PDA

View Full Version : Libeskind/My Memorial Not Compatible - Debate On Memorial



Gilbert Gjersvik
February 27th, 2003, 12:08 PM
My proposal for a Ground Zero memorial, which you can see at http://www.agroundzeromemorial.info
is not compatible with Libeskind's proposal. What does this mean??
Gilbert Gjersvik

NYatKNIGHT
February 27th, 2003, 12:19 PM
Why is it not compatible?

Gilbert Gjersvik
February 27th, 2003, 12:35 PM
My suggestion is above ground and Libeskind's features these sunken 'bathtubs.'

dbhstockton
February 27th, 2003, 12:43 PM
Not necessarily.

JMGarcia
February 27th, 2003, 12:53 PM
Why can't your above ground memorial be put on the 7 acre floor of the bathtub which is not nearly as deep as it was?

http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/middle/view_sept11th_place.jpg

TLOZ Link5
February 27th, 2003, 07:13 PM
I like that new rendering of a shallower pit.

Gilbert Gjersvik
February 27th, 2003, 07:39 PM
Unfortunately, Mr. Libeskind lacks the foresight to understand that the feeling you will get in this 'memorial' that he has so graciously designed ahead of the design competition is one of being trapped and stuck in a pit. You will most likely have to wait in line to get down into it, and wait in line to get back out of it. Now imagine an explosive blow to the wall that lets in the Hudson River. There's a great photo op Mr. Libeskind! Let's move on to real ideas for New York City.
Gilbert Gjersvik

JMGarcia
February 27th, 2003, 07:45 PM
Let's see, in an area larger than many football fields you're going to feel like you're in a pit. 2 of the walls are going to be glass looking into the underground portion of the site. Very claustrophobic I'm sure.

There's also more exits in and out of it than any subway station, building, theater, or sports stadium.

You've obviously got some other ax to grind. What don't you tell us what it really is.

Gilbert Gjersvik
February 27th, 2003, 08:11 PM
JMGarcia,
Of course I have an ax to grind. I find Mr. Libeskind an extraordinarily *pretentious architect who thinks he's designed the memorial for the site. I think he has lots of friends in high places and he needs to get knocked down off of his pedestal.
Gilbert Gjersvik
Upper East Side

JMGarcia
February 27th, 2003, 08:17 PM
Could you explain to me how any architect would design a site for the memorial other than setting aside a large flat space for it? Would it be acceptable if it was at ground level instead of down lower?

I just can't see how a 4.3 acre flat empty space is designing the memorial.

Gilbert Gjersvik
February 27th, 2003, 08:25 PM
JM,
Mr. Libeskind has pontificated on the grand meaning of the 'bathtub' as a memorial as well as the profundity of having a building 1776 feet tall. Personally I think the guy is a putz! But that's my personal opinion ,though I'll stand by it and put my name to it (unlike most of the cowards on these message boards!).
Gilbert Gjersvik
Upper East Side

Anonymous
February 27th, 2003, 08:27 PM
I don't even think that Libeskind's design is compattible to lower Manhattan or even the rest of NYC.

dbhstockton
February 27th, 2003, 08:33 PM
But that's my personal opinion ,though I'll stand by it and put my name to it (unlike most of the cowards on these message boards!)

Way to go, Gilbert. *Insulting us will really contribute to healthy discussion in this forum.

Gilbert Gjersvik
February 27th, 2003, 08:37 PM
DBH,
If you want insults, look to Mr. Libeskind's comments on Charlie Rose's show when another opinion was voiced suggesting less construction and more memory of the loss at the site.
Gilbert

NyC MaNiAc
February 27th, 2003, 08:40 PM
Yeah Gilbert Gjersvik, lets keep this forum clean and peaceful like dbhstockton said...
No need for you or anyone else to disrespect each other.

Gilbert Gjersvik
February 27th, 2003, 08:44 PM
Where is the line at healthy debate versus disrepect? A debate assumes defeat of the opponents opinion, sometimes because that is what's required and sometimes it is because of deep belief. I'm of the latter.
Gilbert

dbhstockton
February 27th, 2003, 08:50 PM
Healthy discussion, not debate. *My goal when I come to this forum is not "defeat of the opponents opinion." *It is to inform and be informed. *There is a place here for rhetoric and persuasion, but your scorched-earth philosophy doesn't do anyone any good.

Gilbert Gjersvik
February 27th, 2003, 08:58 PM
DBH,
On this board I have read of people being called NIMBY's as a pejorative, as well as people being suggested for psychiatric therapy because they don't agree with commercial development. If that puts me at odds with these cowards in a scorched-earth philosophy, then email the Webmaster here and block my access to this site. Otherwise, I'm going to keep vocalizing my opinion,
Gilbert

TAFisher123
February 27th, 2003, 09:08 PM
Quote: from Gilbert Gjersvik on 8:25 pm on Feb. 27, 2003
JM,
Mr. Libeskind has pontificated on the grand meaning of the 'bathtub' as a memorial as well as the profundity of having a building 1776 feet tall. Personally I think the guy is a putz! But that's my personal opinion ,though I'll stand by it and put my name to it (unlike most of the cowards on these message boards!).
Gilbert Gjersvik
Upper East Side

Yea, hes made this comment on other posts to others that disagree with him....i think he thinks we care his name is gil gerjavik and he is from the east side

Gilbert Gjersvik
February 27th, 2003, 09:11 PM
Dear Fisher,
As I always say, if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen. Fire away you idiot!
Gilbert Gjersvik
Upper East Side

dbhstockton
February 27th, 2003, 09:16 PM
Oh boy.

Gilbert Gjersvik
February 27th, 2003, 09:17 PM
Dear DBH,
In person I'm actually quite nice.
GG

JMGarcia
February 27th, 2003, 09:35 PM
I don't see the 1776 foot figure as having anything to do with the memorial for those who died. It is symbolic for sure but not for the deaths that occurred.

There is bound to be a conflict about setting the tone for the site between someone doing the memorial and someone doing the architecture. It is very hard to separate the two unless the memorial is something small like the Vietnam Memorial. That could go with just about anything.

Furthermore, I don't see that just because there is symbolism in the site that it necessarily must detract from whatever the memorial to those who died becomes.

Gilbert Gjersvik
February 27th, 2003, 10:33 PM
JM,
My personal opinion from following the entire discourse on the development at the site from both outside observers including the media and from the architects like Libeskind, who is now basking in a quite temporary limelight, is that this is all about ego. The designs put forth have nothing to do with anything but these jerks preening to the media and trying to get future building contracts. If these idiots were so concerned with New York's commercial viability, why don't they try to fill the empty office space that alread exists??? Of course they have no interest in that because that would require work, not ego masturbation!
GG

JMGarcia
February 27th, 2003, 10:38 PM
Maybe, maybe not.

Back to the point though. I don't understand why 4.3 empty acres including the footprints makes Libeskind's design incompatible with you memorial design.

Is it because you feel the entire site must be a blank slate for it to work?

Gilbert Gjersvik
February 27th, 2003, 10:52 PM
Dear JM,
At the end of the day (a lousy expression but one I'll use in this case) the problem is that the cart has been pulled in front of the horse. The LMDC has made itself irrelevant by not understanding this, and in the next weeks and months its staff will rightfully be whittled down to a bunch of secretaries. To bring in a referrence that might be inappropriate: remember the scene in Poltergeist where the family learns that their condominium complex was built on an Indian burial ground that was relocated? There was a visceral understanding in the audience of why that was wrong. It is the same thing here, there is something very important and powerful that can't be touched at this site, and to plan it like the latest shopping mall is complete disrespect and unacceptable.
GG

JMGarcia
February 27th, 2003, 10:57 PM
You still haven't answered my question. You may think it is wrong to build anywhere on the site (this is what you seem to be saying).

Is the incompatibility you see being practical concerns, aesthetic concerns, or is it the theoretical concern that there should be nothing but a memorial?

Gilbert Gjersvik
February 27th, 2003, 11:16 PM
JM,
My anger is at the process which seems backwards and not organic to what needs to be done. What has been derived from this process so far is a Baccarat window display and a pontificating architecht who's ready to move to New York to bask in his new found glory. *I think he's in for a rude awakening.
GG *

JMGarcia
February 27th, 2003, 11:24 PM
So, then you think your design is incompatible because it (the memorial) should have been decide upon first and then everything else should have been designed around that rather than the site being designed with a blank space for the memorial?

From the outside looking in it seems like a chicken or the egg type situation.

Edward
February 28th, 2003, 12:08 AM
Gilbert Gjersvik, you seem to be misinformed about the policy on forum member names. Let me enlighten you. Almost any combination of words can be used as a nickname, and using a real name is not required. Posting to the forum is not the same as writing a letter to the editor of New York Times.

In this electronic world it is impossible to confirm someone's identity. For example, there is a possibility that your real name is not Gilbert Gjersvik, and that you are not from the Upper East Side! You might have hijacked his good name and are trying to discredit it by making these silly posts to message boards.

Now, Gilbert, if that's your real name, I would ask you to be civil on this forum and do not insult other members. Otherwise you will be know here as Banned Member from Upper East Side.

Gilbert Gjersvik
February 28th, 2003, 02:58 PM
Dear Edward,
As Herbert Muschamp said in today's NY Times: "Conflict is the most important cultural product that a great city puts out. It is the fuel that drives everything else."
GG

BrooklynRider
February 28th, 2003, 03:20 PM
Quote: from Gilbert Gjersvik on 11:16 pm on Feb. 27, 2003
JM,
My anger is at the process which seems backwards and not organic to what needs to be done. What has been derived from this process so far is a Baccarat window display and a pontificating architecht who's ready to move to New York to bask in his new found glory. *I think he's in for a rude awakening.
GG *


But GG, the process has already happened. *I think you'll find alot of people who agree with you that the "process" was not as forthcoming and transparent as anticipated - I think "sham" was the word bandied about.

Whatever lack of merit we can ascribe to the "process", it is now complete with regard to selecting the site plan. *People have expressed endless opinions covering every possible angle on the subject. *I think the discourse needs to move forward and stay engaged with unfolding events. *

The fact that a firm has been chosen lets us move from the debate over "which plan to choose and why" to debate, discussion and speculation on the project as it is today and develops in the future.

I would hardly consider anyone on here a "coward" and have seen heated points debated intelligently and successfully. *The object, of course, is to persuade others toward your point of view while absorbing any new information that might be gleaned from the conversation. *You sound very intelligent and you have good points to make - I think you may be surprised to learn that there is a level of respect on this board between users that is significantly higher than you might experience on other boards. *Certainly my reaction is an attempt to maintain the high standards and quality of discussions. *

Welcome to the group - when in Rome....

Edward
February 28th, 2003, 03:52 PM
Just make sure, GG, that on this forum the conflict is in the frame of civility.

Eugenius
March 3rd, 2003, 11:47 AM
Getting back to the discussion...
On the rendering, there are a number of broad ramps leading into the bathtub. *It seems that this will enable a free flow of people in and out, forestalling any claustrophobia. *It should also eliminate any lines to get in.
In fact, if the memorial was 70 feet down, as originally contemplated, then the trek to get in and out would be a lot more complicated, and then you would see roadblocks form as people stop to take a breather.

Anonymous
March 3rd, 2003, 01:47 PM
I think that your memorial would go better alongside the rebuilt/ressurected Yamasaki's Twins themselves rather than something of Libeskind's Garden Tower.

NYatKNIGHT
March 3rd, 2003, 01:52 PM
Annoying.

Anonymous
March 3rd, 2003, 02:01 PM
Honestly I don't care what memorial goes on the WTC site as long as I know the Twins will be rebuilt, and the site is NOT mutually exclusive to having just one or the other.

Edward
March 4th, 2003, 01:39 AM
Quote: from TalB on 2:01 pm on Mar. 3, 2003
Honestly I don't care what memorial goes on the WTC site as long as I know the Twins will be rebuilt, and the site is NOT mutually exclusive to having just one or the other.

TalB, in the post just above yours NYatKNIGHT posted "Annoying", and I agree. I will assume that you do not need an explanation why. Make sure forum members do not find your posts annoying, boring, or offensive.

TAFisher123
March 4th, 2003, 02:15 PM
thanks edward for not letting this forum become skyscraper page

TLOZ Link5
March 4th, 2003, 06:11 PM
Yeah, we love you Edward.

amigo32
March 5th, 2003, 02:01 AM
Agreed.
It was starting to spiral in a little bit, overwhelming spam-like propaganda was threatening to stomp out ideas and debate.