Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more


  • Comment

Proposals for Ground Zero in Manhattan have now come under the fair but fierce critical scrutiny of Ada Louise Huxtable. Writing in the Wall Street Journal last week, her verdict is pretty damning. Having praised the 'conceptual daring and advanced technology of these schemes', she concludes: 'The bad news is that provocative and beautiful presentations have also given us a stunning demonstration of how to do the wrong thing right. With no proper program - a wish-list from the public, elicited through opinion polls, is not a program - they have shown us how skilfully and elegantly the wrong thing can be done.' The problem, as she sees it, is the requirement for reinstatement of real estate (rather than the revitalisation of Lower Manhattan), 'with the memorial an afterthought to be plugged in later'. She has real time for only one of the competition schemes - Daniel Libeskind's - because 'he has perfected an intensely individual, profoundly moving architecture of memory and loss of unsurpassed impact and meaning'.

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.