This article was originally posted on DenverPost.com on March 9, 2003.
Given the dozens of museum building projects underway around the
world, many by name architects, it seemed a danger existed a few
months ago that the Denver Art Museum’s planned $62.5 million
addition might get lost in the mix.
But any such concerns were erased last week, when Daniel Libeskind,
who is overseeing the design of Denver’s building, was chosen as
the architect for the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site in
New York.
Architecture critics and other journalists worldwide who might have
ignored the museum addition or were on the fence about attending
its opening in 2006 are all but guaranteed to come now that
Libeskind is the architect of the moment.
“Almost every time they talk about Daniel Libeskind, whether it’s
on ‘Charlie Rose’ or whatever it is now, our project is shown, our
project is talked about,” said Lewis Sharp, the Denver Art
Museum’s director.
“It has just focused broad national and international awareness on
our project, which would have been very difficult for us to obtain
otherwise. It is now all happening because of the World Trade
Center.”
But just because Libeskind is a sensation does not mean that
everyone in the architecture world is suddenly in his corner. Some
experts – such as Michael J. Lewis, an architectural historian at
Williams College in Williamstown, Mass. – remain critical of his
work.
“I don’t care for Libeskind, personally,” he said. “There are
reasons why he is the man of the hour, but I think he falls short,
too.”
Lewis, for example, is very critical of one of the central elements
of Libeskind’s World Trade Center design, which calls for a sunken
“park of memories” with some of the original foundation walls
exposed.
“I don’t like that,” he said. “I think the architect has a moral
obligation here to heal, not to leave the sore open. I find it a
nihilistic gesture.”
But any criticism of Libeskind’s complex design, which includes a
series of skyscrapers culminating with a 1,776-foot tower, might be
premature, because many experts think that what ultimately results
will have little to do with the present design.
It was clear Thursday as reporters scurried around interviewing
various officials after the formal announcement in New York of
Libeskind’s appointment that an enormous number of questions remain
to be answered.
About all that has been settled is the choice of the architect. Now
the politics really begin, as all the involved parties wrangle over
who will pay for the project and who will have the power to make
the thousands of decisions necessary in realizing the
reconstruction.
“It’s great for Libeskind’s reputation, but it’s still very
elusive in the sense of its reality and whether the process and
whether the landownership and whether the political climate and
whether the memorial issues can ever be reconciled. It sort of
makes me wonder whether this whole thing wasn’t just a publicity
effort to give the (Lower Manhattan Development Corp.) credibility,
which they lost in the first round (of the search for
architects),” said Charles Gwathmey of Gwathmey Siegel &
Associates Architects of New York.
He was a member of one of the seven worldwide teams of architects
that submitted a competing design for the World Trade Center site,
and his firm is overseeing the design of an addition to the
Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center.
Whatever happens with the World Trade Center project, most experts
agree that it has spurred unprecedented interest in architecture
among the general public, as people around the world followed the
search process and studied the proposed designs online.
If that interest stays with people as they contemplate the built
environment in their own cities and towns, perhaps it will compel
them to ask questions and demand higher standards of design
excellence for new buildings that will directly affect them.
“It is hopeful in the sense that it initiated a dialogue among
ordinary people that where they work and how they live matter and
that the fabric of their cities can be made better, that the
buildings we place on them can be a reflection of what we think
about ourselves and who we want to be,” said Robert Ivy,
editor-in-chief of Architectural Record magazine.
Residents of Denver have been able to feel a special association
with Libeskind and the World Trade Center reconstruction because of
his three-year involvement with the art museum project here.
Now it will be fascinating to watch both projects come to fruition
during the next 10 years or more and to see whether the results
live up to all the hype.
Post Critic-at-Large Kyle MacMillan’s column on the fine arts
appears every other Sunday in Arts & Entertainment, alternating
with Bret Saunders’ column on jazz. Reach him at kmacmillan@denverpost.com or at 303-820-1675.
