9/11 Memorial Design at the World Trade Center Site
This paper analyzes the design and development of the National September 11 Memorial at the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan. It traces the international design competition that drew over five thousand entries, examines architect Michael Arad's winning water-based concept, and discusses the extensive negotiations with state, local, and federal officials that reshaped the original vision. The paper also addresses key controversies, including disputes over victim name placement, significant cost overruns, and widespread criticism of the adjacent National September 11 Memorial Museum. The author concludes with a personal recommendation to increase separation between the memorial and museum spaces, arguing that their differing purposes — grieving versus historical documentation — are in fundamental tension.
- Introduction: Historical context of the WTC site and design competition
- The Design Concept: Michael Arad's water-based memorial design and its evolution
- Challenges and Controversies: Name placement disputes, cost overruns, and museum criticism
- Critical Evaluation and Recommendations: Author's recommendation to separate museum and memorial spaces
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses direct quotations from the architect, Michael Arad, to ground the design narrative in primary perspective, giving the analysis an authentic voice beyond secondary description.
- Balances factual overview with critical reflection, moving logically from design concept to documented controversies to a personal evaluative recommendation.
- Opens with a substantive block quote from the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation that frames the paper's thematic concerns — memory, resilience, and civic values — before the analysis begins.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates source-supported critical analysis: each claim about the memorial's design or reception is tied to a cited source, while the concluding section clearly marks the author's own position as distinct from the documented record. This separation of evidence from personal argument is a foundational undergraduate analytical skill.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a four-part structure: (1) a framing epigraph and introduction establishing historical context; (2) a description of the winning design concept and its water-based elements; (3) an account of the challenges, negotiations, and controversies that shaped the final build; and (4) a brief personal recommendation focused on the museum-memorial relationship. The structure moves from description to analysis to evaluation.
Introduction
"Memorials serve so many essential functions: they give us a context for remembering the past, engaging the present, and reflecting on the future. We are seeking to honor the lives lost in the attacks of 9/11 on New York City — and on Washington, DC and the flight that ended in Shanksville, PA — as well as during the attack on the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993. We also need to commemorate the resilience as well as the grieving of survivors, co-workers, neighbors, and citizens profoundly affected. The values of liberty and democracy transcend geography and nationality, and they must be given physical expression as we reimagine Lower Manhattan (Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, 2003)."
The World Trade Center site was developed and constructed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which formed an interstate compact for the project. The site comprises roughly sixteen acres, and before September 11, 2001, there were six primary buildings on the site — most notably WTC 1 and WTC 2, which stood over thirteen hundred feet tall. After the events of September 11th, 2001, however, the site was forever changed.
The memorial to be constructed on the site was notably one of the most important projects in New York City's recent history. As a consequence, city planners held an international competition for design ideas. More than five thousand design entries were submitted to the board from locations around the world. These designs were narrowed down to just five finalists, who then advanced to a second stage in which they continued to develop their concepts. Ultimately, the city's representatives chose the design by Michael Arad, who had personally witnessed a plane strike the South Tower from his rooftop. This analysis provides a brief overview of the design concept as well as some of the criticisms that have been raised regarding the design.
The Design Concept
The memorial occupies roughly one half of the sixteen-acre WTC site and includes four hundred white swamp oak trees on the grounds. The memorial itself consists of two giant waterfalls that trace the footprints of the original towers; the water descends from street level and vanishes into the voids left by what were once the tallest buildings in New York (Sisto, 2014). The bottom of the water basin is not visible to onlookers, and the marble railing surrounding the waterfalls is engraved with the names of the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The memorial is also adjacent to the National September 11 Memorial Museum, which has been the source of much criticism.
Michael Arad, the architect who won the competition, originally envisioned a monument that incorporated the element of water as a central motif (Gonzalez, 2012). "The way people came together in New York affected me greatly," he said. "I felt a desire to respond to that. For me, it was a very self-directed, hopefully cathartic, exercise" (Gonzalez, 2012). Arad initially disregarded some of the original site requirements, which called for the memorial to be built below street level. After this feature was rejected, however, Arad was required to alter his plan.
"I was afraid that in losing this below-ground memorial, I was losing the entire memorial," said Arad, whose original design aimed to evoke the impassable separation between the living and the dead — "a threshold that one cannot cross" — before memorial visitors again ascend to street level "and back to life" (Gonzalez, 2012).
Despite this setback, the plans retained the water concept, in which water falls below street level into what appears to be an abyss. Much of the original design was nonetheless altered due to the sheer number of proposed changes from state, local, and federal officials, as well as from the Port Authority — to such an extent that one advisor described the project as "the architecture of negotiation" (Loos, 2011).
References
Gonzalez, S. (2012, November 28). Architect for 9/11 memorial tells the story of its creation. Retrieved from Yale News: http://news.yale.edu/2012/11/28/architect-911-memorial-tells-story-its-creation
Loos, T. (2011, September 1). Architect and 9/11 memorial both evolved over the years. Retrieved from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/arts/design/how-the-911-memorial-changed-its-architect-michael-arad.html
Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. (2003, May 29). World Trade Center site memorial competition. Retrieved from 911memorial.org:
Sisto, C. (2014, May 27). The National September 11 Memorial Museum should have kept the memorial and skipped the museum. Retrieved from National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378774/why-911-museum-failed-christine-sisto
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.