I do not doubt that their redesign of the new WTC Freedom Tower is an interesting piece of architecture, however, the design is flawed. The architectural sacrifices forced upon the design by inflated security concerns and a gluttonous developer are contemptible. The new design features a 200 ft square of concrete and metal to resist explosions, as well as the increased setback of 90 feet (Libeskind's design had a 25 foot setback) to reduce the vulnerability to car bombs. With the proposed changes to the design, the 20-ton ceremonial cornerstone placed last year on July 4th will have to be moved. The design is predicated on the old atmosphere of oversight, indifference and a climate of fear, and fatal human error. The building incorporates a laundry list of "standards" designed to increase resistance to terrorist attacks--some of which were recommendations by the New York City Police Department. Now, while I have great respect for the NYPD, I would gather that there are not a large number of police officials possessed of degrees in architecture along with the requisite knowledge of construction and building techniques.

Was it not possible to incorporate a majority of these design "standards" into Daniel Libeskind's design? With these designs in their infancy and still highly conceptual, materials for blast resistance could easily have been incorporated into Libeskind's Freedom Tower. While the setback issue could still be debated, the fact is that in the rather hyper-terror-sensitive environment we live in now, the likelihood of a car bomb is as likely as a repeat of the 9/11 attacks. We're smarter now, with a heightened awareness; and while an increased setback may or may not provide protection against a car bomb attack, no amount of plastic-laminate will cause an airplane to bounce off the side of the tower. Provisions to increase fire protection measures and protect stairwells, elevators, communication systems, biological and chemical air filters, etc., could all have been incorporated into Libeskind's design. In fact, they were. So why did the process have to be hindered with the dismissal of Libeskind's design in favor this new, rather uninspired tower?

When I think of the bastardization of Libeskind's Freedom Tower, I immediately think of another architect, Howard Roark, from Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead." For those unfamiliar with Rand's novel, Howard Roark was an architect who broke from convention; rather than copying from the masters as society has prescribed, Roark designed his buildings from within himself, designs that were not understood by his contemporaries. In the waning chapters of "The Fountainhead," Roark designs a public housing project called Cortlandt Homes, allowing his washed up colleague to take credit for the design in an attempt to revive his foundering career; his only condition was that it be built as he designed it. During construction, Roark's design was altered, so he destroyed it. Roark's closing statement at his trial speaks volumes about his character, and is wholly relevant to the design of the Freedom Tower.

I designed Cortlandt. I gave it to you. I destroyed it.

I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist. It was a double monster. In form and in implication. I had to blast both. The form was mutilated by two second-handers who assumed the right to improve upon that which they had not made and could not equal. They were permitted to do it by the general implication that the altruistic purpose of the building supersede all rights and that I had no claim to stand against it.

I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need.

I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others.

It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.

I wished to come here and say that the integrity of a man's creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor. Those of you who do not understand this are the men who're destroying the world.

In every sense, Daniel Libeskind's Freedom Tower no longer exists. It was mangled and disfigured into David Child's Freedom Tower with little regard for the original creative vision. I do not suggest that the security concerns are wholly without merit, I simply find it inexcusable that Libeskind's creative vision was abandoned wholesale when such security related concerns could have been simply integrated into his design. Libeskind won the design competition fairly, and we owe it to him to see his vision implemented. The Lower Manhattan Redevelopment Authority, Governor Pataki, Mayor Bloomberg, and Larry Silverstein don't have the backbone to stand behind Libeskind's design or the integrity of the design competition. They are the "second-handers." Libeskind needs to roll up his drawings and walk out of the project, because the second-handers don't have the right to his design; they don't deserve it.

The foreshadowing of the Freedom Tower circus in Howard Roark's monologue is also evidenced in a passage prior to the abovementioned one.

No work is ever done collectively, by a majority decision. Every creative job is achieved under the guidance of a single individual thought. An architect requires a great many men to erect his building. But he does not ask them to vote on his design. They work together by free agreement and each is free in his proper function. An architect uses steel, glass, concrete, produced by others. But the materials remain just so much steel, glass and concrete until he touches them. What he does with them is his individual product and his individual property. This is the only pattern for proper co-operation among men.

Daniel Libeskind's design for the Freedom Tower was morphed into the gruesome monstrosity of the new design by SOM once the process became a collective effort. Unfortunately, the indignities inflicted on the Freedom Tower have now infected the design of the World Trade Center Transportation Hub, designed by the masterful Santiago Calatrava. As another one of the most inspiring architects practicing today, it is an absolute outrage that Calatrava's design is being mutilated by second-handers, in this case, the Metropolitan Transit Authority.

New York City is full of architectural work that in its time was the best the world had to offer. The city even witnessed a photo-finish race for the world's tallest building. Amidst the many masterpieces are even more examples of simple, bland buildings; mere extruded rectangles that contort themselves in a design sense to setback requirements and dollar signs. Rather than welcoming the next generation of architectural masterpieces with open arms, the architecturally ignorant are trying to intrude where they don't belong, trying to, in their minds, improve upon the masters. Hogwash. Calatrava, like Libeskind, needs to gracefully withdraw from the project, drawings and all. They don't deserve it. How can we permit New York City beauracrats to tamper with the designs of these architectural genuises and build impoverished imitations?

Libeskind's original design--love it or hate it--was closer to what the new tower should, and must represent. Daniel Libeskind's Freedom Tower was a monument to American resolve and ingenuity. David Child's (SOM) design is a testament to failure. Testament to a failure of vision and leadership and a concession to a society's fears. In form and in implication.

____
This article is featured on ArchPedia, Political Gateway and Blogger News Network.