Well, I like it. The two reflecting pools look like the buildings caved in–I get a sensation of falling. The pools, angled and cut as they are, look rather like an abyss (I don’t know how they’re look when filled with water).
To me, it looks like something was there, and now is gone–terrifying non-definition is left. Exactly how I felt on 9-11.
Maybe future generations will be able to look at the pools and imagine the chaos.
As for the towers, I rather liked the pre-compromise designs better. The gridwork is just fucking stupid.
I also like the new design, and have already said so elsewhere on the SDMB.
I encourage those criticizing it (and anyone else) to first have a look at the original design. I find it highly original, nicely understated but still quite meaningful. I think a lot of care went into designing a whole experience, rather than just a place to look at names:
Also, I like the fact that the memorial gives family members of 9/11 victims a place of their own. While I agree that they don’t “own” the tragedy, it seems a good thing (to me) to give them some recognition in this way:
All in all, I’d say it was the best choice of the finalists they were choosing from, and a very meaningful concept. I really like the concept of creating a state of absence to remember where the towers, and the people in them, used to be. It would have been very easy to overdo this memorial, and this design avoided that trap.
I still think they were ugly—and it turns out they were designed to be deathtraps, too.
As for this design, well, when you have to please 10,000-some people who are all screaming for total creative control, it’s hard to come up weth something innovative.
The overall monument is open to all, except for a room containing unidentified victim remains, according to the design. This room is only open to family members of victims. I find that entirely appropriate.
I guess a room for the remains isn’t too bad. I was under the assumption that it would be a bigger off limit area. I think one of the other designs had something like that in the design.
I agree with this and with Apos’s comparison to the Vietnam War memorial. Even the criticisms are similar. I think that both the Reflecting Absence concept and its implementation are jarringly appropriate to the event and its aftermath. Stunning.
Personally, I think sitting in that space would be very moving (for myself at least). The towers are reflected in the two pools, and the absence of “stuff” really emphasizes how much was lost.
I think it’s a bit unfair to judge the design so harshly until you’ve actually walked and experienced the space. It looks to me like it’s quite large - I think it would have an impact on those visiting it.
Also, the NY Times article about this says that major revisions were made in response to the jury’s requests. The new official design will be unveiled in a couple of weeks, after new models and drawings are finalized. In particular, they seemed to say the landscaping would all be redone with the aid of a landscape architect. Different trees.
Frankly, it seems a bit generic to me. But other than that, I can’t really find anything fundamentally wrong with it. It just doesn’t seem all that evocative. Perhaps it will be more striking when it is actually built.
Personally, I would have gone with the “Garden of Lights”.
What I find annoying is that we’ve been jerked around by the media since the beginning of this project - here’s the contenders, here’s the runner-ups, here’s the winner! Oh! It’s…oh. It’s not as if we had a vote in this - they should have just made their choice and built it (already). It’s been over 2 years!