Channebeta - bic gattonero - WTC, or: the end of architecture

The discussion on the reconstruction of the World Trade Center has now reached its peak, though in Italy it hasn't made the headline and people haven't shown a particular interest in proposals. I believe this to be a good sign, and I hope never to see such initiatives as the ones set up for he WTC reconstruction being adopted here.

After 9-11 everybody, Port Authority included, were very cautious not to mention any reconstruction plans, it would have sounded disrespectful to the great majority of the public opinion. Now some time has passed and we've already seen quite a few proposals for a new World Trade Center. Starting with the first generic submission of sketches sent by private citizens to newspapers etc, many improbable solutions for the site were later seen in group shows, then it was the turn of the first organized competition that had to be called off due to the public's reaction to the projects proposed that lack any kind of sensitivity what so ever and were just "developer" schemes. Now this supposedly final competition add 7 more projects to the list.

Another failure for sure. and this is not only because the proposals are clearly indecent and would look bad in any first year design studio, but mainly because of the way clients and "designers" approached the problem of reconstructing the WTC.

What happened clearly describes what architecture is today: terminally ill.

1. First of all, all the proposals come from groups of often many designers: but who in these groups is responsible for what? Everybody of everything or nobody of nothing?

Architects have shown the tendency to walk around in large groups for quite a while now, but the case of United Architects is unprecedented, especially due the fame and number of its members.

Precisely when it would be most important to take responsibility for their actions, architects choose a formula that makes nobody responsible for the design. Groups are not a sign of democratic cooperation among professionals, they are rather an admission of incompetence.

Furthermore, it is impossible that all the members actually played a role in the design, thus the idea of "united architects" is just a mystification, a lie.

2. Discussing the proposals in public gatherings is simply ridiculous, and again, it says a lot on the lack confidence both of designers as well as clients. What does the public know about architecture, building code, fire dept. regulations, so on and so forth? Nothing. so on what basis can the public evaluate the proposals if they know nothing about them? Is it because not matter how little they know it would still more than what architects and client know? well, this would be like saying that doctors in hospitals don't know what they're doing and that therapy should from now on be decided by public assemblies. This is exactly what's happening in architecture. And instead of being alarmed, many people cherish the "democracy" in reaching decision when in some cases "democracy" is completely counterproductive, while there would be a strong need of responsibility and competence.

3. What is missing? Innovation. all the proposals, and I mean all, are old fashioned high rise design. when Chicago had its great fire, the city was able to become a laboratory of innovation and started the great American tradition of steel frame buildings. New York seems unable to produce any significant innovation, and this is the sign of a culturally defeated city.

The destruction of the World Trade Center had a tremendous impact on architecture and its history: it forced architects to question (maybe for too short a time) the high rise model. It erased one of the most outrageous example of speculation, energy-inefficiency, eco-unsustainable example of such model. It forced architects to ponder (maybe not long enough) the environmental cost of such buildings. It marked the end of architecture as" Tekne" without a conscience.

The effort to rebuild the World Trade Center is producing even worse consequences: the end of architecture as discipline. The continuous dismantling of models, theories and practices was such that today's architecture is just a trick of some goofy magician. Whether his name is Libeskind, United Architects, SOM, THINK Design, R. Maier, Eisenman, Holl, Gwathmey & Siegel, Peterson & Littenberg , or Lord Foster, it doesn't really matter.

bic