Memorialization
14:01 on Thursday, January 23, 2003 • Responses off
I’ve been rather appalled by most of the proposed designs for World Trade Center, Vol. II. I read this morning that there’s a chance that a design by Gaudi may be included in the mix. I love the design, and the idea of having Gaudi architecture on this side of the pond certainly appeals to me. Gaudi’s building doesn’t scream aesthetic revenge like the other proposals.
It occurs to me, though, that a building, regardless of size or style, somehow doesn’t seem a fitting memorial. In other words, for me there’s an affective distinction between a memorial and other architecture. Replacing the many fallen buildings with more buildings doesn’t seem appropriately memorializing.
I understand that there are memorial libraries and memorial highways and so forth…and I don’t necessarily object to those. I think what bothers me about the proposed structures is that they’ll be used for office space. Rent will be charged. In this context the proposed structures seem more like an attempt to reclaim real estate than any sort of memorializing architectural statement. While I understand the economic reasons (and arguably, economic need) for developing the site, I find the endeavor offensive.
This got me wondering what constitutes a memorial. The idea of memorializing serves some sort of social or cultural purpose that a grave doesn’t…memorials make tangible a public, shared memory. They ostensibly concretize death, loss, accomplishment, victory, etc.. They make history visible…touchable.
Memorialization. Take space and make it mean, make it make us remember. Beyond what you think of the proposed designs, what do you think makes a fitting memorial (either in the general sense or in a World Trade Center specific sense)?
Comments closed