The truth be told, the World Trade Center was neither a very good work of architecture nor a very successful piece of urbanism. Its shortcomings were somewhat mitigated by the westward and southward expansion of the World Financial Center and Battery Park City during the 1980s.

The quote by Martin Filler, “The truth be told, the World Trade Center was neither a very good work of architecture nor a very successful piece of urbanism. Its shortcomings were somewhat mitigated by the westward and southward expansion of the World Financial Center and Battery Park City during the 1980s,” presents a critical assessment of one of the most iconic building complexes in American history. Filler, a leading architecture critic, offers a candid evaluation of the design and urban impact of the original Twin Towers, which were completed in the early 1970s and destroyed in the attacks of September 11, 2001.

When Filler states that the World Trade Center was not a good work of architecture, he is referring to its aesthetic and functional limitations. Designed by Minoru Yamasaki, the Twin Towers were criticized for their repetitive façades, minimal interaction with street-level activity, and overwhelming scale that did not harmonize well with the surrounding city. Similarly, his critique of its urbanism targets the way the complex disrupted the street grid, lacked active public spaces, and functioned more as an isolated corporate zone than a vibrant part of New York City's urban fabric.

However, Filler acknowledges that some of these deficiencies were addressed over time, particularly through the development of the World Financial Center (now Brookfield Place) and Battery Park City. These projects expanded Lower Manhattan westward along the Hudson River, introducing more pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use, and human-scaled environments. The inclusion of public plazas, waterfront access, and residential spaces helped balance the overly monumental and disconnected nature of the original Trade Center complex.

This quote likely comes from Filler’s writings in publications like The New York Review of Books, where he frequently analyzes the intersection of architecture, urban planning, and public life. His assessment reflects a broader critical consensus that, despite its symbolic power and commercial scale, the original World Trade Center fell short as a model of engaged urban design. Filler’s perspective invites readers to distinguish between architectural iconography and livability, urging a more thoughtful approach to how we shape the spaces we inhabit.