Before you take a good look at the design, let me preface it. The competition guidelines stated clearly that we had to accommodate the buildings adjacent to the footprints of the Twin Towers, leaving only feet between the two footprints. When I saw this I was shocked. It basically threw out my original idea of having a pathway leading up and around, then bridging to the other site, leading down to ground zero. The path would be made of a glass structure, inside artifacts. Within the footprints would be pools of water. It would of been reflective, transparent, engaging and allowed users to fully experience the site.
In steps the program requirements leaving no room on the edges of the footprints. What was eventually shocking is that the winning solution, two square shaped waterfalls, was that the designer ignored completely the program restrictions. In fact I’m not sure he comprehended them and instead looked at the problem as if he had a clean slate. Certainly if the ‘site’ was totally open I would of presented by original idea, but instead I ended up with a compressed, non-monumental scheme that attempted to rise up and tie the two huge sites together. What a serious disappointment.
The final solution will, be damp in the museum area as it will be sprayed with mist and sun will never shine in to dry things up. From the outside it is monumental yet simple. The falling water will create a wonderful power, and the analogy to tears is respectful, but seriously how can the competition judges just ignore their own conditions and restrictions? If they had second thoughts they could of assigned 5 winners and had them compete with new guidelines. So that’s my take on it, and this is my scheme… and again, very disappointed by being handcuffed from the word ‘Go!’
NOTE: If you look at the middle perspective, you’ll notice all the buildings that were to surround the memorial site. In fact we were told that if we didn’t respect their locations we would be disqualified from the competition. Those buildings sat on the edges and even covered the footprints of the original World Trade Center site. My original scheme, before I saw the restrictions of the competition, expected some room around the footprints. The winner of the competition actually ignored this restriction and obviously was not disqualified. I can only imagine that all other entries also respected this restriction, and I have a bit of a hard time thinking that we all we not playing on even ground with equal rules. Given the constraints of the program rules, I don’t think any entry would be impressive and worthy enough to be built. Certainly if those who made up the competition rules had thought about what they were asking competitors to try to accomplish with such restrictions they would of eliminated them and allowed everyone to submit a proposal based on their best effort. Should I have ‘won’ with the above scheme? No. It’s so constricted that it hardly works except perhaps on a ‘linking’ and visual level from a ground perspective. Would I have produced a different scheme if the site restrictions were lifted. Absolutely. I wanted to propose an interlocking double ramp that rose up and defended into the footprints, made of glass, I think it would both embrace the sites and become a symbol for our resilience, yet remembrance of those who died.