Buildings
U.S. Federal Building Architect Carol Ross Barney Comments
on WTC Rebuilding Process
(archrecord.construction.com - 08/28/2006)
By John
E. Czarnecki, Assoc. AIA
|
© Steve Hall/Hedrich
Blessing
|
David Childs, Daniel Libeskind, Michael
Arad, and others have been at the center of attention as they
continually redesign the components of the World Trade Center
site. The scrutiny they face is immense, and no one knows
that better than Chicago architect Carol Ross Barney, FAIA.
The principal of Ross Barney Architects designed the federal
building in Oklahoma City, replacing the Murrah Federal Building
that was bombed in 1995. In this interview with RECORD, she
discusses the challenges and pressures of rebuilding in the
wake of terrorism and comments on the World Trade Center design
process.
Based on your experience with the
Federal Building in Oklahoma City, how do you respond to developments
at the World Trade Center site?
There are a lot of similarities, some of them uncanny. I
was just reading about the inability to attract tenants to
Freedom Tower. The Murrah bombing created a market void for
office space on that site. GSA had to persuade Federal tenants
to move into our new building; it looks like government is
going to step in and fill the market void [at the Freedom
Tower]. For these buildings, the symbolism of the place overwhelms
the functional role for which they are constructed, at least
initially.
Did your client, the General Services
Administration (GSA), encounter hesitancy in rebuilding the
Federal Building?
The largest protest was from employees of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, which was located in the
Murrah and had the most casualties and fatalities. Some people
were not emotionally comfortable being so close to the site
of the bombing.
GSA is more distinct than the factions
at the WTC site. Is that a key difference in the success of
a project of this scope and attention?
In a way, Oklahoma City was more democratic. From the beginning
of the design process, GSA provided an open forum for stakeholders,
but no single stakeholder was able to override the process.
GSA gave us a lot of latitude to address all parties and to
explain why we were doing what we were doing. I think that
promoted intelligent consideration of controversial issues
like security, instead of knee-jerk solutions.
What type of pressure comes with a
project of this scope? Any lessons you learned for moving
through the obstacles and remaining true to your design vision?
The pressure is huge; it’s mostly emotional. We tried
to concentrate on the long view and consider how our building
would benefit and influence Oklahoma City in 5 years and in
50 years, rather than design to negate the latest threat or
fear.
How did you deal with the spotlight
when you were selected for the Oklahoma City project?
At first, it made me uncomfortable. But it did give me a
forum to talk about design and the importance of livable environments.
I had to set my defaults promoting that prime objective—i.e.,
good design is essential to life quality—because there’s
a lot of clutter along the way.
What’s your opinion of the design
of the Freedom Tower? Other buildings on the site?
Look at the base of Freedom tower. How does that add to the
urban quality of the area? It’s not a friendly urban
building. The police forced a solution according to their
notion of threat. That unfortunate base is there because of
what happened in Oklahoma City, a vehicle bomb parked near
a building. And that has happened only once in recent history.
What a price to pay for a single event! It is sad that this
building doesn’t break any new ground about security
design or make this intense land use more livable.
From what you have seen, are the designers
of the buildings and memorial at the World Trade Center site
incorporating the most effective means for a secure yet open
and inviting place?
No, security design is not rational at all and it has limited
effectiveness. If you did a cost-benefit analysis on security
upgrades, the stuff doesn’t pay. The government standards
are written to prevent another Oklahoma City, but a future
terrorist attack is unlikely to be anything like Oklahoma
City. “Open and inviting” always trump “secure”
when you are talking of our cities. It creates secure.
|
