Observation II
Does Architecture Dream of Upheaval? — Part II
REST NOT IN PEACE: WTC
For centuries, we build for permanence, but entering the 21st century the mindset seems to be rearranged. The existence of the built structures should be emphasized rather than striving a permanent imprint. As the density increases in the urban area, sites to build are extremely rare and valuable. Often before the new arrives, the old falls in many different ways. Buildings are not permanent either: they die. The site raises a new building, which may or may not reflect the past memories of what used to be standing in the same footprint. A piece of architecture, especially one that is rich in symbolism and social values, involuntarily participates in a sudden, unsolicited, and extremely destructive disruption; the building becomes a vessel, a carrier of both its former self and the shared memories of this event.
Like the building that witnessed a murder to go by the terminology used by architect Bernard Tschumi, the destruction of the Twin Towers, the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 is definitely the most horrifying and catastrophic event that was witnessed by architecture. It introduced to the participants of the event a reminder of the impermanence of architecture; the stability of a nation’s icon was challenged and demolished in the blink of an eye, carrying thousands of victims down as the architecture itself turns to dust and rubbles. It not only suggested the fragility of built realities, but how the length of time of occupying a space can be shorter than one had envisioned in the first place.
The Twin Towers, namely the former 1 WTC and 2 WTC, designed by architect Minoru Yamazaki as part of Lower Manhattan’s urban renewal project was completed in 1970 and 1971. The program envisioned was the world’s first World Trade Centre. Occupying significant cultural presence, the site not only becomes a stimulant of the financial activities, but also a major touristic attraction. The WTC Twin towers have its own zip code due to the density of the occupants sharing a singular address. It is a vessel to an entire biosphere of social phenomenon. It is a compressed heterogeneous entity anchored on a limited footprint. The value of verticality made possible by technological advancement; elevator shaft as the transient multiplier of spatial engagement at different scales of occupancy and pace.
The Twin Towers, although manifested themselves in enclosed enclaves, allowed a certain degree of exchange and interaction between the public and private- for example the separation of areas of tourism and private businesses. The private enterprises provide a stable or permanent occupancy, and the tourists and visitors provide a rather ephemeral engagement. The diverse social engagement internalized in the architecture enables a coexistence of seemingly unrelated activities. At the event of the tragedy, the WTC (of the total of all 7 buildings) housed more than 430 companies from 28 countries according to the CNN’s report that has listed the occupants of WTC at the time. [24] According to the same report by the CNN, an estimated 50,000 people worked in the WTC and another 140,000 visited the complex daily. With a high volume of transient population that engaged the spaces over the span of the architecture’s lifetime, not only the public image that it portrays, but the amount of revenue that was generated has far exceeded the relatively inert leased offices.
As the spontaneous event disrupted a usual and peacefully busy morning at the financial district of Manhattan, the permanency and protectiveness offered by architecture was not the only aspect that was challenged. The towers that fell apart in the attack, were vessels carrying various spaces which collectively contributed economic values to the entire social context of the nation. The twin towers portrayed the icon representing the strength of a system: the political, social, economical stability that perpetually embedded them. In the architecture this symbol of the United States of America became an artificial ruin “choreographed” by Al-Qaeda terrorism.
The sudden attack of Al-Qaeda, deconstructing the WTC, transformed rapidly the mundane daily engagement between the people and architecture. The disturbance changed the stability of not only the architecture itself but also disturbed the state of equilibrium of the programs inside the vertical volume. The implosion caused by the impact of the aircrafts was like having food put in a blender as all the different spaces and programs in the architecture collapsed together. It is a process of rearranging the pre-existing order into a new order, which could be linked to how a layered cake is only proper if it is layered with a good mix of ingredients. As the architecture fell, there were no distinctions between business elites occupying the offices and tourists passing by: there were only casualties as the encoded spatiality collapsed.
The architecture demolished by terrorism has spontaneously reinvented itself to become a newly constructed ruin. The rebuilding process slowly takes over and the “man-made ruin” is mixed and rearranged all over again, and then the process continues. The terrorist attack constructs an artificial ruin that claims the destruction as part of their engagement with the urban environment. In this constructed ruin, the hierarchical space that divides the architecture into different vertically stacked programs has turned in to entropy where all the molecules of the former physical space are still there, but only in a state of disorder.
The rebuilding of the WTC, although scraping out the remains of the former buildings still follows the spirit of the former architecture: a volume to contain an extremely broad spectrum from permanent occupancy to transient population. It is impossible to attain any visual resemblance of the towers that fell other than the two foundations, now turned into a memorial. The sentimental “heritage” is reconstructed under a new skin, a new vessel to host the same spirit. On November 3rd, 2014, the WTC One designed by one of the most technologically competent architecture firm SOM, opens its door to public 13 years after the fall of the twin tower. It is announced to be the new iconic addition to the Manhattan skyline, but will it ever hold more importance than source of revenue and a monument of the past? Mainstream architectural journals such as Archdaily has criticized the WTC One as a product of compromise. [25] Time Magazine on the other hand dedicated an interactive web-zine [26] filled with articles, documentaries, and stunning photos to give the WTC One tower a warm welcome. The tower appears to be minimal yet filled with humble dedications to the fallen Twin Towers: the square footprint and rooftop, and a height of 1,776 ft not only claiming the tallest of North America, but also reflecting the number of casualties of the 9–11 Attack. The glass trophy camouflages into the scenery of Manhattan, silently changing with the city. There are no strong statements and pretty words. The criticisms are possibly correct with the tower’s “compromise”, but perhaps it is never intended to be a morphing sculpture or a memorial of the tragedy. It is what it once was: a hub of global economic movements.
The site preparation took the majority of the construction, clearing out the reminiscent of the twin towers. The reflective facade diminishes the urban-scape that is constantly in flux marking a new age for temporal, mobile, and responsive architecture to reach a new stability through capturing movements of its surroundings and its inhabitants.
Architecture did not radicalize architecture, the tragedy did. As the entire social belief restructured and values reassessed, architecture changes from a statement of existence to a camouflaged supporter of the city.
Next >> Observation II
24. “List of World Trade Center tenants”, CNN.com, date accessed March 12, http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html.
25. Did the New World Trade Center Live Up to Its Expectations. Archdaily. date published October 4, 2014. date accessed October 4, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/553708/did-the-new-world-trade-center-live-up-to-its-expectations/
26. “1 World Trade Center: TIME’s View From The Top Of NYC” Time, date accessed November 17, 2014 . http://time.com/world-trade-center/
