SRIJAN 2002-2003(1st Edition)

of the world" at the top. The most dramatic component of his plan includes the memorial space set some 30ft. below grade on a bed
rock foundation with exposed slurry walls on the west. An elevated walkway encircling the site constitutes the memorial promenade.
GENERAL I POINT
Others have advocated building a tower even taller than the original 411 metres (1,350 feet) towers, as an act of defiance against
terrorism. Some of us are even directly discarding the option of vertical expansion
AN ARCHITECTURAL POINT OF VIEW
Some one has rightly said, "When you learn to fall than only you learn to walk". But this statement does not seem to fit in case of
selection of the new design for the world trade center. Finally they have decided that what next WTC would be like. Libeskind
(architect whose proposal has been selected) is ready, to pose a yet another challenge to global terrorism, in spite of all that devastation
that occurred on 9/11. They are set to go up to the max vertical limits of their ability. And to surprise everybody, those limits will well
pass the max ever attained ones.
It was the end of the 8th century and beginning of 19th century, when people decided to chose vertical expansion because of the
scarcity of the land. But it was for the first time on 9/11 when necessity to review the idea was felt. And everybody including me was
thinking that some great minds in the field of architecture would come with a certain solution to vertical expansion. And they came
with the idea of going even further high. A number of entries were called for the design of new WTC all over the globe. But Libeskind's
idea was lucky enough to be selected inspite of being very surprising one. Most of people won't like the idea of the vertical expansion
in modern scenario. The finalists each featured buildings surpassing Malaysia's 1,483-foot Petronas Twin Towers, the world's tallest.
The World Trade Center stood at 1,350 feet. But we can't stop our creativity for an excuse of terrorism. If terrorism can damage you
vertically than it can damage you horizontally or in any other direction as well. So there is no need to change your way of thinking
but of course the way to protect that thinking .And that is not the job of architect. Hence I full agree with the idea of Libeskind.
OTHER MODELS IN RACE
Destroyed by the evil culture followed by the Al Quaida, the architects of United States Of America being fearless gave several
more structures which are followed by the design selected and holds a good place in the race of best designs of a magnificent structure.
Meier et al first. Richard Meier was very cocky in his presentation: "We're the New York
team," he said. "Some say we're the dream team." But what this team came up with looks like a
classic case of design by committee. They put reflecting pools on the footprints of the twin towers,
which let light through to a memorial space below - so far, so normal. Then they took the shadows
which the towers cast (to the west) on September 11, and planted them with trees. One of the
shadows went into the river so that area becomes a "floating memorial plaza" which 5000 people
can fit onto should they so desire. It's one of dozens of different memorials which they're dotting
around Lower Manhattan, in a kind of distributed remembrance which won't really work.
Next Skidmore Owings & Merrill, who teamed up
with four artists, including Jessica Stockholder, to create what
they call "a dense grid of vertical structures that support multiple strata of public and cultural
spaces". What that means in practice is a set of no fewer than nine more-or-less-identical
skyscrapers shoehorned into a very small area, with the occasional sky bridge connecting one to
another. They all have sky gardens on the top, which is nice, but no matter how airy they are, street
level will become dark and permanently in shadow, and it's not going to be a nice place to be.
The odd team out of the seven is Peterson/Littenberg Architecture and Urban Design. It's a
small partnership which impressed the LMDC with its approach to the site and somehow made it,
as architects, to the final round. It's one of the few teams to
break the rules: while the LMDC said that it didn't want to-build on the footprints of the original
towers, Peterson/Littenberg put an amphitheatre in one of them.
This team was also one of the prime movers behind opening up West Street into a treelined
promenade which stretches all the way down to the Battery. It's a great idea, and one which
the LMDC has adopted, but it was specifically excluded from this particular brief. Again, Peterson
and Littenberg ignored the brief.
As urban planners, rather than architects, this pair spent a lot of time designing a lovely
garden, and constructing a pedestrian-friendly street grid. They're the only team which not only
extended the original streets into the World Trade Center site, but also added a brand new street as
well. The final plan is certainly a nice place to be, but it shows very little in the way of boldness
@oo2--o
( If you aspire to the highest place, it is no disgrace to reach at the second or even the third place. ) (sRuA pi)