The most expensive train station in the world (according to Fortune magazine) opened at the beginning of this month without much fanfare - moreover, there was no official ceremony with cutting the ribbon. key figures - the governors of the states of New York and New Jersey and the director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey - tried to distance themselves from the project, primarily associated in the perception of American society not with the original architecture, but with endless delays and incredible over-budget …
Photo posted by @ ighost77 Mar 5 2016 at 7:55 am PST
The author of the project, Santiago Calatrava, did not help (he was the only one of the notable persons who came to the terminal on the day of its opening) and the fact that due to a series of reasons (first of all, for the sake of increased stability in the event of an explosion, the number of supports in the frame was doubled) its construction resembles to New Yorkers, not a flying pigeon, as he originally planned, but a skeleton. Whose exactly - opinions differ, the townspeople, who are gladly quoted by the media, call a turkey, a whale or a dinosaur gnawed on Thanksgiving Day. And such a “deadly” association near the scene of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack seems to many to be inappropriate.
Flawfull # wtchub # Calatrava # architecture # nyc
Photo posted by Alanna Lauter (@averena) Mar 4 2016 at 6:19 PST
Now only the Oculus, as Calatrava calls it, has opened to the public (it has little in common with the oculus window of ancient architecture): this is a huge hall-passage with shops and cafes. However, retail will appear there not earlier than August, and there is nowhere to go too much: trains are just starting to stop at the terminal, and it will be fully operational only during the spring.
A circular panorama of the "Oculus" by photographer Miguel de Guzmán, www.imagensubliminal.com.
Inscribed in the aforementioned skeleton-frame "Oculus", judging by numerous reports, the citizens liked it more than the exterior of the terminal, although they are still surprised at how incredible the dimensions of the hall (length 120 m, width 44 m, height 49 m) are - how justified they are, and the same incredible whiteness, wondering about the bill for his cleaning. The excitement of New Yorkers is also caused by the smooth marble floor - how dangerous can this be for passengers in a hurry, especially on rainy days? This is a reasonable question, considering other projects of Santiago Calatrava: his bridges in Venice and Bilbao turned out to be very traumatic.
Photo posted by Andrés Pérez-Duarte (@perezduarte) Mar 4 2016 at 7:13 PST
But, of course, most of all the worries are caused by the cost of the building, which was fully erected at the expense of taxpayers. When the project was presented to the public in January 2004, the idea of a snow-white "dove" building with wings that unfold in fine weather to let in the sun and fresh air became a wonderful symbol of New Yorkers' hope for a better after the September 11, 2001 disaster. The $ 2 billion, according to the authorities now, was unrealistically low, but even taking into account a variety of cost-cutting measures (from the abandonment of moving "wings" to the remaining unpolished fireproof coating on the "ribs" of the frame from savings), doubling it is difficult justify. Of course, there were force majeure events like the catastrophic Hurricane Sandy, problems with the management of the process (during the implementation, several governors of the participating states and directors of the Port Authority were replaced), and rather intricate political games (the governor of New York who planned to run for president George Pataki ordered not to block the 1st metro line for the sake of construction, which made the process very expensive so as not to alienate the voters who use it from Stan Island - mostly Republican territory).
The construction process of the WTC terminal, reduced to 1 minute (video Skanska USA).
It can be assumed that a transport facility with a huge load cannot be cheap, but the Calatrava terminal is not the only one serving the World Trade Center; it is complemented by the Fulton Center, which opened in 2014, designed by Nicholas Grimshaw. Now the temporary WTC station is used by 46,000 people on a weekday, just 10,000 more than the very modest and not at all new terminal on 33rd Street, that is, loud criticism of the size of the new structure is well founded. If you dive into history, the famous Grand Central Station in New York at the time of construction at the beginning of the 20th century was worth $ 2 billion in terms of modern prices, moreover, private, not public, as is the case with the WTC terminal, but it is used today 208 thousand people a day.
Photo posted by Must go NYC (@mustgo_nyc) on Mar 12 2016 at 2:09 PST
However, all the stories invariably return to the personality of the author of the project - which would be a dubious trick in the spirit of "the architect is to blame for everything," if not for the track record of Santiago Calatrava. When commissioned in 2003, the 52-year-old Spanish architect was a new generation international star, able to compete on equal terms with Foster and Gehry. But the number of financial scandals and lawsuits, and just the amount of dissatisfaction not only with the customers, but with ordinary users of its bridges, museums and other structures now, more than 10 years later, is amazing (Archi.ru wrote about some of them here). Perhaps none of the notable architects of the past and this century has received such a large-scale fame as an unreliable partner - in parallel with the active dislike of colleagues, from Michael Graves (read more here) to Snøhetta partner Craig Dykers, who said at one of the international conferences that Calatrava “does not like to be in a missionary position”(hinting that his WTC terminal is partly underneath the 9/11 pavilion designed by Snøhetta, and the collaboration between the two bureaus has not been easy).
Photo posted by pedro josé borges curling (@papinsito) Dec 9 2015 at 5:27 PST
Of course, it is too early to sum up the results: the terminal will be fully operational only by the end of this year, and it is worth observing it for another year and a half of active use before drawing conclusions about its usefulness and functionality. However, if you take the other side of the project, its "wow factor" architecture, there is surprisingly little enthusiasm for it. One of the few publicists to approve of it, Paul Goldberger, wrote of the building in Vanity Fair that “yesterday’s vulgarity can become today's attraction”: the power of that praise is simply knocked down.
