Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
about memorials and buildings had even begun, people were already making their
own tributes, markers, and memorials. We made a point of noting that the site was
a cemetery, a mass grave—an open tomb of unknowns. And we wanted to begin
recording the fact that a new history began on September 11 and that one of its
sites was around Ground Zero.
AT: In what ways did Ground Zero transform from a disaster site to a tourist
destination?
LK: When I began working on the map, the loudest voices were opposed to tourism
in relation to the disaster—after all, they said, the site was still an open grave. 46
I wanted to say, “You should allow tourists down there because they are not doing
anything bad—just bearing witness or paying respects or looking at the site is an
important part of coming to terms with what has happened.” It was a kind of an
activist project on my part.
Then the situation changed a lot. After six months, “the bathtub” (the seventy-
foot-deep slurry wall that holds back the Hudson River) was exposed, and all
of the debris and remains had been carted away. By May 29, 2002, the site had
been officially converted from a site of recovery to a site of construction. By
the time of the first anniversary, tourism had been completely embraced by the
Port Authority.
AT: And how did design play a role in this metamorphosis?
LK: As tourism began to be embraced, the perimeter fence became more and more
of a focus, with graphic signs pointing out the “Best Views.” In fact, something as
simple as signage and the way-finding system did make a considerable difference
in people's relationship to the site and the events. So design enabled this transfor -
mation, and it also became one of the biggest issues at stake in the public debates.
Architectural renderings of what would become of the recovery site were on the
front page of the New York Times , every night on CNN, and the topic of a huge
town meeting and an ongoing public discussion, however imperfect.
Even though it didn't become an official map, perhaps it played some part in
converting those who were initially suspicious about tourism. I hope it helped
them to see another frame for looking at the site.
Now I think we've reached the point where we should be very careful about
how we use signs and symbols in and around Ground Zero. I supported the fence
becoming transparent (there were plans to build a forty-foot-high wooden fence
around the site), but I don't like the interpretation of the event it seems to offer
for tourists. I think that Ground Zero is something that demands great care and
rigor in the way we frame it.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search