Evaluating The WTC Finalists

Critic Herbert Muschamp writes that the choices are clear. “Daniel Libeskind’s project for the World Trade Center site is a startlingly aggressive tour de force, a war memorial to a looming conflict that has scarcely begun. The Think team’s proposal, on the other hand, offers an image of peacetime aspirations so idealistic as to seem nearly unrealizable.Compared with Think’s proposal, Mr. Libeskind’s design looks stunted. Had the competition been intended to capture the fractured state of shock felt soon after 9/11, this plan would probably deserve first place. But why, after all, should a large piece of Manhattan be permanently dedicated to an artistic representation of enemy assault? It is an astonishingly tasteless idea. It has produced a predictably kitsch result.”

WTC Choices On Target

There seems to be general satisfaction with the choice of finalists for the World Trade Center site. “The process of deciding what will replace the destroyed World Trade Center has produced a unique cultural moment. In previous years, when there has been a major cultural issue playing itself out in public, people largely rallied to make clear what they didn’t want. The debate about the World Trade Center site has turned all that on its head. Not surprisingly, there is an unprecedented level of public engagement with and emotional investment in this project. And that involvement has driven the project forward but led it to embrace the most ‘cutting edge’ designs – Mr. Libeskind’s and THINK’s.”