draws attention to the significance

of the occasion. These recommendations were important to the design; however, the public

generally agreed that the skyline and memorial would be the most important elements2.

From the crude and simple hand sketches to the sophisticated computer-generated

drawings, a universal push emerged for at least one very tall building (figures 9-11) and a

memorial of some kind to honor the victims and provide support for visitors (Online Dialogues).

The specific meaning of the tall building differed from person to person. For example, New

Yorker John Bravman asserts, “Personally and as a New Yorker, I definitely want to see

something grand, no question about it. Something that says, you know, ‘you can knock us down,

but we are going to get back up, and we are going to be stronger when we do’” (Bravman 6).

Bravman makes an excellent point that strength and resilience are important, but more

significantly, he acknowledges that buildings have the power to communicate. The potential for

visual rhetoric in these buildings is so strong that he even quotes the buildings! (See the

appendix for Bravman’s suggestion for the design of the new World Trade Center.) One

designer who posted on the CNN website, Shae Jobe, supported her suggestion to include two

towering buildings that would be even taller than the originals: “I believe the buildings should be

Rothenberg 8

taller to represent our victory over this event; in fact, they should be the tallest buildings in the

world. This would be a sign of our enduring strength and that our freedom cannot be broken”

(WTC: Your Proposals 6). Like Bravman, Jobe seems primarily concerned with the message

that the new buildings will send, speaking of these buildings as if they were the weapons in a

new kind of visual warfare. These two were not alone in their opinions; on the contrary,

hundreds of people who submitted proposals on the CNN website repeated Jobe and Bravman’s

yearning for tall buildings. The memorial, however, had many different directions that it could

take and so the public did not reach a consensus about what an appropriate memorial would be.

Yet again there were common themes as the designers incorporated memorial properties into the

buildings, set aside land for memorials, and explored creative ideas. For example, Brian Berry,

another designer, suggested a way to memorialize the victims with light. His proposal said that

“the buildings would be situated on the property in such a way that on the morning of September

11 each year the light will stream in from east to west, marking the anniversary of that

unforgettable day" (8). Berry’s proposal uses the natural world to provide rich meaning of a

spiritual nature, with the heavens beaming down light to mark the tragedy’s anniversary.

The most important aspect of all of these designs is that they were online and available

for all to see. This is significant because the messages that these drawings conveyed and the

reoccurring themes in them thus could not be missed by the architects and designers who

competed for the commission. Specifically, all of these suggestions had elements that the

architects vying for a bid would be wise to include in their own designs. For if the second round

of proposals also ignored the public opinion, then they, too, would suffer rejection. In the end,

the design that would have the greatest chance of selection would also be the one that best

incorporated the ideas of the public.

Rothenberg 9

Figures 9-11: Left to Right: Drawings by Steven Starnes, Abraham Urias, and Eric Sieb, three people who expressed their opinion through online proposals (WTC: Your Proposals).

Starting from Scratch: The Next Generation of Designs

The second round of designs successfully met the challenge of listening to the public,

with some designs more in tune to the public’s needs than others. Out of more than four hundred

firms that answered the LMDC’s call for architect qualifications, six made the final cut3

(Rebuilding 33). These teams worked furiously on their plans from the summer of 2002 until

their release on December 18, 2002 (Summary Report 1). The culminations of their labor are

pictured in figures 12-17. The uniquely shaped buildings that contribute distinctly to the

skyline while satisfying the public’s demand for height show that these schemes are more

innovative and original than the first ones. Significantly, these architects put more effort in the

presentation of their designs as well, and instead of the whitewashed walls of the first six

proposals, these feature vibrant color and abstract symbolism.

These next generation projects that feature kissing towers, graceful spires, linking arms,

and twin tower skeletons uniquely respond to the all of the issues raised by the public (especially

the skyline), so how could the LMDC and the Port Authority decide which one, if any, to select?

This time, they wisely looked to the public for guidance by launching Plans in Progress, an

outreach campaign that ultimately attracted 100,000 visitors to see the exhibits and generated

8,000 comments (WTC: Overview 3). Based on the comments from their outreach campaigns,

the LMDC then used their vast record of public comment to construct a list of factors that each

design would be evaluated against (4,5). The architectural teams now had suggestions from the

worldwide community to incorporate into their designs—a very unique resource for architects!

Incorporating these suggestions would be the perfect way to gain public approval, and those who

Rothenberg 10

did not would be cut from the selection process. Thus, the public was able to influence not only

the final vote but also the details included within the project itself during the design phase.

Ultimately, Memorial Foundations by Daniel Libeskind was chosen because he alone

was able to synthesize virtually all of the public’s suggestions. Libeskind did his research ahead

of time so that when the public scrutinized his plans on judgment day, he passed the test. On

January 13th, twenty-one architecture, engineering, and planning organizations working together

under the name New York New Visions released “Innovative Designs,4” their assessment of the

designs shown in figures 12-17 (Evaluation). This 48-page review recommended five

characteristics to evaluate the plans on. In particular, they required a memorial that would

include both history and memory “such as the Libeskind’s below-grade ‘ground zero’ space,” as

well as a proposal “that returns a much-lamented presence to the skyline” like Libeskind’s tower,

and finally, a plan that develops the site in the context of the community (Evaluation 3, 12).

Only the Libeskind design was recognized for successfully addressing each of the

characteristics5.

Figures 12-17: Clockwise from upper left: Foster and Partners, Meier Eisenman Gwathmey Holl, Studio Libeskind, United Architects, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, THINK Team (figure 14 is from Memorial Space, all others from Hirschkorn: Sources). The creativity of the presentations enhanced the creativity of these designs.

Daniel Libeskind: Master of Visual Imagery

Libeskind synthesized the public’s many ideas into one architectural/urban design

masterpiece. He succeeded because he emphasized the elements that mattered most to the

public: the memorial site and the skyline. Libeskind’s proposal also had depth in his successful

synthesis of many symbolic ideas proposed by the public. To see how he accomplished the

difficult feat of pleasing an emotional public, the elements in his plan can be analyzed. For our

Rothenberg 11

convenience, Libeskind gave names to many of these elements: the sunken memorial space, the

slurry walls, the spire, the Park of Heroes, September 11 Plaza, and the Wedge of Light

(Memory Foundations).

The Sunken Memorial Space

At the center of his design, Libeskind envisions a sunken, walled-in memorial space

adjacent to a diamond-shaped 9/11 museum, marked on figure 18 with a 1. Two other cultural

buildings, labeled 2, run alongside the museum. The memorial area is accessible enough so that

visitors can be able to enter it by walking through the 9/11 museum or by coming down one of

the two ramps (Virtual Tour 2). Then, the green grass of the memorial area in figure 18 shows

life sprouting up where the towers fell, responding to the calls for symbolic renewal in the ideas

posted on the CNN website. The people in the drawing itself show their support to the

memorial, what it represents, and the design itself. Libeskind uses a logos appeal in his plan,

showing how this particular design would be successful by including many people on the

memorial space. In addition, the jagged cultural buildings overrun with unpredictable lines on

their surfaces are abstract enough to encourage the public to use their imaginations to make sense

of the tragedy of the September 11 terrorist attack.

The Slurry Walls

"The slurry walls represented everything I believe in," Libeskind said in his presentation.

"Despite what happened

at the site, they stood.

a

S

Figure 18: Libeskind included people in this depiction of the Memorial Space to show that people would want to visit his the public areas in his design (Memorial Space).

They testify as eloquently

s the Constitution itself to the value of life, freedom and democracy" (Libeskind, quoted in The

lurry Walls 6). Libeskind’s glamorization of these slurry walls may be carried too far since the

Figure 19: The Slurry Walls stood firm through the attack and will be exposed in Libeskind’s plan (The Slurry Walls).

Rothenberg 12

slurry walls—which are the exposed foundations of the original towers thirty feet deep—

remained standing because they were buried beneath the ground. Still, the appeal of including

the slurry walls is one of pathos and not logos; and thus in this emotional project, the inclusion of

the slurry walls pleases many people. As a result, the slurry walls will be a major part of the

memorial space (6). As the only structural part of the towers that remained after the attack, the

walls shown in figure 19 will supplement the memorial constructed in the tower’s memory. A

special corner of the memorial space will expose the slurry walls 70 feet down, all the way to the

bedrock (Space for Memorial Competition 5). Figure 19 gives a closer view at the memorial

space itself, one with people again as the focus. In the foreground, a father holds the hand of his

little child while an elderly lady in a blue dress walks by. The age range depicted shows that this

is a place that welcomes everybody. In this artist rendering, Libeskind takes every advantage to

sell his design. The sky is clear and blue, there is no pollution or smog in the air, and all of the

trees are tall and dark green like Christmas trees. In this way, Libeskind shows how the

memorial space and the slurry walls respond to the public’s demand for a meaningful memorial

by providing open spaces to both reflect on the tragedy of September 11 and enjoy the park.

The Spire

The spire is the most important part of the design to many people for its record-setting

altitude (figure 20). The height of 1776 feet recalls the year of American independence and

reclaims the title of “world’s tallest building” from the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur6 along

with the positive ethos that comes with the title. The mauve building and the emerald spire on

the left side of figure 20 are part of the same structure, but the large mass of the building mirrors

the Statue of Liberty by standing at two-thirds the height of the thin arm of the spire (Evaluation

25). Figure 21 shows how the distinctive new skyline stands out but does not detract from the

Figure 20: The New World Trade Center provides a distinctive contribution to the skyline through its jagged shape and glass exterior. In this way it satisfies the public’s request for tall buildings and a rebuilt skyline (Skyline).

Rothenberg 13

other buildings. Their translucent color suggests that they are part building, part sky, for they

seem to be fluctuating between reality and illusion. Thus, Libeskind’s five soaring buildings

provide an answer to the public’s request for towering buildings and a distinctive skyline.

Furthermore, these buildings all have different heights and are arranged in a circular ascending

pattern that can be seen best in figure 14. In many ways, Libeskind’s design is very similar to

the proposals that were posted online. Even if Libeskind did not base his design off of these, he

succeeded because he discovered what the public wanted and then gave it to them.

September 11 Plaza

Libeskind found a way to appeal to ethos again in his proposal. He incorporated the

paths that rescue workers and firefighters traveled on their way to the World Trade Center site on

September 11 (Memory Foundations 4). The paths are marked in a public area—shown in figure

21—named September 11 Plaza, into which the September 11 museum will open. The path on

the right side of the image reads "Engine 54" because this is the path that the firefighters of

Engine 54 traveled before losing men when the towers crumbled. Libeskind again places people

in the picture to show that they will be able to live normally once again at this site. A woman on

the right pushes a stroller; a man close to the center of the picture has his hands casually in his

pockets; and two women on the left engage in conversation. Meanwhile, others in the

background have paused, perhaps in order to reflect on the memorial or walk along the path of

heroes. Libeskind in his subtle way shows that the same space can be used both as a memorial

and a public space to enjoy.

The Park of Heroes and the Wedge of Light

The other two community spaces also draw on the public’s suggestions. Libeskind found

a way to top Brian Berry’s design that positioned buildings so that light shined a special way on

Figure 21: The September 11 Plaza features many large pathways like the two shown here. The path on the left reads “Memorial Walk,” whilethe path on the right spells “Engine 54.” These lines mark the paths that firefighters took en route to the falling Twin Towers (September 11 Plaza).

Rothenberg 14

September 11 of each year (p. 8). The public space designated as the “Wedge of Light” (figure

22) has no shadows on September 11 each year from exactly 8:46 a.m., when the first tower

collapsed, to 10:28 a.m., when the second fell (The Wedge of Light). Interestingly, there is a

historical precedent for using the sun’s light in this way. Libeskind’s design recalls the

calculations of light in the ancient temple of Abu Simbel in Egypt and Newgrange in Ireland

(Figures 24, 25). The Simbel temple is aligned so that just twice a year the sun’s rays reach into

the innermost sanctuary (Abu Simbel 1). Likewise, the passage and chamber of Newgrange is

Figures 22 and 23: Heroes Park and the Wedge of Light are more than just spaces for the public to reflect and enjoy. Both the Park and Wedge subtly invoke spirituality by marking out the paths of the dead and by arranging the buildings to mold the sun’s rays (Memory Foundations; The Wedge of Light). illuminated by the winter solstice sunrise for exactly 17 minutes (Newgrange 2). Both the

Simbel temple and Newgrange used light for spiritual purposes. In a country of religious

diversity, Libeskind could not specifically favor symbols of any single religion, but any religious

symbol, even a neutral one, would go a long way in the memorial due to the tragic nature of

death. Thus he found a way to use light, the universal spiritual symbol (figure 23).

Daniel Libeskind included the memorial space with the slurry walls, the soaring spire,

September 11 Plaza, the Park of Heroes, and the Wedge of Light in recognition that people have

differing interests, attempting to provide each person with what they were looking for in at least

one symbolic and memorial space. Libeskind has extensive experience working on many public

projects including museums in Berlin, Germany, and England (Bruno 6), but his experience in

these cases did not involve large-scale public scrutiny. Despite his past, however, Libeskind

adjusted to the challenge of meeting public approval in this new project. This unique interaction

between the public and the architect comprehends how important the appearances of buildings

are and, for the first time, features the public as the driving force behind the design.

Rothenberg 15

Collective Architectural Collaboration: A New Era of Democracy in Design

A year before the World Trade Center fell, Libeskind tried to put his finger on the

importance of the public realm in his book, The Space of Encounter. According to Libeskind,

the world of architecture is evolving because it is simply keeping up with the evolving world

around us. He declares that by “engaging in the public and political realm, which is synonymous

with architecture, the dynamics of building takes on a new dimension” (Libeskind 17). But it is

the new World Trade Center project that makes this idea accurate—it is this project that made

engaging with public synonymous with architecture. Memorial Foundations triumphed precisely

because Libeskind foresaw the need to embrace the public. Even Libeskind’s observation that

the world of architecture evolves with the world around us became a fulfilled prophesy in the

example of the World Trade Center.

The public’s greatly increased influence in choosing the design for the new World Trade

Center was a necessary break from the past because so many civilians were connected to the

structures that fell. There were those that lost close friends and family, many more who had

close friends and family affected or that knew people who were killed on September 11, 2001,

and still more who felt connected because the tragedy struck innocent workers just like them. It

is true that the public did not possess any legal or political claim to the land or to the buildings

that were to be constructed there (Lower Manhattan Reborn). Usually, lack of political and

economic influence would strip the public of any say in the design process. Why, then, did the

public get to influence the designs so much in the World Trade Center case? Their emotions

bound them together and they gained power through their unity. Politically, the public gained

strength because Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg have to listen to the people to gain

support for upcoming elections. Economically they carried clout because developer Larry

Rothenberg 16

Silverstein and other investors had to fear boycotts by construction workers, tenants, or

customers in buildings that ignore the public’s wishes. None of these powers were explicitly

used as leverage. They didn’t need to be. The fact that the public united to see the development

of these buildings from start to finish was enough caution for those who appeared to be calling

the shots. However, this special case does not predict that the public will continue to invest so

many of their resources in guiding future architectural processes. Instead, the case of the World

Trade Center means two things. First, the public does have the power to influence architectural

projects of any magnitude if they come together, and second, the World Trade Center case

suggests that architecture may be changing in other ways.

How might architecture be changing? Recently, economic globalization, the market

economy, and technological advances have brought new challenges for architects by ushering in

the resources and demand for more innovative and meaningful structures. Ascending to the top

of these “urban Himalayas” brings forth satisfaction in proportion to the size of the challenge.

The technical challenge of safely engineering any of buildings in figures 12-17 before the age of

computers is staggering. The cost, too, of most of these proposals would be enormous. Now,

however, virtually any design can be safely engineered and the freedom that the designers of the

new World Trade Center had—to create anything they could imagine—is issuing in the next

phase of architecture: the era of large-scale symbolism.

Not only is it finally economically feasible and structurally possible to build huge

structures that are both symbolic and useful, the Internet makes the interchange of ideas fast and

efficient. Arnold Whittick, an authority on symbolism, contends that architecture is more than

building and structure; it is an expression of emotion (Whittick 11). Seventy years ago, Whittick

predicted that if a new style in architecture was to develop, “it must consequently evolve as

Rothenberg 17

symbolism” (11). This is not the first time since then that the design process for a building has

incorporated symbolism into its form. However, if large-scale symbolism will ever be defined as

a new style, then the new World Trade Center, symbolic from ground to spire, is it.

When the public became an active and inseparable part of the new World Trade Center

design process, they made sure of a few things. They used their power gained by solidarity to

make certain that the new plans would visually and symbolically reinforce American values

while appropriately memorializing the victims—thereby ushering in a new era of democracy in

design and alongside a new era of architectural symbolism. The tragedy of September 11, 2001

can never be justified or overlooked, nor does it need to be. But out of this tragedy emerges an

architectural revolution and a unified public that for the first time seized democratic control of

the architectural design process (Hirschkorn: Six Options 19). The newly empowered public is

able to discuss, vote, and realize their wishes through virtually elected representatives like Daniel

Libeskind with his Memorial Foundations. Like any political or intellectual revolution, there

will be rocky parts at first. But eventually, perhaps beginning with the World Trade Center

project, the new era of democracy in design and architectural symbolism will significantly

benefit humanity through the continued exploration of architecture and greater control of it.

Notes 1 Those in the public who influenced the design of the New World Trade center include all of those concerned with the project and not just New York citizens. However, even though the majority of these motivated individuals live in New York, they represent every state and many nations. Hence, the collective group of citizens in the worldwide community who are interested in this project are referred to as “the public” throughout this document, but this phrase should be understood to include primarily New York citizens. 2 Five thousand people from the New York area participated in a two-week in-depth discussion starting on July 20, 2002. According to their website, “This historic gathering - called ‘Listening to the City’ - gave participants an opportunity to help shape the redevelopment of Lower Manhattan and the creation of a permanent memorial to the victims of 9/11.” At this gathering, the 5000 committed individuals responded to many questions and polls. Of the respondents, 60% thought that new towers should be built at least as tall as the originals, 71% thought that adding a “major element or icon” to the skyline was “very important,” and 87% thought it was “important” or “very important” to add something unique to the skyline (Online Dialogues).

Rothenberg 18

3 A seventh team, Peterson/Littenberg Architecture and Urban Design, had already been working with the LMDC as in-house urban design consultants. They later pulled out of the competition, citing conflict of interest (New WTC Site Design Concepts). 4 The LMDC called the second set of proposals “Innovative Designs” (Evaluation 2). There were nine “Innovative Designs” in all, with three from the THINK team (Evaluation 22). Only one of the THINK team’s proposals ever received serious consideration, so I have omitted the other two THINK designs from my analysis. 5 NYNV was not ecstatic about the height of the proposed buildings. “There seems to have been a driving force on a number of the schemes to design the world’s tallest building(s). It is difficult to understand this, given the realities of the market and issues of security.” The driving force that NYNV was unable to identify was the strong influence of public opinion. As we have seen, the public petitioned for influential symbolism at the expense of practicality and economics, and it is significant that the architects responded to the public’s demands instead of producing purely practical designs. Even in spite of these concerns, the NYNV supported Libeskind’s towers: “The separation and varying heights of the Libeskind towers allow them to read as both individual and different buildings, reinforcing the characteristic multiple-spire profile of Lower Manhattan” (Evaluation 20). 6 See my paper “The Two Towers” on the Petronas Towers as the world’s tallest, February 2003. Works Cited

Bravman, John. Interview by Michael Rothenberg. 13 May 2003.

Bruno, Lisa D. “Studio Daniel Libeskind.” 6 November 2002. Sunspot. 1 June 2003. <http://www.sunspot.net/news/custom/attack/ny- bzarch062993970nov06,0,2252478.story?coll=bal%2Dattack%2Dstoryutil>

Czarnecki, John E. “Architects at the forefront as they show Ground Zero aspirations.” Architectural Record. Nov. 2002: 31-50.

Evaluation of Innovative Design Proposals. 13 January 2003. New York New Visions.

Ed. Hutton, Ernest. 25 May 2003. <http://www.nynv.aiga.org/NYNV20030113.pdf>

---. “Giuliani Bids New York Farewell.” 27 Dec. 2001. Accessed 26 May 2003.

<http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/27/rec.giuliani.farewell/>

Hirschkorn, Phil. “Six Options Offered to Rebuild Ground Zero.” 20 July 2002. CNN. 26 May 2003. <http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/07/16/wtc.site.plans>

Libeskind, Daniel. The Space of Encounter. New York: Universe Publishing. 2000.

Lerner, Kevin. “Six unique teams of world-renowned architects selected to develop design proposals for WTC site.” Architectural Record, Nov. 2002, p. 28.

Lower Manhattan Reborn: Players. 27 February 2003. MSNBC. 1 June 2003. <http://www.msnbc.com/news/877972.asp?cp1=1>

“Memory Foundations: World Trade Center Design Study.” 2002. LMDC. 16 May 2003. <http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/

Rothenberg 19

wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_d/slides/slide5.asp>

New World Trade Center Site Design Concepts. 2002. LMDC. 31 May 2003. < http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/ default.asp>

“Online Dialogues – Poll Results.” 12 Aug. 2002. Listening to the City. 24 May 2003. <http://www.listeningtothecity.org/online/polls.html>

“The Slurry Walls.” Virtual Tour of the Chosen Design. March 2003. Gotham Gazette. 31 May 2003. <http://www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/chosen/tour6.shtml>

Sorkin, Michael, and Zukin, Susan. After the World Trade Center: Rethinking New York. Routledge, New York, 2002. Accessed online, 26 May 2003 <http://cryptome.org/after-wtc.htm>

“Space for Memorial Competition.” Virtual Tour of the Chosen Design. March 2003. Gotham Gazette. 31 May 2003. <http://www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/chosen/tour5.shtml>

Summary Report on the Selected Design for the World Trade Center Site. 2002. LMDC. 30 May 2003. <http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/ new_design_plans/selected_libeskind/pdfs/selecteddesignreport-libeskind2.pdf>

Whittick, Arnold. Symbols for Designers: A hand book on the application of symbols and symbolism to design. London: Crosby Lockwood and Son LTD: 1935.

---. “World Trade Center.” 2003. 2 June 2003. <http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html>

---. “World Trade Center Planning Uncertain.” 7 August 2002. Architecture Week. 2

June 2003. <http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0807/news_1-1.html> “World Trade Center Site: Overview.” 2002. LMDC. 30 May 2003.

<http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/default.asp> “World Trade Center: Your Proposals.” 10 January 2003. CNN.

26 May 2003: 1-140. <http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/wtc.ideas/designs/>

Yates, Gary T. “Comments on LMDC six schemes of July 2002.” 28 Oct. 2002. Accessed 26 May 2003. <http://not-ground-zero.org/g-thomas-yates.htm>

Images

Rothenberg 20

Figure 1: Disaster Resource Center. 28 May 2003. Univerisity of Deleware 29 May 2003. <http://www.udel.edu/DRC/Images/world-trade-center-12.jpg>

Figures 2-7: Hirschkorn, Phil. “Six Options Offered to Rebuild Ground Zero.” 20 July 2002. CNN. 26 May 2003. <http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/07/16/wtc.site.plans>

Figures 9-11: “World Trade Center: Your Proposals.” 10 January 2003. CNN. 26 May 2003: 3, 140. <http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/wtc.ideas/designs/>

Figures 12-13: Hirschkorn, Phil. “Sources: WTC proposals narrowed down.” 1 February 2003. CNN. 28 May 2003. <http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/01/wtc.plan.finalists/index.html>

Figure 14: “Tall Towers and a Memorial Below Ground.” Virtual Tour of the Chosen Design. March 2003. Gotham Gazette. 31 May 2003. <http://www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/chosen/tour1.shtml>

Figures 15-17: Hirschkorn, Phil. “Sources: WTC proposals narrowed down.” 1 February 2003. CNN. 28 May 2003. <http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/01/wtc.plan.finalists/index.html>

Figure 18: “The Memorial Space.” Virtual Tour of the Chosen Design. March 2003. Gotham Gazette. 31 May 2003. <http://www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/chosen/tour2.shtml>

Figure 19: “The Slurry Walls.” Virtual Tour of the Chosen Design. March 2003. Gotham Gazette. 31 May 2003. <http://www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/chosen/tour6.shtml>

Figure 20: “Skyline.” Virtual Tour of the Chosen Design. March 2003. Gotham Gazette. 31 May 2003. <http://www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/chosen/tour11.shtml>

Figure 21: “September 11 Plaza.” Virtual Tour of the Chosen Design. March 2003. Gotham Gazette. 31 May 2003. <http://www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/chosen/tour9.shtml>

Figure 22: “Memory Foundations: World Trade Center Design Study.” 2002. LMDC. 16 May 2003. <http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/ wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_d/slides/slide5.asp>

Figure 23: “The Wedge of Light.” Virtual Tour of the Chosen Design. March 2003. Gotham Gazette. 31 May 2003. <http://www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/chosen/tour8.shtml>

Figure 24: Abu Simbel. 23 January 1996. The University of Memphis Institute of Art

Rothenberg 21

and Archeology. 26 May 2003. <http://www.memphis.edu/egypt/abusimbe.htm>

Figure 25: “Newgrange Megalithic Passage Tomb.” 22 December 2002. 26 May 2003: 15. <http://www.knowth.com/newgrange.htm>

Look in the Sky! It’s the Bird! Maturity and restraint check rash impulses when designing the new World Trade Center towers. However, many New Yorkers—like John Bravman, the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education—would like to see buildings of unmistakable symbolism of the politically incorrect nature. Consider this interaction during my interview with him: Bravman: You know I wanted three buildings, with the tallest one in the middle so it looks like this, like this… (makes middle finger gesture). Rothenberg: (laughs) Bravman: So the symbolism would be evident, but plausibly deniable. Rothenberg: Yeah, that would be a little tougher to be deniable, but I bet New York would go for it. Bravman: I think so. Why, though, would Americans need to deny that they were if fact flicking off the terrorists that caused so much death and destruction? I do not agree that symbolism of this kind would be plausibly deniable, but I think that it would not be necessary to deny it because denying the meaning of a symbol damages its impact. However, Cathy Cartwright was able to create an

obscene yet plausibly deniable design of a similar nature and posted it on the CNN website (CNN: Your Proposals p. 136). In her vision, the two smaller buildings in the front are significantly shorter than the tallest building in the center, much as adjacent knuckles might be to an upright finger. These buildings are even slightly skin-toned, which is unusual for buildings and thus suggests that the coloring may have been deliberate. But Cathy faces the same dilemma as Bravman—she cannot be explicit in her intentions and so does not claim to portray an obscene gesture.

Figure 1: Offensive symbolism would please some New Yorkers but irritate people around the world. Still, as Bravman suggests, the insult would be “plausibly deniable.” (Your Proposals 136)

Rothenberg 22

Go to <http://www.msnbc.com/news/849103.asp> for a cool scanning view of Memorial Foundations Go to http://www.sunspot.net/news/custom/attack/bal-wtcdesigns121802,0,3078093.photogallery?coll=bal%2Dattack%2Dstoryutil&index=5 for a 38 second interview with Libeskind. Finally, Go to http://www.renewnyc.com/Participate/webcast.shtml for the webcast of public hearings. This is a great source.