THE HANDSTAND

june 2005

Architecture: This is a page-turning account of a failure of architecture in the rebuilding at Ground Zero. It is written by a witty architect-cum-critic, Philip Nobel, who is a sort of Frank McDonald of New York, who names names.

He tells the inside story of the search for meaning in the new buildings and lays bare the reputation of the architect who won the commission to design the new buildings to replace the World Trade Towers, Daniel Libeskind.

The book begins with a question and answer put by Libeskind: "What is the response to the event? It is what we build here. That is the response."

In an early chapter, Nobel establishes the architectural weakness of the original Trade Towers (Pomo Architecture before this style was invented). They were the work of Minoru Yamasaki, and the history of architecture professor at Yale, Vincent Scully, said of them: "As you know very few of us liked the World Trade Towers. They seemed too big, dumb and inarticulate. When they got hit all of the associations changed. All of a sudden, instead of looking too tall, they looked heart-rending. Now I love them."

Larry Silverstein, the developer who held the leases on the 16 acres of land at Ground Zero from the New York Port Authority, immediately set about the replacement design with architects Skidmore Owings and Merrill (SOM), the most powerful architectural firm in New York. Ada Louise Huxtable, the grand dame of American architecture writing, set the critical scene with a statement: "It's a very large, tough subject and there is too much static out there, too much talk and not enough thought. I frankly wish everyone would just shut up for a while".

Max Protech, the architecture gallery owner, invited 58 architects to illustrate their ideas for rebuilding Ground Zero, which designs he showed in his gallery in New York and attracted queues that stretched out the door and lined the streets around the block. This exhibition was later shown in Washington and at the Venice Biennale. The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) commissioned planning studies and the Governor of New York declared that "where the Towers stood is Sacred Ground".

Within months of September 11th the LMDC announced its selection of seven firms and consortia to compete in an architectural competition that included some of the stars of world architecture - Richard Meier, Peter Eisenman, Charles Gwathmay, Norman Foster, Daniel Libeskind, SOM, Think Team, et al - for the design of the new buildings at Ground Zero.

Libeskind, whose only important completed building is the zigzagging Jewish Museum in Berlin, whose work clearly has issues with Euclid and Plato, proposed to "turn the site into a kind of shattered crystal city with a piercing needle spire". The spire was stacked with hanging gardens, "the gardens of the world, a constant affirmation of life", Libeskind said. Other elements of Libeskind's design were loaded with symbolism: across from his glass-lantern design for a museum in front of the new train station, the centrepiece of his design was a triangular public space, opening to the east, which he called a "Wedge of Light". The lines of the two facades flanking the public space, pointed at a precise location of the sun in the sky at the end of the attack on September 11th. The result was a kind of urban Newgrange on midwinter day, on to which "each year on September 11th between the hours of 8.46am when the first plane hit and 10.28am when the second tower collapsed, the sun will shine without shadow in perpetual tribute to altruism and courage". Libsekind designed the tower to stand 1,776 (Declaration of Independence) feet tall.

Norman Foster's scheme of two towers that "kiss and touch and become one" were also laced with brain-dead, bone- crunching descriptions of little relevance to building - for example, "cross-cultural symbols of harmony, wisdom, purity, unity and strength".

The combined talents of the New York stars were judged "to have been given a chance to solve the greatest architectural problem the city had ever faced and they had come up very visibly short of greatness". The Think Team schemes were adjudged non-starters.

PHILIP NOBEL APPEARS to want to suggest that Frank Gehry might have been the one architect capable of delivering a great building, but Gehry played a longer game than his colleagues and set the project to his studio class at Yale as a one-room building (Bilbao writ large?), on the basis that "students have to go straight to architecture and can't muck around". He told his students that the only space he could imagine as a precedent was the Aya Sofya in Istanbul. However, Gehry's interest waned in a curious argument about the honorarium of $40,000 for participation in the competition, when the real costs were of the order of $500,000.

Libeskind, having won the competition, instead of embarking on the development of the design, went on a campaign of political, media and public selling of the project, always assisted by Nadia, his very, very, very supportive wife. He engaged public relations and town planning consultants and ran into massive problems of credibility. Eisenman lead the attack on the Libeskinds. Another New York architect, Eli Attia, responded by building a computer model that instantly put the lie to Libeskind's design. Attia found that the wedge would never be bathed in light: at 8.46am each September 11th, 40 per cent of it would be in shadow; at 10.28am it would be 99 per cent dark. The results of Attia's study were reported in detail in the New York Times but the news was hardly shocking because there were 10 blocks of skyscrapers between the site and the nearest open sky to the east.

The exposure of the Wedge of Light fiction was the architectural equivalent of a campaign-trail bimbo eruption, and the Libeskinds reacted like red-faced candidates with their pants down, eventually disguising their embarrassment behind the suggestion that the Wedge of Light was a metaphor.

The public relations tide turned against the Libeskinds. Larry Silverstein was in pole position and, with the Libeskinds fatally wounded, the way was clear for the masterplan to be stripped of its hyperbole. After heads had been knocked together, a forced arrangement between SOM and Libeskind resulted in a changed situation for Libeskind and an e-mail press release from the LMDC said it all: "We are pleased to announce an historic collaboration between Skidmore Owings and Merrill and Studio Daniel Libeskind to design the world's tallest building, the Freedom Tower. SOM, one of the world's leading skyscraper design firms, will serve as design architects and project managers leading a project team that will design the tower. Studio Daniel Libeskind have been designated by the Port Authority as masterplan architect for the World Trade Center site . . . The two firms will begin collaborating immediately."

THE PUBLIC PRESENTATION, including the titles, of two recent exhibitions of Irish art, Connemara as Metaphor and William Orpen: Politics Sex and Death, represent the same triumph of spin over content in fine art that misdirected architects in the competition in New York. Some felt that the Connemara show failed to make a single coherent point and Orpen certainly does not need the appendage of politics and sex to introduce his work.

By the same token, it is worth recording that the reason the Irish artist, Sean Scully, is teaching in Munich is to point a younger generation of artists, through the redress of painting, away from the world of conceptualists.

In the end, New York did what New York does, which is to build a property investment at Ground Zero where a dignified building, such as the Seagram Building by Mies van der Rohe, was called for.

Go out and buy the book- it is a good read if you are interested in this sort of stuff.

Shane de Blacam is a partner at deBlacam and Meagher Architects. He is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, and trained as an assistant architect on the Mellon Center for British Art at Yale University. He was awarded the Gold Medal of the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland in 2004

Sixteen Acres: The Rebuilding of the World Trade Center Site. By Philip Nobel, Granta Books, 288pp. £17.99

 THE NEW PEARL HARBOR
 Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11

 by David Ray Griffin
 foreword by Richard Folk

 Back COVER text:

 "An extraordinary book. .. It is rare, indeed, that a book has this  potential to become a force of history."  -- from the foreword By Richard Falk, human rights lawyer and Professor  Emeritus, Princeton University

 "[T]he most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of  the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling  event."  -- Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States

 Taking to heart the idea that those who benefit from a crime ought to be  investigated, here the eminent theologian David Ray Griffin sifts through  the evidence about the attacks of 9/11—stories from the mainstream press,  reports from abroad, the work of other researchers, and the contradictory  words of members of the Bush administration themselves—and finds that,  taken together, they cast serious doubt on the official story of that  tragic day.

 He begins with simple questions: Once radio contact was lost with the  flights, why weren't jets immediately sent up ("scrambled") from the  nearest military airport, something that according to the FAA's own manual  is routine procedure? Why did the administration's story about scrambling  jets change in the days following the attacks?

 The disturbing questions don't stop there: they emerge from every part of  the story, from every angle, until it is impossible not to suspect the  architects of the official story of enormous deception.

 A teacher of ethics and theology, Griffin writes with compelling logic,  urging readers to draw their own conclusions from the evidence. The New  Pearl Harbor is a stirring call for a thorough investigation into what  happened on 9/11. It rings with the conviction that it is still possible  to search for the truth in American political life.

 David Ray Griffin has been Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the  Claremont School of Theology in California for over 30 years. He is the  author and editor of more than 20 books.

 complete book contents here:
 http://www.houston.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/30270.php
 and also here:
 http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/140075_comment.php

PARDES, By Israel Shamir

This week, the Pardes, a new book by Israel Shamir, was launched in London and Paris, in English and French. The English launch was a pleasant get-together in a pub in Central London; the French affair was equally pleasant and informal in the small theatre of Dieudonné, the marvellous stand-up artist now on trial for you-know-what. Now, the Pardes in English can be bought on the internet, Buy Pardes and in French, in Paris, in the good bookshop Librairie du Monde Arabe, 22 rue Saint Jacques, 75005, Paris. 

Inheriting Syria; Bashar's Trial by Fire

A new book on Syria's young president, published in the United States last week. Its author, Flynt Leverett, worked at the CIA, at the State Department, and then at the National Security Council. Rumour has it that he was removed from his post by Eliott Abrams, an ardent "friend of Israel", when the latter took over as director for Near East Affairs at the NSA.
 
Leverett has benefited from interviews with President Bashar Al-Assad. His book is a critique of American policy towards Syria -- and by implication of the pro-Israeli neo-conservatives who have shaped America's Middle East policy under the Bush administration.
 
At the launch of the book in Washington last week, Leverett claimed that the American administration was moving towards a policy of "regime change" in Syria. "More and more people in the administration are inclined in that direction," he warned.
 
"I think," he added, "that the administration has accepted an assessment of Syrian politics that, by forcing Syria out of Lebanon, this regime is not going to be able to recover from that blow and will start to unravel." In short, according to Leverett, the neo- cons believe that, if sufficient pressure is exercised on Damascus, Al-Assad will fall from the inside.
 
Is Leverett right? Is Syria still the target of a conspiracy? And what do Syria's enemies want? In any analysis of the situation, a first step must be to distinguish between the motives of the various external actors who, in recent months, have pressured Syria to leave Lebanon.
 
By co-sponsoring UN Security Council Resolution 1559 in conjunction with the US, France played a central role in the crisis. France seized the opportunity of the joint diplomatic initiative to ease its strained relations with Washington. But its motives were very different from those of the US.
 
France does not seek the overthrow of President Al-Assad. Rather, French President Jacques Chirac grew impatient with the slow pace of Syria's internal reforms and was deeply offended when President Al-Assad insisted last year on extending the mandate of Lebanon's pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, a move which caused Prime Minister Rafiq Al-Hariri to resign.  
When Al-Hariri, Chirac's close personal friend, was murdered last February, the French president was deeply affected. But France's essential aim in the crisis was not the destabilisation of Syria but the restoration of Lebanon's "sovereignty", as Foreign Minister Michel Barnier explained on a visit to Washington this week.  France has been intimately involved with Lebanon since the creation of the modern state in 1920. It has considerable interests in that country which it intends to defend against all comers -- including the US. Now that Syria has pulled out its troops -- qualified by Barnier as "a good choice" -- French pre-eminence in Lebanon can be reaffirmed, while Franco-Syrian relations are likely, in turn, to be repaired in due course.
 
The same cannot be said for US-Syrian relations.
 
For Washington's neo-conservatives -- anxious to re-model the Middle East to suit American and Israeli interests -- Syria lies at the centre of a hostile network, which includes the insurgents in Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Hizbullah in Lebanon, in addition to Syria itself. For the network to collapse the Syrian regime must be overthrown. The ongoing insurgency in Iraq has proved to be the main obstacle to the neo-con fantasy of a "reformed" and "democratised" Middle East, unable to challenge US and Israeli strategic goals. Instead of proving a democratic model for the region, a shattered Iraq has sunk into a morass of lawlessness and violence.
 
It is now clear for all to see that the US occupation is in deep trouble. There is no sign that the insurgency is being brought under control. Even though fewer American troops are being killed than a few months ago, the insurgents are now directing their ferocious attacks on American "collaborators", notably on the embryonic Iraqi army and police. They are being killed almost as fast as their American instructors are training them. As a result, the idea has taken root in some circles in Washington that there can be no victory in Iraq until Syria and Iran -- seen as supplying a "rear base" for the insurgency -- are brought to heel. As Washington seems reluctant to launch a military attack against Iran, recognised as a hard nut to crack, an alternative course is "regime change" in Syria.  The neo-cons argue that a pro-American government in Damascus would result in the isolation, encirclement and neutralisation of Iran.
 
Israel applauded the American invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent destruction of that country. It removed for the foreseeable future any possibility of a hostile "Eastern Front" directed at the Jewish state. In the same way, Israel has been quick to express its immense satisfaction at Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon, which it sees as an important step towards its main objective -- the disarming of Hizbullah. Israel has a score to settle with Hizbullah: the Shia guerrilla force drove Israel out of South Lebanon in 2000, after a 22-year occupation. Today, Israel fears that Hizbullah will continue to play a dual role -- as an instrument for continued Syrian influence in Lebanon and as an obstacle to any attempt by Israel to infiltrate itself back into Lebanese affairs. Some Israelis -- perhaps even including Prime Minister Ariel Sharon -- dream of a replay of the events of 1983 when, after the Israeli invasion a year earlier, Lebanon was induced to sign a separate peace with Israel. It held for a short while until it was aborted by Syria and its local allies.  Might an opportunity for a separate peace arise again? Israel would seize it, while Syria would do everything in its power to prevent it.  Needless to say, Israel would welcome continued US pressure on the regime in Damascus, or indeed any scenario of chaos which might follow its overthrow. Weakening Syria would create opportunities for Israel in Lebanon, while at the same time strengthening its hand in any future dealings with Syria itself. In the meantime, it would delay or remove altogether any international pressure on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights.  The word from Washington is that the US has strongly advised Prime Minister Sharon not to enter into peace negotiations with President Al-Assad. Perhaps the neo-cons believe a different regime in Damascus would create a more favourable climate for such talks!
 
If this is indeed an accurate analysis of the present situation, then the Syrian regime must expect a renewed assault by its enemies. It remains in extreme danger.
 
But what if the whole neo-con programme for the Middle East were profoundly mistaken?
 
The balance-sheet so far is heavily in debit. America's occupation of Iraq and Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories -- both illegal and immoral enterprises -- have been condemned by much of the world. Both countries stand accused in the court of public opinion. Each has been corrupted by its occupation and seen its reputation irredeemably tarnished by the harsh, repressive and trigger-happy behaviour of its soldiers. Rather than seek fresh adventures, each should now pull back to safer ground.
 
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved