I criticized David Child's redesign of the World Trade Center Freedom Tower because it represented "an epic debacle that ought to leave those in charge wallowing in shame...testament to a failure of vision and leadership and a concession to a society's fears. In form and in implication." The symbolism of the new design is flawed.

Prior the unveiling of the Freedom Tower reprisal, Donald Trump tried to step into the game and offered a simple reproduction of original towers as his solution. I criticized him from two fronts, first his criticism of Daniel Libeskind's Freedom Tower without having the slightest nuance of architectural eye, and second, his background as developer who sees dollar signs above architectural inspiration. The symbolism of rebuilding the original towers is flawed.

Yesterday, the winning design of the Flight 93 Memorial Competition, and today, it deserves no less criticism. The symbolism of the memorial is flawed.

Astute internet commentators noticed a shocking resemblance between the winning memorial design by Paul Murdoch Architects, and the traditional Islamic crescent--and not being discreet about it, the winning design is called "Crescent of Embrace." To illustrate the similarities, Zombie Time posts image overlays.

The only people who know the true intentions of the design are the members of the design team--and unless they tell us otherwise, we can only speculate. As an architectural designer amidst rigorous architectural training, designs such as this will always be primarily based on symbolism. Undoubtedly, in the schematic design phase of this project, the designers must have held a long charrette to decide which direction to take the design, and there must have been a discussion on what would be appropriate symbolism, and what would be inappropriate. Paul Murdoch defends the design.

"A crescent is part of architectural vocabulary. It's a generic form used in design," said Paul Murdoch, one of the winning architects. "We don't see any one group having ownership of it."

"Crescent of Embrace" features an arc of maple trees that will turn red each fall.

Murdoch believes it's unfortunate that the design is being interpreted that way.

"You can call it all kinds of things. We can call it an arc. We can call it a circle. We can call it the edge of the bowl. The label doesn't matter to us in terms of intent.

"We have no objection to calling it something else."

Murdoch did say they have no intentions of changing the design.

The reason the circle of trees is not completed, he said, is because it was severed by the path of Flight 93. From that opening, visitors will be able to gaze down on what has been called the "Sacred Ground," where some of the remains of the passengers and crew still rest.

In some ways, Murdoch is correct, and the crescent/arc/circle/edge of a bowl is a shape that is fairly commonplace in architectural jargon. However, any designer could come up with an infinite number of ways to create an incomplete path or shape to symbolize the severed path of Flight 93. It is the responsibility of the designer to examine the possibilities and determine from many points of view if the design is appropriate. This is not merely a case of one or two people seeing the Islamic crescent, it goes beyond.

The shape of the crescent, while it has its rightful place, the circumstances of this memorial should have sent this design through the paper shredder. In a profession that receives criticism and praise through interpretation, this design represents the failure of the designer to understand the full implications of such a design. As blogger Bryan Preston suggests, "What next--a holocaust memorial in the shape of a swastika?" Another blogger, Ed Morrissey says, "can you imagine the outcry from the multiculturalists and the ACLU had the design incorporated a cross or a Star of David in honor of the victims? Why should we tolerate the Crescent that, inadvertently or deliberately, honors the terrorists?" These criticisms are valid, and if architectural laymen can see it, I would ask architect Paul Murdoch, "why don't you?"

Michelle Malkin writes on this memorial, and even posted the architect's statement of philosophy, seemingly indicating that the architect has substantially deviated from his own philosophy.

A primary task of this generation is to create new patterns of development that sustain human habitation on this planet. Towards this end, the principles adopted for our practice are intended to ensure that each project contributes to an overall goal of environmental responsibility while striving for design excellence. As architects, we are uniquely qualified to help formulate and translate policy into tangible form; mitigating pressures of urbanity with the need to heal the natural environment. Each design solution is seen as a contribution to the human condition; as it exists today and evolves into future generations.

Our goal is to define and study problems both in terms of clients’ direct needs and relative to long term effects on natural and man made surroundings. More than problem solving however, we aspire to emotionally affect and uplift our lives through poetry and beauty.

It is through these transcendent qualities that we optimistically strive for ways to enrich life and fulfill our original purpose for engaging in the practice of architecture.

As a member of the architecture community by trade, and a political commentator, I will make another contention. As I looked at the website of Paul Murdoch, the "red flag" I saw that the firm is committed to its involvement in creating sustainable design. Sustainable design, as defined by Wikipedia, is "the art of designing physical objects to comply with the principles of economic, social, and ecological sustainability." You might be more familiar with the term "green buildings," and perhaps may have read about them. As part of my graduate degree studies, I was enrolled last semester in an online sustainable design course, administrated by Alex Wilson, the Executive Editor of BuildingGreen.com, publisher of Environmental Building News (EBN). As a participant in this course, I had full access to the BuildingGreen.com's resources, including the EBN archives. If you didn't surmise before, I will tell you without hesitation that those with a passion for sustainable design are from the left side of the political spectrum--some of which you could label as from the fringe left. As a conservative in the class discussions in the online message board, I took it upon myself to defend the Bush Administration, and President Bush himself, against the attacks of the students, the course administrator, and the articles published by BuildingGreen.com. Much of the required reading material was authored by the course administrator himself, and often times, riddled with anti-Bush propaganda. This experience, as well the general inclination of legislators based upon their supported policies, indicates to me that the passion for sustainable design typical falls into left wing circles (please note, I am make this generalization based purely on my observations, and duly note that more than likely there are conservative supporters of sustainability--President Bush included). We can all agree that moving towards a more sustainable lifestyle is an eventuality, it is my opinion that I think is shared by fellow conservatives, that the pace at which we move towards that lifestyle must be an appropriate one, as well as it must occur without substantial damage to our current economic structure, which is deeply rooted in the availability of things like oil--an enemy to proponents of sustainable design.

Okay, so what does this all mean? I would contend that the attitude of "blame America first" is an attitude shared by liberals. It is members of the liberal fold who often contend that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter; even Cindy Sheehan is on the record as saying this. I will further surmise that Paul Murdoch's commitment to sustainable design is a sign of his inclination towards the left of center, compounded by the fact that he works, and probably lives in the one of the “bluest” sections of California.

Understanding this, it becomes even more likely that the appearance of this crescent in the Flight 93 Memorial design was intentional based on socio-political inclinations of the design. Being an architectural designer by trade, I knowing how the process of design works, and the implications of it. As architects, we are responsible for every single line (or arc) we draw--not only from a legal standpoint. A crescent shape, created out of Red Maple (Acer rubrum) trees that turn bright red in the fall, forming the red Islamic crescent, effectively during the season in which 9/11 occurred. Accident? No. Ideally speaking, everything is intentional with design. Plantings are not picked at random, this specific species was chosen for its color; perhaps even its timing.

No one outside the design team can say for certain that this Islamic crescent was an intentional design element or not, but I can say with certainty that any design, especially designs for memorials, are more about symbolism than utility and economy; symbolism is everything. A design for a memorial is one of a handful of projects where a designer can take symbolism to the extreme--an opportunity not afforded to most projects and budgets.

The designers, if not initially aware of the presence of the Islamic crescent in the design, became aware of the inference of the crescent in short order, and probably disregarded the relationship or worse yet, silently embraced it. The designers created this design cognizant of its implications in all dimensions--and if they can claim they were not aware of the appearance of the crescent, did not understand what it meant, realized it and did nothing, than they have failed as designers.

Once again, the architecture flowing out of the 9/11 tragedy is being marred with symbolism gone amiss. Fear not, however, since it is not uncommon for competition winning designs to be scrapped and sent back to the drawing board (duly noted here, here and here). This time, however, I would welcome it.

Epilogue (9/15/05): After much criticism, Paul Murdoch has agreed to alter the design of the memorial.

The architect of the memorial to a plane downed in western Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001, said Wednesday he would work to satisfy critics who complained that it honors terrorists with its crescent-shaped design.

Designer Paul Murdoch said he is "somewhat optimistic" that the spirit of the design could be maintained.

"It's a disappointment there is a misinterpretation and a simplistic distortion of this, but if that is a public concern, then that is something we will look to resolve in a way that keeps the essential qualities," Murdoch, 48, of Los Angeles, said in a telephone interview.