Nisha Gandhi - How Spatial Organisation Reflects Experience in Memorial Landscapes (2013) by Nisha

HOW SPATIAL ORGANISATION REFLECTS EXPERIENCE IN MEMORIAL LANDSCAPES NISHA GANDHI

â&#x20AC;&#x153;

design must seduce, shape and most importantly evoke an emotional response.

Nisha Gandhi BA Landscape Architecture (Level 6) School of Art, Architecture & Design Leeds Metropolitan University, UK Year of Submission: 2012

Front Cover Image: Geoff Livingston, (2014), White Blossomed MLK Memorial, [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoliv/13741699193 [Accessed 29 June 2014].

â&#x20AC;?

CONTENTS PAGE

List of Figures

Preface

Introduction

Criterion

Case Study 01: Ground Zero 9/11 Memorial

Case Study 02: Memorial to the Murdered Jews

Case Study 03: Vietnam Veterans Memorial

Conclusion

Bibliography

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Description

Reference

Ghost Bike

Boghosian, A. (2012) Ghost Bike. [image online] Available at: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/09/25/ghostbike/ tmyA77ibTmMNsLYd2JHyhI/story.html [Accessed: 2 December 2012].

Lantern Floating in Hawaii

Kennerly, D. (2012) Lantern Floating in Hawaii. [image online] Available at: http://www.hawaiimagazine.com/blogs/hawaii_today/2011/5/27/ Hawaii_Honolulu_Oahu_Ala+Moana+Beach+Park_Magic+Island_ lantern_Japanese_tradition [Accessed: 2 December 2012].

Shoes on the Danube

Claire, H. (2012) Shoes on the Danube. [image online] Available at: http://pestipixels.com/2012/09/26/shoes-on-the-danube [Accessed: 2 December 2012].

World Trade Center New York Aerial Rendering

Squared Design Lab (2012) World Trade Center New York Aerial Rendering. [image online] Available at: http://www.proudlyafrican.info/ WTC-New-York/Ground-Zero.aspx [Accessed: 3 December 2012].

Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe

Landezine (2010) Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe. [image online] Available at: http://www.landezine.com/index.php/2010/03/ memorial-to-the-murdered-jews-of-europe/ [Accessed: 3 December 2012].

Aerial View of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C

Highsmith, C. (2007) Aerial view of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C.. [image online] Available at: http://commons. wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aerial_view_of_Vietnam_Veterans_Memorial. jpg [Accessed: 5 December 2012].

The National 9/11 Memorial

Timothy, A. (2011) The National 9/11 Memorial. [image online] Available at: http://architecture.about.com/od/greatbuildings/ig/ Monuments-and-Memorials/Memorial-Hall.-0-E.htm [Accessed: 3 December 2012].

Michael Arad’s Original Sketch

Arad, M. (2011) Michael Arad’s Original Sketch for the 9/11 Memorial. [image online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/arts/ design/how-the-911-memorial-changed-its-architect-michael-arad. html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 [Accessed: 3 December 2012].

Conceptual Sketches

Arad, M. (2012) Conceptual Sketches. [image online] Available at: http://landarchs.com/ground-memorial-park-nyc/ [Accessed: 3 December 2012].

Competition Entry 9/11

Arad, M. (2012) Reflecting Absence. [image online] Available at: http:// www.thecityreview.com/memwtc.html [Accessed: 3 December 2012].

Square Pools

Lennihan M. (2012) Conceptual Sketches. [image online] Available at: https://www.911memorial.org/sites/all/files/imagecache/blog_post_ medium/blog/images/APMarkLennihanMemorial.jpg [Accessed: 3 December 2012].

Inscriptions

Authors Own Image

Arborist Jeremy DeSimone, Spraying Fertilizer on a Swamp White Oak

Lennihan, M. (2012) Arborist Jeremy DeSimone, Spraying Fertilizer on a Swamp White Oak . [image online] Available at: http://www. csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0910/9-11-memorialPriceless-at-any-cost-video [Accessed: 3 December 2012].

Material Change between Site

Authors Own Image

The Flat Plane

PWPLA (2011) The Flat Plane. [image online] Available at: http://www. pwpla.com/national-911-memorial/landscape-design [Accessed: 3 December 2012].

Row of Trees

Authors Own Image

Temple of Hera at Olympia

MCAD Library (1993) Temple of Hera. [image online] https://www. flickr.com/photos/69184488@N06/11981833195/sizes/l [Accessed: 3 December 2012].

Ground Zero

Dave Z (2012) 9/11 Memorial. [image online] Available at: https:// www.flickr.com/photos/zawrotny/8306069668/sizes/o/ [Accessed: 3 December 2012].

Holocaust Memorial

Model of Proposal

Unknown. (2011) Model Prepared for the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe. [image online] Available at: http://www.radford.edu/~rbarris/ research/Architectures%20of%20Memory%201.pdf [Accessed: 4 December 2012].

Aerial View of the Memorial

Dalbéra, J. (2012) Aerial View of the Memorial. [image online] Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalbera/9617851018/sizes/o/ [Accessed: 4 December 2012].

Topography

Eisenman, P. (2012) Peter Eisenman Jewish Memorial Plan. [image online] Available at: http://artswise.blogspot.co.uk/2012_11_01_archive.html [Accessed: 4 December 2012].

Trees at Holocaust Memorial

Rose, S. (2012) Holocaust Memorial, Berlin. [image online] Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/oh_darling/7325321834/sizes/o/ [Accessed: 4 December 2012].

Construction of the Memorial

Stiftung Denkmal (2012) Construction of the Memorial. [image online] Available at: http://www.stiftung-denkmal.de/fileadmin/user_upload/ projekte/oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/pdf/Presse/Pressemappe_2012_Webseite_ en.pdf [Accessed: 4 December 2012].

People Interacting

Lee, R. (2012) Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe. [image online] Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/roboppy/6959302300/ [Accessed: 4 December 2012].

Zoom up of Plan (w/Illustration 4)

Ground Plane (w/Illustration 5)

Gina (2012) Holocaust Memorial, Berlin. [image online] Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/21484776@N00/7145068743/ [Accessed: 4 December 2012].

Topography (w/Illustration 6)

Eisenman, P. (2012) Peter Eisenman Jewish Memorial Plan. [image online] Available at: http://artswise.blogspot.co.uk/2012_11_01_archive.html [Accessed: 4 December 2012].

Interaction

Lee, R. (2012) Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe. [image online] Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/roboppy/6959302300/ [Accessed: 4 December 2012].

Sky View

Wüstenhagen, E. (2009) Eisenman Holocaust Memorial Berlin. [image online] Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/eriwst/6903325601/ sizes/l [Accessed: 4 December 2012].

Aerial View of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C

Highsmith, C. (2007) Aerial view of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C.. [image online] Available at: http://commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/File:Aerial_view_of_Vietnam_Veterans_Memorial.jpg [Accessed: 5 December 2012].

Halprin’s Washington D.C Plan

Halprin, L. (1997) The Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, Chronicle Books.

Lin’s Design Proposal

Lin, M. (2006), in Boundaries, Simon & Schuster.

Lin’s Design Proposal

Lin, M. (2006), in Boundaries, Simon & Schuster.

Lin’s Design Proposal

Lin, M. (2006), in Boundaries, Simon & Schuster.

The Wall

Rose, M (2011) The Wall. [image online] Available at: http://la-economy. blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/to-our-troops-out-there-stay-safe.html [Accessed: 5 December 2012].

Lincoln Memorial Close Up

Favero, C. (2012) Reflections on Lincoln Memorial. [image online] Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cfavero/8041827941/sizes/o/ [Accessed: 5 December 2012].

Washington Monument

Carolina, J. (2008) Washington Monument, Reflecting Pool, Old Post Office tower, National World War 2 Memorial, Smithsonian Castle, Captiol Hill dome. View from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.. [image online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Washington_Monument_ Panorama.jpg [Accessed: 5 December 2012].

Aerial View of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial

Google Earth Images

Vietnam Veterans Memorial

Unknown (2005) Vietnam Veterans Memorial. [image online] Available at: http://www.american-architecture.info/USA/USA-Washington/DC-006.htm [Accessed: 5 December 2012].

Image of reflection of Soldiers in Memorial

Unknown. (2010) Vietnam Memorial. [image online] Available at: http:// kennedysdisease.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/proud-to-be-american.html [Accessed: 6 December 2012].

Symbols for Names

Lin, M. (2006), in Boundaries, Simon & Schuster.

Engraving Names

Moss, W. (2010) Engraving of Names. [image online] Available at: http:// http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:William_L._Taylor_added_to_ Vietnam_Veterans_Memorial_2010-05-04_1.jpg [Accessed: 6 December 2012].

Fig. 1 Ghost Bike (Boghosian, 2012)

Fig. 2 Lantern Floating in Hawaii (Kennerly, 2012)

Fig. 3 Shoes on the Danube (Claire H, 2012) 10

PREFACE

Within the built environment, I feel there is a comparison between the elements that build up an emotional landscape, such as a memorial, to jigsaw pieces that fit together in the experience of a landscape.

From an early age, I have found observation and how we represent things through metaphors or physical entities, fascinating. My interest for finding these hidden messages lies within my passion for researching topics that have followed through to my adult years. Reading through an article online, I came across this magnificent quote:

â&#x20AC;&#x153;

I classify memorials and monuments as emotional landscapes that are static in their form, but alive through memories, attachments and expression. I believe they are a living conscious, a physical emotional representation of people, events or moments that you cannot read in history books. The emotional representation and effectiveness varies in each memorial, dependant on factors such as spatial elements, location and materials, which I will be examining in this study.

Our only way of grasping our history (and by history I really mean what has happened to us, and what determines what we are now and where we are now)â&#x20AC;Ś Is by people entering into it in their imagination, not by the world of facts, but by being there. (Malouf, 1996)

My fascination for representing and remembering past events, legacies of significant people, and how it is encompassed within the built environment, has lead me to write this critical study in hope of inspiring others about emotional experiences that can be achieved through the landscape.

â&#x20AC;?

This sparked ideas about representation and communication in Landscape Architecture, and how I perceive memorials and monuments to be ideal interpretations of historically imaginative places. Memorial and monuments further appeal to me as a designer because they incorporate a range of skills that are emphasised beyond any other type of landscape.

A few of my favourite creative memorials are the Ghost Bike (Fig. 1), Lantern Floating in Hawaii (Fig. 2), and Shoes on the Danube Bank (Fig. 3). These types of memorials are all temporary installations, which have a different meaning attached to them. 11

Fig. 4 World Trade Center New York Aerial Rendering (Squared Design Lab, 2012)

Fig. 5 Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe (Landezine, 2010)

Fig. 6 Vietnam Veteran Memorial (Highsmith, 2007) 12

for this critical study are the Ground Zero 9/11 Memorial, Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. They have been selected due to their depth, strong sense of meaning, political delicacy and their ability to transmit theories of spatial organisation.

INTRODUCTION

The 9/11 memorial (Fig. 4) is described by Peter Walker as a “space that resonates with the feelings of loss and absence.” (National September 11 Memorial & Museum, 2011) The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe (Fig. 5) is intended by its designer, Peter Eisenman, to make “visitors to feel the loss and disorientation that Jews felt during the Holocaust” (Craven, 2012). The Vietnam Veteran Memorial (Fig. 6), was projected by its designer, Maya Lin, to be “something that all people could relate to on a personal level… an interface between our world and the quieter, darker, more peaceful world beyond.” (Lin, 2006)

There are many types of memorials used to commemorate a spectrum of events or figures in history. Memorials can be designed to mark or symbolise events such as slavery, war, genocide, heroin overdose, domestic abuse or road safety. Any type of memorial can range in form from being permanent, temporary, evolving or even digital. Savage (1999) best defines the memorials chosen in this critical study, as “the most conservative of commemorative forms precisely because they are meant to last, unchanged, forever.” Bonder (2009) strengthens this theory, stating that “a memorials destiny is to recall the past and provide conditions for new responses in the future… Memorials should help us consider trauma and re-think and re-actualise the past. They should encourage critical consciousness, committed memory-work, and the possibility of engaging with the world through transformative practices.” The case studies that have been examined

The descriptions by the designers of each memorial above, echoes the statement by Amsellen (2007), that memorials are “spaces of reflection.” Building on this theory by Amsellen, these ‘spaces’ can be linked to ideas that consider spaces to “evoke moods and states of mind” (Loidl and Bernard, 2003) that are “designed as to simulate a prescribed emotional reaction or to produce a predetermined sequence of such responses.” (Simonds, 1983) In the Architecture of Form, Space and Order, Ching (2007) describes how the configuration of form defines space, and goes on further to analyse the organisation of forms within a space. Defined by the National Park Service (2012), spatial organisation is the “arrangement of elements creating the ground, vertical, and overhead planes that define and create spaces.” This critical study will explore the connection between the elements of spatial organisation in memorials, to the intended experience within the memorial using a derived criterion based upon design principle theories. 13

CRITERION

Diagram 1a Diagram 1b Diagram 1c Diagram 1d Diagram 1e Diagram 2a Diagram 2b Diagram 2c Diagram 3a Diagram 3b Diagram 3c Diagram 3d Diagram 4a Diagram 4b Diagram 5a Diagram 5b Diagram 5c Diagram 6a Diagram 6b Diagram 6c Diagram 7a Diagram 7b Diagram 7c Diagram 7d Diagram 7e Diagram 7f Diagram 7g Diagram 7h Diagram 7i Diagram 7j 14

Chaos (Reid, 2007) Unity (Reid, 2007) Harmony (Reid, 2007) Unity and Harmony (Reid, 2007) Interest, Coherance, Unity and Harmony (Reid, 2007) Interlocking (Booth, 2012) Face to Face (Booth, 2012) Spatial Tension (Booth, 2012) Full Boundary (Loidl and Bernard, 2003) Transparent Boundary (Loidl and Bernard, 2003) Open Boundary (Loidl and Bernard, 2003) Opening in the Boundary (Loidl and Bernard, 2003) Incised Terrace (Loidl and Bernard, 2003) Added Terrace (Loidl and Bernard, 2003) Depressed Plane over 150cm (Loidl and Bernard, 2003) Depressed Plane upto 150cm (Loidl and Bernard, 2003) Depressed Plane between 30-50cm (Loidl and Bernard, 2003) Elevated Plane over 150cm (Loidl and Bernard, 2003) Elevated Plane upto 150cm (Loidl and Bernard, 2003) Elevated Plane between 30-50cm (Loidl and Bernard, 2003) Horizontal Form (Simonds, 1983) Vertical Form (Simonds, 1983) Single Rectolinear Form (Simonds, 1983) Repeated or Irregular Rectolinear Form (Simonds, 1983) Slightly Curved Form (Simonds, 1983) Parallel Form (Simonds, 1983) Congregating Form (Simonds, 1983) Dispersing Form (Simonds, 1983) Descending Form (Simonds, 1983) Ascending Form (Simonds, 1983)

Diagram 1a

Diagram 1b

Diagram 1c

Diagram 1d

Diagram 1e

Diagram 2a

Diagram 2b

Diagram 2c

Diagram 3a

Diagram 3b

Diagram 3c

Diagram 4a

Diagram 4b

Diagram 3c

Diagram 5a

Diagram 5b

Diagram 5c

Diagram 6a

Diagram 6b

Diagram 6c

Diagram 7a

Diagram 7b

Diagram 7c

Diagram 7d

Diagram 7e

Diagram 7f

Diagram 7g

Diagram 7h

Diagram 7i

Diagram 7j

Diagram 3d

CASE STUDY 01: GROUND ZERO 9/11 MEMORIAL

Fig. 7 The National 9/11 Memorial (Timothy, 2011)

The 9/11 memorial (Fig. 7) is located in the former location of the Twin Towers, in Lower Manhattan, New York City (Illustration 1). The label ‘9/11’ refers to the date September 11th 2001, which saw the devastating terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre, killing approximately 3,000 people. In 2004, architect Michael Arad was chosen as the finalist from over 5,000 proposals for the memorial (National September 11 Memorial & Museum, 2011). His design, entitled ‘Reflecting Absence’ (Fig. 8-10), undertook a series of improvements and refining with the collaboration of Peter Walker, a landscape architect. Together, their design consisted of a plaza containing two square pools (one acre in size) and a forest of over 400 swamp white oak trees (Quercus bicolor).

Illustration 01

Fig. 9 Concept Sketches (Arad, 2012)

Fig. 8 Michael Arad’s Original Sketch for the 9/11 Memorial (Arad, 2011)

Fig. 10 Competition Entry 9/11 (Arad, 2012)

The two fountains (Fig. 11) are orientated and located in the original footprints of the Twin Towers, sitting 30 feet below street level. Inscribed into the bronze panels that border the pools (Fig. 12), are the names of the victims from the 2001 September 11th attacks, and the 1993 World Trade Centre bombings. Contrasting with the panels, are the parallel-arranged paving stones that are set in a mixture of sand and rigid mortar. This combination allows easy removal of the paving to uncover the self-sustained reservoir, and underground network of service tunnels for maintenance access (Fig. 13). 17

Fig. 11 Square Pools (Lennihan, 2012)

Fig. 12 Inscriptions Authors Own Image

Fig. 13 Arborist Jeremy DeSimone, Spraying Fertilizer on a Swamp White Oak (Lennihan, 2012) 18

The memorial opened to the public on the 10th anniversary of the attacks, and received over a million visitors in the first three months. According to sources at the Associated Press, the project was estimated at 700 million dollars, with an additional 60 million dollar budget for the cost of operations per year (Peltz, 2012). The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) were the governing body for the international competition, whom assembled a thirteen member panel of judges that included Maya Lin, Michael Van Valkenburgh and James Young (National September 11 Memorial & Museum, 2011).

The mission statement set by the LMDC (2003) for the competition, outlined that all design proposals should: • Remember and honor the thousands of innocent men, women and children murdered by terrorists in the horrific attacks of February 26, 1993 and September 11, 2001. • Respect this place, made sacred through tragic loss. • Recognize the endurance of those who survived, the courage of those who risked their lives to save others, and the compassion of all who supported us in our darkest hours. • May the lives remembered, the deeds recognized, and the spirit reawakened be eternal beacons, which reaffirm respect for life, strengthen our resolve to preserve freedom, and inspire an end to hatred, ignorance and intolerance.

In an interview with ABC News (2012), Arad explained the experience he had during the 9/11 attacks, and his connection with Manhattan. Describing a method he coined as ‘meaningful adjacencies’, Arad went through interviews with families, workers and people involved in the tragedy to make connections between the victims to group names accordingly. 19

When questioned about his design intentions, Arad explained that he wanted to “bring the idea of emptiness to the site” in order to “[make] what is no longer here… here for all of us” (Yahoo!, 2012). This is evident in the overall spatial organisation, which coincides with theories by Reid (2007) and Booth (2012). Relating to the criterion diagrams 1a, 1c, and 2c, the simple analysis below (Illustration 2) shows how the lack of unity and interest causes a ‘weak relationship’ between elements, and that the harmony between the two parallel repeating elements (voids) in the design, “lack a powerful sense of cohesion”.

address certain features of the site and turn away from others” (Ching, 2007). By giving the visitor no strong sense of a guided focus or pull, the confusion of direction could render their experience as being ‘empty’ and exposed, making it an effective design intention. In another interview with Huffington Post, Arad described the site as an “urban room” intended to be “accessible from all sides” upon completion. This would provide visitors with a destination that is open and can be regularly returned to, due to the prolonged “physical and emotional experience” (Needham, 2011) Illustration 02 within the site. Fitting in with Peter Walkers style, the horizontal surfaces were “patterned to assert and reinforce” the constructed plane, that is “visible in it’s entirety” (Peter Walker Partners, 2011).

Similar to this, Booth (2012) describes that the spatial tension creates a “sense of autonomy,” concluding that the space between each of the elements contribute to less of an “association” between the forms. This lack of cohesion, and autonomy between the voids and buildings could be seen as creating an empty feeling. However, the spatial organization which creates independent and barely associable forms, could be argued by Ching (2007) to rely on a linkage through a common, repetitive third space - the ground plane. This third or ‘intermediate’ space is different in “form and orientation” to “express its linking function”. This argument therefore exposes that the feeling of ‘emptiness’ could be from the encouragement of the organisation, “to 20

In identifying the site as having an open boundary (Diagram 3c) with a horizontal base plane (Diagram 7a), these could be analysed as a strong area within the space (Loidl and Bernard, 2003), which is positive, bold and forceful (Simonds, 1983). These associations provide evidence for Walkers design intention of creating an assertive nature. Argued by Dee (2001), “[that] little structure or enclosure could result in a monotonous and bleak landscape,” Farrelly (2007) counteracts that boundaries could be represented as thresholds, marked by “change or exaggeration of material at ground level”. This theory is reinforced by the fact that there is a different material used as the memorials ground plane, different in form and pattern to the outside (Fig. 14). This change in material or texture is defined by Ching (2007) as creating a “territory” or “zone of space”, correlating to the of an ‘urban room’ Arad described above, with a nature of open boundaries (no vertical obstruction) that make it ‘accessible from all sides’.

for visitors comes from being close to its edge.

Fig. 14 Material Change between Site (Authors Own Image)

Although Arad and Walker designed the 30 foot sunken pools for the intention of visitors to reflect by letting the “absence speak for itself” (National September 11 Memorial & Museum, 2011), it has been criticized that “the architectural impact” of the pools, exerts a “dwarfed, insignificant” feeling (Rosenbaum, 2011).

Illustration 03 Fig. 15 The Flat Plane (w/ Illustration 3) (PWPLA, 2011)

As identified in Illustration 3, the section of the memorial (Fig. 15) is overlaid with diagram 5a to show the depressed plane of the voids. With the plane being depressed by a large distance, it relates to exerting a ‘dwarfed, insignificant feeling,’ also echoed by Loidl and Bernard’s (2003) theory that [dropping planes] “removes the connection between the upper and lower sections”, creating the feeling of “discomfort” and being “shut in.” On the other hand, Ching (2007) describes that a depressed plane can create an “intimate” space. This theory, however, is inadequate due to depressed plane being a water feature, which is not intended to be occupied by visitors. With the voids being depressed 30 feet against the ground plane, the viewing range

The form of an ‘edge’ is described by Dee (2001) as being a “dramatic physical separation” that is designed skillfully to act as a barrier, whilst also serving the function of being a surface for victims names. Relating back to this description, and the design intention of ‘letting the absence speak for itself’, Gehl (2011) justifies, that “intense emotional contacts take place at close range (0 to 0.5 metres) where all the senses can work together… and details can be perceived clearly.” The ‘details’ in this case would be the victims names, etched onto the plaques. A description taken from Peter Walkers’ website, narrates that “visitors will leave the everyday life of the city and enter into a sacred zone defined by a dense forest” (Peter Walker Partners, 2011). The repetition and sequence of the trees used on the memorial site are the main vertical forms of the site. As shown in figure 16, the canopy is used in ‘density’ to unify the site, providing a “sun filter and shade” to “soften architectural lines.” The geometric spacing of the canopy trees creates “architectural rooms” which is argued by Simonds (1983), as being suitable for “courtyards of civic-monumental characters.”

Fig. 16 Row of Trees Authors Own Image 21

The grid pattern of the planting could be defined as a formal grove, which is “reliable, calm, and comfortable” (Loidl and Bernard, 2003). Although it could be argued that a grid is ‘too logical… and controlling’ (Taylor, 2002), grids have been constructed since 600BC in Ancient Greece (Fig. 17), and are highly used in sacred architecture. This argument justifies the relevance of the grid layout to portray Walkers intention, and the memorial guideline requirement, of a sacred nature in the memorial.

Fig. 17 Temple of Hera at Olympia (Unknown, 2011)

In relation to the discussion in the introduction, in which Bonder (2009) says ‘a memorial should encourage critical consciousness’, it is clearly accomplished through the creative use of the depressed horizontal planes, grid formality, and the physical and psychological boundaries. What could enhance the experience of the site is to develop the link or ‘third space’ between each of the structural elements (voids, pools and other buildings) in order to show a sense of guidance, orientation and organisation through the site, eliminating the confusion experienced by visitors. For example, by enhancing the ground plane through a common feature that involves symmetry, this could create the “coherence and uniformity” that enables people to “relate different phenomena to each other” (Loidl and Bernard, 2003). Another solution, similarly expressed by Booth (2012), suggests that connecting the structural elements through a “visual bond [or] spine, [could bring] association between neighbouring forms.”

Fig. 18 Ground Zero (Dave Z, 2012)

CASE STUDY 02: MEMORIAL TO THE MURDERED JEWS OF EUROPE

Fig. 19 Holocaust Memorial (Landezine, 2010)

The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe (Fig. 19), also known as the Holocaust Memorial, is located in central Berlin, Germany. The memorial is designed to commemorate the Holocaust, which saw Nazi’s target and murder over six million Jews between 1933 and 1945. The significance of the site’s location centrally focuses around embassies and other government buildings, to which it receives roughly half a million visitors per year. It is also coincidently located near to the underground bunker where Hitler committed suicide.

Fig. 21 Aerial View of the Memorial (Dalbéra, 2012)

Journalist Lea Rosh proposed the original idea for a memorial in 1988, but it wasn’t until 1999 that the Bundestag (Parliament of Germany) agreed to actually go forth and build the winning design. This delay was due to the re-building of the states after the falling of the Berlin Wall (StiftungDenkmal, 2012). Several rounds and 528 proposals later, an established architect from New York, Peter Eisenman, emerged as the winner (in collaboration with Richard Serra), with the exception that he added an information centre. Fig. 20 Model (Barris, 2011)

Fig. 22 Topography (Eisenman, 2012)

map of Berlin (Fig. 22). The heights of the slabs were determined by the resulting intersections of both maps, although visitors walking on a horizontal plane do not notice this. Despite their perception of seeing a gridded and logical space, their actual experience is altered due to the sloping ground plane and inclined stelae. Eisenman’s design (Fig. 20) consists of 2,711 concrete blocks (stelae) in a wave pattern, arranged in a grid covering 19,000m2 (Fig. 21). The stelae are all identical, in that they measure 2.38m long by 0.95m wide, and are hollow inside. This, however, is contrasted with heights and inclines, working in effect with the undulating surface (cast stone plates) of the site (Berlin Travel Sightseeing, 2012). As explained by Barris (2012), Eisenman supposedly decided on the location of the slabs by overlaying a grid and a topographical

Alongside the field of stelae, there are a few scattered trees contained within the field, around the border and an avenue of planting on the west boundary (Fig. 23). The planting palette comprises of 11 Kentucky coffee trees (Gymnocladus dioica), 8 aralia trees (Hercules’ club, Aralia spinosa), 7 black pines (Pinus nigra), 7 lime trees (Tilia vulgaris), 5 Carolina silverbell trees (Halesia carolina) and 3 Allegheny serviceberry trees (Amelanchier laevis). (Stiftung-Denkmal, 2012) 25

The resolutions set by the German Bundestag (Stiftung-Denkmal, 1999), stated that:

Fig. 23 Trees at Holocaust Memorial (Rose, 2012)

The slabs are dry in colour and fixed with an anti-graffiti substance called Protectosil. The construction process (Fig. 24) came to an abrupt halt when it was discovered that Degussa, supplier of the anti-graffiti substance, had been involved in various ways in the persecution of Jews during Nazi reign. Further digging into the company, revealed that a subsidiary group even produced the ‘Zyklon B’ gas used to poison people in the gas chambers. After many turbulent discussions, the board of trustees decided to resume with construction, over-weighing any disputes with the fear of expenses that would incur if the construction process was altered or paused any further. The total expense for the memorial came to €27.6 million (€14.8 million for the Field of Stelae and €12.8 million for the Information Centre), which has caused quite a controversy from critics (Stiftung-Denkmal, 2012).

Fig. 24 Construction of the Memorial (Stiftung Denkmal, 2012)

• The Federal Republic of Germany will erect a memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin. • With the memorial, we intend to honour the murdered victims, keep alive the memory of these inconceivable events in German history, admonish all future generations never again to violate human rights, defend the democratic constitutional state at all times, secure equality before the law for all people and to resist all forms of dictatorship and regimes based on violence. • The memorial will be a central monument and place of remembrance, connected to other memorial centres and institutions within and beyond Berlin. It cannot replace the historical sites of terror where atrocities were committed. • The memorial will be erected at the designated site in the centre of Berlin - the Ministry Gardens. • The Federal Republic of Germany remains committed to commemorating and honouring the other victims of the Nazi regime.

Eisenman’s main design intention for the memorial was to get “visitors to feel the loss and disorientation that Jews felt during the Holocaust” (Craven, 2012). Although it was initially criticised by German nationals that the memorial was “oppressive and overly abstract,” Eisenman argues that it lies perfectly between symbolism and its’ ability to “aid atonement,” (Quigley, 2005). His argument is backed up by Ouroussoff (2005), stating “its haunting silence and stark physical presence - psychically weave the Holocaust into our daily existence.” The most collective perception about the memorial is that the ‘field of stelae’ is interpreted as a “cemetery”, with the individual stelae resembling either “headstones or sarcophagi” (Brody, 2012). Argued in my previous case study, that grid layouts show significance towards sacred places, Eisenmen has clearly stressed his intention that “it’s not a sacred place” but rather a place “people are going to picnic” (Spiegel Online, 2005), hoping that the memorial becomes a “natural part of the city, blending in with its background” (A View on Cities, 2012). (Fig. 25) This argument is also physically evident in the fact that 2,711 stelae were built, of which this figure is not related to the site, country, purpose or events surrounding the Holocaust. Also, the stelae range in height and weight, which counteracts that if they were to represent ‘headstones’ for victims who died of the same cause, they would show equal characteristics.

Fig. 25 People Interacting (Lee, 2012)

Using diagram 1d from the criterion, the spatial organisation of the stele show unity and harmony (Illustration 4), identified by Simonds (1983) as Borissavlievitch’s “Law of the Same”. This law observes that the composition of structures attain order through repetition or sequence of the same elements, spaces or forms. The field of stele could be argued to show a planned sequence through the “conscious organisation of elements” to produce a pre-determined experience (Simonds, 1983). This ‘pre-determined experience’ links to Eisenman’s main design intention, described earlier, of making visitors feel the ‘loss and disorientation’ that Jews felt during the Holocaust (Craven, 2012).

Illustration 04

Fig. 26 Zoom up of Plan (w/Illustration 4) (Landezine, 2010)

Identified through diagrams 7d and 7e in the criterion, the memorial shows a “logical, planned and orderly” form contrasting with a “smooth, swelling and sliding” (Simonds, 1983) ground plane (Illustration 5). The contrasting forms (Fig. 27) achieve the ability to make peoples’ heads disappear into the memorial, which Eisenman speculates in comparison to Primo Levis’ book on Auschwitz, writing that “prisoners were no longer alive but they weren’t dead either” (Spiegel Online, 2005). This identification clearly reflects the feeling of ‘loss and orientation’ that is stated as a design intention and Landezine’s (2005) review of feeling “confused” within the site.”

The memorial is accessible 24 hours a day, made apparent by the absence of 27

boundaries. Although it could be argued through diagrams 3d and 6a, that there are boundaries within the memorial (Illustration 6). On a scale such as an open public space, Loidl and Bernard (2003) state that a close ratio (Fig. 29) between the visitor and the boundary of stelea provides a “dominant impression… of being cramped” and “isolation” due to low visibility of immediate surroundings and the sky (Fig. 30). This key comparison of boundaries within the site contributes to the design intention of creating an “unsettling” experience (Spiegel Online, 2005), echoed by a visitors review that they “[obtained] a sense of insecurity and oppression” (Berlin Travel Sightseeing, 2012).

Illustration 05 Fig. 27 Ground Plane (w/Ilustration 5) (Gina, 2012)

Illustration 06

Fig. 28 Topography (w/Illustration 6) (Eisenman, 2012) Fig. 29 Interaction (Lee, 2012)

Fig. 30 Sky View (Wüstenhagen, 2009)

Despite it not being intended, the concrete blocks screen sound within the memorial, as experienced on Eisenman’s first journey through the completed site, in which he describes “[not hearing] anything but the sound of your footsteps” (Spiegel Online, 2005). This could be compared to the silent form of the landscape in general, challenged by Eisenman that “the one who has to talk is you.” (Quigley, 2005) Reciting a quote from an interview with Eisenman, that this memorial acts as “part of the process of getting over guilt” (Spiegel Online, 2005), the form, scale, layout, organisation, and material defining the experience, suggest that it acts more as a reminder to visitors of an interpretation of feelings felt by victims during the Holocaust, rather than absolving the guilt. This opinion, and the relevance of the memorial are agreed by Chin et al (2005), when they quoted Bommarius: “if the Memorial serves the Germans to simply absolve their country of its past, then it should be blown up”. The theory from the discussion in the introduction, commenting that a memorials ‘destiny is to recall the past and provide conditions for new responses in the future’ (Bonder, 2009) is most valid and evident in this design, due to Eisenman’s technique of immersing the visitor into to ‘Holocaust-like’ experience. Compared to the 9/11 memorial, which incorporates planting as an overhead plane to enhance the experience, better use and relevance of planting could help to improve the effect of immersing the visitor, to achieve interest amongst its grid of harmony and unity.

CASE STUDY 03: VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL

Fig. 31 Aerial view of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. (Highsmith, 2007)

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial (Fig. 31) is located in the heart of Washington D.C, designed by Maya Lin, at the time an undergraduate at Yale. The purpose of the memorial is to commemorate Americans who were killed or went missing during the Vietnam War (1955-1975).

The inspiration for the idea of a memorial came from Jan Scruggs, a surviving veteran, after being inspired by the film â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The Deer Hunterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Cimino, 1978). He took it upon himself to raise funds for a tribute to his fellow soldiers, resulting in a nonprofit organisation being set up, and three acres of land designated for a memorial at the National Mall located in Washington D.C. Shortly after Scruggs got the wheels in motion, the competition for a memorial was announced (Wolfson, 2011). The memorial was privately funded by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (VVMF; non-profit organisation), which raised nine million dollars through contributions. (Infantry Manchu Vietnam Association, 2010)

13 9

Illustration 07

1. Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium 2. Lincoln Park/Emancipation Memorial 3. US Capitol Building 4. Ulysses S. Grant Memorial 5. Washington Monument 6. World War II Memorial 7. Lincoln Memorial 8. Vietnam Veterans Memorial 9. Korean War Veterans Memorial 10. General Jose De San Martin Memorial 11. Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 12. Consitution Gardens 13. Martin Luther King Jr Memorial 14. White House 15. Jefferson Memorial

Locations:

Although unintentional in 1980, the specific site chosen for the memorial has great significance towards other momentous buildings in Washington D.C. The map below (Illustration 7, sideways) has been adapted and updated from Halprinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (1997) version in 1974 (Fig. 32), to show the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in comparison to other major memorials, monuments and government buildings. This diamond-like form shows the relationship between each of the significant landmarks that are unified by a west-east symmetrical axis, starting from the Lincoln Memorial (7).

Fig. 32 Halprin’s Washington D.C Plan (Halprin, 1997)

Out of 1,421 proposals, Lin’s design (Fig. 33-35) was chosen due to its minimalism, and most importantly, the lack of statement towards the war. This is reflected in her design process, in which she “made a conscious decision not to do any specific research on the Vietnam War [or] the political turmoil surrounding it.” This allowed her to focus on “[creating] a memorial that everyone would be able to respond to” (Lin, 2006).

Fig. 33 Lin’s Design Proposal (Lin, 2006)

Fig. 34 Lin’s Design Proposal (Lin, 2006)

Fig. 35 Lin’s Design Proposal (Lin, 2006)

The criteria guidelines set by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (2012) in 1980, stated that: • It [should] be reflective and contemplative in character. • Harmonise with its surroundings, especially the neighbouring national memorials. • Contain the names of all who died or remain missing. • It [should] make no political statement about the war. Lin’s design, as described earlier as ‘minimal’, is made up of two black granite walls (Fig. 36) emerging out of the earth from a 10foot incision. The walls, each 246.75 feet long, are set at 125 degrees apart (shown in red on Illustration 7), with the west wing pointing to the Lincoln Memorial (Fig. 37), and the east wing pointing to Washington Monument (Fig. 38). The rationale behind this was to be able to “[link] two strong symbols for the country… to create a unity between the nations past and present” (Lin, 2006), providing the memorial with historical context. The relevance of the location and orientation of the memorial in relation to other landmarks in Illustration 7, could be argued using criterion diagram 1c as delivering a “state of accord [with its] surroundings” (Reid, 2007).

Fig. 36 The Wall (Myles, 2011) Fig. 37 Lincoln Memorial Closeup (Favero, 2012)

Fig. 38 Washington Monument, Reflecting Pool, Old Post Office tower, National World War 2 Memorial, Smithsonian Castle, Captiol Hill dome. View from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. (Carolina, 2008)

The granite walls that make up the majority of the design hold significance, as it is clear how they show unity through the symmetrical spatial organisation (Illustration 8). This bilateral symmetry and geometry is argued by Reid (2007) to have characteristics of a balanced form, which could be interpreted as showing a neutral opinion about war through the design. These characteristics are also argued by Simonds (1983) to show “compelling power” which resonates with Lin’s design concept of “[an] impulse to cut into the earth” (Lin, 2006). The horizontal form of the memorial (Fig. 39) could be identified by diagram 7a, as being “positive, bold and forceful” (Simonds, 1983). Booth (2012) conveys this form as being an “expression of efficiency and decisiveness” which could be argued to justify the utilisation of the location.

Illustration 09 Fig. 40 Vietnam Veterans Memorial (Unknown, 2005)

Illustration 08 Fig. 39 Aerial View of Vietnam Veterans Memorial (Google Earth Images)

The 10-foot drop into the natural ground plane could be identified through diagram 4a, as an incised terrace (Illustration 9). A terrace is argued by Simonds (1983) to “accentuate and dramatise” the natural grade, reiterated by Lin’s personification of “taking a knife and cutting into the earth, opening it up” (Lin, 2006). Dee (2001) identifies that the form of a terrace can “link architecture with landscape,” and combined with the argument above, counteracts criticism such as “lack of narrative content” or “degrading ditch” (Wolfson, 2011).

The requirement of the memorial to be ‘reflective and contemplative’ could be argued through the negative space in the terrace (Illustration 9), identified by diagram 6a as creating an environment for “privacy and isolation” (Loidl and Bernard, 2003). The reflective characteristic of the polished granite, contributes to Lin’s design intention of creating an “interface between the world of the living and the world of the dead” (Fig. 41), which could be argued to compensate for the “disconnection from human experience” that was criticised due to the memorials ‘minimalist’ form (Lin, 2006). Inscribed into the walls are 58,272 names (originally 58,191 in 1983), which are indicated, if necessary, with a symbol (Fig. 42) relating to the persons circumstance. There are roughly 1,200 names that are listed as missing, represented by a ‘cross’ symbol. A diamond could be added to the cross if that individual is later confirmed dead, or alternatively, denoted with a circle if they return alive. The names are listed chronologically, starting and ending at the apex of the walls. Each wall is split into labelled panels to make referencing names easier. By organising the names through a period, Lin states that it “[gives] a returning veteran the ability to find his or her own time frame on the wall, and create a psychological space for them that [is] directly focused on human response and feeling” (Infantry Manchu Vietnam Association, 2010). This ‘psychological space’ for human response, relates to the theory stated earlier by Loidl and Bernard (2003), that the depressed plane into the landscape creates an environment for ‘privacy and isolation.’ Although this memorial is famous for its controversy in the period it was designed, the spatial qualities of the site are coherent in its intentions, and comply with the required guidelines, making it a powerful space to be in. The memorial is the most frequently visited site in Washington D.C, receiving over four million visitors annually (Greenspan, 2012).

Fig. 41 Image of reflection of Soldiers in Memorial (Gaughran, 2010)

Fig. 42 Symbols for names (Lin, 2006)

Fig. 43 Engraving Names (Moss, 2010)

produced. This connection, based on a criterion of design principles, has led to supported conclusions about what a visitor might feel in each memorial. From the relevant identification of spatial qualities against theories and justifications, the Ground Zero 9/11 Memorial shows ‘loss and absence’ through lack of coherance and unity, depressed ground planes, open boundaries and a limited relationship between main structures. It could be argued that some of these characteristics were unintentional, but through the evidence of other features such as the use of material and scale, it is clear how these characteristics are prominent. In the Memorial for the Murdered Jews of Europe (MMJE), Eisenman wanted visitors to ‘feel the loss and disorientation that Jews felt during the Holocaust’. The spatial grid organisation, repetition, swelling ground plane, and the boundaries within the memorial, each contribute to immersing the visitor into the site. This immersion reflects the experience of ‘isolation’ and a ‘sense of oppression’ for the visitor, which could be argued to relate to the feeling of loss and disorientation Eisenman proposed.

CONCLUSION As discussed in the introduction, the configuration of space can contribute to evoking moods and states of mind (Ching, 2007; Loidl and Bernard, 2003). This is evident through the strong relationship analysed in each case study, between the spatial organisation and the experiences 36

In the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the evidence of creating an experience which ‘people can relate to on a personal level’ is shown through the minimalistic form, orientation, bilateral symmetry, reflectional qualities in the material, and the incised terrace which provides a 1:1 ratio with the visitor and the memorial. The ability to touch and see a reflection in the memorial, alongside its sloping form into the earth, could be argued to provide a private and intimate experience that contributes to evoking an emotional response.

Another contributing factor towards the experience in a memorial, is the context of the site. As identified in both the 9/11 memorial and the MMJE, it is clear how they both feature accessibility and coherence from the outside to the inside of the memorial, through an open boundary. However, the context of the 9/11 memorial is to show an inviting space for reflection, whereas the MMJE is designed to evoke a reminder of tragedy. All the case studies have experimented with depressed or elevated planes to create enclosures, hierarchy or isolation. There is at least one element in each memorial that requires the visitor to be up close and personal, giving the opportunity to feel an intense emotional experience (Gehl, 2011). However, a limitation to the analysis of the case studies relates to the fact that a difference in personality in the visitor, could result in an oppositional effect to the intended experience. Simonds (1983) describes that “on an open plain, timid persons feel overwhelmed, lonesome, and unprotected; left to their own devices, they soon take off in the direction of shelter or kindred spirits. Yet, on this same plain, bolder persons feel challenged and impelled to action; with freedom and room for movement they are prone to dashing, leaping, yahooing.” Another contradicting factor in the analysis stage is the cities that the memorials are based in, have a high attraction for tourists. These visitors to the site are infrequent and could be argued to have a different agenda upon entering, which could alter the effectiveness of their experience. This is majorly relevant in all the case studies, due to their characteristics of openness, and anticipation to ‘weave into the city’. As identified in the case studies, understanding the different experiences that are attached to particular kinds of spaces, allow the designer to articulate the response they want from the user. As a factor that hasn’t been considered in the analysis of the case studies, influences such as “weather,

the season or the time of day” are outside of the designer’s control, but can also heavily impact the experience (Loidl and Bernard, 2003). A general type of limitation on the research stage is the amount of case studies that have been analysed. By increasing this factor, a stronger correlation could be drawn to outline conclusions that are more specific. A similar type of limitation could be observed through the availability of theories that prove relevant to the criterion. If it were more available at the time of this study, conclusions from Jay Appleton’s ‘prospect-refuge theory’ (Appleton, 1996) could have contributed to a deeper analysis of the case studies. The type of case studies chosen also effect the concluding analysis, as it could be argued that civic spaces or public parks embrace similar conclusions related to the spatial organisation in memorials. As a matter of judgement, the method in which the case studies have been analysed could produce controversy in the results. The level of significance or adequacy of each diagram in the criterion used for identification could be questioned, based on the authors’ interpretation of the design principles that define spatial organisation. The spatial characteristics that have been identified to determine the experiences in this critical study are justified through the criterion, and supported by theories and analysis to prove the outcomes from each memorial. Other than basing the verdict of experience in a memorial on design principles, a spatial analysis tool based on the isovist theory and other space syntax’s, could be used to produce more quantitative outcomes for a more weighted critical analysis. Overall, the relevancy of evaluating the spatial organisation in memorials relays heavily to landscape architects, as they “need to be informed about people’s uses and experiences of landscape [to] then respond [through] design (Dee, 2001).

BIBLIOGRAPHY A View on Cities (2012) Holocaust Memorial, [Online], Available: http://www.aviewoncities.com/berlin/ holocaustmemorial.htm [7 December 2012]. ABC News (2012) Michael Arad: 9/11 Memorial Designer, September, [Online], Available: http://d.yimg.com/nl/ ynews/abcnewsmakers/player.html#browseCarouselUI=show&vid=30546778 [11 December 2012]. Amsellem, P. (2007) in Remembering the past, constructing the future. The Memorial to the Deportation in Paris and experimental commemoration after the Second World War, New York University, Institute of Fine Arts. Appleton, J. (1996) The Experience of Landscape, Wiley-Blackwell. Barris, R. (2012) Architectures of Memory and Counter-Memory: Berlin and Bucharest, [Online], Available: http://www.radford.edu/~rbarris/research/Architectures%20of%20Memory%201.pdf [8 December 2012]. Berlin Travel Sightseeing (2012) Memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe/Stelae Field, [Online], Available: http://www.berlin-travel-sightseeing.com/en/memorials-museums/Memorial-to-the-murdered-Jews-ofEurope-Stelae-Field.html [7 December 2012]. Bonder, J. (2009) ‘On Memory, Trauma, Public Space, Monuments, and Memorials’, Places, vol. 21, no. 1. Booth, N.K. (2012) in Foundations of Landscape Architecture: Integrating Form and Space Using the Language of Site Design, John Wiley & Sons. Brody, R. (2012) The Inadequacy of Berlin’s “Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe”, 12 July, [Online], Available: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2012/07/the-inadequacy-of-berlins-memorial-tothe-murdered-jews-of-europe.html [8 December 2012]. Bruno, G. (2007) in Atlast of Emotion: Journeys in Art, Architecture, and Film, Verso. Chin, S., Franke, F. and Halpern, S. (2005) A Self-Serving Admission of Guilt: An Examination of the Intentions and Effects of Germany’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, [Online], Available: http:// www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/225-a-self-serving-admission-of-guilt-an-examination-of-theintentions-and-effects-of-germany-s-memorial-to-the-murdered-jews-of-europe [12 December 2012]. Ching, F.D.K. (2007) in Architecture: Form, Space, and Order, 3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons. Cimino, M. (1978) The Deer Hunter. Craven, J. (2012) About Dot Com Guide: The Berlin Holocaust Memorial, Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, [Online], Available: http://architecture.about.com/od/greatbuildings/ss/holocaust_4.htm [8 December 2012]. Dee, C. (2001) in Form & Fabric in Landscape Architecture: A Visual Introduction, Taylor & Francis. Farrelly, L. (2007) in The Fundamentals of Architecture, AVA Publishing. Gehl, J. (2011), in Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space, Island Press. Greenspan, J. (2012) Six Things You May Not Know About the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, 13 November, [Online], Available: http://www.history.com/news/6-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-vietnam-veteransmemorial [16 December 2012]. Greiman, A. (2012) Thoughts on Design, [Online], Available: http://www.designfeast.com/thoughts-on-design [20 November 2012]. Hall, E.T. (1990), in The Hidden Dimension, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group. Halprin, L. (1997) The Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, Chronicle Books. Infantry Manchu Vietnam Association (2010) The Wall, [Online], Available: http://thewall-usa.com/ information.asp [16 December 2012]. Landezine (2010) Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, 9 March, [Online] Available: http://www. landezine.com/index.php/2010/03/memorial-to-the-murdered-jews-of-europe/ [5 December 2012]. Lin, M. (2006) in Boundaries, Simon & Schuster. LMDC (2003) World Trade Center Site Memorial Competition Guidelines, [Online], Available: www. wtcsitememorial.org/about_guidelines.html [29 Oct 2012]. Loidl, H. and Bernard, S. (2003) in Opening Spaces: Design as Landscape Architecture, Birkhauser. 38

Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (2003) World Trade Centre Site: Memorial Competition Guidelines, 28 April, [Online], Available: http://www.911memorial.org/sites/all/files/LMDC%20Memorial%20 Guidelines.pdf [11 December 2012]. Lym, G.R. (1980) in A Psychology of Building: How We Shape and Experience Our Structured Spaces, A Spectrum Book. Malouf, D. (1996) The Conversations at Curlow Creek, September, [Online], Available: http://www. australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-Sept-1996/intermal.html [1 December 2012]. McKim, J. (2008) ‘Agamben at Ground Zero: A Memorial without Content’, Theory, Culture & Society , vol. 25, no. 83, Available: 10.1177/0263276408095217. National Park Service (2012) DSC Workflows: Definition, [Online], Available: http://www.nps.gov/dscw/ definitionsdc_s.htm [9 Oct 2012]. National September 11 Memorial & Museum (2011) Design Competition, [Online], Available: http:// www.911memorial.org/design-competition [10 Dec 2012]. Needham, P. (2011) 9/11 Memorial Review: At Ground Zero, Staying Above Ground Matters, 9 September, [Online], Available: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/09/world-trade-center-memorialreview_n_954941.html [13 December 2012]. Ouroussoff, N. (2005) A Forest of Pillars, Recalling the Unimaginable, 9 May, [Online], Available: http://www. nytimes.com/2005/05/09/arts/design/09holo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 [8 December 2012]. Peltz, J. (2012) 9-11 Memorial: Priceless At Any Cost? , 10 Sep, [Online], Available: http://www.csmonitor.com/ USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0910/9-11-memorial-Priceless-at-any-cost-video [10 Dec 2012]. Peter Walker Partners (2011) National 9/11 Memorial, [Online], Available: http://www.pwpla.com/national911-memorial/landscape-design [12 December 2012]. Quigley, S. (2005) Holocaust Memorial: Architect Peter Eisenman, 21 September, [Online], Available: http:// www.war-memorial.net/Holocaust-Memorial--Architect-Peter-Eisenman,-Berlin-2005-2.66 [2 December 2012]. Rebin, B. (2010) Curvilinearity in Architecture, 28 Oct, [Online], Available: http://architecturelinked.com/ forum/topics/curvilinearity-in-architecture [03 Nov 2012]. Reid, G.W. (2007) in From Concept to Form in Landscape Design, 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons. Rosenbaum, L. (2011) 9/11 Memorial Photo Essay: Dispiriting Design, Stark Ambiance, 20 September, [Online], Available: http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2011/09/911_memorial_dispiriting_desig.html [12 December 2012]. Savage, K. (1999) in Standing Soldiers, Kneeling Slaves: Race, War, and Monument in Nineteenth-Century America, Princeton University Press. Sci, S.A. (2009) ‘Rethinking the Memorial as a Place of Aesthetic Negotiation’, Culture, Theory and Critique, vol. 50, no. 1, p. 41, Available: 14735784. Simonds, J.O. (1983) in Landscape Architecture: A Manual of Site Planning and Design, McGraw-Hill. Sommer, R. (2008) in Personal Space: The Behavioural Basis of Design, Bosko Books. Spiegel Online (2005) “How Long Does One Feel Guilty?” Interview, [Online], Available: http://www.spiegel. de/international/spiegel-interview-with-holocaust-monument-architect-peter-eisenman-how-long-doesone-feel-guilty-a-355252.html [10 Dec 2012]. Stiftung-Denkmal (1999) Resolution by the German Bundestag, 25 June, [Online], Available: http://www. stiftung-denkmal.de/en/foundation/founding-chronology-of-the-foundation/beschluss.html [5 December 2012]. Stiftung-Denkmal (2012) InformatIon on the FoundatIon MemorIal to the Murdered Jews of Europe, March, [Online], Available: http://www.stiftung-denkmal.de/fileadmin/user_upload/projekte/oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/pdf/ Presse/Pressemappe_2012_Webseite_en.pdf [5 December 2012]. Taylor, M.C. (2002) in The Moment of Complexity: Emerging Network Culture, University of Chicago Press. Unwin, S. (2003) in Analysing Architecture, 2nd edition, Routledge. Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (2012) Design, [Online], Available: http://www.vvmf.org/Design [15 December 2012]. Wolfson, E. (2011) The “Black Gash of Shame”: Revisiting the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Controversy, 11 January, [Online], Available: http://www.art21.org/texts/the-culture-wars-redux/essay-the-black-gash-ofshame-revisiting-the-vietnam-veterans-memorial- [15 December 2012]. Yahoo! (2012) 9/11 Memorial Offers Quiet Amid New York Chaos, Designer Michael Arad Says, 10 September, [Online], Available: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/newsmakers/9-11-memorial-offers-quiet-amid-new-yorkchaos--designer-michael-arad-says.html [11 December 2012]. 39