I only had time to skim the Roger Scruton article ("Between Art & Science") in the on-line February 2008 issue of "The New Criterion." While I don't disagree with what seems to be the general thrust of the essay, it also seems to me that there are a number of misstatements / inaccuracies in the essay, especially about the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site.

- - - - - - -

Roger Scruton writes:

"My own preference was for the scheme of Alexander Stoddart and others, as proposed through the pages of City Journal. This involved a return to the scale and density of the old lower West side and the restoration of a mixed-use neighborhood, in which the main public space would be the street rather than the sanitized park or square and in which the old warmth and geniality of the New York villages would grow through the fruitful intermingling of business, residence, and leisure."

Benjamin writes:

While the "City Journal" plan for the World Trade Center site had much to recommend to it, especially for those who favor modern traditional architecture over orthodox modernist architecture, it also had features that even proponents of modern traditional architecture (like me) could dislike. In other words, one didn't have to be an orthodox modernist to oppose the City Journal plan.

A) Contrary to what the essay seems to say, the City Journal plan did have a park / plaza as it's centerpiece. Unfortunately, though, this open space was "meaningless" as it did not include the site of the footprints of Tower One and Tower Two of the original World Trade Center -- something a great many people (including myself) felt was absolutely necessary for any successful WTC rebuilding plan.

B) The City Journal plan also had it's own Corbusian "modernist" feature -- it put West St. (a major north/south street along the west side of the site) into an anti-urban (and extraordinarily expensive and wasteful) tunnel.

C) In my opinion, The City Journal plan was also dogmatically reductionist (and "modernist") in insistence upon the reintroduction of vehicular (as opposed to solely pedestrian) streets through the site.

It's like insisting that 43rd and 44th streets be put through the Grand Central Terminal superblock (as some modernists actually proposed in the mid-1950s). Some urban districts, however, are really more urbane as "superblocks" than they would be if they weren't superblocks: e.g., the Milan Galleria, Grand Central Terminal, Bryant Park / New York Public Library, the original Pennsylvania Station, Washington Square Park, etc.

(Contrary to popular opinion, even Jane Jacobs herself was NOT categorically opposed to the idea of a REDESIGNED World Trade Center superblock.)

- - - - - - -

Roger Scruton writes:

It was not surprising, therefore, if the mayor, Michael Bloomberg, the then-governor, George Pataki, and the leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, were all attracted by Daniel Libeskind’s design to replace the World Trade Center towers with a fanciful collection of asymmetrical glass boxes, one of them graced with a twisting “Freedom Tower” topped by an off-center radio transmitter reaching to 1,776 feet.

Benjamin Hemric writes:

It was actually Governor Pataki (and "design community" advocacy groups) and, perhaps to some extent, Mayor Bloomberg) who pushed for the orthodox modernist Libeskind plan. Larry Silverstein -- a practical builder -- was opposed to Libeskind and his type of architecture from the very start. It was really Silverstein who insisted that the Libeskind designs be modified.

- - - - - - -

Roger Scruton writes:

The old ways of building are no longer affordable, now that space is limited, skilled labor rare, and gargantuan engineering well understood and relatively inexpensive.

Benjamin Hemric writes:

I'm surprised that Scruton would say this without addressing the arguments that have been advanced in defense of the economics of modern traditional architecture.

1) Tom Wolfe seems to argue essentially that modern traditional architecture is only more expensive / impractical because modernists are making it so. (The fewer modern traditional buildings, the more expensive the materials, etc. In other words, that it is vicious cycle.)

2) Others argue that even this isn't "fair" to modern traditionalism -- that modern technology (e.g, new materials, like fiberglass, and new computerized manufacturing methods, etc.) makes modern traditional architecture just as economical and practical -- if not more so -- than orthodox modernism.

Posted by: Benjamin Hemric on February 6, 2008 9:11 PM

I have my strong preferences in architecture, and like most British people regard medieval cathedrals and Georgian townscapes as the pinnacle.

But a visit to Iceland resulted in me down-grading the importance of architecture in the scheme of things.

Aside from the climate, I thought Iceland was an excellent place - but the architecture was extremely bad (bad in many ways - old buildings made of corrugated iron, brutalist modernism etc), and the place was generally extremely scruffy and unkempt as well.

BUT - Iceland was an excellent society in my view. So I concluded architecture doesn't matter that much, after all.

Posted by: BGC on February 7, 2008 6:38 AM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?