muschamp wants the twin towers back
Back to Square One at Ground Zero
Published NYT : June 6th, 2004
What artistic idea would be sufficiently bold and soul-stirring to lead ground zero into its future?
HERBERT MUSCHAMP
Back to Basics: Twin Towers II
WHAT functions can we eliminate? What uses can we subtract? These seem to me among the most constructive questions that can be asked today about the planning of ground zero, particularly about cultural programming.
Up to now, the planners have been thinking along opposite lines. How much can we add, they ask, as if an accumulation of functions is needed to produce the desired lively effect. Opera house, museum, and so on: these proposals are signs of cultural failure. At best, they denote impatience to arrive at some creative response that really requires more time and thought. More ominously, they represent distractions from the forces that have mired ground zero in politics and propaganda.
As a result, I have recently become more sympathetic to the "cop-out" position, which would mean abandoning the flawed ground zero design process altogether in favor of reconstructing the twin towers more or less as they were. Certainly, I'm prepared to defend reconstruction as a cultural act. It would be an offering to Mnemosyne, mother of the muses, from whom all culture flows.
The reduction to essentials is a great New York tradition, evident in our engineering and in our art. It is the correct tradition to invoke here. And then, to insure its revival, I would propose a school, a center of unlearning as well as learning, a place for disembedding ourselves from the welter of fantasies that has enveloped the country in recent years.
Who would want to work (or go to school) in those twin towers? Can I see a show of hands?
Well, presumably, if they rebuild the towers and no one wants to work (or go to school) in them they will be a financial disaster and the owner will have to find some economically (and logistically) feasible means of dismantling the structures...
...Oh wait.
‘We’re starting to talk about other things, both for [Mr. Muschamp] and for architecture.’—Times culture editor Jonathan Landman
Eavesdrop Issue 5
(via selma)
MUSCHAMP’S CLAIMS ON GROUND ZERO
Architects may have outsized egos but—if there was any question before—Herbert Muschamp’s may be out of control. As of press time, rumors were swirling that the NYT architecture critic has been making life difficult for the publishers of the forthcoming book Imagining Ground Zero: Official and Unofficial Schemes for the World Trade Center Competition (Rizzoli and Architectural Record). It seems the book’s author, Record editor Suzanne Stephens, wants to include schemes from the September 8, 2002, designer-palooza featured in the NYT Magazine in which Muschamp asked architects—including Charles Gwathmey, Peter Eisenman, Richard Meier, Zaha Hadid, and Rem Koolhaas—to contribute plans for Ground Zero. However, “He’s been calling the architects and telling them not to let their work be published,” says a designer familiar with the fiasco, “and several of them are complying.” Why would Muschamp want to interfere, when the NYT itself has acknowledged it doesn’t own the rights to the designs? “He was asked to write about the projects in the book,” the source continues, “so it can’t be that he just feels left out. The only answer would have to be power.” While the story is still developing, we’ve learned that Rizzoli is exploring legal options and, though they wouldn’t give an explanation, the offices of several of the architects we contacted, including Meier, confirmed they don’t intend to provide the plans in question. Both Stephens and her Rizzoli editor declined comment, and Muschamp did not return calls.
- i have to admit that Muschamp's NYT project was my favorite proposal for wtc. i wonder what changed his perspective. the wholesale failure of the "design by committee" approach ? that led to the call for elitisim and then the "oh, fuck it" rebuild the twin towers opines?
Mine too (but any plan that did not involve Libeskind was a good plan).
Is he tired of it - like we all are no? - and he is deciding to check out and not fight the fight? (I think Kimmelman's piece was still the best in verbalizing against the design by committee - trying to find it now). At the time I read it I remember wanting to give a little cheer. I know you all are not Herbert fans, but didn't his stand make you just feel a little sad? Like he has lost the battle? (on further thought, um, no need to answer that :-)
please understand I am not a Herbert fan either. I think he does a disservice to the architectural community in that he does not translate work for the "average" reader. He manages to make architecture even more unobtainable and less understandable than people already perceive it to be. (I am having deja vu, have I said this to you before?)
we're all repainting the same painting. call it a clarification.
oh, one more thing, coincidence: I saw him having dinner at the odeon last night.
Not Herbert related, but...
"The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) invites you to join Governor George Pataki and Mayor Michael Bloomberg at the announcement of the cultural institutions that have been selected for the World Trade Center site.
A press conference will be held at
2:15 p.m. today
at the World Financial Center's Winter Garden.
Please note there will be no announcement regarding the selected institutions prior to the press conference."
some of the preamble:
May 27, 2004, Thursday
EDITORIAL DESK, New York Times
Culture in Lower Manhattan
( Editorial ) 517 words
Ever since 9/11, there has been serious talk of including a strong cultural presence in the rebuilding at ground zero. It's worth remembering why. For all the gravity of the site itself, and for all the dignity of Michael Arad's memorial design, ground zero is about more than remembering the lives of those who died in terrorist attacks or the events that caused their deaths. It is also about the creation of new vitality. The emergence of a new cultural hub in Lower Manhattan is a way of going beyond memory, a way of enriching, fulfilling and reinterpreting the emotional context of 9/11 itself. We should visit ground zero to honor the victims and remember that day, but we should stay to celebrate life itself in a way that only the arts allow us to do.
For the past year, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation has been preparing a short list of cultural entities that might occupy two sites -- one in a new performing arts center just east of the planned Freedom Tower, and another cultural complex to the south, also at Fulton and Greenwich Streets. Two possibilities have been discussed from the very beginning -- a so-called Freedom Museum, which has often sounded like little more than an excuse for vigorous flag-waving, and the New York City Opera, which has been hoping to find a new home outside Lincoln Center.
We love City Opera, but in the end, its proposal to build a 2,200-seat theater and expand its programming to fill those seats beyond its own operatic season seems to us too unwieldy for the setting. It is not so much a question of the wrong art as the wrong space.
The most interesting possibility is a mix of at least three different cultural entities on the two sites. One attractive combination would include the Joyce Theater, the Signature Theatre Company and the Drawing Center, along with a reimagined Freedom Center. They would bring together at ground zero the worlds of dance, theater and the fine arts, in a cluster of performing arts and gallery spaces that would fill the cultural calendar year-round.
The Joyce, the Signature and the Drawing Center were all planning to expand or move before 9/11, and they offer a diversity and a quality of cultural imagination that fits Lower Manhattan and would galvanize cultural life in that part of the city. Instead of a single 2,200-seat theater, there would be at least four theaters, ranging from some 200 seats to 1,000 seats.
Making this work will take someone with vision and energy -- and political capital -- to head a new foundation that will create the cultural center and the memorial. This isn't only a fund-raising opportunity, though that will certainly be part of the task. This is a chance to rebuild Lower Manhattan from the ground up, to amplify and illuminate the meaning of 9/11, and to light up the neighborhood.
And then the shortlist (NYT, June 8)
Now we need a drumroll..
A modest proposal: no cultural organization moves to the site, for the following reasons: (a) too much suspicion and lingering questions about the destruction of the first buildings, (b) fear of a second attack in a Bush-increased terror atmosphere, (c) commercial motivations and personal greed of the present property owner, (d) not enough attention to calls to keep the site empty as a memorial to the dead.
or (e) if I may?: fear of working, performing, etc. in a toxic environment.
in an ideal world, would you really want to see the site kept empty? just curious..
Absolutely. I think there was a lot of sentiment for a large green space as a memorial, but of course, in the real world, hrumph, hrumph... Muschamp himself paid lip service to the idea of green space with his praise of Ellsworth Kelly's collage-proposal, which I discussed here. As far as your (e), I agree the site was wildly toxic during the months the fires were burning and asbestos fibers from the rubble were wafting through the air. The issue now would be whether any toxins leached into the ground below the bathtub and present a current threat to future topside construction. My guess would be no, but one thing's for sure, Silverstein, the City, and the Feds will always say it's completely cleaned up.
Fair enough. As far as Silverstein and the lot confessing to pollution, I agree (but unfortunately this is probably the case in a lot of places/development sites). Did they ever ultimately admit to asbestos anyway? I remember Giuliani saying that all the asbestos had been removed months before the attack while, clearly on a TV screen, I was seeing a bunch of it burning behind him. "But look, that is asbestos!" I wish I had had a recorder. A lot, but very little, has changed in my life since 9/11. One very superficial thing is that I do not drink tap water. No ice. I don’t even make my morning coffee with tap water. I know this is silly, but it is a luxury – or paranoia – I allow myself (better than going and living in a bunker, for me anyway).
And I liked the Kelly piece too. I also appreciated it as refreshing vignette in a rather disheartening and heavy process.
here is just one of the reports i found on the net. The port authority party line for sharing info on asbestos in wtc was that the floor surface which they delivered to the client (which would almost always carpeted or tiled over) was a linoleum tile type product which contained some asbestos but was safer left intact than removed.
my call would be for a greenspace memorial. as tom points out in point a), the site still carries a huge bulls eye identity. not a well thought out location for rebuilding a new "the worlds tallest building." not after the first crack at it in 1993 and then coming back to comlpletly flatten the whole complex in 2001. i would say its a radioactive location based on that alone.
I added an "environmental distrust" item to the list on my page. As far as asbestos, wouldn't they have had to evacuate the buildings at some point (pre 9/11) to get it all out safely? Did they go in office by office and remove it while people were working there? I haven't researched it, but complete detoxification seems unlikely.
Oh, belatedly saw Bill's link. Yeah, it sounds like the asbestos was made "safe for working" by sealing but not removed from the building.
great, thanks bill. so I have up to 30 years of worrying ahead.
terrific.
Manhattan could always use some more green, yes.
Re: keeping the site empty - how would the owner be compensated? Doing it with public funds would be an incredible burden on city tax payers (billions of dollars!) just to create a tiny park in a very affluent neighborhood. It doesn't really make sense to me.
Or are you saying the owner (well, okay, 99 year leasee) should just get screwed? Yikes.
it is not really an option.
but the land could be bought by federal funds. all "memorials" are in dc anyway, shouldn't this one at least be funded the same way. it was the world's loss, not manhattans.
(I just deleted something I wrote earlier - I am not sure about the etiquette for that - sorry - but I thought I should take note. I was feeling punchy).
The owner (Silverstein) and the ground lessee (Port Authority) will get insurance for the past loss. Silverstein, as we know, wants a double payment. I have no idea what the loss of future tax revenue would be to the city for a few blocks. Over how much time? Till it's destoyed again? To rebuild another tower with a crappy water memorial is like Bush and the Times taking responsibility without any sacrifice. (Except no one in the City took responsibility for bad police/fire coordination, the "bunker in the sky," etc etc.)
Silverstein on his defeat in court.
"Of course, I am disappointed that the jury did not see things our way with respect to most of the insurers in the WTC coverage. But let me be clear. A defeat in the courtroom is not a defeat for rebuilding. Whatever happens in court, we are determined to rebuild the World Trade Center, under Governor Pataki's leadership and in keeping with the Master Plan."
I'm just someone who hopes, someday, in the distant future, to possibly, maybe, if everything goes well, own some land. And, within the law, I would hope to be able to do whatever I want with the land. Now, I agree, it's easy to not feel sorry for Silverstein - but he does have legal claim to the land.
And while I am not arguing for building a huge tower on the site, I don't find the argument that it is a terrorist target to be very persuasive. Here's my thinking: Imagine there is a terrorist group in the country ready to blow something up. If there is a huge tower rebuilt on the WTC site I agree that this would be a tempting target. But if there is not, they will just pick some other target. What is the difference? It's not like building a tower there is going to *create* terrorists who otherwise wouldn't have been terrorists.
Maybe you could just build it *really* well and then it could be the flypaper theory skyscraper. (Okay, that bit was sarcastic ;-)
the pa could just give him back his deposit and say beat it. hes already blown huge portion of the insurance settlement on legal fees trying to grab a double-dip payment. the purpose of the wtc was to breath life backinto down town, that job is done.
"The owner (Silverstein) and the ground lessee (Port Authority) will get insurance for the past loss."
I don't know the details of this, but I would guess that it is as you describe: the insurance covers the past loss. But I'm talking about future loss of revenues from Silverstein not being allowed to build a commercial property. As much as I would like that outcome, do you really think it is fair? Wouldn't he have to be compensated forward in time somehow? That's what I meant by the billions of dollars figure.
Perhaps I am out of my mind though.
According to Bill, he's not spending his past compensation very wisely--I do think there's a public interest in not having a fool in charge of the site. Just kidding, but not really.
Also, as Bill suggested, it should be the Port Authority's call. I don't know the financial machinations involved in buying a building from someone and then leasing most of it to the seller for 99 years. Since Silverstein only owned it 6 months before it came down around his ears (or he "pulled it"), what is his genuine equitable interest in the property (as opposed to strict legal title)? It's really quasi-public land, and the place of a great American tragedy, can he really do what he wants with it? Like build "9/11 World"?
Our constitution doesn't say the public can't take land from private owners, just that it can't be taken without just compensation. (George Bush got that stadium land on the cheap through abuse of the eminent domain laws.) I say there's a prevailing public interest (whether by the PA, as selma suggested the Feds, or the City) in taking the land away from Larry. Compensate him (minus any wasted legal fees) and send him scooting. How much you pay him--all lost future revenues?--to be worked out in court.
"June 10, 2004, 2:52 PM EDT
NEW YORK -- A new museum devoted to freedom, two independent theatre companies and an artists' drawing center will anchor a new cultural space at the World Trade Center site, development officials announced Thursday.
City and state officials chose the Joyce International Dance Center, the Signature Theatre, the Drawing Center and the Freedom Center to move to ground zero. More than 100 arts organizations began vying for space at the site in late 2002 and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation had narrowed the groups to six by last week."
"The announcement was the culmination of a competition that was criticized as opaque by some arts and community leaders and was drawn out by a clash of interests over what constituency culture should serve at ground zero: Tourists looking for something to do at night after visiting the memorial? Families of the victims seeking art that will honor their lost loved ones? Neighborhood residents who want services like after-school art classes for their children? Or culture hounds craving a new downtown arts destination?
Development officials said yesterday that they had aimed at all of the above.
"This is sacred ground," Mr. Pataki said. "We wanted to have cultural institutions that would reflect our pride, our courage."
NYTimes, June 11, 2004.
I am worried about compromise.
The entire WTC project, from the architecture, the memorial and now the institutions, has been mired with trying to be all things to all people. Fine a Freedom Center (what is that by the way? Sure, okay we have 'Freedom' Museums that focus on historically significant and painful scars, like slavery and the holocaust. But what is a Freedom Center that has “exhibitions centered on humankind’s enduring quest for freedom” – by what - and whose! -definition? I imagine something like an Army recruitment center? A propaganda museum for Bush? Well, that is another 'rant'..) but the Joyce, the Drawing Center, Signature? These are less than mainstream institutions. I personally really enjoy the Drawing Center (I have linked here to a Penone show they recently curated). But the Drawing Center’s mission is one of a deeper, more curatorial, more historical perspective. It is also a place that defines itself by its audience of artists. It is a study center of sorts. I worry they will have to compromise their vision in order to appease an international tourist mecca. How does this institution “reflect our pride, our courage?” Same with Signature and the Joyce? The Joyce creates programming for a targeted audience (now with about 400 seats) as does Signature, “a 13-year-old house known for its season-long showcases devoted to one playwright.” Do we really think that a tourist will be attracted to a season’s worth of Sam Shepard? (But maybe I am wrongly underestimating “the tourist”? Please tell me I am biased). I will mourn the loss of the Drawing Center. Although I should really wait and see, I fear we are going to lose 3 more interesting institutions to the Disneyfication of New York and concurrently perpetuate the national false need for "blockbuster.".
prob with that DC link selma. i like the idea of something useful down at the wtc in principle. its very convenient to the jc path. and the drawing center opens up some more space in soho for what a new sharper image store.(i kid) but it could be a boost to that institution. the freedom center is redundant with the memorial, so thats a waste. dance and theatre arnt even on my radar. i would hope it would be a home to local culture vultures, not just for tourists, not a mime destination seaport kind of thing.
fixed. sorry.
as an aside, if you are interested, more on penone. and more.
thx, thx, and thx
musch-up
Subject: word on the street is...
they're just waiting for the ink to dry before it's made official...
more of the same with a left coast accent, or a fresh new voice? time will tell. tho' there are some left coasters who will give you an ear-full. (my gripe: LA Times changed to pay-per-view, so i haven't been able to read - or link to in ANN - ouroussoff columns for months!)
this is from new york mag intelligencer:
"Architectural Plans: Muschamp Moves
After twelve years as the New York Times architecture critic, Herbert Muschamp will now be writing primarily for the Times Magazine. Sources say the deal is being finalized for Nicolai Ouroussoff, currently the Los Angeles Times architecture critic, to take the influential post from Muschamp in the fall. Ouroussoff—a Pulitzer Prize nominee this year—was Muschamp’s top pick for the post. Muschamp and Ouroussoff didn’t return calls by press time. According to a New York Times spokeswoman, Ouroussoff has not been hired and Muschamp’s new assignment has not yet been determined."
just an fyi...
Kristen Richards, Editor-in-Chief, ArchNewsNow
Last Fall, Ouroussoff traveled to Iraq to document, among other things, the effect the war was having on "architecture" (brave soul, we all thought he was insane to go). I think it is worth the annoying registration (free) to read these articles that were published in December, a series of 4:
A four-part series by Los Angeles Times critic Nicolai Ouroussoff on the architectural heritage of the Iraqi capital.
IN SEARCH OF BAGHDAD - PART I
A crumbling cultural history
By Nicolai Ouroussoff
First of a four-part critic's notebook on the architectural heritage of Baghdad.
December 14, 2003
IN SEARCH OF BAGHDAD - PART II
When Iraq looked west
By Nicolai Ouroussoff
Only a few decades ago, Baghdad's longing to modernize drew some of the world's top architects, who began reshaping the historic city. The endeavor ended too soon.
December 14, 2003
IN SEARCH OF BAGHDAD - PART III
Patron of fear
By Nicolai Ouroussoff
The architecture Saddam Hussein sponsored is a potent expression of authoritarian rule, from coercive power to aims for historical legitimacy.
December 15, 2003
IN SEARCH OF BAGHDAD - PART IV
The road back
By Nicolai Ouroussoff
In this last of a four-part critic's notebook on the architectural heritage of Baghdad, the city must battle internal strife to rebuild, but it will take a spirit of openness.
December 16, 2003
As Muschamp Goes, Angry Adversaries Ready for Revenge. NY Oberver today. (there is a lot here on Herbert I did not know!)
Just finished reading it myself and thought this was worth a pullout quote:
"Why, given the precipitous decline in his critical stature, did The Times keep him on for so long? "Herbert’s enduring existence [at The Times] is one of the great urban legends," says one person active in architectural circles. "It’s one of the great mysteries of New York, along with why you never see baby pigeons."
(and I have always wondered about baby pigeons!)
great piece.
Never fear, DMTree has long-since touched on the issue of pigeon chicks. (Though I should update: the name was recently officially changed from Rock Dove to Rock Pigeon.)
apartment therapy finally getting around to it. with good links to more info though.
open letter to the NYT
|
- bill 6-08-2004 9:07 pm
Back to Square One at Ground Zero
Published NYT : June 6th, 2004
What artistic idea would be sufficiently bold and soul-stirring to lead ground zero into its future?
HERBERT MUSCHAMP
Back to Basics: Twin Towers II
WHAT functions can we eliminate? What uses can we subtract? These seem to me among the most constructive questions that can be asked today about the planning of ground zero, particularly about cultural programming.
Up to now, the planners have been thinking along opposite lines. How much can we add, they ask, as if an accumulation of functions is needed to produce the desired lively effect. Opera house, museum, and so on: these proposals are signs of cultural failure. At best, they denote impatience to arrive at some creative response that really requires more time and thought. More ominously, they represent distractions from the forces that have mired ground zero in politics and propaganda.
As a result, I have recently become more sympathetic to the "cop-out" position, which would mean abandoning the flawed ground zero design process altogether in favor of reconstructing the twin towers more or less as they were. Certainly, I'm prepared to defend reconstruction as a cultural act. It would be an offering to Mnemosyne, mother of the muses, from whom all culture flows.
The reduction to essentials is a great New York tradition, evident in our engineering and in our art. It is the correct tradition to invoke here. And then, to insure its revival, I would propose a school, a center of unlearning as well as learning, a place for disembedding ourselves from the welter of fantasies that has enveloped the country in recent years.
- bill 6-08-2004 9:07 pm [add a comment]
Who would want to work (or go to school) in those twin towers? Can I see a show of hands?
- tom moody 6-08-2004 9:16 pm [add a comment]
Well, presumably, if they rebuild the towers and no one wants to work (or go to school) in them they will be a financial disaster and the owner will have to find some economically (and logistically) feasible means of dismantling the structures...
...Oh wait.
- jim 6-08-2004 9:43 pm [add a comment]
‘We’re starting to talk about other things, both for [Mr. Muschamp] and for architecture.’—Times culture editor Jonathan Landman
- selma 6-09-2004 10:24 pm [add a comment]
Eavesdrop Issue 5
(via selma)
MUSCHAMP’S CLAIMS ON GROUND ZERO
Architects may have outsized egos but—if there was any question before—Herbert Muschamp’s may be out of control. As of press time, rumors were swirling that the NYT architecture critic has been making life difficult for the publishers of the forthcoming book Imagining Ground Zero: Official and Unofficial Schemes for the World Trade Center Competition (Rizzoli and Architectural Record). It seems the book’s author, Record editor Suzanne Stephens, wants to include schemes from the September 8, 2002, designer-palooza featured in the NYT Magazine in which Muschamp asked architects—including Charles Gwathmey, Peter Eisenman, Richard Meier, Zaha Hadid, and Rem Koolhaas—to contribute plans for Ground Zero. However, “He’s been calling the architects and telling them not to let their work be published,” says a designer familiar with the fiasco, “and several of them are complying.” Why would Muschamp want to interfere, when the NYT itself has acknowledged it doesn’t own the rights to the designs? “He was asked to write about the projects in the book,” the source continues, “so it can’t be that he just feels left out. The only answer would have to be power.” While the story is still developing, we’ve learned that Rizzoli is exploring legal options and, though they wouldn’t give an explanation, the offices of several of the architects we contacted, including Meier, confirmed they don’t intend to provide the plans in question. Both Stephens and her Rizzoli editor declined comment, and Muschamp did not return calls.
- i have to admit that Muschamp's NYT project was my favorite proposal for wtc. i wonder what changed his perspective. the wholesale failure of the "design by committee" approach ? that led to the call for elitisim and then the "oh, fuck it" rebuild the twin towers opines?
- bill 6-09-2004 11:32 pm [add a comment]
Mine too (but any plan that did not involve Libeskind was a good plan).
Is he tired of it - like we all are no? - and he is deciding to check out and not fight the fight? (I think Kimmelman's piece was still the best in verbalizing against the design by committee - trying to find it now). At the time I read it I remember wanting to give a little cheer. I know you all are not Herbert fans, but didn't his stand make you just feel a little sad? Like he has lost the battle? (on further thought, um, no need to answer that :-)
- selma 6-09-2004 11:44 pm [add a comment]
please understand I am not a Herbert fan either. I think he does a disservice to the architectural community in that he does not translate work for the "average" reader. He manages to make architecture even more unobtainable and less understandable than people already perceive it to be. (I am having deja vu, have I said this to you before?)
- selma 6-09-2004 11:52 pm [add a comment]
we're all repainting the same painting. call it a clarification.
- bill 6-10-2004 12:07 am [add a comment]
oh, one more thing, coincidence: I saw him having dinner at the odeon last night.
- selma 6-10-2004 12:08 am [add a comment]
Not Herbert related, but...
"The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) invites you to join Governor George Pataki and Mayor Michael Bloomberg at the announcement of the cultural institutions that have been selected for the World Trade Center site.
A press conference will be held at
2:15 p.m. today
at the World Financial Center's Winter Garden.
Please note there will be no announcement regarding the selected institutions prior to the press conference."
- selma 6-10-2004 6:24 pm [add a comment]
some of the preamble:
May 27, 2004, Thursday
EDITORIAL DESK, New York Times
Culture in Lower Manhattan
( Editorial ) 517 words
Ever since 9/11, there has been serious talk of including a strong cultural presence in the rebuilding at ground zero. It's worth remembering why. For all the gravity of the site itself, and for all the dignity of Michael Arad's memorial design, ground zero is about more than remembering the lives of those who died in terrorist attacks or the events that caused their deaths. It is also about the creation of new vitality. The emergence of a new cultural hub in Lower Manhattan is a way of going beyond memory, a way of enriching, fulfilling and reinterpreting the emotional context of 9/11 itself. We should visit ground zero to honor the victims and remember that day, but we should stay to celebrate life itself in a way that only the arts allow us to do.
For the past year, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation has been preparing a short list of cultural entities that might occupy two sites -- one in a new performing arts center just east of the planned Freedom Tower, and another cultural complex to the south, also at Fulton and Greenwich Streets. Two possibilities have been discussed from the very beginning -- a so-called Freedom Museum, which has often sounded like little more than an excuse for vigorous flag-waving, and the New York City Opera, which has been hoping to find a new home outside Lincoln Center.
We love City Opera, but in the end, its proposal to build a 2,200-seat theater and expand its programming to fill those seats beyond its own operatic season seems to us too unwieldy for the setting. It is not so much a question of the wrong art as the wrong space.
The most interesting possibility is a mix of at least three different cultural entities on the two sites. One attractive combination would include the Joyce Theater, the Signature Theatre Company and the Drawing Center, along with a reimagined Freedom Center. They would bring together at ground zero the worlds of dance, theater and the fine arts, in a cluster of performing arts and gallery spaces that would fill the cultural calendar year-round.
The Joyce, the Signature and the Drawing Center were all planning to expand or move before 9/11, and they offer a diversity and a quality of cultural imagination that fits Lower Manhattan and would galvanize cultural life in that part of the city. Instead of a single 2,200-seat theater, there would be at least four theaters, ranging from some 200 seats to 1,000 seats.
Making this work will take someone with vision and energy -- and political capital -- to head a new foundation that will create the cultural center and the memorial. This isn't only a fund-raising opportunity, though that will certainly be part of the task. This is a chance to rebuild Lower Manhattan from the ground up, to amplify and illuminate the meaning of 9/11, and to light up the neighborhood.
And then the shortlist (NYT, June 8)
Now we need a drumroll..
- selma 6-10-2004 6:40 pm [add a comment]
A modest proposal: no cultural organization moves to the site, for the following reasons: (a) too much suspicion and lingering questions about the destruction of the first buildings, (b) fear of a second attack in a Bush-increased terror atmosphere, (c) commercial motivations and personal greed of the present property owner, (d) not enough attention to calls to keep the site empty as a memorial to the dead.
- tom moody 6-10-2004 8:03 pm [add a comment]
or (e) if I may?: fear of working, performing, etc. in a toxic environment.
in an ideal world, would you really want to see the site kept empty? just curious..
- selma 6-10-2004 8:10 pm [add a comment]
Absolutely. I think there was a lot of sentiment for a large green space as a memorial, but of course, in the real world, hrumph, hrumph... Muschamp himself paid lip service to the idea of green space with his praise of Ellsworth Kelly's collage-proposal, which I discussed here. As far as your (e), I agree the site was wildly toxic during the months the fires were burning and asbestos fibers from the rubble were wafting through the air. The issue now would be whether any toxins leached into the ground below the bathtub and present a current threat to future topside construction. My guess would be no, but one thing's for sure, Silverstein, the City, and the Feds will always say it's completely cleaned up.
- tom moody 6-10-2004 8:31 pm [add a comment]
Fair enough. As far as Silverstein and the lot confessing to pollution, I agree (but unfortunately this is probably the case in a lot of places/development sites). Did they ever ultimately admit to asbestos anyway? I remember Giuliani saying that all the asbestos had been removed months before the attack while, clearly on a TV screen, I was seeing a bunch of it burning behind him. "But look, that is asbestos!" I wish I had had a recorder. A lot, but very little, has changed in my life since 9/11. One very superficial thing is that I do not drink tap water. No ice. I don’t even make my morning coffee with tap water. I know this is silly, but it is a luxury – or paranoia – I allow myself (better than going and living in a bunker, for me anyway).
And I liked the Kelly piece too. I also appreciated it as refreshing vignette in a rather disheartening and heavy process.
- selma 6-10-2004 8:54 pm [add a comment]
here is just one of the reports i found on the net. The port authority party line for sharing info on asbestos in wtc was that the floor surface which they delivered to the client (which would almost always carpeted or tiled over) was a linoleum tile type product which contained some asbestos but was safer left intact than removed. my call would be for a greenspace memorial. as tom points out in point a), the site still carries a huge bulls eye identity. not a well thought out location for rebuilding a new "the worlds tallest building." not after the first crack at it in 1993 and then coming back to comlpletly flatten the whole complex in 2001. i would say its a radioactive location based on that alone.
- bill 6-10-2004 9:32 pm [add a comment]
I added an "environmental distrust" item to the list on my page. As far as asbestos, wouldn't they have had to evacuate the buildings at some point (pre 9/11) to get it all out safely? Did they go in office by office and remove it while people were working there? I haven't researched it, but complete detoxification seems unlikely.
- tom moody 6-10-2004 9:36 pm [add a comment]
Oh, belatedly saw Bill's link. Yeah, it sounds like the asbestos was made "safe for working" by sealing but not removed from the building.
- tom moody 6-10-2004 9:40 pm [add a comment]
great, thanks bill. so I have up to 30 years of worrying ahead.
terrific.
Manhattan could always use some more green, yes.
- selma 6-10-2004 9:42 pm [add a comment]
Re: keeping the site empty - how would the owner be compensated? Doing it with public funds would be an incredible burden on city tax payers (billions of dollars!) just to create a tiny park in a very affluent neighborhood. It doesn't really make sense to me.
Or are you saying the owner (well, okay, 99 year leasee) should just get screwed? Yikes.
- jim 6-10-2004 9:53 pm [add a comment]
it is not really an option.
but the land could be bought by federal funds. all "memorials" are in dc anyway, shouldn't this one at least be funded the same way. it was the world's loss, not manhattans.
(I just deleted something I wrote earlier - I am not sure about the etiquette for that - sorry - but I thought I should take note. I was feeling punchy).
- selma 6-10-2004 10:00 pm [add a comment]
The owner (Silverstein) and the ground lessee (Port Authority) will get insurance for the past loss. Silverstein, as we know, wants a double payment. I have no idea what the loss of future tax revenue would be to the city for a few blocks. Over how much time? Till it's destoyed again? To rebuild another tower with a crappy water memorial is like Bush and the Times taking responsibility without any sacrifice. (Except no one in the City took responsibility for bad police/fire coordination, the "bunker in the sky," etc etc.)
- tom moody 6-10-2004 10:02 pm [add a comment]
Silverstein on his defeat in court.
"Of course, I am disappointed that the jury did not see things our way with respect to most of the insurers in the WTC coverage. But let me be clear. A defeat in the courtroom is not a defeat for rebuilding. Whatever happens in court, we are determined to rebuild the World Trade Center, under Governor Pataki's leadership and in keeping with the Master Plan."
- selma 6-10-2004 10:11 pm [add a comment]
I'm just someone who hopes, someday, in the distant future, to possibly, maybe, if everything goes well, own some land. And, within the law, I would hope to be able to do whatever I want with the land. Now, I agree, it's easy to not feel sorry for Silverstein - but he does have legal claim to the land.
And while I am not arguing for building a huge tower on the site, I don't find the argument that it is a terrorist target to be very persuasive. Here's my thinking: Imagine there is a terrorist group in the country ready to blow something up. If there is a huge tower rebuilt on the WTC site I agree that this would be a tempting target. But if there is not, they will just pick some other target. What is the difference? It's not like building a tower there is going to *create* terrorists who otherwise wouldn't have been terrorists.
Maybe you could just build it *really* well and then it could be the flypaper theory skyscraper. (Okay, that bit was sarcastic ;-)
- jim 6-10-2004 10:15 pm [add a comment]
opps, sorry. now I messed up your comment. and I can't really re-create what I had written. I think I have had too much coffee today. I just realized I had probably been reading you incorrectly (this webstuff can be confusing :-).
- selma 6-10-2004 10:21 pm [add a comment]
the pa could just give him back his deposit and say beat it. hes already blown huge portion of the insurance settlement on legal fees trying to grab a double-dip payment. the purpose of the wtc was to breath life backinto down town, that job is done.
- bill 6-10-2004 10:20 pm [add a comment]
"The owner (Silverstein) and the ground lessee (Port Authority) will get insurance for the past loss."
I don't know the details of this, but I would guess that it is as you describe: the insurance covers the past loss. But I'm talking about future loss of revenues from Silverstein not being allowed to build a commercial property. As much as I would like that outcome, do you really think it is fair? Wouldn't he have to be compensated forward in time somehow? That's what I meant by the billions of dollars figure.
Perhaps I am out of my mind though.
- jim 6-10-2004 10:28 pm [add a comment]
According to Bill, he's not spending his past compensation very wisely--I do think there's a public interest in not having a fool in charge of the site. Just kidding, but not really.
Also, as Bill suggested, it should be the Port Authority's call. I don't know the financial machinations involved in buying a building from someone and then leasing most of it to the seller for 99 years. Since Silverstein only owned it 6 months before it came down around his ears (or he "pulled it"), what is his genuine equitable interest in the property (as opposed to strict legal title)? It's really quasi-public land, and the place of a great American tragedy, can he really do what he wants with it? Like build "9/11 World"?
Our constitution doesn't say the public can't take land from private owners, just that it can't be taken without just compensation. (George Bush got that stadium land on the cheap through abuse of the eminent domain laws.) I say there's a prevailing public interest (whether by the PA, as selma suggested the Feds, or the City) in taking the land away from Larry. Compensate him (minus any wasted legal fees) and send him scooting. How much you pay him--all lost future revenues?--to be worked out in court.
- tom moody 6-10-2004 10:45 pm [add a comment]
"June 10, 2004, 2:52 PM EDT
NEW YORK -- A new museum devoted to freedom, two independent theatre companies and an artists' drawing center will anchor a new cultural space at the World Trade Center site, development officials announced Thursday.
City and state officials chose the Joyce International Dance Center, the Signature Theatre, the Drawing Center and the Freedom Center to move to ground zero. More than 100 arts organizations began vying for space at the site in late 2002 and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation had narrowed the groups to six by last week."
- selma 6-10-2004 11:29 pm [add a comment]
"The announcement was the culmination of a competition that was criticized as opaque by some arts and community leaders and was drawn out by a clash of interests over what constituency culture should serve at ground zero: Tourists looking for something to do at night after visiting the memorial? Families of the victims seeking art that will honor their lost loved ones? Neighborhood residents who want services like after-school art classes for their children? Or culture hounds craving a new downtown arts destination?
Development officials said yesterday that they had aimed at all of the above.
"This is sacred ground," Mr. Pataki said. "We wanted to have cultural institutions that would reflect our pride, our courage."
NYTimes, June 11, 2004.
I am worried about compromise.
The entire WTC project, from the architecture, the memorial and now the institutions, has been mired with trying to be all things to all people. Fine a Freedom Center (what is that by the way? Sure, okay we have 'Freedom' Museums that focus on historically significant and painful scars, like slavery and the holocaust. But what is a Freedom Center that has “exhibitions centered on humankind’s enduring quest for freedom” – by what - and whose! -definition? I imagine something like an Army recruitment center? A propaganda museum for Bush? Well, that is another 'rant'..) but the Joyce, the Drawing Center, Signature? These are less than mainstream institutions. I personally really enjoy the Drawing Center (I have linked here to a Penone show they recently curated). But the Drawing Center’s mission is one of a deeper, more curatorial, more historical perspective. It is also a place that defines itself by its audience of artists. It is a study center of sorts. I worry they will have to compromise their vision in order to appease an international tourist mecca. How does this institution “reflect our pride, our courage?” Same with Signature and the Joyce? The Joyce creates programming for a targeted audience (now with about 400 seats) as does Signature, “a 13-year-old house known for its season-long showcases devoted to one playwright.” Do we really think that a tourist will be attracted to a season’s worth of Sam Shepard? (But maybe I am wrongly underestimating “the tourist”? Please tell me I am biased). I will mourn the loss of the Drawing Center. Although I should really wait and see, I fear we are going to lose 3 more interesting institutions to the Disneyfication of New York and concurrently perpetuate the national false need for "blockbuster.".
- selma 6-11-2004 7:47 pm [add a comment]
prob with that DC link selma. i like the idea of something useful down at the wtc in principle. its very convenient to the jc path. and the drawing center opens up some more space in soho for what a new sharper image store.(i kid) but it could be a boost to that institution. the freedom center is redundant with the memorial, so thats a waste. dance and theatre arnt even on my radar. i would hope it would be a home to local culture vultures, not just for tourists, not a mime destination seaport kind of thing.
- bill 6-11-2004 9:00 pm [add a comment]
fixed. sorry.
as an aside, if you are interested, more on penone. and more.
- selma 6-14-2004 6:17 pm [add a comment]
thx, thx, and thx
- bill 6-14-2004 7:20 pm [add a comment]
musch-up
- bill 6-14-2004 11:44 pm [add a comment]
Subject: word on the street is...
they're just waiting for the ink to dry before it's made official...
more of the same with a left coast accent, or a fresh new voice? time will tell. tho' there are some left coasters who will give you an ear-full. (my gripe: LA Times changed to pay-per-view, so i haven't been able to read - or link to in ANN - ouroussoff columns for months!)
this is from new york mag intelligencer:
"Architectural Plans: Muschamp Moves
After twelve years as the New York Times architecture critic, Herbert Muschamp will now be writing primarily for the Times Magazine. Sources say the deal is being finalized for Nicolai Ouroussoff, currently the Los Angeles Times architecture critic, to take the influential post from Muschamp in the fall. Ouroussoff—a Pulitzer Prize nominee this year—was Muschamp’s top pick for the post. Muschamp and Ouroussoff didn’t return calls by press time. According to a New York Times spokeswoman, Ouroussoff has not been hired and Muschamp’s new assignment has not yet been determined."
just an fyi...
Kristen Richards, Editor-in-Chief, ArchNewsNow
- selma 6-16-2004 5:50 pm [add a comment]
Last Fall, Ouroussoff traveled to Iraq to document, among other things, the effect the war was having on "architecture" (brave soul, we all thought he was insane to go). I think it is worth the annoying registration (free) to read these articles that were published in December, a series of 4:
A four-part series by Los Angeles Times critic Nicolai Ouroussoff on the architectural heritage of the Iraqi capital.
IN SEARCH OF BAGHDAD - PART I
A crumbling cultural history
By Nicolai Ouroussoff
First of a four-part critic's notebook on the architectural heritage of Baghdad.
December 14, 2003
IN SEARCH OF BAGHDAD - PART II
When Iraq looked west
By Nicolai Ouroussoff
Only a few decades ago, Baghdad's longing to modernize drew some of the world's top architects, who began reshaping the historic city. The endeavor ended too soon.
December 14, 2003
IN SEARCH OF BAGHDAD - PART III
Patron of fear
By Nicolai Ouroussoff
The architecture Saddam Hussein sponsored is a potent expression of authoritarian rule, from coercive power to aims for historical legitimacy.
December 15, 2003
IN SEARCH OF BAGHDAD - PART IV
The road back
By Nicolai Ouroussoff
In this last of a four-part critic's notebook on the architectural heritage of Baghdad, the city must battle internal strife to rebuild, but it will take a spirit of openness.
December 16, 2003
- selma 6-16-2004 6:25 pm [add a comment]
As Muschamp Goes, Angry Adversaries Ready for Revenge. NY Oberver today. (there is a lot here on Herbert I did not know!)
- selma 6-24-2004 9:07 pm [add a comment]
Just finished reading it myself and thought this was worth a pullout quote:
"Why, given the precipitous decline in his critical stature, did The Times keep him on for so long? "Herbert’s enduring existence [at The Times] is one of the great urban legends," says one person active in architectural circles. "It’s one of the great mysteries of New York, along with why you never see baby pigeons."
(and I have always wondered about baby pigeons!)
- selma 6-24-2004 9:19 pm [add a comment]
great piece.
- bill 6-24-2004 9:36 pm [add a comment]
Never fear, DMTree has long-since touched on the issue of pigeon chicks. (Though I should update: the name was recently officially changed from Rock Dove to Rock Pigeon.)
- alex 6-24-2004 10:04 pm [add a comment]
apartment therapy finally getting around to it. with good links to more info though.
- bill 6-29-2004 9:51 pm [add a comment]
open letter to the NYT
- bill 7-03-2004 3:29 am [add a comment]