Fitting memorial

“From the moment one enters, there is a feeling of dislocation.” “The power to disorientate and disturb ... “ Are these the attributes we desire at the heart of our great cities? Whatever happened to humanity, dignity and awe? (“Building Resolve,” Feb. 23)

Particularly galling is Peter Eisenman’s dismissal of the people who will be stuck with these sterile academic exercises: “You can talk to the public, but I don’t think they should say what books should be read, or what is good art or music.” Perhaps not, but they are the ones who will have to live with, work in and actually use these buildings.

Modern architecture is littered with the detritus of arrogant and stupid men. The most fitting memorial to the victims of Sept. 11 would be to create a place where people can feel warmth and humanity as they live their lives and go about their business. After all, isn’t that what great architecture is really about?

Jonathan Sharkey

Port Hueneme

Jonathan Sharkey is the mayor of Port Hueneme and a member of the Congress for the New Urbanism

*

I found your piece on Daniel Libeskind to be both irresponsible and uninformed in regards to what the author refers to as his “competitors’ gibes.” It has been clearly apparent to me that it has been Mr. Libeskind’s own tactic from the very beginning to publicly denigrate THINK’s proposal in as many opportunities as possible in front of the press, the public and the selection committee. It is precisely Mr. and Mrs. Libeskind’s reaction to Herbert Muschamp’s criticism that I find undemocratic, and just as Orwellian and Stalinist as he accuses THINK’s proposal to be.

Lucas Michael

Los Angeles