R. D. Kushner
July 24, 2002

Last week, amid a much publicized presentation of preliminary design schemes for the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site, the American public revealed its architectural and urban design panurgy. If nothing else, the criticism of the six design schemes for the redevelopment of lower Manhattan represents a surprising and welcome discourse into the idea of art in the public realm; and the public's interest in these matters is as welcome as it is desirable.

Much of the criticism of the six design schemes was negative; and the American public's dissatisfaction should not simply be disregarded as a knee-jerk reaction to a series of design schemes that, at best, might be described as mildly interesting. But before completely dismissing the design schemes as sad examples of human artifice, and good examples of how Architecture is rendered impotent in a capitalist culture, it is necessary to understand the process of Architectural design, and the relationship between Architectural design and Real Estate Development.

The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation [LMDC], a private, quasi-governmental agency, has published some very important statements regarding the design methodology for this project:

"The concept plans... are not architectural designs for proposed buildings. Rather, they present different relationships of uses and elements on the site and adjacent areas that will provide desirable sites for future works of architecture." [1]

In Architecture-speak, the information presented in these "concept plans" is nothing more than a "massing study." A "massing study," in the context of an urban design scheme, is a 3-dimensional, visual examination of the required programmatic square-footages of buildings, shown in relationship to streets and public spaces. The LMDC makes very clear that these studies do not constitute "Architecture" per se, but rather provide a guide for later design development:

"Once a final plan is approved, the second stage of the planning process will begin; architectural design befitting of the importance of the site to the city, the nation, and, indeed, the world." [2]

One should interpret this statement as follows:

"Do not take these schemes too literally; they are merely studies of the required density and form required to make the development of the site economically feasible. The real 'Architecture' has yet to be conceived and designed."

The LMDC must be held to task on this statement. The redevelopment plans for this site call for a heroic artistic gesture rarely appreciated in the United States. The redevelopment plan is an enormous civic project, with a scale and level of public scrutiny, that is unprecedented in American history. Quite simply, it will bring artistry [in the form of urban design and architecture] into American life much like the events of 9/11 universally solidified the concepts of terrorism and fear into the American psyche; in effect, the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site offers the possibility of a unified exhibition of American greatness that no military display will ever approach. The impetus to create great art from the trauma of 9/11, on the actual site of the terrorist attack, is a moment that must be seized - anything less than a heroic artistic gesture will be a failure of the imagination, an inexcusable missed opportunity, and  an incalculable loss.

The opposing forces of real estate development and architectural design must be managed and controlled by the LMDC in such a way that good design does not take a back seat to economic profitability. Early in the design process, when the forms and ideas presented are not yet attached to any solid construction cost estimate, it is easy to argue any point of design. Once this economic vacuum is eliminated [by way of cost estimating and subsequent value engineering] the real estate developers will start pruning the scope and integrity of the work so that the pockets of their investors are comfortably filled. There must be a strong voice on the LMDC that will balance the vapid momentum to create buildings that look like giant urban shoeboxes.

Unfortunately the design and construction of this massive public works project - in a manner appropriate to the scale, site, and circumstances of the World Trade Center site -  will be nearly impossible for a culture which has relegated the status of art, to nothing more than an acceptable byproduct of capitalist investment. The minimized role of art in American culture has lead to an inability to appreciate the value of creative visual information beyond that of its economic implications. Why else would "good design" such as the Michael Graves collection be sold exclusively at Target and not at boutiques in New York City? The answer to this questions is simple: Americans only value good design when it's also a sale item. As much as the redevelopment project is a civic project, it is also a real estate development project, and it is the economic practicality of the design schemes that will play a major role in the direction of the development and its ultimate visual and tactile form.

In order for the project to be an economic success, businesses, residents, and consumers, will have to be comfortable inhabiting the new building complex. The real estate development community's position is a tenuous one; they perceive the risks involved with vigorous design as a potential impediment to profitability: if the project is too blasé, it will be ignored, and if it is too avant-garde, it will be avoided. If there is any hope of the approved design being anything more than watered down versions of mediocre ideas, then the American public and the LMDC must act courageously and dexterously.

In the realm of architecture and construction, courage and dexterity are equated with, and subject to, budgets and cultural vision. There is a reason that the average office building and apartment complex resemble giant shoeboxes turned up on end; and the reason is quite simply, economics. And yet, a capitalist society argues that these projects are "good designs," because the ultimate measure of these designs is their economic viability; the quicker the investment turns a profit, the "better" the design. Very rarely do you have investors, arguing to spend more money on a project just so that it is more "beautiful" - for what is beauty to the developer and American shareholder except a quicker return on their investment?

Perhaps it may seem a little romantic and naive to think that this project should be designed with a contempt for budgets; such a mindset is particularly un-American. It requires a shift in perspective which will allow one to appreciate art, simply for art's sake. But if ever there were a project site which demanded the courage to rethink the relationship between art and culture, this is it. The new Architecture for the World Trade Center site will be permanent, occupiable, public art; and its greatness will be measured in ooh's and ahh's as well as in dollars and cents. Architects around the world should consider themselves lucky, they should consider the profession to have been struck by a bolt of lightening; this is a rare opportunity for Architecture to embody a celebration of human values and aspirations. If America is to be as great as it claims to be, the design for the World Trade Center site must be a heroic exhibition of unprecedented vitality; anything less will be an abject failure.

Works Cited:

[1] http://www.renewnyc.com/process/default.htm
[2] ibid.