|
A Transcendent Quality
By Nick Ucci, Ph.D., Centereach, NY
As a fine artist, I was surprised by the handful of initial plans presented by the architectural firms that New York City hired to propose designs for the World Trade Center space. These designs were deemed uninspired by most who saw them. It struck me that the terrorists saw the towers as if they were a statement about our nation—for example, we have more than twice as much as everyone else. However, we do not seem to place much emphasis in the messages our buildings convey. (Apparently this is true even of many architectural firms.) I certainly do not think we should allow maniacal terrorists to dictate what the new design for this site should be, but I think it is important to make a statement with the new design—one that demonstrates creativity, yet also suggests that we are about more than just material possessions. My thoughts about a new design, for example, began with the basics; there needs to be enough office space, for instance. However, there also needs to be a transcendent quality, a quality that speaks to the tragedy and historic impact of the attack while also suggesting that we know what is most important in life.
I envisioned a corridor of square buildings (which can accommodate plenty of office space) with smoked-glass outer walls (with horizontal lines), leading to two parallel towers that are taller than the other buildings, but much narrower, and with reflective glass outer walls (with vertical lines) that make them appear white in the daylight. The most visually compelling feature would be an arch-dome between the tops of the two new tower buildings that could be interpreted, for instance, as praying hands, but would also call to mind Art Deco, eastern architecture, and post-modern novelty—in short, the diversity that we not only accept, but view as a strength. This arch-dome should be built to a height that would allow it to be visible just above the downtown skyline, which might make it appear to be a bud ready to flower, suggesting rebirth. Perhaps lighting could be added to this arch-dome for dramatic effect at night as a memorial to those lost.
I like this idea because it does not tell the visitor what to think, but instead allows the visitor to interpret the design elements as he or she sees fit, on conscious and unconscious levels. The row of square, dark-tinted buildings would have a "heavy" look when contrasted against the two slimmer buildings with the arch-dome. Multiple interpretations, the hallmark of thought-provoking art and architecture, would be possible. This overall design possesses a classic "sacred versus profane" quality, whereas the arch-dome would be a unique architectural element that would be visually exciting, but also capture the gravity behind its existence. I would vary the heights of the square buildings (some would be slightly rectangular), which could be interpreted as worldly diversity (such as the many different kinds of people who worked there), and the tints of the glass outer walls could be varied as well for a similar interpretation. The corridor between the buildings would be a park-like area, perhaps containing sculpture, monuments, etc.
I am not suggesting that my design idea is the product of the mind of a genius. My point, actually, is that someone with a basic artistic sense can imagine a design that does this space justice. In our nation, art often makes headlines for its "controversial" qualities, especially in recent years. An "avant-garde" design would not be appropriate, at least if it was adopted just because it looks different and "exciting." Yet to build several buildings indistinguishable from the many other skyscrapers is not fitting either, especially in New York City, the center of the world of fine art.
Why was the search for a new design not opened to all those with a compelling vision? Would it have taken too much time to give a cursory glance to a few hundred sketches? If a compelling sketch was submitted, then architectural firms could have been hired to draw actual plans for it. Many other design projects undertaken by our government have been open to all, and it seems to me that this project, in particular, should have had access to all the creative resources our people can offer it.
|
|
)