World Trade Center Developments

[JMGarcia]

NY Times

Ever since 9/11 this page has urged that the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site be conducted in the public eye whenever possible. What has happened in the past few months is a reminder that openness is absolutely vital.

It has gradually become clear that the developer of the first stages of this project will be Larry Silverstein, who headed a group that bought the lease on the twin towers from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey weeks before they fell. Some of the central figures in the redevelopment process had airily predicted he would be long gone by now, bought off for a portion of the insurance money by the powers that be. But Mr. Silverstein has started to look like the real stayer. Although there's been no official announcement, he appears to have been designated as the man who will bring to life the conceptual vision of the architect Daniel Libeskind, whose design for ground zero was chosen at the end of a very public process.

Mr. Silverstein vows to rebuild the site swiftly and "superbly." But his idea of superb may not always coincide with the public's or with Mr. Libeskind's. He is currently erecting a new building on the edge of the trade center site, and the neighborhood has been unhappy with the narrow way he wants to carry out agreed-upon designs there. The public does not have an adequate way of seeing and assessing his proposed changes to the Libeskind concept since much of the planning process is taking place in private.

Mr. Libeskind's original plan, which was executed rapidly for a competition, was inevitably going to be changed before it could be carried out on this complex site. But we worry that the entire vision is in danger of being hijacked, "refined" into something that falls far short of its original promise. Mr. Silverstein talks publicly about how his buildings at ground zero will "reflect" Mr. Libeskind's ideas, but he seems to be contemplating major changes, including moving Mr. Libeskind's 1,776-foot tower — a shift that could undermine its impact on New York's skyline. Mr. Silverstein also claims he has an obligation to restore at least 10 million square feet of office space to the site, which he proposes doing by 2012. One version of Mr. Libeskind's plan did make room for that much office space — eventually. But Mr. Silverstein's urgency threatens to create too much, too soon, and crowd out the chance to make Lower Manhattan a vibrant, attractive residential community as well as a center of business and tourism.

Lower Manhattan needs a developer, and Mr. Silverstein may be the most logical choice. Thanks to insurance proceeds, he already has $1.3 billion and he could receive between $3.5 billion and $7 billion more. Gov. George Pataki wants work to begin as soon as possible, and Mr. Silverstein already has the resources to make that happen — as well as the legal muscle to slow down anyone else trying to replace him.

But this cannot ever be treated as a normal real estate development, in which Mr. Silverstein would be expected to maximize return on every dollar of investment. The 16-acre site is owned by the Port Authority and the billions in insurance proceeds are compensation for the destruction of public property. On Sept. 11 that public property also became, in a very different sense, a public trust, a place consecrated in our memories and imaginations. Mr. Silverstein's rights under his lease — a document that should be made readily available to the public — cannot prevail over the public's interest in this land. Mr. Silverstein speaks passionately about his mission to rebuild the trade center site, and the last thing he would want is to give the impression that he, his firm or his heirs might make an obscene profit as a result of this tragedy.

Besides Mr. Silverstein, the man who has emerged as the key figure in the redevelopment is Governor Pataki, who controls the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and — along with the governor of New Jersey — the Port Authority. Mr. Pataki has to make sure that Mr. Silverstein's plans are in accord with the public expectation of what ground zero should look like. But he can't do it alone. He must make certain that the people are kept abreast of what is going on. The more open and transparent this process, the more likely it is that what emerges at ground zero is a vision as close as possible to Mr. Libeskind's plan and to the aspirations of us all.

[ZippyTheChimp]

But this cannot ever be treated as a normal real estate development, in which Mr. Silverstein would be expected to maximize return on every dollar of investment.
That's exactly what Silverstein has been doing. If the reason for building tall is to maximize site use, in this case the real estate is constant, so it would make economic sense for Silverstein to spread out his buildings.

[TonyO]

Quote: from JMGarcia on 3:26 am on July 14, 2003
The public does not have an adequate way of seeing and assessing his proposed changes to the Libeskind concept since much of the planning process is taking place in private.

Mr. Libeskind's original plan, which was executed rapidly for a competition, was inevitably going to be changed before it could be carried out on this complex site. But we worry that the entire vision is in danger of being hijacked, "refined" into something that falls far short of its original promise. Mr. Silverstein talks publicly about how his buildings at ground zero will "reflect" Mr. Libeskind's ideas, but he seems to be contemplating major changes, including moving Mr. Libeskind's 1,776-foot tower — a shift that could undermine its impact on New York's skyline.


The premise of this article is flawed. *Arguing that Silverstein is unjust in ignoring the public doesn't hold here, since he is really ignoring Pataki (and the 13% or so of the public who favored Libeskind's design.)

It seems that Silverstein is going to go along with the 1776 ft. tower in his plan. *Neither Libeskind nor Pataki argued for anything more, hence there is no taller buildings coming out of this either way.

(Edited by tonyo at 10:15 am on July 14, 2003)

[ZippyTheChimp]

Arguing that Silverstein is unjust in ignoring the * public doesn't hold here, since he is really ignoring Pataki (and the 13% or so of the public who favored Libeskind's design.)
Your use of this statistic is flawed.

[JMGarcia]

The premise of this article is flawed. *Arguing that Silverstein is unjust in ignoring the public doesn't hold here, since he is really ignoring Pataki (and the 13% or so of the public who favored Libeskind's design.)

It seems that Silverstein is going to go along with the 1776 ft. tower in his plan. *Neither Libeskind nor Pataki argued for anything more, hence there is no taller buildings coming out of this either way.

My take on the premise of the article is that Silverstein should not be allowed to develop the site as he wants, in secret, with no public input.

There's no need to see everything as either a pro or anti Libeskind's design thus ignoring all other angles. That sort of fixation will lead to ideological rather than logical criticism of the site. Automatic Libeskind=bad and thus Silverstein=good because Larry has opposed some of Libeskind's design plans does a diservice to everyone.

Without Silverstein making anything public other than his height limits we are in no position to decide who's plan is best.

[TonyO]

Quote: from ZippyTheChimp on 10:21 am on July 14, 2003

Arguing that Silverstein is unjust in ignoring the * public doesn't hold here, since he is really ignoring Pataki (and the 13% or so of the public who favored Libeskind's design.)
Your use of this statistic is flawed.



Whoops. *I should have added the +/- 3% points for statistical variation. *:-)

Seriously though, anywhere from 12-16% of the many polls taken showed favor for Libeskind of the original proposals. *Its not exact, but its meant to get the point across that there is no mandate.

[TonyO]

Quote: from JMGarcia on 10:50 am on July 14, 2003

My take on the premise of the article is that Silverstein should not be allowed to develop the site as he wants, in secret, with no public input.


Agreed. *He should be held accountable for anything he comes out with. *He doesn't come across that risky though. *Especially in this WTC quagmire, I don't expect him to release anything outrageous at least by this board's standards.

But saying he should do such-and-such because it goes along with the 'winner' is a stretch.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Whoops. *I should have added the +/- 3% points for statistical variation. *:-)
I don't doubt the accuracy of the number, but the implication is that 87% of the public have no interest in one or more of the many aspects of the site. Ironically, I think that this percentage would include you, but I doubt that is the case. You are still interested, aren't you?

[Jasonik]

Mr. Silverstein talks publicly about how his buildings at ground zero will "reflect" Mr. Libeskind's ideas, but he seems to be contemplating major changes, including moving Mr. Libeskind's 1,776-foot tower — a shift that could undermine its impact on New York's skyline.

For the sake of minimizing the prevailing Northwesterly winter winds within the memorial site, Libeskind placed his tall tower in this position for a design reason. *Architects are paid to think about things like this. *
The LMDC and Libeskind have an ethical obligation to do what is best for the public, and Silverstein will try to maximize his profit within the constraints of the LMDC's planning.
Rooting for one or the other to roll over and give up seems wrongheaded, we should wish they do battle in full view so the integrity of the final result will not be in question. *

[JMGarcia]

It looks like the Libeskind site plan as shown in his renderings is coming even closer to being embraced by the PA with the fifth tower on the DB site.
------------------------------
Officials Favor Larger Site for Trade Center Complex
By DAVID W. DUNLAP NY Times


Struggling to solve an urban-planning Rubik's Cube, the Port Authority is now inclined to expand the World Trade Center redevelopment site to the south by acquiring the property on which the doomed Deutsche Bank tower stands.

Since planning began last year, it has never been clear how the trade center superblock alone could comfortably accommodate 10 million square feet of commercial space — roughly what used to be there — and also provide room for a memorial, transportation and cultural centers, new streets, shops and the space and infrastructure below ground needed to make it work.

"If we maximized it to 10 million square feet, I don't think it would be as distinguished as if we were to move some of that square footage off the site," Joseph J. Seymour, executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said in a telephone interview yesterday.

"It would make it better from a city planning point of view to move one of the buildings to the Deutsche Bank site," he said.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Seymour said, that prospect has been in the public eye for months, since one of the best-known renderings of the redevelopment plan by Studio Daniel Libeskind clearly shows a large new building on that site, bounded by Liberty, Albany, Washington and Greenwich Streets.

While public discussion has focused on the memorial, the Freedom Tower and the Wedge of Light, the Port Authority turned its attention to Daniel Libeskind's idea for a 50-story tower on the property owned by Deutsche Bank, whose building was damaged in the Sept. 11 attack.

"We said, `Let's at least explore it and see what it would buy us,' " said Anthony G. Cracchiolo, director of priority capital programs at the Port Authority. "In this preliminary look-see, it looks like it could buy us a lot."

Mr. Seymour said the Port Authority has held discussions with the bank, which an official at Deutsche Bank confirmed. Whether the property would be purchased or acquired by condemnation is subject to future negotiation, Mr. Seymour said. The amount of floor area to be built on the site might range from 1.5 million to 2 million square feet.

Kevin M. Rampe, president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, said that the corporation's interest is in preserving Mr. Libeskind's architectural vision. "Putting a building on the Deutsche Bank site is one way which would ensure we could realize that vision," he said.

Mr. Seymour said the authority also wanted "to make sure the city is on board" with the proposal, acknowledging the possible interest of the Bloomberg administration in a mixed-use building that also had apartments. Requests for comment from the mayor's press office were not answered.

What stands on the site now, shrouded in black netting, is a 40-story tower formerly known as 1 Bankers Trust Plaza that was taken over in 1999 by Deutsche Bank.

The 1.4 million-square-foot building was seriously damaged in the 2001 attack and has never reopened. After months of uncertainty, it was learned last month that the structure was to be taken down.

The Port Authority also has its eye on a block bounded by Liberty, Cedar, West and Washington Streets. Mr. Seymour said, "That would be the next step" after talks with Deutsche Bank.

An undefined mid-rise building is shown on that block in the Libeskind rendering. A spokesman for the Port Authority said no definite use has been assigned to the site.

This block was where the tiny St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church stood until it was crushed under the collapse of 2 World Trade Center. The rest of the block was a parking lot owned by the Milstein family.

Port Authority planners envision a park on either or both of the southern sites. And they held out the possibility of reconstructing St. Nicholas near its original site.

An important impetus for expanding the site lies below street level, said Robert I. Davidson, chief architect for the Port Authority.

The underground volume at the trade center site will be shared by the sunken memorial; the PATH tracks, passenger platforms, mezzanine, concourse and electrical substation; the subway tunnel for the 1 and 9 trains; utility lines; concourses for commuters and shoppers; and building foundations.

To this, add the labyrinth of driveways, ramps and security devices for inspecting vehicles. "It's a Rubik's Cube," Mr. Davidson said. If the main ramp is on the west, it cuts into the memorial zone. If it is moved eastward, it interferes with tracks, foundations and retail space.

But if the underground security area is moved south of Liberty Street, he said, it creates considerably more flexibility for the ramp network and also opens new space.

If the trade center site alone is used, Mr. Seymour said, it might be necessary to build an office tower directly over the PATH transportation center on Church Street, which renderings show as a vast glass-enclosed chamber.

Mr. Seymour likened that to plans advanced in the 1960's to build a skyscraper over Grand Central Terminal, which New York City fought all the way to the United States Supreme Court. "We're supposed to be smart enough," he said, "to learn from the mistakes of the past."



(Edited by JMGarcia at 4:30 am on July 15, 2003)

[JMGarcia]

Architect and Developer Clash Over Plans for Trade Center Site
By EDWARD WYATT *- NY Times


With pressure increasing to begin the rebuilding at ground zero, the architect with the winning design for the World Trade Center site plans to meet today with representatives of the developer to try to resolve clashing visions of what will be built.

The meeting between the architect, Daniel Libeskind, and senior aides to the developer, Larry A. Silverstein, is the latest attempt by rebuilding officials to force an agreement over the future of the site and the degree of Mr. Libeskind's influence in the design and placement of the commercial office buildings there.

Mr. Libeskind claims a public mandate on the project's future after his design was chosen over eight other proposals in a competition of renowned architects. His vision is of a spiral of five towers — including one 1,776-foot spire — surrounding a hallowed, empty ground on the site where the twin towers once stood.

But Mr. Silverstein believes the details of the commercial development are up to him. He advocates a more compact site containing all of the office space that was once there, saying that other arrangements would threaten the project's commercial viability.

Because he obtained the lease for the site less than two months before the Sept. 11 attack, his vow afterward to rebuild the fallen towers was all but laughed off. But now he has emerged as the single person who can meet Gov. George E. Pataki's aggressive timeline for beginning the rebuilding, and in the process he has seized much of the initiative from Mr. Libeskind.

In his effort to mold the project to his liking, Mr. Silverstein has persuaded the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the trade center property, to consider several changes to Mr. Libeskind's vision, and he has even hired his own architect — one of Mr. Libeskind's rivals in the design competition — to come up with plans.

After prodding by the developer, the Port Authority asked Mr. Libeskind to study the effect of moving his signature 1,776-foot tower to the eastern portion of the site, closer to a planned new transit hub, and to consider adding an office tower above that train station.

Mr. Libeskind has fought back, however, claiming his winning design should hold sway. And he has backed up that assertion by hiring Edward W. Hayes, the scrappy Manhattan lawyer who was a classmate of Gov. George E. Pataki at Columbia Law School and was a model for the lawyer Tommy Killian in Tom Wolfe's novel "The Bonfire of the Vanities," to negotiate with Mr. Silverstein.

Whether any final decisions will emerge from today's meeting, which will also include officials from the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and the Port Authority, is unclear. Mr. Libeskind is seeking a clearly defined role in the design of the outside of the 1,776-foot tower, while Mr. Silverstein would like Mr. Libeskind to agree to a different design being put together by David M. Childs, the architect who has worked extensively with Mr. Silverstein.

To that end, Mr. Silverstein's office sent a letter last week to officials at the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which is overseeing the rebuilding effort, and the Port Authority, claiming that delays in decisions about the location and size of buildings could cause him to miss a summer 2004 deadline that Governor Pataki has set for construction to begin.

What is clear from the battle is that Mr. Silverstein has transformed his place in the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan in recent months.

When Mr. Libeskind unveiled his design in February, Mr. Silverstein rushed to embrace him, and rebuilding officials were loath to give a formal role to Mr. Silverstein in the process.

But Mr. Silverstein continued to push. With the state and the city facing vast budget gaps, it became clear that Mr. Silverstein alone had the money to begin the rebuilding effort. In April, after Mr. Pataki laid out his timeline to complete the erection of steel on the 1,776-foot tower by the end of his term in 2006, he made clear that he was handing over much of the responsibility for the rebuilding to Mr. Silverstein.

Most recently, when the Port Authority and the development corporation laid out responsibilities for the memorial, the cultural space and the office development at the site, Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, the company controlling the retail space at the trade center, were given specific roles in reviewing their elements of the plan.

All of the parties say publicly that their collaborative effort is proceeding smoothly, and most of them agree that for construction to begin a year from now, as scheduled, the architects will have to begin producing detailed blueprints of the commercial parts of the site soon.

In any large-scale development, conflict normally occurs over details. Pitched battles are taking place over certain features of the memorial to victims of the terrorist attack, and differences have also emerged over the future cultural components of the rebuilt trade center.

So perhaps it is not surprising that behind the scenes, an increasingly rancorous process has threatened to delay the start of office space construction.

Mr. Silverstein believes that the shape and size of Mr. Libeskind's proposed towers will not provide enough space — or the right kind of unobstructed, column-free floor space — for top-flight tenants.

To that end, Mr. Silverstein and Mr. Childs have conceived a design that places the centerpiece tower directly over an office building about 70 floors in height. They also want to move the tower closer to the transportation hub, which they believe will also attract more tenants.

Mr. Libeskind, meanwhile, has pushed to preserve the unique elements of his design, including the off-center spire that forms the top of the 1,776-foot tower, a feature that Mr. Silverstein has contended will push up the building's cost.

The continuing battles produced more pointed public statements yesterday from Mr. Pataki and other rebuilding officials.

"As the governor said when he outlined his ambitious plan for rebuilding Lower Manhattan," said Lisa Dewald Stoll, a spokeswoman for Mr. Pataki, "this process leaves `no room for error or delay, for parochial concerns or unnecessary legal battles.'

"Quite simply," Ms. Stoll added, "you're either part of the team or you're not. The schedule will be met."

Kevin Rampe, the president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, said that "the redevelopment of the World Trade Center is bigger than any single individual," and Michael Petralia, a spokesman for the Port Authority, said that he expected that the issues surrounding the site's master plan "will be resolved very quickly." Each also vowed that the governor's deadline would be met.

And Howard J. Rubenstein, a spokesman for the developer, said, "Larry Silverstein agrees with that schedule and will make every effort to meet it."

Mr. Libeskind says such disagreements are simply "part of developing a master plan."

"Of course, we have to stick up for the integrity of our plan as it relates to all those issues," he added. "We can compromise so that the scheme evolves into something that is really workable. But at the same time we must keep some boundaries where we don't negotiate."
-----------------------------
Is Larry just being cheap about the whole thing with a shorter and cheaper tower by SOM?

[NYatKNIGHT]

We need to see Child's tower - it doesn't sound like it's as tall as the Freedom spire. It's unnerving to have Silverstein screwing with the plans like he is.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall at that meeting today.

[TonyO]

Child's tower is supposed to be all of the 1776 ft. that Libeskind's is. *Neither spire has any office space above floor 70.

[Harmonicaman]

Here's a rebuttal to the (above) New York Times article from the New York Post:

By Columnist Steve Cuozzo

July 15, 2003 -- The New York Times has set about punishing its errant reporters not merely by printing corrections, but by running book-length antidotes - like yesterday's about music mogul Steve Gottlieb - setting the record straight in painful and minute detail.
However, it isn't likely we'll see similar remedies for Times editorials that wander far from the truth. As a public service, then, we'll examine yesterday's lead editorial headlined "Ground Zero Developments," a plea for more "openness" in the planning process for the World Trade Center site.

The Times is right that too much of what goes on downtown is shrouded in political fog; the byzantine ways of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., the Port Authority and leaseholder Larry Silverstein produce near-daily leaks of dubious reliability as to what they're up to, with each new story almost certain to be promptly contradicted by the next.

But everything else in the editorial is laughably disingenuous, deceitful or just plain false. Here are some of the howlers:

* "It has gradually become clear that the developer of the first stages of this project will be Larry Silverstein . . . some of the central figures in the redevelopment process had airily predicted he would be long gone by now . . . "

No - if any "central figures" made such a prediction, they did so not "airily," but in the very darkness the Times says it deplores. There is scant evidence, if any, of a single instance of a "central figure" - i.e., Gov. Pataki, Lower Manhattan Development Corp. honchos John Whitehead, Lou Tomson, Kevin Rampe or PA chief Joe Seymour - saying any such thing in public.

* " . . . Although there has been no official announcement, [Silverstein] appears to have been designated as the man who will bring to life the conceptual vision of the architect Daniel Libeskind, whose design . . . was chosen at the end of a very public process."

*

Where do we begin? Silverstein does not need to be "designated" - he owns the leasehold. And since when does Silverstein work for Libeskind?

Lest anyone forget, it was one man - Gov. Pataki, a man of no known architectural or aesthetic credentials - who selected Libeskind over the rival Think team, whose design had the endorsement of the LMDC's planning committee, the Real Estate Board of New York and of the Times' own architectural critic.

* Silverstein's "idea of superb may not always coincide with the public's or with Mr. Libeskind's."

The language suggests that the public's idea of what Ground Zero needs is similar to Libeskind's. In fact, poll after poll has found that the public has no love whatsoever for Libeskind's design, and that in fact, half of all New Yorkers would like to see the Twin Towers rebuilt as they were.

* "Mr. Silverstein . . . claims an obligation to restore at least 10 million square feet of office space to the site . . . One version of Mr. Libeskind's plan did make room for that much office space - eventually."

This makes it sound as if that "one version" of Libeskind's plan was no longer active. In fact, of course, it is the current version - the very one Pataki, the LMDC and the PA unveiled to the public a few months ago, and which is now the operative model for the site.

* "Mr. Silverstein's urgency threatens to create too much [office space], too soon, and crowd out the chance to make Lower Manhattan a vibrant, attractive residential community as well as a center of business and tourism."

The Times accurately notes that Silverstein is talking about building the 10 million square feet by 2012. But how can the gradual restoration over nine years of office space that existed - and was fully occupied - prior to 9/11 be considered "too much, too soon?"

Here is the crux of the matter: The Times is once again pushing its transparent real estate agenda in only slightly fuzzier language than it did previously. Its opposition to rebuilding Downtown's lost office space just happens to coincide with the agenda of Forest City Ratner, the Times Co.'s development partner in the newspaper's new headquarters tower in Midtown.

The Times at least has knocked off the nonsense about an alleged "glut" of office space, perhaps embarrassed by reminders that the Times' new tower - where 650,000 square feet are yet to be leased - will itself contribute to this "glut."

But Ratner's ambitions in Brooklyn are threatened by a commercially reinvigorated Downtown, and it's a matter of record that Ratner has sought zoning changes to allow more big office buildings in Brooklyn. In fact, it has already lured two big companies from Downtown that were displaced by 9/11 - Empire Blue Cross and Bank of New York - to launch new towers at MetroTech and at Atlantic Center.

* "The 16-acre site is owned by the Port Authority and the billions in [Silverstein's] insurance proceeds are compensation for the destruction of public property."

With all due respect to the need to ensure the appropriateness of new development at Ground Zero, what was destroyed on 9/11 was not public property. Silverstein and his partners' purchase of the 99-year leasehold months prior to the attack was tantamount to ownership. That is why the long-planned sale of the leasehold by the PA was always referred to as privatization of the WTC.

We're waiting to see if the Times comes through with an Editor's Note calling attention to the editorial's fatuousness - but we won't hold our breath.

[Freedom Tower]

This might be a good thing. If Silverstein wants the spire to be centered on top of the 70 story tower he may want to make it thicker. A thin spire like that on top of the 70 story tower would look really bad. Perhaps they'll make it thicker now :). Does anyone know exactly what's going on with Deustche Bank? The 50 story tower they said may replace it, will that be part of Libeskinds original plan, or just an extra tower? Hopefully it's an extra, otherwise all the space lost in Deustche Bank wont be replaced :(.

[TonyO]

The Post is right on with this article. *Although they are tabloid-fare on a lot of issues, they are the only true "bullshit detector" in this process.

[NYatKNIGHT]

I find it hard to believe the Post is on the case and not just trying to tear down the credibility of the most highly regarded paper in the country (as it continually has over the years). It's still the rag it's always been. His conclusion that The Times is trying to push its real estate agenda with every WTC editorial is laughable.

In fact, poll after poll has found that the public has no love whatsoever for Libeskind's design, and that in fact, half of all New Yorkers would like to see the Twin Towers rebuilt as they were.

He says, "in fact" twice. Not only is this bad writing, but it simply is not a fact. We all know how the Post makes up their own "facts", this is no different.

[JMGarcia]

Quote: from tonyo on 9:57 am on July 15, 2003
Child's tower is supposed to be all of the 1776 ft. that Libeskind's is. *Neither spire has any office space above floor 70.


Everything I have ever seen about the Child's tower says it is a 70 story building with a lattice work that dissolves like the branches of a tree as it reaches a height of about 1300 feet.

In other words, it does not have a spire nor does it reach 1776 feet. I would think though that to have any hope of this alternative to be accepted it would hace to be modified to reach 1776 feet somehow. Locking in that number is one of Libeskind's greatest contributions to the site.

[Freedom Tower]

Yep, you're right. People complain that Libeskind's design doesn't really bring back the skyline, however at least he set the height. The one thing Silverstein said he agreed on was that a 1776' freedom tower of some sort would be built. It's good because since its original freedom tower design isn't perfect we dont have to fear the changes that will be made to the site. Can a 1776 foot tower really get any thinner? I Think if anything it will be changed to be a little thicker.

[TonyO]

JM, since most of the articles I read are posted by you first, I take your word for it.

However, I recall Silverstein saying that he is excited to start building the 1776 foot tower. *

Moreover, I can't see him or anyone changing that specific part of the plan. *Its number is etched in everyone's head.

[Jasonik]

Waiting to be etched into the sky. *

For all the wtb fiends...
The spire will be at 1776'. *Does this limit the adjustment of the 1776' height to reference the roof?!

Obscene - I know.... just thought I'd throw it out there.

What height is floor 70? *
(14'x70=980') *14' is verrry generous. *Is there residential above this? *How long is the spire?

[enzo]

Ever seen this dead Shanghai proposal?

Hmmmmm, looks familiar......

http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/86shanghai_euroorthopolis.png

http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/86skyline.png

[Freedom Tower]

Wow, that is VERY familiar. Was that a copy of Libeskind or did Libeskind copy that? If Libeskind copied it then that'd be awful. The new WTC being a copout of something in Shanghai! Hopefully it's the other way around, since its not going to be built in Shanghai anyway.

[billyblancoNYC]

Boo

[Kris]

July 16, 2003

Officials Reach Agreement on Rebuilding Downtown

By EDWARD WYATT

The architect with the winning design for the World Trade Center site and the developer who will rebuild the office space there agreed early this morning to collaborate on the design and construction of the 1,776-foot tower that will anchor the redeveloped site both on the ground and in the Lower Manhattan skyline.

The agreement between the architect, Daniel Libeskind, and the developer, Larry A. Silverstein, came during an eight-hour negotiating session that stretched from Tuesday afternoon into Wednesday morning.

The agreement was forged under firm pressure from officials at the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which have been ordered by Gov. George E. Pataki to adhere to an aggressive time line for the redevelopment effort.

David M. Childs, a consulting partner with Skidmore, Owings & Merrill and the architect hired by Mr. Silverstein to work on designs for the trade center site's office space, will lead the collaboration, according to a statement issued jointly this morning by Mr. Childs, Mr. Silverstein and Mr. Libeskind.

Mr. Childs and Skidmore will serve as the design architect and project manager, leading a team that will design the tower, which Mr. Pataki has called the Freedom Tower and which will be the first commercial building to be constructed at the site.

The proposed building has been called the world's tallest, although the occupied office space is expected to be only about 70 stories, with much of the remainder of the height being accounted for by a telecommunications antenna.

Mr. Libeskind, whose master plan for the trade center site was selected in February over eight other designs in a competition of renowned architects, will serve as a collaborating architect during the concept- and schematic-design phases of the project and will act as a member of the project team, according to the statement.

"This collaboration will facilitate the development of the Freedom Tower in a manner consistent with the Libeskind vision," it said. "We are confident that SOM and SDL will produce a world-class icon in the Lower Manhattan skyline and a powerful symbol of our nation's resilience in the aftermath of tragedy."

Development corporation officials said they believed that the agreement will end months of sometimes-heated battles between Mr. Silverstein, who has declared his intention to rebuild all of the office space that was destroyed in the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001, and Mr. Libeskind, who has maintained that he has a public mandate to forge a new design for the site.

"It is a historic development that two architects at this level are willing to work together in this way," Kevin Rampe, the president of the development corporation, said in an interview.

Some matters remain to be settled between the parties, however. Among them is the location of the tower, which Mr. Libeskind had designated for the northwest corner of the site. Mr. Silverstein, however, wants the tower to be closer to the new transportation hub, which will lie on the eastern portion of the 16-acre site.

Officials who were present at the meeting, including representatives from the Port Authority, refused to characterize the negotiations or say what had impeded an earlier agreement. But two officials said that the agreement came after a lengthy period of direct talks between Mr. Libeskind and Mr. Childs, who had faced each other in the design competition.

Rebuilding officials want to begin construction of the tower next summer, in order to complete the erection of steel by the end of 2006, a deadline set by Mr. Pataki and which coincides with the end of his current term.


Officials from the development corporation brought Mr. Libeskind and representatives of Mr. Silverstein together to try to force an agreement over what role Mr. Libeskind will play in the design of commercial office space on the site.

The impasse centered on how much influence Mr. Libeskind would have on the design of the first office building to go up at the site, the 1,776-foot tower that will define the rebuilt trade center's presence on the Lower Manhattan skyline. It has generally been understood that Mr. Libeskind would not actively design all the office buildings, and Mr. Silverstein has been talking to many architects about their desire to fashion one or more of the towers.

But Mr. Libeskind has actively sought a role in the design of the largest tower. Mr. Silverstein, however, has pushed for the involvement of other architects, particularly David M. Childs, a partner at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, in part because Mr. Libeskind has never designed a high-rise office building.

Mr. Silverstein also wants changes to the location and other features of the office buildings in Mr. Libeskind's master plan for the site, agreements that Mr. Libeskind has so far been reluctant to embrace.

In an interview on Monday, Mr. Libeskind said he believed that moving buildings around the site could change its entire character. "It's not a matter of just moving a building here or there," he said. "It can change the views, the light and wind conditions, the composition of the entire site."

An agreement between the development corporation and the Port Authority dictates that Mr. Libeskind will help to "develop commercial design guidelines governing future commercial development on the site," guidelines that are consistent with his proposals for the heights and shapes of buildings. Those guidelines are to be completed by September, the agreement states.

But Mr. Silverstein undoubtedly has a large role in the review of those guidelines. He has made clear to several rebuilding officials that he believes that his lease gives him the right to rebuild as he sees fit, subject to the agreement of the Port Authority, perhaps, but not to the whims of any other agencies.

Although the commercial office buildings will not be completed for years, the planners must know where the office towers will be located in order to design the underground elements of the trade center.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

(Edited by Christian Wieland at 9:49 am on July 16, 2003)

[JMGarcia]

Quote: from tonyo on 9:43 pm on July 15, 2003
JM, since most of the articles I read are posted by you first, I take your word for it.

However, I recall Silverstein saying that he is excited to start building the 1776 foot tower. *

Moreover, I can't see him or anyone changing that specific part of the plan. *Its number is etched in everyone's head.


Especially now that the broadcasters have signed on ($$$$$) I can't see Silverstein lowering it. I wouldn't be surprised to see Childs' proposal to have a lower roof line than Libeskind's spire does. I expect something much like one of THINK's WCC towers with the skeleton filled up about 2/3rds of the way with an antenna on it.

All in all, I've yet to figure out exactly why Silverstein wants his own architect and all these changes. Is it just monetary considerations or is it ego?

(Edited by JMGarcia at 3:33 am on July 16, 2003)

[NYatKNIGHT]

I'm still not sure what they agreed to. Did Libeskind get everything he wanted? Silverstein can't move the towers?

If they aren't going to rebuild the twin towers, then what should replace it is an awesome building, yet it sounds so flimsy when they describe it. These guys have the green light to build the world's tallest building, nearly everyone has come terms with its 1776 foot height. The developer is hard-pressed to find 10M s.f. of office space on the site. Yet all I read is "antennas", "unoccupied space", "lattice",......why the hell don't they just go for it, jeez. Build a real building, dammit!

[TLOZ Link5]

I couldn't see the pictures of the dead Shanghai proposal, but I'll take a stab in the dark...did it, by any chance, happen to be the Daewoo Business Center designed by John Portman? *I remember that it had been rejected, yet in recent weeks has been proposed once more.

[Fabb]

I've never seen this rejected project before.
The similarity with that of Libeskind is not that striking.
One of the towers looks almost empty.

[Kris]

July 17, 2003

Compromise to Build On; Developer Gets His Say in Ground Zero Design
News Analysis
By EDWARD WYATT

Larry A. Silverstein was not in the room as the two renowned architects, Daniel Libeskind and David M. Childs, worked out an agreement early yesterday morning to collaborate on the design of the 1,776-foot tower that will be the first office building to rise at the World Trade Center site.

But Mr. Silverstein, the developer of the site, nevertheless secured the right to put his imprint on the Lower Manhattan skyline when rebuilding officials agreed to appoint Mr. Childs, his handpicked architect, as the lead designer and project manager on the tower.

Mr. Libeskind, who devised the master plan for the site but whose buildings Mr. Silverstein ridiculed as creating acres of unusable floor space, will serve as a collaborating architect during initial design — a role that one rebuilding officials said essentially gave him 49 percent of the votes in any decision.

And plenty of decisions still must be made, even after the eight-hour negotiating session that led to the collaboration agreement. The largest is where exactly the tower will sit, a decision that will influence subsequent office projects on the site.

Yesterday, Kevin Rampe, the president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which is overseeing the rebuilding project, said that rebuilding officials would consider Mr. Silverstein's request to move the tower from the northwest corner of the site, where Mr. Libeskind placed it, closer to the transportation hub, at the corner of the restored Fulton and Greenwich Streets, where Mr. Silverstein would like it.

The parties must also determine how much the building will represent Mr. Libeskind's renderings, which show the tower nestled against the side of a 70-story office building.

Mr. Silverstein and Mr. Childs have considered a more conventional, and less expensive, option: centering the spire over the office building itself.

Asked yesterday whether he was concerned that his design would be compromised, Mr. Libeskind said, "No, absolutely not. It's going to be a collaboration, it's going to be something really dramatic, and it's going to restore the skyline of New York."

Each side can claim some satisfaction from the pact. Mr. Libeskind, whose role as master plan architect did not guarantee a role as architect of the site's commercial office buildings, now has his first skyscraper project. The agreement also provides that the 1,776-foot tower will be developed "in a manner consistent with the Libeskind vision" for the overall site.

By pushing their own vision, Mr. Silverstein and Mr. Childs have angered some of the officials overseeing the rebuilding, including those at the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and in the governor's office. But these officials have also learned that Mr. Silverstein has a lot of leverage: his proceeds from the trade center's insurance will give him the money to make the project happen.

Mr. Childs's inclusion in the project is unique. His firm, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, was one of the participants in the design competition that Mr. Libeskind won. Its proposal, however, was almost universally derided as unimaginative and impractical, and Skidmore dropped out of the competition soon after it began.

As the three men stood arm in arm yesterday, they vowed that their collaboration would begin immediately. "We need to roll up our sleeves and get to work," Mr. Libeskind said.

The agreement came after hours of talks Tuesday night between Mr. Libeskind and Mr. Childs. Less than 30 minutes after representatives from all of the parties involved gathered at the development corporation's headquarters, on the 20th floor of 1 Liberty Plaza, the two architects were asked to adjourn to a separate conference room to see if they could reach an agreement.

Mr. Rampe, the president of the development corporation, said in an interview yesterday that he told the two men that "this project was bigger than either of them, and was better with both of them on this than without them."

It quickly became clear that Mr. Rampe was speaking for Mr. Pataki, whose senior advisers were monitoring the progress of the negotiations by telephone and who advised Mr. Rampe that the meeting was not to break up until an agreement was reached.

Lisa Dewald Stoll, a spokeswoman for the governor, said he "wanted to make sure that everybody was working together and moving forward."

"Rebuilding Lower Manhattan is an honor and an obligation," Ms. Stoll said. "The governor is proud that the spirit of cooperation endures long after Sept. 11."

The governor is also one of the big winners from the agreement, as construction of the tower is likely to be a big focus of media attention as the Republicans hold their convention in New York City next summer.

"You're still going to have a lot of of fighting and conflict surrounding this, because it is a huge project with billions of dollars at stake," said an adviser to one of the principals in the agreement. "But whatever happens, Governor Pataki is going to have a building to stand in front of when everybody's watching."

The tower will not be completed by August 2004, when the Republican Convention will be held in New York City. Rather, construction is scheduled to start sometime next summer. By about the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attack, however, construction workers are scheduled to top out the structure, and the building should be completed some time in 2008.

People involved in the meeting Tuesday night said that Mr. Libeskind and Mr. Childs talked very little about the 1,776-foot tower itself, but rather about commercial architecture generally, about the concept of Mr. Libeskind's design and how the office towers should be integrated with the memorial, the train station and other parts of the development.

Most of those other parts of the redeveloped trade center site will not be affected by the agreement between Mr. Childs, Mr. Libeskind and Mr. Silverstein. Mr. Libeskind has already accepted contracts with the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to work on the development of the memorial area and the spaces closest to it, including the cultural buildings planned for the site.

He also has a contract to work with the Port Authority and the development corporation on the refinement of his master plan, including the layout of streets and open spaces, the location of commercial development parcels, pedestrian and automobile traffic patterns, and underground features.

Additionally, Mr. Libeskind has agreed with the Port Authority that he will have a role in the development of the transportation hub, both its underground components and the structure that many officials have likened to Grand Central Terminal.

Mr. Libeskind will not be the lead architect on the terminal, however; because federal money will pay for it, a more experienced design team has to take the lead role, according to federal regulations.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Harmonicaman]

Totals are in:



5,200 submit designs for World Trade Center memorial; record for a memorial design competition


By KAREN MATTHEWS
The Associated Press
7/17/03 11:59 AM


NEW YORK (AP) -- A record 5,200 individuals and groups from around the world submitted proposals for a memorial to the victims of the World Trade Center attack, officials announced Thursday.

The submissions came from every U.S. state except Alaska and 62 nations, said Kevin Rampe, president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp.

"The tremendous response this petition has received from individuals at home and abroad is a true testament of the unity people from around the world have demonstrated since the Sept. 11 attacks," Gov. George E. Pataki said.

A 13-member jury is to choose a handful of finalists in September and a winner later in the fall. The competition was open to anyone over age 18 who paid a fee of $25. The deadline was June 30.

The submissions are a record in a design competition for a memorial, corporation officials said. The previous record was 1,421 submissions for the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C.

The memorial is to include references to the Feb. 26, 1993, bombing of the trade center as well as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

It is to be built on a 4.7-acre site encompassing the so-called "footprints" where the center's twin towers stood. A design competition to create a master plan for the entire ground zero site was held earlier this year.

The jurors chosen to pick a design includes Vietnam Veterans' Memorial designer Maya Lin and Paula Grant Berry, whose husband, David, was killed at the trade center.

Applicants had to mail their designs to a warehouse where they were checked for anthrax, chemical agents *and explosives before being shipped to a second, undisclosed location where the jury will review them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

But how many of these submissions are actually practical designs which will be considered by the jury?

[Eugenius]

Those Alaskans... not a shred of decency among them. *How dare they not submit a proposal!

[NYatKNIGHT]

It's summer up there, they've all gone fishing.

5,200 to go through in two months, they've got their work cut out for them.

[Fabb]

Mr. Libeskind will not be the lead architect on the terminal, however; because federal money will pay for it, a more experienced design team has to take the lead role

So, he's not good enough for the terminal, but OK for the rest.
The persistent suggestions that he's incompetent annoys me.

[Kris]

July 18, 2003

Daniel Libeskind's Tower

One central question in the future of Lower Manhattan was answered this week when Daniel Libeskind, the architect of the winning master plan for ground zero, and David Childs, a consulting partner of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, agreed to work together on the design of the 1,776-foot tower at the heart of Mr. Libeskind's plan. Mr. Childs's immediate client is Larry Silverstein, the developer who held the lease on the World Trade Center when it was destroyed and who clearly intends that whatever replaces it will be commercially practical. Still, the ultimate client for Mr. Childs, like Mr. Libeskind, is the public.

There will be lots of second-guessing about this forced collaboration, in which Mr. Libeskind has taken a lesser role than Mr. Childs. But it could very well mark a promising beginning of serious design work downtown. If Gov. George Pataki fulfills his role as the people's ultimate representative and the collaboration's ultimate referee, the Libeskind-Childs relationship could bring forth the kind of inspiring renaissance that Lower Manhattan deserves.

The first test this partnership faces may well be the placement of Mr. Libeskind's tower on the site. The master plan puts the tower at the northwest corner of ground zero. Mr. Silverstein has instead proposed putting the tower more directly over the transportation hub in the middle of the site, closer to the edge of the financial district. His argument has been that this position would make it easier for tenants and tourists to go directly from the subways and PATH station to the tower without traipsing across a construction site that is likely to be busy for years. Nevertheless, there are many good reasons to build the tower where Mr. Libeskind proposed it. In that spot, it helps knit together east and west in Lower Manhattan, shifting the center of gravity away from the financial district and more toward Battery Park City.

This, in itself, will echo a probable shift in the way the ground zero acreage is perceived by the public, reflecting a warmer, more permeable space than the World Trade Center ever created. There is no reason, especially at this stage of development, why it should be impossible to provide easy transportation access for the tower's tenants without leading them through a construction maze. There may even be energy advantages, according to some early analysis, to be derived from keeping the tower in the place where Mr. Libeskind put it.

Besides these very practical reasons for preferring Mr. Libeskind's chosen location — and besides his eloquent aesthetic and symbolic arguments — there is another excellent reason to keep the tower in that position. By making this concession at the outset, Mr. Silverstein would graciously signify his acknowledgment of his broad public obligation in redeveloping ground zero. His architect will be taking the lead in designing this tower. It would be a welcome gesture — and a practical one, too — to give Mr. Childs the leeway to agree with Mr. Libeskind when he has the stronger argument, as we believe he does in this case.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[TonyO]

Quote: from Christian Wieland on 5:51 am on July 18, 2003
The first test this partnership faces may well be the placement of Mr. Libeskind's tower on the site. The master plan puts the tower at the northwest corner of ground zero. Mr. Silverstein has instead proposed putting the tower more directly over the transportation hub in the middle of the site, closer to the edge of the financial district. His argument has been that this position would make it easier for tenants and tourists to go directly from the subways and PATH station to the tower without traipsing across a construction site that is likely to be busy for years. Nevertheless, there are many good reasons to build the tower where Mr. Libeskind proposed it. In that spot, it helps knit together east and west in Lower Manhattan, shifting the center of gravity away from the financial district and more toward Battery Park City.

This, in itself, will echo a probable shift in the way the ground zero acreage is perceived by the public, reflecting a warmer, more permeable space than the World Trade Center ever created. There is no reason, especially at this stage of development, why it should be impossible to provide easy transportation access for the tower's tenants without leading them through a construction maze. There may even be energy advantages, according to some early analysis, to be derived from keeping the tower in the place where Mr. Libeskind put it.

Besides these very practical reasons for preferring Mr. Libeskind's chosen location — and besides his eloquent aesthetic and symbolic arguments — there is another excellent reason to keep the tower in that position. By making this concession at the outset, Mr. Silverstein would graciously signify his acknowledgment of his broad public obligation in redeveloping ground zero. His architect will be taking the lead in designing this tower. It would be a welcome gesture — and a practical one, too — to give Mr. Childs the leeway to agree with Mr. Libeskind when he has the stronger argument, as we believe he does in this case.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

The Empire State building was put south of the midtown core to draw the center of gravity there, too. *Its still mostly alone.

In my opinion, the northwest corner is a bad spot. *Closer to the hub makes more sense.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Maybe. As far as asthetics go, the overall skyline would look better with the tall tower closer to the center of the island, but the spiral was starting to grow on me.

I'm not sure the ESB comparison is a good one since it was a half mile south of the midtown business district. Any building within this new complex will have excellent access to the transportation. The NW corner would be more adventageous for those coming off a ferry, so there's something to be said for either site.

It would be nice if Silverstein didn't get everything he asks for. If left to him there would be no supertalls on the site at all.

[Chicagoan]

I am not sure if this was discussed/brought up, elswhere. The thing I miss most about the WTC was even with their position off-center, there position was still "in the center". The towers terminated the axis' of many streets. They framed the Woolworth and St Pauls, or framed by the arch in Washington Square Park.

I just wish the new tower has a similarly global and urbanistic impact.

[georgejmyersjr]

So much terrazzo, so little recycled glass.
What happened to the TV tower on Governors Island proposal? I have a friend in TV he says the broadcasters thought it a good idea. Have you seen the petition to have the remains left in the Freshkill Landfill transferred to the site? When they found a horse harness under the site when it was being built they should have let the archaeologists in, said to have been a ship's remains there. The harness was conserved at the Long Island Science Museum. Just a few thoughts from someone who worked for EBASCO, a Texas power plant builder who once had floors 91-96 in one of the towers and did the archeological survey of Fort Drum, prior to the relocation of the 10th Mountain Division from Camp Hale, CO, Bob Dole's old unit. They sent people home when the elevator shafts could go out of alignment in the wind, so she said. McComb designed City Hall and the Montauk light, should the new building be the home of the homeless National Lighthouse Museum?


(Edited by georgejmyersjr at 11:52 am on July 21, 2003)

[SunsetWorks]

The transfer of remains from the Fresh Kills landfill will likely depend on the memorial plan chosen. Some designers no doubt included space for the WTC dust/dirt in their proposals.

[Harmonicaman]

I agree SunsetWorks; required elements of the Memorial Competition called for the designer's to include a 2,500 sq. ft. storage/work area for the unidentified victim's remains which are currently stored by the Coroner's Office in reefer trailers around the city. *

Any new remains uncovered in the landfill would most likely be removed to the (proposed) Coroner's *refrigerated storage facility to be constructed at the WTC Memorial site.

[billyblancoNYC]

The Lighthouse Museum is moving along, I believe, On Staten Island

http://www.lighthousemuseum.org/

[SunsetWorks]

The Fresh Kills remains are basically dust/dirt/ash removed from the wtc site which includes microscopic human organic matter, as it is physically impossible to isolate "body parts" of this size. This is different material from the Medical Examiner's unidentified remains.

Several family groups (Cantor, etc.) have requested the former material also be returned and interred as part of the WTC memorial, as it almost certainly includes pieces of unidentified WTC victims.

[Harmonicaman]

I see your point, SunsetWorks.

It may be possible to add this particulate matter to concrete used in the construction of the WTC Memorial infrastructure - just an idea.

[Harmonicaman]

Another item...

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Where the WTC stands


Financing clouds original vision

By MAGGIE HABERMAN and GREG GITTRICH
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Three months ago, Gov. Pataki stood before a luncheon of business leaders at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in lower Manhattan and set an aggressive timetable for rebuilding Ground Zero.
He wanted architects to begin designing the signature 1,776-foot spire - envisioned by planner Daniel Libeskind - by this month. The steel for the tower would be in place by Sept. 11, 2006, the fifth anniversary of the attacks.


Pataki acknowledged the goals would be tough to meet. "It leaves no room for error or delay," he said.

Here's a rundown of where things stand and what major decisions lie ahead:


Libeskind won an international design competition in February. Why is another architect now designing Libeskind's signature Freedom Tower?

The tower and the other angular glass buildings in Libeskind's vision were intended to be illustrative - a point officials stressed leading to the selection of his plan in February.

The goal of the design competition was to set aside specific land in the 16-acre disaster site for a memorial, a transportation hub, office buildings and the street grid.

Then Pataki embraced Libeskind's signature skyscraper - implying that the architect would have an ongoing role in its construction.

The problem: Pataki also needed to find someone to pay for the tower, and when asked after his optimistic April speech who would foot the bill, he replied: "Where's Larry?"

No last name was necessary.

Developer Larry Silverstein had signed a 99-year lease for the twin towers weeks before the hijacked jets exploded into the World Trade Center.

Although Silverstein is mired in a legal battle with about 20 insurers, he stands to receive as much as $6.7 billion.

So unlike the cash-strapped state and city, Silverstein expects he will have money to rebuild. He also has strong opinions and, like most developers on such projects, hired his own architect - David Childs - to flesh out Libeskind's vision.

On Tuesday, Childs was given the lead role in designing the Freedom Tower after weeks of rancor over which architect would be in charge. Libeskind was given a secondary role.

But while Libeskind had hoped for even more sway over the project, he walked away with a bigger role than he'd had before the issue was resolved.

Isn't Childs' style very different from Libeskind's more sculptural approach?

Yes.

Childs is known for designing office towers, including the AOL Time Warner headquarters at Columbus Circle.

Libeksind has spent most of his career as theorist and has gained fame for his cultural buildings, including the Jewish Museum in Berlin.

Libeskind - who has never designed an office tower - drew the Freedom Tower so it scrapes the sky at 1,776 feet, a nod to the year of the nation's independence. In his design, the spire sits atop a building attached to a smaller office tower.

Silverstein and Childs have taken a more pragmatic approach. Childs has drawn sketches that change Libeskind's design of the spire. In Childs' version, the spire sits on top of a 70-story office building - not next to one.

Silverstein also prefers a revised plan that would shift the tower closer to the new transit hub - making it more commercially marketable.

What role has Pataki played in getting Libeskind and Childs together?

Pataki is the definitive leader of the rebuilding process.

He holds the most sway over the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., which oversees rebuilding, and the Port Authority, which owns Ground Zero.

LMDC President Kevin Rampe and Chief Operating Officer Matt Higgins - both loyal to Pataki - summoned Childs and Libeskind to a private meeting Tuesday.

The two were placed in a conference room overlooking The Pit and told to figure out a way to get along. Rampe said he told them that the project was "larger than either of them and needed both of their skills to be accomplished."

Five hours later, they came to a handshake deal. "Certainly it's been contentious, but productive," Rampe said. "It's going to be contentious because the stakes are so high and the project is so important."

How much influence does Mayor Bloomberg wield?

Bloomberg has been able to shape some redevelopment decisions through Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff. But one way of getting the city more control - a land swap exchanging Kennedy and LaGuardia airports for Ground Zero - is dead.

When will construction of the tower begin?

Pataki hopes to lay the cornerstone of the building no later than August 2004. That month, his fellow Republicans, led by President Bush, will come to the city for the GOP national convention.

How many office buildings will rise at Ground Zero?

Silverstein has insisted that all 10 million square feet of office space destroyed at the World Trade Center be replaced.

Silverstein's aides criticized Libeskind's plan, which envisions three office buildings and the Freedom Tower, as "not compatible with tenant needs." Silverstein has asked officials to squeeze another office building onto the site and diminish the girth of Libeskind's towers.

But many rebuilding officials want to reduce the amount of office space on the 16 acres. The PA is considering buying land adjacent to the site so some of the 10 million square feet of commercial space can be moved off Ground Zero. But City Hall will protest such a move unless it can collect full taxes on the land - something it doesn't on other PA-owned properties.

How does the memorial factor into all this?

Libeskind's vision sets aside 4.7 acres for the memorial. The area leaves portions of the site's scarred slurry wall exposed.

A jury will choose a design this fall from among more than 5,000 ideas submitted.

Originally published on July 20, 2003

[Fabb]

Silverstein has asked officials to squeeze another office building onto the site and diminish the girth of Libeskind's towers.

That's not stupid.
I don't clearly see his interest though.

[georgejmyersjr]

Interestingly, the paper version of "WIRED" magazine was "showcasing" a "green building" plan that had been given an award and if I remember right, selected for construction downtown NYC. It was somewhat tragic to be holding it in one's hands, and the events that "clouded" its excellent design and projected execution. "Scientific American" (who once had "the world's tallest windmill", designed by Stanford White on his Nissequogue, NY estate on Long Island, for pumping water, covered in shingles, its interior structure diagrammed, and begun as a NYC magazine) had also major skyscrapers I remember in its issue. I see also Prince Charles is against them, though the Maharishi would like one in the jungle of Sao Paulo, Brazil for 50,000 people to live out their lives, from birth to death, (Brasilia's streets a "bow and arrow" from the air.) Also about the same time was a skyscraper design from Germany with a GE like windmill in the middle of two curved joined towers. Will "green" issues be considered in the new construction?


(Edited by georgejmyersjr at 12:27 pm on July 22, 2003)

[Chicagoan]

9/11 Victims Angry Over WTC Construction
Sun Jul 20,10:52 AM ET *Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!



NEW YORK - A group representing the families of Sept. 11 victims has criticized Gov. George Pataki for allowing construction where the World Trade Center's twin towers once stood.

*

The Port Authority is constructing four emergency exits for a temporary trade center train station set to open in November. One of the structures will stand where the trade center's north tower was.


"I feel betrayed, and it's very painful," Patricia Reilly, whose sister, Lorraine Lee, was killed in the attack, told The New York Post in Sunday editions.


The Coalition for 9/11 Families is asking New York's Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton (news - web sites), to sponsor a federal law barring more construction in the space, the Post said.


Port Authority spokesman Greg Trevor said the exits are in the best positions to evacuate the temporary station in the event of an emergency, and that they would be removed in about three years when the permanent train station opens.


Clinton and Schumer have only said that they have had "very useful meetings" with family members.

[Fabb]

July 21, 2003

At Helm of Trade Center Site, as He Always Planned to Be
By CHARLES V. BAGLI and EDWARD WYATT

There are no pessimists in real estate. Even so, the relentless optimism of Larry A. Silverstein stands out. Only two years ago, he was just another New York developer with nothing grander to his name than an aging office tower at 120 Broadway. His high hopes for prominence were invested in an improbable pursuit of control of the World Trade Center, a quest that only he seemed to take seriously.

Last week, Mr. Silverstein's high hopes of early 2001 seemed, if anything, too modest. He emerged victorious in the struggle for control of ground zero, elbowing aside Daniel Libeskind, the architect whose design for the trade center site was chosen by Gov. George E. Pataki. Suddenly he seems to have ascended to the lofty circles occupied by real estate giants with names like Durst, Resnick, Ross, Roth, Rudin and Zuckerman.

He consults regularly with the governor and has even taken to calling him "George." He appears in cable television documentaries and is the subject of countless newspaper, magazine and television interviews. His language and demeanor are no longer that of a mere businessman, but rather of a master builder, statesman and visionary.

Sitting in the board room on the 18th floor of his Fifth Avenue office, the tall, reddish-haired developer, who is 72, recalled the urgent telephone call he received from Governor Pataki in the days after Sept. 11.

"What do you think we should do?" Mr. Silverstein recalled the governor asking. "I said: `I really feel we have an obligation to rebuild. If we don't, the terrorists will have won.' "

To some executives who know him, Mr. Silverstein has become intoxicated by the limelight, while others grumble about his penchant for draping his ambitions at the trade center in a cloak of patriotism and altruism. They say that every pronouncement is intended to enhance his legal claims against his insurers and the chances of grabbing a $7 billion insurance award.

"He's been thrust into the lead role of the most significant real estate transaction in the country," said one executive who knows him. "He's very aware of that and the publicity available to him."

Few of Mr. Silverstein's detractors are willing to talk about him publicly, and his friends say he feels a moral and legal obligation to rebuild the complex and put his own stamp on the New York skyline. "He has this enthusiasm about accomplishing what many people feel is unaccomplishable," said Leonard Boxer, Mr. Silverstein's friend and his real estate lawyer on the World Trade Center deal. "He's really put his mind to this, and he feels this will be his crowning achievement of his career. He's hell-bent on doing it."

Mr. Silverstein explained his position by recounting a conversation he had with his wife, Klara, shortly after the terrorist attack as they left the city for their usual weekend respite aboard their yacht.

"I remember telling my wife we had to make a decision," he said. "We could spend the rest of our lives building another boat and traveling around the world. Or we could do something productive with our lives like rebuilding the trade center. I told the governor and the mayor I'd give the next 10 years of my life to it."

He told a reporter the same story in the fall of 2001, although at the time he was dedicating five years of his life, not 10. Like a presidential candidate on the campaign trail, Mr. Silverstein has stayed on message, telling the same anecdotes and reiterating his position for the past 22 months.

"I have a leasehold obligation requiring me to pay the Port Authority $120 million a year in rent and an obligation to replace the 10 million square feet at the trade center," he said in an interview last Thursday. "I have an insurance policy. All of this puts me in a position to rebuild. We're going to move forward and do something we can all be proud of."

Aside from his focus and enthusiasm, two assets have kept Mr. Silverstein in the game: His name is on the 99-year lease for the commercial space at the trade center, even though he controlled it for only six weeks before the 10-million-square-foot complex was destroyed. And Mr. Silverstein, who invested $14 million of his personal fortune in the deal, also has a lawsuit against his insurers that could bring as much as $7 billion to the rebuilding effort.

That is something no state official or executive of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is willing to jeopardize.

"Larry has used the insurance argument to help thwart any attempts to remove him from a central role in the redevelopment process," said Robert D. Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association and a critic of Mr. Silverstein's plans for the site.

Mr. Yaro and some city officials and community members would rather take a fresh look at the site and at the needs of Lower Manhattan before deciding what to build, cautioning against merely following the 30-year-old plans for a dense commercial development at the trade center.

In recent weeks, Governor Pataki has said he wants Mr. Silverstein to lay the cornerstone for the first office tower at the site in the summer of 2004. That would be in time for the Republican National Convention, though aides to the governor say the two events are not related.

"The governor has strengthened Larry's hand by creating an arbitrary deadline with the Republican convention," Mr. Yaro said. "That's the last piece that ensures that Larry has a controlling interest in what gets built."

Before taking control of the trade center in July 2001, in the biggest real estate deal in history, Mr. Silverstein was not well known outside the real estate industry.

Born in the Bronx and reared in Washington Heights, he is the son of a classical pianist who reluctantly became a broker in the 1920's after reading a book that said the source of all wealth was real estate. The developer started his career 50 years ago at his father's one-man downtown real estate leasing shop.

Mr. Silverstein, his father, Harry, and Mr. Silverstein's best friend, Bernard Mendik, began buying small buildings, one every six months. The friends later had a falling out and parted ways. By the 1980's, Mr. Silverstein controlled more than 10 million square feet of space in more than a dozen towers, including his biggest trophy, 120 Broadway, which is a few blocks from Wall Street in Lower Manhattan.

He had not achieved the fame or fortune of his hero, Harry Helmsley, but Mr. Silverstein had become chairman of the Real Estate Board, transforming it from a social club into a lobbying group. A gifted public speaker, he enhanced his reputation with his philanthropic work for the United Jewish Appeal and his sponsorship of the New York University real estate institute, where he teaches an annual course.

Mr. Silverstein was willing to take risks, and his biggest was in the 1980's with the construction of 7 World Trade Center, the skyscraper just north of the twin towers. His original tenant, Drexel Burnham Lambert, folded before the building was finished in 1987, and it took more than a year to land Salomon Brothers and avoid financial ruin.

Still, Mr. Silverstein cast his eye south to the twin towers. "From the day we finished 7 in 1987," he recalled, "I said I'd like to be in a position to control the destiny of the World Trade Center."

But in the early 1990's Mr. Silverstein, like many highly leveraged developers, took a financial pounding. He had to sell the Embassy Suites hotel in Times Square and give up his stakes in several other buildings, including 120 Broadway, though he bought it back a couple of years later.

Mr. Silverstein was no one's first choice to take control of the vast trade center complex in spring 2001 when the Port Authority decided to lease the property to a developer. "He was not only a dark horse, but an underdog," Mr. Boxer said. "He was up against the giants of the industry."

Indeed, fate seemed to conspire against him when he was hit by a car on the Upper East Side while in the midst of delicate negotiations with the Port Authority. But even in the hospital with a broken pelvis, Mr. Silverstein showed the same singlemindedness, optimism and financial acumen then that have kept him at the forefront of the roiling battle over rebuilding Lower Manhattan.

From his hospital bed, he told his doctors to cut off the morphine so he could meet with his advisers to hammer out his $3.2 billion bid. He came in second to Steven Roth, of Vornado Realty Trust, who bid $3.25 billion, but when the winning bid fell through, Mr. Silverstein did not allow himself to fail a second time. He took control of the trade center in July 2001, six weeks before two planes slammed into the twin towers, killing 2,800 people and destroying the complex, along with 7 World Trade Center.

Ultimately, his tenacity has moved the rebuilding process forward in a way that it might not have were it a political rather than a commercial venture.

"Larry has the drive to want to rebuild," said Kevin Rampe, the president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. "I don't think that can be underestimated. While I think that the conflict and the confluence of interests at the site has been difficult, ultimately it has been helpful to the process and has led to a better result."

Even some officials who agree with Mr. Silverstein say he has a tin ear for political discourse. He annoyed the governor and Port Authority executives after the terrorist attack by publicly declaring his intention to rebuild the trade center before they had time to assess the situation. And top state officials complained that he unnecessarily riled community groups by loudly pushing to rebuild 7 World Trade Center. It was not that they disagreed with him; they just wished he would have taken a lower profile.

Mr. Silverstein was also less than diplomatic last February in what one participant described as a confrontational meeting with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, officials say. He told the mayor that the city's efforts to take control of the 16-acre site and billions of dollars in insurance proceeds were unrealistic. He also objected to Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff's meetings with Jacques E. Dubois, chairman of Swiss Re America, the largest of Mr. Silverstein's insurers.

Mr. Doctoroff maintains that Mr. Silverstein's financial interest should not be the operating principle in the rebuilding effort. "The guiding force has to be excellence of design and creating the right demand for commercial, retail, cultural and other attractions," he said.

Mr. Silverstein's boardroom is lined with renderings and site plans for the complex. His offices are notably immaculate, even for a corporate headquarters. Reception-area chairs look as though they have never been used. A conference table is highly polished.

Mr. Silverstein's manner is similarly groomed. He speaks forcefully but deliberately, so that he sounds as though he is reading a prepared statement even when he is not.

For all his formality, though, Mr. Silverstein is remarkably informal with many others, whether in an attempt to show that he is an equal or simply to ingratiate himself. It is not always pleasing, however. People close to Governor Pataki say Mr. Silverstein sometimes addresses him as "George" rather than "Governor," and that it irks Mr. Pataki, although he has not asked Mr. Silverstein to stop.

Similarly, from the time Mr. Libeskind was named the winning designer of the trade center site, and Mr. Silverstein rushed to shake his hand after the news conference announcing the decision, he has referred to the architect as "Danny," occasionally "Danny Boy."

Still, Mr. Silverstein has successfully insisted on his own architect, relegating Mr. Libeskind to an advisory role, and beaten back attempts by the Bloomberg administration to take control of the site by swapping city-owned land at the airports for the 16 acres downtown.

"Larry believes that if he says it often enough, it will come true," said one real estate executive who has negotiated with him. "Sometimes it does."

Copyright 2003*The New York Times Company

[ZippyTheChimp]

I hope the buildings will look good - I don't think they will be very tall.

[Fabb]

I'm not worrying much about that right now.
I bet the next renderings that'll be released won't be the ones.
Or maybe just one or two buildings among them.

[NYC8588]

"Mr. Libeskind is seeking a...........design ..........of the 1,776-foot tower" I feel (even though its not what everyone is talking about) that the freedom tower should be raised acouple of more feet so uppon its complishion it will hold the worlds tallest structure or what ever. Has anyone looked on www.Skyscrapers.com and seen these massive buildings proposed and approved in other cities;

This is a proposed project
*Project Three ---Empires Tower
*Istanbul, Turkey
*The complex will include a 150-floor, 600-meter skyscraper (with a 1500-room hotel, 18 restaurants, 3 night clubs, offices and a retail facility); three 25-floor additional blocks (two office towers and one apart-hotel); a yacht marina with space for 500 boats; an additional 4-floor retail facility with parking space for 1400 vehicles, a 10,000-person congress center (with 50 cinemas, a festival center and parking space for 1600 vehicles) and the "Three Empires Seaport". *
- Estimated cost of the overall project: $ 2,000,000,000. *
- Architect: Edifice International (Belgium). *

This is an approved project
*News: World's tallest building to rise in South Korea
Seoul: *There are arguments over whether this building will actually be the tallest in the world when completed in 2008. Other projects, most notably Burj Dubai of UAE, are also claiming the same future title. However, Seoul's plan for the 130-story International Business Center to be completed by 2008 in Northwestern Seoul, is nonetheless impressive.

The Korea Foreign Company Association (FORCA) announced in May that it received approval from the South Korean government to build the 580-meter skyscraper, which will house residential spaces for Foreigners in Seoul, a Five-star Hotel chain, an airport terminal, a movie theater, a fitness club and a convention center.

"We have completed the blueprint for the IBC and received permission from the related ministries to start construction next year," said the association.

and there is many more on the way......!
I might be alone on this one but i feel that asia is NYC's architectural rival especially hong kong. Has anybody seen there proposed and approved buildings. I'll take the Union square Phase 7 project for an example

*- The final design of this tower was made in 2001 after more than four design proposal changes. *
- This tower will form a "gateway" for Victoria Harbour with Two International Finance Center at the opposite side of the harbour. *
- Will become the tallest building in Hong Kong, surpassing Two International Finance Center by some 60 meters. *
- The original World's Tallest design (574m with a pyramidal top) was changed, and the new design is by KPF. *
- A 7-star hotel with 250 rooms will be located near the top portion of the tower. It will also include convention and conference facilities. *
- The 7-star hotel will be the highest hotel in the world, surpassing the one in Jin Mao Tower. *

What i think needs to be done is have the WTC building proposals raised a few meters so upon complishion we will stand out on top of all, it sounds selfish but it needs to be done if this city is ready to compete with the "to-be-built" buildings.

[Kris]

July 22, 2003

Planned Tower Is Likely to Stay at Northwestern Corner of Site

By EDWARD WYATT

Gov. George E. Pataki cast doubt yesterday on the possibility that the 1,776-foot tower proposed for the World Trade Center site by Daniel Libeskind will be moved to another location on the property, as has been proposed by Larry A. Silverstein, the developer who will build the tower.

In response to a question from a reporter at a news conference in Lower Manhattan, Mr. Pataki said that while rebuilding officials will consider "any alternatives" for the location of the tower, "there's going to have to be a compelling reason" to move the tower or to otherwise disrupt the layout of buildings proposed by Mr. Libeskind.

Mr. Libeskind proposed placing the tower at the northwest corner of the trade center site, along West Street between Fulton and Vesey Streets.

Mr. Silverstein has proposed moving the tower to the eastern portion of the trade center property, closer to the planned downtown transportation hub. The developer has said that the move would make the office space in the tower more marketable and would provide easier access for building residents while the remainder of the office buildings at the site are built over the next 10 years.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the site, had previously asked Mr. Libeskind to study the possibility of moving the tower based on Mr. Silverstein's concerns. Possible locations for the tower will also be studied as part of the environmental review process.

A rebuilding official who is close to the governor said yesterday that Mr. Pataki meant to convey that the tower might be moved "if some sort of technical reason emerged" that would require a move.

"But we have not found one, and no one has raised one," the official said. "The reasons being given to us are strictly commercial."

Mr. Silverstein has proposed placing the tower either to the north of the transportation hub, in the block bounded by Vesey, Church, Fulton and Greenwich Streets, or immediately to the south of the station, which will be at the southeast corner of the restored intersection of Fulton and Greenwich Streets.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Harmonicaman]

A small item concerning Daniel Libeskind's new headquarters: *

Libeskind rents office near Ground Zero

by Lore Croghan
Copyright 2003, Crain Communications, Inc

World Trade Center master planner Daniel Libeskind rented an office at a building three blocks from Ground Zero to house his headquarters, which he has moved from Berlin. He signed a 10-year lease at 2 Rector St. for a 17,400-square-foot floor.

Mr. Libeskind, who struck an agreement last week to collaborate with Larry Silverstein’s architect, David Childs, on the design of the first office tower on the site, is currently running Studio Daniel Libeskind in a small temporary space in another part of 2 Rector. The rent was not disclosed, but deals signed at the building in past months were priced in the high $20s per square foot.

Newmark & Co. Real Estate Inc. served as the architect’s broker. Capital Real Estate represented landlord Stellar Management Co.

[NYguy]

Daily News...

Tower site fine as is, gov says

By GREG GITTRICH and MAGGIE HABERMAN
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Gov. Pataki appeared yesterday to nix Ground Zero developer Larry Silverstein's bid to move the planned 1,776-foot tower to another portion of the site.

Architect Daniel Libeskind had called for the signature spire to rise at the northwest corner of Ground Zero. Silverstein is pushing to put it at the northeast corner so the building will be closer to the planned transit hub.

But Pataki - who has put the skyscraper project on the fast track - said yesterday there would have to be a "compelling reason" to tinker with Libeskind's plan.

"We had a tremendous public process, and out of that public process the Libeskind concept for Ground Zero was chosen," said Pataki, who selected Libeskind's design and holds tremendous sway over the rebuilding process.

"And I think there's going to have to be some compelling reason for us not to just move forward for the design and concept as it resulted from that public process," he added.

The decision over where the 1,776-foot spire is located at Ground Zero has taken on a sense of urgency. The questions must be settled in the next few weeks so Pataki's aggressive rebuilding schedule can be met.

Under the governor's plan, the steel for the tower would be in place by Sept. 11, 2006, the fifth anniversary of the terror attacks.

Silverstein has argued that putting the building near the transit hub would make the structure more commercially viable. The Port Authority, which owns the site, has agreed to study the issue.

Libeskind and his wife, Nina, who has done much of the negotiating with rebuilding officials on behalf of her husband, are against moving the tower.

"We have been asked by the PA and the [Lower Manhattan Development Corp.] to take a look at moving it," Nina Libeskind said.

"In good faith, that is what we are doing. We will come up with our preferred option in the next eight days. Right now, we feel it should still be in the northwest corner," she said.

Silverstein spokesman Howard Rubenstein said his client wouldn't comment on the issue while engineering and planning considerations are being discussed.

There is a history of tension between Silverstein and Libeskind. The biggest of those differences seemed to be resolved last week, when Libeskind and Silverstein's hand-picked architect, David Childs, hashed out a deal to collaborate on the tower's design.

[TLOZ Link5]

Pataki is finally owning up to his responsibility in rebuilding downtown.

[JMGarcia]

This whole debate is so typically short sighted by Silverstein. There will eventually be a building of roughly equal size on the NE and NW corners of the site. What difference does it make long term commercially if the one with the spire is 30 seconds closer to the transit terminal?

All the buildings are likely to have direct connections to the underground concourses in any case so the tenants will probably not even use the transit center.

[Kris]

July 23, 2003

Bus Parking Garage Proposed Near Trade Center

By EDWARD WYATT

Hoping to settle a dispute with the families of Sept. 11 victims, officials involved in the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan said yesterday that they had found an alternative site to park the buses that will bring tourists to the World Trade Center memorial.

The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said they had begun discussions with the Battery Park City Authority about building an underground parking garage on an undeveloped parcel of land along West Street between Vesey and Murray Streets.

Officials had originally suggested building the garage underneath the memorial, but many of the victims' families objected, saying they regarded the final resting place of their loved ones as hallowed ground.

The West Street property is about 80,000 square feet. It currently houses an outdoor parking lot, but it is zoned to allow a 1.88-million-square-foot commercial office tower.

A cultural building, like an opera house or other large performance hall, is also under consideration for the site, said Matthew Higgins, chief operating officer of the development corporation. Planners have determined that the rebuilt trade center will not be large enough to accommodate such a hall, Mr. Higgins said.

Timothy S. Carey, president of the Battery Park City Authority, said that the authority had no plans to develop a new office building at the West Street site, but that any project would include underground parking.

Mr. Carey said that while there had been no formal discussions about a performance hall, "it could be a good fit." Any plan would have to be approved by the Battery Park City authority's board, he said.

Mr. Higgins said an underground parking lot at the site could accommodate more than 100 buses, roughly the amount of space needed for the more than five million visitors who are expected at the site each year.

Michael A. Petralia, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said the garage would cost about $200 million. The money may come from $4.55 billion in federal transportation funds set aside for the trade center site.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[ZippyTheChimp]

This will certainly be contested by some of my isolationist
neighbors. One of the topics will be the ballfields across the street.

The site is big enough - largest undeveloped site in BPC. This proposal will influence the debate about the short West St tunnel. A tunnel will still have local at-grade traffic, and a way of getting bus passengers across Wesr St would have to be worked out (bridge like at the Intrepid?). Tunnel opponents may argue to build an underground pedestrian passageway under West St.

[Jasonik]

Pretty good view from Tribeca Pointe
http://www.tribecapointe.com/Media/vu1.jpg

[ZippyTheChimp]

You would think that the view is post 09/11/01, but among other things, the ballfields are pre 09/11/01.

[Jasonik]

90 West St, etc. instead of water?

I see. . . *a 'promotional' photo.

(Edited by Jasonik at 1:34 pm on July 23, 2003)

[Harmonicaman]

A couple of items -

From the New York Times:

MANHATTAN: PROPOSAL FOR NAMES ON 9/11 MEMORIAL

Gifford Miller, the City Council speaker, yesterday endorsed a resolution that called for the future World Trade Center memorial to list the names of firefighters, police officers and rescue workers separately from those of other victims of the Sept. 11 attacks. The resolution asks Gov. George E. Pataki and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to honor rescue workers by listing them together, by department, including rank, badge number and unit "in the context within which they gave their lives." The current guidelines for the memorial competition say there should be no hierarchy in listing the victims. * *Winnie Hu (NYT)
------------------------------------------

...and from NYNewsday.com, an expansion of the above item:

Council Dems Press Gov. on WTC Memorial

By Dan Janison
Staff Writer

July 23, 2003, 6:10 PM EDT


Democrats in the City Council sought Wednesday to increase pressure on Gov. George Pataki to create a separate memorial for emergency officers who died responding to the World Trade Center attack.

A non-binding resolution calls on the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. to recognize each uniformed rescue worker killed Sept. 11, 2001, with agency, rank, badge number and unit.

"So far the powers that be have turned us down," said Councilman G. Oliver Koppell (D-Bronx), who's co-sponsoring the resolution with Councilman Tony Avella (D-Queens)

"While the World Trade Center memorial will honor all victims of the 9/11 attack," Koppell said, "it is fitting" that those who rescued thousands of others be honored in an "appropriate" way.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other leaders have supported the "Fallen Heroes Memorial" promoted by Fire Department Lt. John Finucane, chairman of an ad hoc group advocating the project.

"Every soul that perished that day is equally precious," Finucane said on City Hall steps. "We just want to make sure these brave men and women are never forgotten. ... Please put pressure on the governor to come to his senses."

But Lower Manhattan Development Corp. spokeswoman Joanna Rose replied that it's the work of an independent jury selected for memorial purposes.

"Neither the governor, the mayor or the LMDC will select the 9/11 memorial design," she said, "because we respect the integrity of the independent jury which has been entrusted with this important responsibility.

"We hope the City Council will also respect the integrity of the process," Rose said.
-----------------------------------


...and again from NYNewsday.com:


WTC Plans Draw Concerns

By Matt Donnelly
Staff Writer

July 23, 2003, 11:58 PM EDT


Plans for rebuilding at the World Trade Center site drew an array of concerns Wednesday — from worries that too much was going to be packed onto the 16-acre site to questions about the memorial and even some distress that birds might collide with the proposed new skyscrapers.

About 200 people from across the city spoke or listened at public hearings Wednesday discussing the environmental impact of the proposed World Trade Center memorial and redevelopment plans in back-to-back public hearings at the Borough of Manhattan Community College — just blocks from the World Trade Center site. Experts, planners and concerned residents gave their response to a draft environmental impact statement by the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. detailing how the designs created by Daniel Liebeskind might impact the area's environment, including noise control, traffic patterns and air quality.

Some family members of those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks voiced concern over the memorial. A group called WTC Families for Proper Burial asked that the LMDC's proposal contain a plan to include the ashen remains of some of those who died as part of the memorial. The group said most of the ashen remains still are at Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island.

"Otherwise, I'll have to continue to visit my son at a city garbage dump," said Diane Horning, of Scotch Plains, N.J., whose 26-year-old son Matthew was killed in the attacks.

The LMDC is holding a competition for the memorial design.

The LMDC's plan includes more than 10 million square feet of commercial office space, 1 million square feet of retail space, 1 million square feet of conference center and hotel space, parks and a museum.

Two groups asked officials to rebuild the towers and restore the city's skyline. "It's a very tough problem when the only way you know how to build is outward," said Ron DeVito, founder of Team Twin Towers. Alex Butziger, who flew in from Germany for the hearing, said he believes "great things should be replaced with great things" and the plans don't provide that.

Several architects and city planners expressed concern over efforts to regain all the original office space, sacrificing the public's interest for commercial purposes.

"The should require a serious consideration of reduction rather than redistribution of the office and retail space on the World Trade Center site," said Rick Bell, executive director of the American Institute of Architects New York Chapter. "Less is more."

Other residents focused on the secondary impact of the site. The New York City Audubon Society asked that planners consider how the site will be lit at night to keep from distracting migratory birds. One woman brought in a filter from her apartment to show how much dust was being kicked up from the construction.

The environmental statement is required by several federal, state and local agencies and is scheduled for completion by March 2004.
------------------------------------

...and finally from Firehouse.com News, more grief from the Fam-a-Nazis' (with apologies to Rush Limbaugh for usurping his term) concerning the WTC Memorial:

9/11 Families Criticize Construction At WTC Site


A group representing the families of 9/11 victims is criticizing construction within the footprint of the World Trade Center and has submitted a request to the governor and to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation that the area be preserved.

The Coalition of 9/11 Families is comprised of 9/11 family organizations and represents thousands of family members, survivors and rescue workers, according to the group's website.

Coalition members did not return Firehouse.com's calls Monday through Wednesday, but told the New York Post last week that Governor Pataki has broken his promise to protect the WTC site by allowing the Port Authority to build four emergency exits including walkways and stairwells for a temporary WTC PATH station due to open in November.

The coalition is also asking New York senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton to sponsor a federal law barring further construction on the footprints, according to the Post.

The coalition's goal is to preserve the interior of the slurry walls for a future memorial, their website says.

"The Memorial Complex should be encased in the slurry wall from bedrock to surface level and above ground where the greatest concentration of human remains were recovered," the site says.

The website also states that, "The Coalition has taken the position that the PATH Tunnel and tracks which existed prior to 9/11/01 will be the only infringement on the Footprint area for transportation. All other transportation should be moved east of Greenwich Street. Infrastructure components within the slurry walls should be related solely to memorial components selected by the WTC memorial jury panel."

[JMGarcia]

No Games With Ground Zero, Please
The profit motive must yield to the greater good.

BY ADA LOUISE HUXTABLE
Thursday, July 24, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

NEW YORK--The announcement of the collaboration between Daniel Libeskind, the architect of the winning design for the World Trade Center site, and David Childs, the architect working for Larry Silverstein, the developer who acquired the leases of the Twin Towers six weeks before their destruction on 9/11, is something that would be normal under any normal circumstances. This is common practice when more than one interested party is involved in the development of a site; properly pursued, the procedure usually works out to everyone's advantage.

But nothing is normal about this site. It was created by extraordinary circumstances requiring an extraordinary solution; the enormity of the disaster and the cataclysmic nature of the destruction turned a real estate operation into a mandate for a rebuilding plan in the city's greater public interest. Mr. Silverstein does not recognize that mandate. He has his own mandate, repeatedly expressed as his right to rebuild all 10 million square feet of pre-existing commercial space according to his own ideas and the terms of an insurance policy that are now unrealistic, impractical and hideously undesirable. He is intent on overriding the Libeskind plan that has been arrived at through a public process and endorsed by the people of New York and all the public agencies involved.

Mr. Silverstein already has a sweet deal in the control of this prime downtown commercial space, but in New York development circles, excess is never enough. To get what he wants, he is trying to hold the city and the plan hostage to the insurance money, although it is still an open question as to how much it will be, and where and how it will be used. Many factors are unresolved. What seems to elude him is that rebuilding Ground Zero is not the usual high-stakes real estate game to be played for top profit at the bottom line by whatever means are available; manipulating the system is not going to work here.

As gross as this reasoning is, it is the kind of self-interested opportunism that has been honed to a fine art by New York's builders. It is easy to understand. Developers are deal makers. They have never been known for their sensitivity to design or the urban environment. They are notoriously tone deaf architecturally.

Not only has Mr. Silverstein proved singularly resistant to the notion of any kind of responsibility beyond his commercial interests--a blindness to human and moral values that defies comprehension in these circumstances--he has also pursued those interests relentlessly. It can be safely assumed that he will continue to do so; he has been quoted as saying that he controls whatever goes on the site, and he obviously has not changed his mind. He sees himself as the victor in the proposed collaboration; it is clear that he views it as a way to put his architect, and his ideas, in charge.

This would be true only if his architect were an instrument of his own desires--developers are unusually good at finding them--but Mr. Childs, a distinguished practitioner in his own right, is not. Mr. Libeskind and Mr. Childs are top professionals with a great deal of mutual respect. Their collaboration is not a triumph for Mr. Silverstein or a step backward in the process, or a way of getting Mr. Libeskind out of the picture. Both understand that collaboration is accommodation, not nullification, and that the plan, while well defined, will require further design of its elements and of the buildings themselves. Changes are natural and inevitable as the proposal is fleshed out; they can improve and strengthen the plan without affecting its integrity.

The best line of defense against subversion or co-optation is the architects themselves. They know there is much work to be done. Their styles are totally different, but their abilities complement each other. Mr. Libeskind, a talented, innovative designer, is a seasoned, successful battler for his principles, but he is also a rational man open to negotiated improvements.

Mr. Childs, an experienced builder of skyscrapers, is in the sensitive position of representing a client who believes he can remake the plan for his own purposes. He will have a hard time finding a credible diplomatic way to promote an unacceptable agenda. As an architect and a New Yorker, he is aware that he has a professional responsibility to the official blueprint for Ground Zero and the future of Lower Manhattan. Whatever role he has been given must be supportive of the Libeskind design.

Mr. Silverstein will discover that he cannot direct the collaborative relationship. He has already found that the usual easy political accommodation for the city's builders is not forthcoming; the word from the governor's office, in response to his proposal to relocate the pivotal Freedom Tower from the northwest corner of the site to the transportation center for his greater commercial convenience, is leave the plan alone. The issue is far too public and emotional, and politicians can count votes as well as money.

It is much too soon to pick winners and losers. What happens next is what really matters; the outcome of the collaboration will determine the fidelity to Mr. Libeskind's vision and the fate of his design. So far, the process is on track. It is being followed intently by community groups and professional organizations whose knowledgeable and involved members understand the nature of betrayal and the need for commitment to the plan. They also can count votes. New Yorkers threw out substandard schemes once before, and they will be watching closely and critically again.

Ms. Huxtable is The Wall Street Journal's architecture critic.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Mr. Silverstein will discover that he cannot direct the collaborative relationship.
I hope this proves to be true.

[JMGarcia]

I have found Huxtable (agree or disagree with her) to be quite accurate in her predictions so far.

In any case, it will be interesting to get an alternative proposal out of the pairing.

[NoyokA]

NO GREATER LEGACY
by Peter Slatin


Larry Silverstein and architect Daniel Libeskind have reached a preliminary agreement about a subject that should not have even been on the table: who will control the ultimate development of office space at Ground Zero, and thus the ultimate use, configuration and appearance of the site. The agreement covers the 70 stories of office space in the blandly named Freedom Tower, Libeskind’s 1,776-foot-tall structure. Yet it appears, sadly, to leave open the door for Silverstein to remix Libeskind’s publicly recognized – dare I say acclaimed? – master plan like an engineer working a sound board. Implicit in Silverstein’s continued insistence on his right to determine the site’s outcome is the suggestion – whether intended or not – that the most important question to be resolved at Ground Zero is the destiny and legacy of Larry Silverstein. Will the outcome be Silverstein’s city of commerce, or the capital of culture and memory called for overwhelmingly by the public and envisioned by Daniel Libeskind?

Silverstein has insisted from 9/11 forward on his leaseholder’s right to rebuild on a vast commercial scale what is inarguably a public place, owned by a public authority. Neither the Port Authority nor the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation has addressed directly what they really desire of Mr. Silverstein or what they think of his intentions. At present, it appears that they are both willing to permit him to develop 10 million square feet of commercial space there.

Thus, the question still haunts: Whose place is this? By virtue of the Port’s ownership, it is public land. Indeed, the precedent for less-than-heedful development there was set some 40 years ago when the Port chose to build the trade center, obliterating a neighborhood, disrupting an office market and inserting an eye-grabbing but unrewarding landmark. Now that the land has, through terrible ordeal, literally fallen back into the people’s purview, only Larry Silverstein, wielding his lease as if it were a deed, still insists on his right to shape the site for centuries to come. Is this good business or good government?

In the hard-won agreement between Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority that was concluded in July of 2001, the keys to the World Trade Center were entrusted not to a master builder or visionary city shaper, but to a proven, prudent manager of assets and a dedicated real estate developer. Stewardship of such a public trust extends outward and implies a willingness to demonstrate responsibility to a widening circle of constituents. There is an excellent opportunity here for Larry Silverstein to live up to his vision of creating a bold legacy for himself at Ground Zero. He can best do this not by insisting on dominating the outcome of development there, but rather by the more heroic and beneficent act of withdrawing, or at least cooperating by understanding his role and relevance amid a vast array of players.

Throughout his career, Larry Silverstein’s most important benefactor has been New York City. The city gave him the raw materials to work with, from banks to tenants to streets teeming with one of the greatest work forces on the planet. It gave him the platform from which he could make his fortune and stake his claim to an important place in the world we live in. Now, Larry Silverstein needs to give back to the community that has supported him from the start. It will forever honor his generosity.

[NoyokA]

What I cannot understand is that Silverstein at age 72 for what reasons is looking to make a profit in his lifetime. The original World Trade Centers took a decade to turn a profit, and notwithstanding a glut of 50 million square feet of empty space and still without a tenant for 7 WTC.

What Silverstein could however create is a legacy for him-self, for what he will be remembered for his vision, an effective financial failure. Or to adopt the vision of the architect for a world-class complex in the world's city, for which he chooses, he is largely in control.

[JMGarcia]

Larry Silverstein, wielding his lease as if it were a deed, still insists on his right to shape the site for centuries to come.

Doesn't that just say it all. As much as I support replacing the lost space, whether residential, commercial or a combination, I just can't help but think he is trying to squeeze every penny out of the site.

In any case, Silverstein is actually just the front man for a bunch of investors, it is not all his own money. I'm surprised the newspapers barely mention this. My opinion is that the silent inverstors are pressuring him and he would rather leave a legacy to his heirs than to the general public. It'll be a shame really if the Childs/Libeskind pairing fails.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I agree, Silverstein is missing a rare opportunity to attach
his name to history.

Another factor that doesn't get as much press as it should is the role of insurance companies. Besides the litigation on the site itself, there have been disputes over the surrounding buildings. At 7 WTC, the insurer is refusing to pay beyond 9/11/03.

[BrooklynRider]

Silverstein is a business man who fought for and won the lease for the World Trade Center. *It is about business. *He has loans on the purchase. He is still paying rent. *He is still REQUIRED top ay rent. *I don't undersatand all the questions of his motive or loyalties. *He is a business man protecting his investment. *His perspective is truly unique amongst all the other people involved - he is the only one who stands to lose big time in this process. He has an obligation to his employees, investors and family to see that the relevant provisions of his business contract (lease) are executed properly. *

You can't fault a business man for wanting to turn a profit . *And, if I were in his shoes, you better believe I'd be wanting to leave a legacy - LIKE A NEW WORLD TRADE CENTER - behind, especially if the power to do so were within my legal rights. *

[Chicagoan]

Quote: from BrooklynRider on 10:44 am on July 25, 2003
Silverstein is a business man who fought for and won the lease for the World Trade Center. *It is about business. *He has loans on the purchase. He is still paying rent. *He is still REQUIRED top ay rent. *I don't undersatand all the questions of his motive or loyalties. *He is a business man protecting his investment. *His perspective is truly unique amongst all the other people involved - he is the only one who stands to lose big time in this process. He has an obligation to his employees, investors and family to see that the relevant provisions of his business contract (lease) are executed properly. *

You can't fault a business man for wanting to turn a profit . *And, if I were in his shoes, you better believe I'd be wanting to leave a legacy - LIKE A NEW WORLD TRADE CENTER - behind, especially if the power to do so were within my legal rights. *

Thank you for putting it in a better than I ever could.

As far as I am concerned, unless the PA cancelled the leases on the WTC and payed off all the parties, Westfield, Silverstein, etc, for the REMAINING investment, Silverstein and Westfield (S/A) could have sued in a court for full control of the site and do whatever they wanted to. Instead, they chose to bow to the PA, several elected officials, and public pressure.

Despite what their chritics are saying, they are being very good and very generous corporate citizens.

[JMGarcia]

The problem with Silverstein is that he is focused only on short term return on investment. I agree that in today's world that is what the real estate business his.

But, the WTC site is not just some other new developement. It is not as if he were developing some huge project in West Midtown. He must build for more than just business reasons in this case. His business interests have suffered greatly because of 9/11 and have to suffer more because of the "public" nature of the site now. I fully support him being able to rebuild all the space he lost. This does not mean that he should have complete control IMO.

So far, out of all the parties, he has done what I consider to be the only truely unforgivable thing in the rebuilding process. Namely, limited the heights of the buildings. This is the thing that has caused virtually all of the planning controversy on the site.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Quote: from Chicagoan on 11:06 am on July 25, 2003
As far as I am concerned, unless the PA cancelled the leases on the WTC and payed off all the parties, Westfield, Silverstein, etc, for the REMAINING investment, Silverstein and Westfield (S/A) could have sued in a court for full control of the site and do whatever they wanted to. Instead, they chose to bow to the PA, several elected officials, and public pressure.

Despite what their chritics are saying, they are being very good and very generous corporate citizens.
There is no legal precedent for Silverstein (or any other investor) to gain control of the site. He could have simply stopped making rent payments, the lease would have been voided, and any legal proceeding would be to settle any payments.

Silverstein was never forced to make rent payments. In truth, he wanted to keep the lease, and the PA, eager to get out of the real estate business, was happy to let him keep it - that's why they made the deal in 2001. The PA has already taken the position that the insurance payments are transferable to the agency as owners, a claim that the insurers have not disputed.

As for Silverstein the businessman - even those paragons of capitalism, the Rockefellers, extended largesse to the city.

[Chicagoan]

There is no legal precedent for Silverstein (or any other investor) to gain control of the site. He could have simply stopped making rent payments, the lease would have been voided, and any legal proceeding would be to settle any payments.

Silverstein was never forced to make rent payments. In truth, he wanted to keep the lease, and the PA, eager to get out of the real estate business, was happy to let him keep it - that's why they made the deal in 2001. The PA has already taken the position that the insurance payments are transferable to the agency as owners, a claim that the insurers have not disputed.

As for Silverstein the businessman - even those paragons of capitalism, the Rockefellers, extended largesse to the city.

I have not seen the copy of the lease agreement between the PA and the Silvestein/Westfield (S/W) Group, but one of the main articles of that agreement is that they were legally and financially responsible for reconstruction of the center should it be damaged or destroyed. This was to insulate the PA from the cost of reconstruction. ( I assume that the PA was thinking of the 1993 bombing.)

First, the context of the conversation is "lease" not "ownership". Control of the site means the right to develop it as they wish and as is legally permissible as long as they fullfil their contractual obligation. Suing would have been to affirm that right, assuming no modifications to the lease had been made post 9/11.

Therefore S/W are forced to continue paying, specifically because it is what they agreed to, despite the destruction of the center, specifically because it was one of the central points of the agreement. In essence there was no provision for the discontinuation of the lease on the grounds of destruction.

It would be akin to saying that you are not "forced" to pay rent every month. You are lawfully "forced"/obligated to. Now if your lease says that you should still pay rent even if your apartment burns down, and it is legal to require this, and you agree to it, then you have to. It all comes down to the provisions of the lease, and that is not strictly within the realm of "legal precedent".

What I am saying, and as was postes by others here, is that there are a few people/organizations that have a financial stake here. To accept only that would be crude. But to also assume that it is crude to consider such motivations as just is irresposible to those who- in the end have to put the effort into building this complex. (Zippy, that last comment was not specifically directed to you.)

[ZippyTheChimp]

Your last comment is appreciated, but no offense is taken. These are just opinions.

I also have not seen the lease agreement. My comments are from the information I've gathered these past two years, and the actions of the parties.

From the WSJ:
NEW YORK -- Architects, city planners and pundits already have begun to weigh in on what they think should be rebuilt on the site of the World Trade Center, with suggestions ranging from parks to a new headquarters for the New York Stock Exchange.

But, before any plan can be pursued, a critical question must be resolved: Who has the legal power to say what will go there?

The answer is complicated by the 99-year lease, signed less than two months before the terrorist attacks, between the World Trade Center's owner -- the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey -- and a private group led by New York developer Larry Silverstein and Westfield America Inc., a shopping mall owner that is part of Australia's Westfield Group.

Charles Gargano, the Port Authority's vice chairman, said the agency's board has asked its legal staff for an opinion "as to who has the right to build." He noted that the issue is "complicated" and that "there may be different ideas how the World Trade Center should be designed and configured." As the agency that built the complex some 30 years ago, the Port Authority "would want to play a role in that," he added.

Howard Rubenstein, a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, said the lease gives Mr. Silverstein a clear "right and obligation" to rebuild. But he stopped short of saying that Mr. Silverstein has sole discretion in deciding what to build there.

Mr. Rubenstein said the lease contains language that requires that any rebuilding be "appropriate" in terms what used to be there and "what has happened."

Mr. Silverstein "is not dictating, nor is he confrontational," Mr. Rubenstein said. "There will be a lot of people to help determine what appropriateness is."

People involved in the process, however, say the Port Authority and Mr. Silverstein are being motivated by different pressures.

To collect on his rebuilding insurance, valued at $3.5 billion per incident, Mr. Silverstein must show he is moving ahead with plans. "They want to demonstrate to the insurance companies that they want to rebuild," said one person involved in the rebuilding discussions.

Mr. Silverstein has been one of the most vocal proponents of moving forward quickly with a rebuilding program. He already has suggested that the complex be replaced with four, 50-to-60-story towers. Mr. Rubenstein declined to comment on the insurance issue.

But, as a public agency, the Port Authority is under pressure to move slowly in deciding how to rebuild. Numerous elected officials and others have called for creating a commission that ensures that whatever replaces the World Trade Center is a proper symbol of the magnitude of the tragedy, the nation's resolve to stay strong and New York's need to revive its financial district.

Under the lease agreement,Mr. Silverstein's group must pay more than $100 million a year in rent and he will probably play a lead role in deciding what to rebuild as long as he doesn't default, according to people who have read the lease. Mr. Silverstein has indicated that he intends to keep making lease payments as well as debt service on the $563 million in bonds he sold to finance his acquisition of the 99-year lease.

Another possibility, some say, would be for the federal government to step in and simply buy out the bond holders and the Silverstein group, which put in more than $125 million of equity in the deal. Mr. Rubenstein said that Mr. Silverstein, would be open to such an offer. "If the president of the United States called the governor and Mr. Silverstein and the Port Authority with that suggestion, they would all have to sit down and talk about it," he said.

Mr. Silverstein also owned 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story tower on land leased from the Port Authority that was destroyed by the collapse of the Trade Center's Twin Towers.

Mr. Rubenstein said Mr. Silverstein will be able to move faster in rebuilding a tower of about the same size on the 7 WTC site. The developer will have the necessary funds from insurance proceeds and that site will be easier to clear because the building wasn't as big and there were no fatalities when it crumbled, he noted, adding: "They could get that building up in a couple of years."

* * * * * * * * * * * * ---------- *

The only legal mantra I have heard from Silverstein is that he must replace all the office space to qualify for the insurance payment. As for control of the site, soon after Silverstein made his ill-advised 4 50 story towers statement, Johnh Whitehead stated that the LMDC would invoke eminent domain if necessary.

I don't begrudge Silverstein his desire to protect his investment and turn a profit, but he seems to be trying to make himself whole, to return to a pre 09/11 condition. Why should he be any different from so many others?


(Edited by ZippyTheChimp at 7:13 am on July 26, 2003)

[JMGarcia]

And on a different note things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser....

Stay true to Libeskind's vision
By of all people....
MONICA IKEN

In the past weeks, Gov. Pataki has shown great leadership in handling the complexities of Ground Zero's future. He indicated that architect Daniel Libeskind's freedom tower would not be moved and instructed the Port Authority to find alternatives to locating bus parking on the footprints of the twin towers.
Another issue has emerged that deserves equal attention.

Those who applauded Libeskind's proposal for Ground Zero when it was chosen may not have heard the warnings that what is finally built may bear little resemblance to his vision. Well, the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. proved those warnings to be true. In a public hearing on the environmental impact statement for the memorial and redevelopment plans Wednesday, it was clear that Libeskind's plan has been butchered.

The environmental impact statement and the process of its approval is crucial to the future of the development. The statement is supposed to spell out what will be built on the site and where, and outline which studies will analyze the impacts of those plans. It also serves as the basis for obtaining federal, state and local approvals required for the memorial and redevelopment plans to proceed.

The statement reveals that the Port Authority intends to put back up to 10 million square feet of commercial office space on the 16-acre site - the same amount that existed prior to 9/11. The PA also intends to double the retail space to 1million square feet, have 1 million square feet of conference and hotel facilities and somehow also add new cultural amenities. I suppose this includes the memorial, but it might as well be a footnote based on how it's treated in the document.

I strongly object to the draft's plans and believe the general public would, too, if people understood the implications. The public is entitled to see a scale model of the proposed development and comment on it before the environmental impact statement process moves forward.

The Lower Manhattan Development Corp. is accepting public comments on the draft through Aug. 4 (www.renewnyc.com/
plan_des_dev/frm_comments.asp), but that time frame is inadequate.

The LMDC should extend the deadline so that the public has time to review the plans and make objections and comments.

One glaring omission in the statement is any mention of a study that would project the number of visitors anticipated at the memorial. The Port Authority claims 5.5 million visitors will come each year, but it has never provided documentation to support that number. Understanding how many visitors will come and adequately accommodating them is critical. Experts I've spoken to estimate the number of visitors to be 10 million to 12 million a year, if not more.

I don't think anyone - most especially the families - wants to be crammed in elbow to elbow or be herded through like cattle or should have to reserve a ticket in advance to come and pay respects.

I have been fighting these past years to keep the Ground Zero memorial and redevelopment from turning into a Disneyland. Now I fear that, like Michael Jackson, the Port Authority is going to have its own personal Neverland.

Iken, whose husband, Michael, was killed on 9/11,
is the founder of September's Mission ( www.septembersmission.org).

Originally published on July 25, 2003 *
NY Daily News

-------------------

Most interesting considering here recent withdrawal from the coalition of families because of their criticism of Pataki. Now a pro-Pataki editorial in the Daily News. It's amazing how much influence Iken has had on Pataki's decision making. Politics literally does indeed make interesting bed-fellows. ;)

[Agglomeration]

One word to Iken: Quit your mega-memorialist whining and mega-memorialist backdoor lobbying and get a grief counselor you plastic talentless b****! :angry:

Sorry, I just had to express my disgust. She is a negative influence and simply does not belong in the rebuilding process.

(Edited by Agglomeration at 8:22 pm on July 25, 2003)

[NoyokA]

A small private memorial for families isnt a bad idea, it could prove positive in creating enough negative space in a greater memorial area. But the better idea would be to set aside the memorial for family members on September 11th.

[Jasonik]

Quote: from Stern on 8:47 pm on July 25, 2003
.... But the better idea would be to set aside the memorial for family members on September 11th.
Very sensible suggestion.

As for the plan evolving, it must. *Hopes and emotions got twisted around Libeskind's plan instead of a memorial. *Its only natural people feel betrayed when the one thing they attached so much significance to is changed. *

Start with the memorial, the site is dominated by that.
Start with the redevelopment. . .

LMDC stands for Late Memorial Design Competition

[Kris]

July 26, 2003

Ground Zero Plan Omits City Opera

By ROBIN POGREBIN

The municipal corporation overseeing the redevelopment of ground zero has determined that there is no place at the site for an opera house, a decision that all but dashes the New York City Opera's hopes of moving there from Lincoln Center.

"The footprint is not large enough to accommodate the needs of an opera house," Matthew Higgins, chief operating officer of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, said yesterday.

Mr. Higgins said the corporation told City Opera of this development last week. But in a telephone interview yesterday, Paul Kellogg, the opera company's general and artistic director, said it was news to him.

"They certainly have not said that to us," he said. "We have not been told that the site is too small."

Mr. Kellogg added that as far as he was concerned, the possibility of moving to ground zero was "still very much in the picture." City Opera is looking to leave Lincoln Center because it is unhappy with the acoustics of the 2,700-seat New York State Theater, which it shares with New York City Ballet. City Opera, conceived as "the people's opera," has also long felt in the shadow of the Metropolitan Opera, which opposed a new home for City Opera on the Lincoln Center campus.

In the wake of the New York Philharmonic's announcement last month that it planned to move to Carnegie Hall, City Opera momentarily considered moving into Avery Fisher Hall, but rejected that idea because the footprint was too small.

Irwin Schneiderman, chairman of City Opera, said it was proceeding with its application to be part of the ground zero plan, designed by the architect Daniel Libeskind, whose scheme provides for a performing arts center and a museum.

It is unclear whether size was in fact the corporation's main reason for dropping the opera house from consideration — and if the opera could still be eligible for ground zero if it modified its physical requirements. The opera says it needs 2,200 seats, considerable backstage area and ample fly space to store scenery.

Underlying the corporation's decision, some people involved in the redevelopment say, may be a lack of enthusiasm for City Opera as the cultural anchor at ground zero, an idea the opera has been aggressively pursuing with the encouragement of some city officials.

The latest space determination comes just weeks after the corporation invited arts groups from all over the world to submit proposals on what they would contribute to the site. City officials and arts executives both interpreted that as a message to City Opera that its place there was by no means assured.

Now the corporation is essentially saying there will be no place for City Opera on the site at all.

The corporation wants to generate around-the-clock, everyday activity, something that an opera company that performs mostly at night and on a limited schedule cannot necessarily provide. The corporation wants the cultural buildings also to serve tourists visiting the 9/11 memorial and neighborhood residents.

A recent neighborhood study commissioned by community groups found that most downtown residents preferred a community center like the 92nd Street Y or a cultural center like the Brooklyn Academy of Music to an opera house.

But Kate D. Levin, commissioner of cultural affairs — who with the corporation will be evaluating cultural proposals for the site along with the New York State Council on the Arts — suggested that the decision on City Opera was purely a reflection of an increasingly refined master plan. "There is very much an open process about the cultural components at the site, depending on what's physically possible within the envelope of the buildings being built," she said.

Robert W. Wilson, a philanthropist who has offered $50 million toward a new building for City Opera but who has said he would not support a move downtown, said, "I think they are unenthused about having an opera house down there for the same reasons I am — that's not where the market is."

City Opera has also considered a nearby space in Battery Park City, known as Site 26, now a parking lot on West Street between Vesey and Murray Streets. But it expressed a clear preference for the trade center site.

"Since it's not really at the site, it's not as attractive," Mr. Schneiderman said. "We're not rejecting anything, but we're focusing on the World Trade Center site. That would be the most desirable." He added, "If for some reason it can't work out at the World Trade Center site, we certainly would consider the other place."

In Battery Park City, the opera would not be eligible for money from the development corporation, which is expected to contribute $200 million to $300 million toward a cultural component. A new opera house would cost about $250 million.

Site 26 has been a subject of dispute. The Battery Park City Authority, the state agency that controls the 92-acre Battery Park City, tried to sell rights to build a 1.8-million-square-foot skyscraper there. But John E. Zuccotti maintained that his company, Brookfield Financial Properties, had the exclusive right to develop the site. Brookfield, the largest downtown landlord, owns the World Financial Center. Ground zero is owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

With space in the World Financial Center now vacant, Mr. Zuccotti was not interested in creating a competing office space, those involved say. It was Mr. Zuccotti who spearheaded the idea with city and state officials about a mixed-use building that would include City Opera or the Joyce Theater at Site 26 with a hotel above. The Joyce, which specializes in dance, has expressed interest in adding a downtown location to its stages in Chelsea and SoHo.

The Battery Park authority is now talking to the development corporation about turning Site 26 into an underground parking garage for up to 120 tour buses and up to 350 cars.

Timothy S. Carey, president and chief executive of the Battery Park City Authority, said the authority had received proposals for the 90,000-square-foot site from several other organizations, including museums.

At Site 26, the opera house would also be at a disadvantage regarding mass transit: the East Side subway line is one-third of a mile away. And the box office would lose out on some ground zero foot traffic for walk-in ticket sales.

Without a substantial government subsidy, the philanthropist Mr. Wilson said, City Opera could not afford to build, even if he does decide to come through with his own $50 million contribution. "If you're building a $250-million house, my money is small change," he said.

Mr. Wilson and others are skeptical that City Opera can lure its audience to Lower Manhattan. The fact that the Baz Luhrmann production of "La Bohème" could not last on Broadway, he said, demonstrates that such fare is not an easy draw.

"The audience for opera is limited," he said. "If they think people are going to come from the Upper East and Upper West Side — and can you imagine getting cabs back?"

City Opera has said it expects to pick up new audience members from Brooklyn and New Jersey.

Larry A. Silverstein, the developer who controls the World Trade Center lease, said through a spokesman that he was interested in cultural development at the site generally, but not in any institution in particular.

"Larry Silverstein's position is that the content of the type of facility is in the hands of the Port Authority and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation," said the spokesman, Howard J. Rubenstein. "He has always favored a cultural element at the site."


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[ZippyTheChimp]

Quote: from Jasonik on 9:45 pm on July 25, 2003

As for the plan evolving, it must. *Hopes and emotions got twisted around Libeskind's plan instead of a memorial. *Its only natural people feel betrayed when the one thing they attached so much significance to is changed. *

Start with the memorial, the site is dominated by that.
Start with the redevelopment. . .

LMDC stands for Late Memorial Design Competition
The Libeskind plan does start with the memorial. It is central to the entire design. The location is mandated by the footprints. The area is bordered by cultural buildings (another mandate). He placed the office space and retail as far away as possible.

I think it would have been a mistake to design the memorial without a matrix. The final memorial design will be chosen before the appearance of the buildings is finalized, and will be an influence.

[Chicagoan]

I would agree with Jasonik on this one, and extend the thought a little.

Michael Sorkin wrote a critique in Architectural Record in the July issue where he says that Libeskind has "straight-jacketed" the memorial processs with his design. If Libeskind has designed the memorial ( or an "appropriate setting thereof) , like many people have come to believe, then why was there a memorial competition anyway? What will happen when the memorial design chosen is set a ground level? Or what if it contains other towers, besides Libeskind's 1,776?

Many people have come to see the chosen design for programming the site as the end product and any change to it is unwelcomed or criticised.

But also on the note of the "Ground Zero Plan Omits City Opera" article, this is really too bad. I am now wondering what type of "cultural" attractions the LMDC plans on putting on the site? I am going to try not to add a sarcastic suggestion.

But its beginning to look alot like a regular office complex. [ sung to the tune of the Christmas classic.]

[JMGarcia]

Actually, I think one of the reasons that Libeskind won the competition was the it provided the most flexible space for the memorial. Compare the empty expanse of the pit with the space(s) provided in any of the other designs, even the first 6.

The only way that it could have been more flexible would be if the entire site was given over the memorial competition and if by chance (unlikely) there was any space left over then something could have been fit in. This would have been economically unfeasable and legally impossible.

[Chicagoan]

Quote: from JMGarcia on 1:10 pm on July 26, 2003
Actually, I think one of the reasons that Libeskind won the competition was the it provided the most flexible space for the memorial. Compare the empty expanse of the pit with the space(s) provided in any of the other designs, even the first 6.

The only way that it could have been more flexible would be if the entire site was given over the memorial competition and if by chance (unlikely) there was any space left over then something could have been fit in. This would have been economically unfeasable and legally impossible.

I will not go too much into detail because it would get too long, but I completely disagree. At least two of the other proposals from the Second Round devoted more space to the memorial. That is not the issue.

Libeskind's proposal is not just "an empty expanse". Everything from his ordering of the site and imbedding his proposal with the meaning and language that he has, limits the chances of other interpretations. My point, as well as Sorkin's and other posters here is that it is alot more than what you see.

[JMGarcia]

Which two? Certainly not Foster, SOM, nor THINK. P/L had already built on even the footprints. Meier's shadow trees, red brick tendrils, and archways imbued the site with even more symbolism than Libeskind. UA even dictated the flow of people through the memorial areas.

While I'll grant you that Libeskind imbued the non-memorial areas of the site with too much symbolism, the memorial area itself is only burdened with the slurry wall.

As we're all aware, only the site plan has really been chosen. Whether all the other hoopla actually gets built is a completely different story and, as such, doesn't impinge on the memorial IMO.

(Edited by JMGarcia at 5:53 pm on July 26, 2003)

[ZippyTheChimp]

Chicagoan, how would you have conducted the process differently?

[Chicagoan]

Quote: from JMGarcia on 6:52 pm on July 26, 2003
Which two? Certainly not Foster, SOM, nor THINK. P/L had already built on even the footprints. Meier's shadow trees, red brick tendrils, and archways imbued the site with even more symbolism than Libeskind. UA even dictated the flow of people through the memorial areas.

While I'll grant you that Libeskind imbued the non-memorial areas of the site with too much symbolism, the memorial area itself is only burdened with the slurry wall.

As we're all aware, only the site plan has really been chosen. Whether all the other hoopla actually gets built is a completely different story and, as such, doesn't impinge on the memorial IMO.

(Edited by JMGarcia at 5:53 pm on July 26, 2003)


Okay, I disagree with the statements in the first two paragraphs. The Foster and Meier, Eisenman, Siegel, Holl scheme allowed much more freedon and room for expression. ( Most of what you referenced as being on the "site" on MESH was on the surrrouunding blocks) They did include proposals for what the memorial could be, but those where not meant to be strict components of the site plan and were very limited in scope.

As for the second paragraph, I think the reality is the reverse, that the memorial portion has the symbolism and the non-memorial parts not so much. This is not to be proof of my point, but what you said was the first time that I heard anyone say that. (But again this might not mean anything).

But I do not believe tha we are all aware that the chosen design is a master plan for development. If this were the case everything about it, except for the siting of the memorial and commercial components would be tweaked and revised. Too many people have become... drunk with the visual imagery and pseudo-patriotic tones of Libeskind design and have yet to come off the hang-over.

But you know, I will waite for a few more months when the finalists for the memorial have been chosen. That will prove the point that I am trying to make. Just watch which projects get selected or, more so, the criticism that is given to the memorial finalists projects- especially if they call for any revisions to the Libeskind design.

Zippy, I have thought about this for months. I would have had a Phase 1 that would collect the perspectives of the people. This phase would have been continuous through the processes durations, from start to finish- constantly geeting feedback from the public.

Phase 2 would have focused on getting a master plan for the site and limiting its graphical presentation. This would take into account all of the interests that are involved.

Phase 3 would have been the memorial competion.

Phase 4 would have been the competition for the office/commercial/cultural, et al components. I would have let the Leaseholders run this phase, but with constant oversight and override by the PA- as site owner and guarantee of the public interest.

Phase 5 would have been to coordinate the results of phases 3 and 4.

Phase 6- construction of memorial.

Phase 7- phased construction of the remaining components.

This is by no means exhaustive... so to speak.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Phase 2 would have focused on getting a master plan for the site and limiting its graphical presentation. This would take into account all of the interests that are involved.
They tried that with BBB. The public rejected it.

[NoyokA]

The Foster and Meier, Eisenman, Siegel, Holl scheme allowed much more freedon and room for expression

In my opinion the memorial aspect of the Meier, Eisenman, Siegal, Holl scheme was the most appropriate with respect to the victims and in remembering where they worked among the world’s biggest buildings. Their buildings and siteplan were a blatant transition to new-urbanism and would have made lower-manhattan once again unmistakable, the *giddy remarks that it resembled a Tic-Tac-Toe Board were ridiculous. I knew the project would never fly so it lost my support, but among other things the piers and trees for the victims, worked with shadows and lights of the former that was positively in tune with the phantom towers of the site plan. Even with a new site plan my hope is that the memorial by Meier, Eisenman, Siegal, Holl enters the competition, and hopefully be incorporated.

(Edited by Stern at 10:16 am on July 27, 2003)

[NoyokA]

In the tradition of Rockefeller Center and Union Square, we propose to build a great public space for New York City at the World Trade Center site. We call this Memorial Square. While the 19th and 20th century precedents for urban plazas are contained spaces, our 21st century Memorial Square is both contained and extended, symbolizing the connections of this place to the city and to the world.

The fact that is was a super-block predestined failure, I am one of the few who actually support a return to the super-block

Memorial Square is defined on the east and north sides with hybrid buildings that rise 1,111 feet, restoring the Manhattan skyline with geometric clarity in glowing glass. At ground level these buildings form a unique array of ceremonial gateways leading into the site. These thresholds of reflection open onto Memorial Square, a place that supports daily activities while allowing moments of contemplation and silence.

To the west, two glass-bottom reflecting pools demarcate the footprints of the former World Trade Center towers. Beneath them, the volumes of the footprints become sites for memorial rooms lit from above. The pools overlook two memorial groves of trees, planted to mark the final shadows cast by the towers moments before each fell. Nearby, new proposed cultural facilities include a Memorial Museum and Freedom Library, a Concert Hall and Opera House, and Performing Arts Theaters, which frame the edges of the site.

Memorial Square sets a precedent in its potential for multiple memorial sites, beginning with the ground plan. These sites will be the locations for an international memorial competition. Given the nearly 2,800 people who died here and the thousands more who were physically and emotionally scarred by the horror of September 11, we believe that it is not necessary to contain or divide the site, but to expand it by extending into the surrounding streets. This is achieved through a series of "fingers," reminders that the magnitude of what happened here was felt far beyond the immediate site. At the same time, they facilitate connections between Memorial Square, the waterfront, the proposed NYC Transit Center, and greater Lower Manhattan. Laid on the existing grade, the stone-paved fingers are also visual and acoustic reference points.

The essence of the ground plan reappears in the composition of the buildings, which only occupy 27 percent of the site, leaving the remaining twelve acres to be developed as public space. The two buildings, comprised of five vertical sections and interconnecting horizontal floors, represent a new typology in the tradition of innovative skyscraper design. In their quiet abstraction, the buildings suggest screens of presence and absence, encouraging reflection and imagination. The cantilevered ends extend outward, like the fingers of the ground plan, reaching toward the city and each other. Nearly touching at the northeast corner of the site, they resemble the interlaced fingers of protective hands.

An architecture of dignity is not only possible here, it is absolutely necessary. In the belief that from a monumentally tragic occurrence can come a life-affirming opportunity, Memorial Square is a place of living memory, a sacred precinct where loss is remembered and renewal is celebrated.

[Chicagoan]

Quote: from ZippyTheChimp on 8:44 am on July 27, 2003

Phase 2 would have focused on getting a master plan for the site and limiting its graphical presentation. This would take into account all of the interests that are involved.
They tried that with BBB. The public rejected it.


No they did not. First, I would have had no models of buildings. I also would not have "hyped" ( geez, I hate that world) this as the "proposal for the WTC site and I would have continually stressed that this was just for programming.

In our office, we do that all the time. Programming is the first thing that designers do before they even start to design and the LMDC should have driven that point home. We also have to explain this to many clients. Not only was the result a process error, but also a public relations error also.

Stern, I would agree with you completely. The MESH, proposal was my favorite. When it came to the non-memorial buildings themselves they certainly put alot of effort into the different aspects of the new construction. These would not have been buildings as usual. But I read that the heights of the towers were an issue.

[TLOZ Link5]

The BBB plan with an opera house involved the demolition of 130 Liberty Street in order to build one. *Now that said building is going to be razed anyway, there may well still be an opportunity.

[georgejmyersjr]

How about the two French memorial designs, offered just after the tragedy? I hope they were included in the competition. I still remember, wasn't it the day before, the NYPD disentangled the para-sailer from the torch of the Statue of Liberty? My grandmother when 16, was a nanny there for the caretaker, they used to call her "Bedloe's Nanny," Ms. Gregory.

(Edited by georgejmyersjr at 11:37 pm on July 27, 2003)

[Harmonicaman]

I'm quite certain the jury will instantly reject any memorial proposal that even remotely resembles a "gift from the French".

[JMGarcia]

The general public has proven again and again that they are unable to conceptualize in the least from massing models or site plans or for that matter even renderings. I think any request for public feedback on something as conceptual as a site plan only is a certain failure.

Even the more educated among the public, the first question that would be asked when looking at a site plan is how tall/big are the buildings. The answer to that is, of course, a massing model and we all saw how unsuccessful that approach was.

As far as the proposals themselves go, I still maintain that the memorial setting itself was least restricted by Libeskind. Consider...

SOM
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_c/slides/images/Slide5.jpg
A thin strip of land along Vesey St. Deemed as inadequate.

Meier
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/images/Slide8.jpg
The reflecting pools in the footprints, grand archways entering the site, and "shadow parks" leave only small, although numerous, pockets for other memorial contributions.

Petersen/Littenberg
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_b/slides/images/Slide4.jpg
One footprint conained a reflecting pool, the other an amphitheater. There is no other space for the memorial other than the already designed, sunken parkland between the two.

UA
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/images/Slide4.jpg
The sunken footprints are completely overwhelmed by the "cathedral" of the towers and can therefore not create any sort of independent statement. The memorial area in the building is also extremely restricted. How can anything inside a tower be otherwise.

Foster
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_a/slides/images/Slide7.jpg
This plan left absolutely no area for any sort of separate memorial beyond what was in Foster's program. The footprints were designed as voids with their own viewing area.

THINK
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide41.jpg
THINK provided the platforms in the towers and reflecting fools in the footprints. Both memorial areas are completely defined by the towers themselves.

Libeskind
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/selected_libeskind/slides/images/Slide6.jpg
This is the largest memorial area of all the plans. The memorial area is defined on one side by the slurry wall. Whether it become central or incidental to the memorial is completely up to the designer of the memorial. The rest of the symbolism is in the commercial area of the site (the 1776ft tower, Heroes Park, Wedge of Light etc) and will have little impact on the memorial area. More imposing is the museum but this is also somewhat minimized by the expanse of the memorial area compared to the other plans.


(Edited by JMGarcia at 4:20 pm on July 28, 2003)

[TLOZ Link5]

Nice commentary, Garcia.

[Jasonik]

When the planning designs were comissioned, the order was not to design the memorial. When I first looked over all the designs I thought that the treatment of the footprints and memorial area were temporary and illustrative, not part of the criteria for which they would be judged. *On this basis my favorite was Foster's towers, the ground level could be reworked with the most freedom because he relied on height to replace the lost square footage.

I will grant that Libeskind's didactic slurry wall boundary guaranteed a certain amount of dedicated memorial space.

I feel that the quality and the prescriptive interpretation that came along with it were overbearing.

In the end the memorial is related to the development instead of the other way around.

If Pataki and Silverstein are going to make all the decisions anyway I would have rather they issued a siteplan with a memorial area demarcated and nothing else drawn, no streets no new buildings, maybe a transit station, then had a memorial competition to fill it.*If the LMDC played this as their first card instead of pretending to get a public response on how the site should be rebuilt we would be in better shape IMHO. *After the memorial is decided, then hold a competition to redevelop, that can second guess the assumptions made in the initial closed door scheme.

-basically if Pataki chose a BBB design privately, and had the LMDC place a memorial within it via a competition with the big name guys brought in at the end to develop the site around the memorial.

This could still happen I guess, but its too late for me because I showed a deference to Libeskind's design in my submission.

I hope I don't come across as a whiner, in hindsight the process has been quite convoluted IMO.

[JMGarcia]

It also interesting that the majority of the designers (THINK, Libeskind, P/L, UA, Foster) chose to depress their main memorial area. Meier walked a line between both. Only SOM had a fully above ground/street level memorial area.

[georgejmyersjr]

In one of the "invitations to a memorial design" was one, for example, that rebuilt the walls of the towers in their original location, the outside walls and arches, the space however, was open and the memorial was a planted formal garden included in one or both of the 100' high or so "shells". I am not sure the architect, I believe based out on Long Island. It very dramatically reminded one of what was there and what now wasn't. Just one of many memorial designs submitted to CNN, which had an active site for ideas.

(Edited by georgejmyersjr at 4:42 pm on July 28, 2003)

[Chicagoan]

Hmm. Where do I star. JMGarcia, I really like the commentary accompanying the pictures and the way you presented your argument. Very admirable.

Jasonik wrote it very succinctly. The development of the master plan really should have had nothing to do with the public. The fact that the general public has difficulty in understanding/conceptulizing the aspects of the master plan should have been the driving force behind why the LMDC should have been very "hush-hush" about that phase of the process.

As Jasonik correctly put, the LMDC specified designing an appropriate site for the memorial and not the memorial itself. I too thought that all the memorial proposals included with the master plans were there to show the possiblities of the site. I felt that Libeskind did exactly the opposite (largely at least).

But JMG, if the criteria is a mater of size/volume/area, I cannot see how the Meier and Foster plans not beat out the Libeskind plan. As I noted elswhere here the other buildings that will be constructed along the north and east flanks of Libeskind plan will also be overbearing. The renderings included in his plan are very misleading ( although I do not think this was intentional).

If the criteria is context I think that the Foster and Meier proposals are also more appropriate. What you described in each of those proposals are things that help reinforce and demarcate the memorial area. The actual portions falling onto the memorial area are just prescriptive.

But I will go one step further and bear it all out right here. What bothers me about the Libeskind proposal is the context, both physical and .... intellectual.

"Memory Foundations by Studio Daniel Libeskind leaves portions of the slurry wall exposed as a symbol of the strength and endurance of American democracy..."

"The foundations withstood the unimaginable trauma of the destruction and stand as eloquent as the Constitution itself asserting the durability of Democracy and the value of individual life..."

"We all came to see the site, more than 4 million of us, walking around it, peering through the construction wall, trying to understand that tragic vastness. So I designed an elevated walkway, a space for a Memorial promenade encircling the memorial site. Now everyone can see not only Ground Zero but the resurgence of life."

"The sky will be home again to a towering spire of 1776 feet high, the "Gardens of the World". Why gardens? Because gardens are a constant affirmation of life. A skyscraper rises above its predecessors, reasserting the pre-eminence of freedom and beauty, restoring the spiritual peak to the city, creating an icon that speaks of our vitality in the face of danger and our optimism in the aftermath of tragedy."

"Life victorious."

These are actual snipets from Libeskind's proposal. Unlike the other proposals, the context was left largely to the observer to read it and make of it what we wish. This also was one of the statements in the mission for the design of the memorial. Not just differing perspectives, but also evolving ones.

In essence I feel that he has already told all of us, layman, designers, family members of victims, etc how to feel about this tragedy. Well what if someone does not interpret the context as Libeskind does? What happens then?

[JMGarcia]

The development of the master plan really should have had nothing to do with the public. The fact that the general public has difficulty in understanding/conceptulizing the aspects of the master plan should have been the driving force behind why the LMDC should have been very "hush-hush" about that phase of the process.
There is simply no way they would have ever got away with that politically in NY at this site.

But JMG, if the criteria is a mater of size/volume/area, I cannot see how the Meier and Foster plans not beat out the Libeskind plan.
How can you compare the size of the empty pit in Libeskind's plan with the 2 encased voids which are proscribed to be empty? The Foster site is obviously smaller. The park on the deck in the Foster plan is not available for the memorial. Likewise the plaza in the Meier plan is not available for the memorial.

These are actual snipets from Libeskind's proposal. Unlike the other proposals, the context was left largely to the observer to read it and make of it what we wish. This also was one of the statements in the mission for the design of the memorial. Not just differing perspectives, but also evolving ones.
I don't know if you saw the presentations but Foster eaxed on for quite a bit about the "voids" and then took us on a tour of the memorial "experience" both at ground level on below as seen through the eyes of a child in a red dress a la Schindler's list. Meier went much the same route with the shadow park. Is this really any different from the elements in Libeskind's design?

http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/images/Slide15.jpg

In essence I feel that he has already told all of us, layman, designers, family members of victims, etc how to feel about this tragedy. Well what if someone does not interpret the context as Libeskind does? What happens then?
I feel he presented his point of view and his point of view was chosen. It is inherent in any design that the designer's point of view will be presented. I am sure whatever is chosen for the actual memorial will reflect that designers point of view. It is simply impossible for something to represent all different things to all different people.

[Chicagoan]

Okay.

[JMGarcia]

Trade Center Is on Track, Downtown Residents Say

By EDWARD WYATT
NY Times

Residents of Lower Manhattan say the effort to rebuild downtown and the World Trade Center is moving in the right direction, and they are generally satisfied with the new design for the World Trade Center site, according to a poll by Pace University released yesterday.

But many downtown residents say that some of the power to make decisions about the rebuilding should be in different hands.

For example, when asked who should have responsibility for deciding about an appropriate memorial at the trade center site, the largest portion, 40 percent of those polled, said the decisions should be made by the families of those killed there. Almost none named the official jury of 13 people appointed by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which includes only one family member.

Nearly two-thirds of the residents said Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg should have influence over the rebuilding, while fewer than half said Gov. George E. Pataki should be influential. The two leaders have sparred over a number of rebuilding issues, but Mr. Pataki has generally exercised more influence over big decisions.

"That shows that Mayor Bloomberg has the largest mandate for guiding the rebuilding process," said Jonathan Trichter, the founder and director of the Pace Poll, a new polling center supported by Pace University. He added that the poll results also showed that the rebuilding effort was being "intensely scrutinized."

The Pace center, which questioned 601 randomly selected downtown residents over nine days this month by phone, says it plans to track the opinions of downtown residents every six months to gauge opinions of the effort and to stimulate discussion about the rebuilding. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.

Most downtown residents surveyed appear to have formed opinions about the progress of the rebuilding effort, Mr. Trichter said. Six out of 10 people said they were keeping up with the rebuilding process, he said, although less than one-fourth had participated in the planning meetings or hearings.

Roughly half said they felt the effort was moving in the right direction, compared with 25 percent who said things were on the wrong track. The remainder expressed no opinion.

Two-thirds also said they knew something about the new design for the trade center site, developed by Daniel Libeskind, and 46 percent said they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the design. That compares with 29 percent who said they were not satisfied; the remainder had no opinion or said they did not know enough to judge.

Mr. Trichter noted that 33 percent were able to respond accurately when asked, in an open-ended question, to name the architect. "That is astonishingly high when you consider that most Americans struggle to name their own representative to Congress," he said.

Downtown residents also rated several objectives as having high importance, including the rebuilding of commercial space at the trade center site, the selection of an appropriate memorial and the construction of a major transportation center in Lower Manhattan.

Receiving lower relative ratings were the transformation of Fulton Street, reconfiguring downtown streets to improve access, and making sidewalks wider and more attractive to improve pedestrian traffic.

More than 60 percent of those questioned also said they believed the cleanup and monitoring of air quality downtown had gone very well or somewhat well, twice the percentage who responded negatively to the question.

[Harmonicaman]

Above quote: *"For example, when asked who should have responsibility for deciding about an appropriate memorial at the trade center site, the largest portion, 40 percent of those polled, said the decisions should be made by the families of those killed there."

Obviously this is not a very sensible idea. *It would quickly bring about anarchy and chaos at the WTC site. *A few very vocal mega-memorialists or fam-a-Nazis would try to take control of the project and force their personal views on every facet of the decision making process. *Absolutely nothing would get done and the rebuilding would never happen.

This is why it is a good idea that a non-partial and experienced jury makes the important decisions. *The families of the victims should rightly be allowed to voice their opinions about the process and the design; but they have no experience and too much emotional baggage and special interests to actually be permitted to control the process. *

Just like a doctor shouldn't operate on himself, the rebuilding should be left in the hands of professionals.

[Jasonik]

33% could name Libeskind; I wonder how many could name any of the jury members, much less judge their qualifications.

I wonder if the question went something like, " should the memorial be chosen by a jury with only one family member, or should it be chosen by all the family members?" *

[JMGarcia]

Another slant on the poll...

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 29, 2003--A new survey of 601 Lower Manhattan residents has found they are closely following plans to rebuild the World Trade Center (WTC), according to the Pace Poll, a new center for research on social, economic and political affairs at Pace University.

* *Replacing commercial space is among the most important priorities for residents, and most are strongly supportive of having the area's businesses and private interests play an influential role in redevelopment, along with Mayor Bloomberg - but not Governor Pataki or the families of those lost on 9/11, according to the Pace Poll.

* *Six out of ten (61 percent) residents follow the latest developments about rebuilding most or some of the time, and nearly seven out of ten (69 percent) discuss these issues with their neighbors.

* *One in five (20 percent) residents say they know "a lot" about the new plan to develop the World Trade Center site; 44 percent say they know something about it. And significantly, 33 percent can recall Daniel Libeskind's name when asked to identify its designer. Nearly half (49 percent) of downtown residents think the redevelopment effort is on the right track.

* *"The Pace Poll is meant to promote open discussion on community issues and current affairs," said David A. Caputo, President of Pace University. "The Pace Poll is one of a number of University initiatives, along with the Center for Downtown New York, intended to serve the community as a research, academic and leadership partner."

* *The Pace Poll rebuilding survey found that replacing commercial space is among the most important priorities for residents (72 percent). Also, a significant percentage (55 percent) say the construction of commercial space on the site of the soon-to-be-razed Deutsch Bank Building would play an important part in improving the quality of life in Lower Manhattan.

* *Sixty-four percent of residents think Lower Manhattan businesses should be "extremely" or "very" influential in the rebuilding process. That is more than those who think that about Mayor Bloomberg (62 percent), Governor Pataki (47 percent), and the families of those lost on 9/11 (40 percent). It is almost as much as residents think that about themselves (69 percent).

* *"For Lower Manhattan residents, the identity of the World Trade Center site is not wrapped up wholly in its commemorative potential," said Jonathan Trichter, Director of the Pace Poll. "In addition to the memorial that must minister to the remembrance of those who were lost that day, Lower Manhattan residents want the area returned to its economic function and, to the extent it's required, its commercial form."

* *Lower Manhattan residents are divided on whether all commercial space lost on 9/11 should be replaced, with 46 percent in favor of it. On the other hand, 44 percent would favor having the government take control if the developers who control the WTC rights decide to build too much commercial space.

* *Opinions about Memorial Selection

* *Downtown residents also are paying careful attention to the selection of an appropriate memorial. When asked who should be responsible for deciding its composition, 41 percent of residents name - without any prompting - the families of those who were lost. Virtually none name the official jury of 13 appointed by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, who will judge the memorial competition.

* *The Pace Poll found that a single memorial that equally recognizes all who were lost is the preferred model (50 percent). A single memorial that honors everyone who was lost and that especially identifies firefighters and rescue workers is less popular (25 percent). And two memorials, one that honors the firefighters and rescue workers and one for others who were lost, is the least popular alternative (21 percent).

* *"A single, uniform memorial could lead to friction among firefighters, police officers, rescue workers and the families of workers lost in the towers," Trichter said. "One of these groups could feel marginalized and conclude they aren't receiving due recognition."

* *Leadership

* *In an open-ended question asking residents to name the one public official they think is most in charge and responsible for rebuilding, a strong plurality (39 percent) name Mayor Bloomberg; only 24 percent name Governor Pataki. In addition, 62 percent of Lower Manhattan residents think Mayor Bloomberg should be "extremely" or "very" influential in the rebuilding process. And the mayor is the only elected official close to rebuilding who receives a passable performance rating for his actions to date in the rebuilding effort. According to the poll, the mayor receives a 57 percent neutral-to-positive rating on his performance, versus a 48 percent such rating for the governor.

* *"The poll shows that Mayor Bloomberg has the largest mandate for guiding the rebuilding process," said Trichter. "Objectively, the mayor's performance rating on rebuilding is thus far fair. Nonetheless, he is presented with an opportunity to exert popular leadership. Becoming involved more visibly in the rebuilding process would be a practical way for him to connect with downtown New Yorkers."

* *The Pace Poll is an independent initiative backed by the resources of Pace University, a nationally and internationally recognized education leader in a range of academic and professional programs. By routinely measuring regional and national public opinion on both long-standing and timely topics of civic life, the Pace Poll will help public opinion play a more visible role in the open discussion of current affairs. Director Jonathan Trichter is in charge of all survey research and analysis associated with the Pace Poll.

* *This rebuilding benchmark survey is the first part of a tracking study to be fielded every six months and through the remainder of the redevelopment effort. The results are based on telephone interviews conducted from July 9-17, 2003, with 601 Lower Manhattan residents (living below 14th Street) 18 years of age or older. The sample consisted of phone numbers selected via random digit dial from among exchanges that ensured regions were represented in proportion to their population. The results of the benchmark survey are statistically significant within a +/- 4% margin of error at a 95% level of confidence. Error margins increase for cross-tabulations. Though the Pace Poll adheres to strict methodological standards, the practical elements of fielding any survey can introduce additional sources of error.

* *CONTACT: Pace University, New York
* * * * * * Chris Cory, 212-346-1117
* * * * * * www.pace.edu/pacepollpress
* * * * * * *or
* * * * * * M Booth & Associates, New York
* * * * * * Raina Grossman/Richmond Temple, 212-481-7000

[georgejmyersjr]

Tragically, the night I attended a party in the "Astra" across from the Bloomberg building going up in mid-town near the Queensboro Bridge, an employee slipped to his death in the construction of the building.

I read somewhere that these "statistics" are often included in the plans as part of the insurance. I work in historic archaeology and have been in the "footprint" of some of the buildings that have gone up in Lower Manhattan, and it is always a heartbreak to hear. I suppose any phase of construction has its risks.

The African Burial Ground, whose original archaeologist and researcher, "Big-Ed" Rutsch, for whom there was a memorial tribute at Liberty Park in NJ this last Saturday, also had a competition for a memorial, funded by the US Government. Many designs were submitted, one chosen, and the whole lot put on display at the New York State Museum, where I saw them. All were then "thrown out" and a new design process started.


(Edited by georgejmyersjr at 6:24 pm on July 29, 2003)

[Jasonik]

Does Bloomberg have the 'largest mandate' because he hasn't yet been involved, ergo -unable to make backlash causing mistakes?

*
*"A single, uniform memorial could lead to friction among firefighters, police officers, rescue workers and the families of workers lost in the towers," Trichter said. "One of these groups could feel marginalized and conclude they aren't receiving due recognition."

What a completely distasteful notion; to treat such an outcome as an acceptable and likely reaction should enrage all the families because it assumes they are a petty, factionalized, insensitive, and selfish lot who don't have the class or decency to come together around their commonality, but assume a combative and divisive dimeanor due to their differences. *Its so sad that heretofore this is the impression they have given, and now this is what is expected of them. *It makes my heart sink.

(Why is there so little faith in the memorial designers?)

[Harmonicaman]

I agree with Member Jasonik; why can't people just get along! *The "Memorial" is going to be appropriate - that's a given. *Why all this unseemly and rancorous debate over trifles; and unknown trifles at that?


----------------------------------------

I thought this item might be of interest - and it has a personal touch...

HHS grad Lance Klein is in New York City this summer to contribute to the rebuilding at Ground Zero

By: Janet Hamous, HFP

Hillsboro High School graduate Lance Klein planned to spend the summer restoring the old house he and wife Melanie bought in Manhattan in April.
But when he got a call in May asking him to join a team of people to create a master plan for Ground Zero, the area of New York City devastated by the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001, he gladly laid down his hammer and paintbrush and headed east.

Klein was born in Hillsboro and grew up in Durham, where parents Bob and LaDonna still live.

After graduating from HHS in 1992, Klein attended Kansas State University, where he graduated in 1996 with a degree in landscape architecture.

Until his return to Kansas last August, he had worked in Denver as a landscape architect.

While in Denver, Klein had the opportunity to work with Studio Libeskind, a design firm owned by Daniel Libeskind, on the Denver Art Museum expansion project.

That association proved to be a lucky break for Klein.

Libeskind's design for rebuilding the World Trade Center site was selected last February as the winner in a highly publicized competition of top architects. His vision for Ground Zero will serve as the master plan for the site.

When experts were needed to begin fleshing out the plan, Klein's name came up.

"They had moved to Manhattan a year ago and had just purchased a house," LaDonna said. "He was starting to tear into that the day they called him and asked him.

"It took a week to decide, but it was one of those decisions you couldn't say no to."

Lance Klein agreed: "My wife and I both came out here to work on it."

Melanie, also an architect, is a professor at K-State in the College of Architecture.

Lance Klein said the initial work is to create a master plan for the eight-block site.

"Right now, everybody's working on the master plan, which is not the final design - it's the early design," Klein said. "I'm working on all the open spaces-all the streets and the parks and plazas on the exterior."

He said they are starting from scratch in deciding where streets and open spaces will go.

"A lot of the work involves connecting to the surrounding streets and re-establishing the grid of the city," he said.

"The previous site created what people called the 'Mega Block.' None of the streets went through, and it kind of isolated it from the rest of the city.

"So part of the idea with this plan is to reestablish it as part of the city and have it be a part of the fabric.

"The biggest consideration for the space now is how it functions from an urban standpoint for the city and how people who live and work in the area and people visiting the memorial can use those spaces."

Klein said the project calls for four new towers, a transit stop, museum and a performing arts center in addition to a memorial.

"(Libeskind) laid out everything and selected the site for the memorial and the location for the towers and the other buildings," he said.

Plan calls for a tower that will be 1,776 feet high, symbolizing the year of American independence.

"It's planned to be the tallest building in the world," Klein said.

The memorial will be located within the site where Klein is working, but its design is actually a separate project, he said. It will stand in an area that encompasses the "footprints" of the twin towers and will be designed by the winner of an international competition.

"They had several thousand entrants for that," Klein said. "The deadline closed the 30th of June, so they're reviewing the different designs, and they're going to select up to five and then have those five work through it again."

He said the more contemplative aspect of the tribute to 9/11 will happen at the memorial itself, "but there are some subtle things that are done on the rest of the landscape to commemorate that."

Klein will be in New York until the end of September, when his part of the project is completed. Melanie will return to Kansas in August, when school begins.

"We feel very fortunate to be involved with the project," Klein said. "We spend a lot of hours up here, but it's a great team and we enjoy working with everybody. "


©Hillsboro Free Press 2003 *

[Jasonik]

Poll backs single 9/11 memorial

*I thought I would introduce this interpretation of the poll for the record.


By GREG GITTRICH
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER


Half of New Yorkers living downtown believe there should be a single memorial at Ground Zero - with no special distinction for slain firefighters and rescue workers, a new poll shows.

About 25% favor a memorial that honors everyone who died and "especially identifies the firefighters and rescue workers," according to the survey tobe released today by Pace University.

An even smaller group, 21%, says there should be two memorials at the disaster site - one for the rescue workers and one for everyone else who died.

"This is reassuring," said Jenny Farrell, whose brother James, an electrician, was killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "We must honor and recognize the heroic efforts of all those in and out of uniform equally."

The issue of how to honor the nearly 2,800 people who died at Ground Zero has been particularly emotional.

The Lower Manhattan Development Corp., which is overseeing the memorial design competition, passed a resolution this spring saying the tribute should "honor the loss of life equally and the contributions of all without establishing any hierarchies." But the decision is being left up to a special jury that will choose a design this fall.

Many firefighters - especially members of a group called Advocates for a 9/11 Fallen Heroes Memorial - continue to lobby for a memorial with distinction for the slain rescuers.

Pace surveyed 601 adults who live below 14th St. between July 9 and 17. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Originally published on July 29, 2003


(Edited by Jasonik at 7:04 pm on July 31, 2003)

[JMGarcia]

Doctoroff: Don't move Freedom Tower
By KAREN MATTHEWS
Associated Press Writer

July 31, 2003, 6:35 PM EDT


NEW YORK -- Daniel Libeskind's "Freedom Tower" should remain at the northwest corner of the World Trade Center site, Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff said in a letter Thursday that appeared to put City Hall in conflict with the private developer who holds the lease.

In a letter to Port Authority Executive Director Joseph Seymour, Doctoroff also said the 16-acre site cannot accommodate the 10 million square feet of office space sought by the leaseholder.

Doctoroff's comments are a response to trade center leaseholder Larry Silverstein's stated desire to move the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower from the spot designated by site architect Daniel Libeskind.

The Board of Commissioners for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the site, has made no decision on whether to move the tower. Doctoroff, who was out of town, did not attend Thursday's meeting.

Gerald McKelvey, a spokesman for Silverstein, said "we have not seen the letter and we have no comment."

Doctoroff said placing the tower on West Street, as Libeskind envisioned, will allow the building "to be a free-standing structure, separated from surrounding buildings by the width of West Street and by the memorial, not hemmed in by nearby buildings." Silverstein would like the tower moved closer to the transit hub planned at the site.

Silverstein's hand-picked architect, David Childs, was given the lead role in developing the tower, according to an agreement reached this month. He will work in collaboration with Libeskind, who designed the conceptual plan for the site.

Doctoroff also questioned the amount of office space sought by Silverstein. "Placing 10 million square feet of office space on the site destroys the possibility of achieving important goals, including creating bright, open streets with lively pedestrian activity and creating a grand point of arrival for Lower Manhattan," he said.

Doctoroff said the city would consider moving some of the office space planned for the rebuilt trade center to adjoining parcels, including the Deutsche Bank site on Liberty Street. The Deutsche Bank building is expected to be demolished.

Also Thursday, the Port Authority board authorized its staff to enter into a $3 million contract with Libeskind to provide ongoing design review.

In a statement, Libeskind said he was pleased the contract had been approved, adding that it "will put Studio Daniel Libeskind in place as master architect for long-term oversight of the development of the World Trade Center site."

---------------------------

The interesting thing here to me is the comment about the Deutsche Bank site being included in the design, as Libeskind's renderings show.

[Kris]

August 1, 2003

Trade Center Arguments Fade, and a Single Vision Is Emerging

By EDWARD WYATT

After months of arguing over Daniel Libeskind's winning design for the World Trade Center site, officials overseeing the rebuilding said yesterday that they had resolved most of their differences, and many agreed that the Libeskind plan was now likely to be built in substantially recognizable form.

Three developments, in particular, appeared to reflect a growing consensus on how the colossal project should take shape.

Yesterday, for example, in announcing that a renowned Spanish architect, Santiago Calatrava, had been selected to design the site's new transportation terminal, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the 16-acre trade center site, essentially ruled out the idea of building an office tower atop the terminal. That ensures that its presence will rival the 1,776-foot tower and the memorial to victims of the Sept. 11 attack as signature elements of the redevelopment.

Also yesterday, the Port Authority reached an agreement with the federal government that allows for the tower to be built on the northwest corner of the site, as Mr. Libeskind planned, rather than closer to the train station, as had been proposed by Larry A. Silverstein, the developer who holds the rights to office space at the site.

And the Bloomberg administration yesterday signaled its willingness to let the rebuilt trade center expand beyond its former boundaries, incorporating nearby parcels of privately owned land and allowing the dispersal of the 10 million square feet of office space into a less-crowded layout, as proposed by Mr. Libeskind.

Together, those developments put major rebuilding officials — in the mayor's and governor's offices, the Port Authority and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation — in agreement to a degree that has not occurred since the redevelopment project began.

"There's no question that everything is coming together," Charles A. Gargano, the vice chairman of the Port Authority, said yesterday. "I'm optimistic that things are now going to move forward very quickly."

City and state officials in particular have sparred over a number of issues recently, including the future of the development corporation and its $1.3 billion in remaining money for the rebuilding.

"There's been a lot of talking about critical issues that are necessary to resolve before the more detailed planning work can get done," Daniel L. Doctoroff, the deputy mayor for economic development and rebuilding, said yesterday.

"But we all feel under a significant amount of pressure to move this forward quickly," he added. "So we feel it's time to bring them to a close and move forward."

To be sure, some of the remaining details could become sticking points, and not all of the players may agree with the prescribed outcomes. While rebuilding officials say they have all but ruled out proposals by Mr. Silverstein to build an office tower over the train station and to move the 1,776-foot tower closer to the transportation hub, Mr. Silverstein's spokesman, Gerald McKelvey, said yesterday that he had not been told of those decisions and declined to comment further.

But in the three months since Gov. George E. Pataki outlined a speedy timeline for the beginning of construction on the site's major projects, several issues appear to have won the approval of participants on all sides.

Mr. Libeskind, for example, had initially expressed a desire to be the lead architect on the train station, which several officials have referred to as a downtown Grand Central Terminal. But just as with the iconic tower, which will be designed by Mr. Silverstein's chosen architect, Mr. Libeskind will accept a secondary role.

Because federal money will be used to build the station, the Federal Transit Administration required an architect with more experience on transportation projects. Now, Mr. Libeskind will set the "architectural design guidelines" for the terminal, while Mr. Calatrava will be the lead architect.

He will work as part of a team called the Downtown Design Partnership, a group that includes the engineering firms of DMJM+Harris and STV. Their work will include the design and engineering of the terminal and the underground concourses connecting the PATH commuter lines and the subway lines that run through or near the site.

In a statement yesterday, Mr. Libeskind called Mr. Calatrava's work outstanding, adding, "Today is a great day in the rebirth of Lower Manhattan."

Mr. Calatrava's office in Zurich is closed until mid-August, and his spokeswoman in the United States said he was traveling and could not be reached for comment.

The selection of Mr. Calatrava pleasantly surprised many of the civic and architecture groups that have closely followed the rebuilding effort. Mr. Calatrava is known primarily for his designs of railway stations and bridges throughout Europe. He has also designed the roof of the Athens Olympic Stadium for the 2004 Games and an addition to the Milwaukee Art Museum.

"He's the poet of the train station," said Fredric Bell, the executive director of the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects.

"His designs capture the spirit of movement," he added. "They are not static. Everything is moving and dynamic. I think he will be a true complement to the Libeskind plan."

Because both Mr. Libeskind and Mr. Calatrava are known for their strong personalities, it is unlikely that they will agree on everything.

But Terence Riley, chief curator of architecture and design at the Museum of Modern Art, said, "The chances for success are more than reasonable as long as it is very clear what each architect is responsible for."

Other important agreements regarding the trade center also appear to have emerged recently. The Port Authority has been studying where to place the security screening areas to be used by trucks making deliveries to buildings on the trade center site.

Rather than restore them directly beneath the site, the agency's engineers have pushed to place them beneath two sites immediately south of Liberty Street that are currently occupied by the Deutsche Bank building, which will be torn down, and a parking lot.

Those sites are being considered for some of the office space that would be moved off of the trade center property. Mr. Doctoroff said yesterday that he agreed that the areas beneath those sites could be better for truck screening.

The Port Authority also has agreed with federal officials that the United States Customs House, which formerly occupied the northwest corner of the site, will be moved to another portion of the site, freeing that corner for Mr. Libeskind's 1,776-foot tower.

Kevin Rampe, the president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, said details remain to be worked out.

"I don't want to be Pollyannaish," he said. "But all of the critical issues where there's been disagreement have either been decided or are nearing resolution."


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

(Edited by Christian Wieland at 2:53 am on Aug. 1, 2003)

[Kris]

August 4, 2003

Downtown's Architectural Promise

Not that long ago, it looked as though the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site might be slipping into the mundane track of ordinary commercial construction. The selection of Daniel Libeskind's dramatic plan was all well and good, but the real question was whether the economic and political realities of Lower Manhattan would allow the design to survive in any recognizable form, and whether it would inspire other architects of equal renown. For a while, all the moving parts in the reconstruction of ground zero seemed to be going in different directions toward what might have been, at best, architectural and civic banality and, at worst, incoherence. That risk is still present, but it has been greatly reduced by a number of significant decisions, agreements and compromises over the past few weeks.

Perhaps the most important of these is the bold choice of Santiago Calatrava, the Spanish architect, to design a new PATH terminal on the site of the World Trade Center. Mr. Calatrava is a master of transportation architecture, and his selection provides just the kind of commitment to serious architecture that this page has often hoped for. His open, organic structures are startlingly beautiful, often evoking the kind of uplifting spirituality that this site will need. The fact that Mr. Calatrava was chosen by the Port Authority suggests that even the most matter-of-fact participants in rebuilding ground zero can see the wonder of its possibilities.

That good news comes hand in hand with an effort by the Port Authority to expand the redevelopment of ground zero onto adjacent private property, perhaps including the Deutsche Bank building, which must be taken down as a result of 9/11 damage. This offers an opportunity to shift some commercial space off the trade center site, and to make it easier to treat part of ground zero as sacred space. These sound like small increments in the overall plan for Lower Manhattan, but they offer signs of a planning flexibility — and a meeting of many minds — that bodes well.

Any number of critical moments still await us, including the memorial design competition and the trial that will settle the question of how much insurance money is available for rebuilding. The political and economic machinery of redevelopment could hardly be more intricate than it is in Lower Manhattan, and it will take the good will of all concerned, as well as the vigilant supervision of Gov. George Pataki, to keep all the parts working together and moving forward. Even now, with the site dominated by building equipment and construction workers, thousands of visitors come each day to pay tribute, to imagine what happened on Sept. 11 and to think about what should replace that vast open pit. The possibilities are now more exciting than they have ever been.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Jasonik]

Downtown Express


Downtowners brainstorm at L.M.D.C. workshops

Before the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. had a staff or an office, John Whitehead, the agency’s chairperson, in Jan. 2002 said it was “the only organization in history to get over $2 billion that we never asked for.” Now with about $1.3 billion of federal money left to spend, the L.M.D.C. has begun a series of invitation-only neighborhood workshops to get feedback on how best to use the money.

The first two of six brainstorming sessions were held in the Financial District and Battery Park City last week and many of the participants said they were glad they went.

Catherine Hughes, a Financial District resident whose apartment overlooks the World Trade Center site, said it was the best of many similar workshops she has attended because at this one, everyone had strong ties to Lower Manhattan.

“You have people who live and work and are invested in the community,” said Hughes, a member of Community Board 1. “You don’t have people from other places saying ‘restore the skyline.’ They don’t have to walk past the garbage.”

The L.M.D.C. has invited up to 100 residents, business people and leaders of Downtown non-profit institutions to each of the forums. Kevin Rampe, L.M.D.C. president made opening remarks at the first session Tuesday, and Daniel Doctoroff, deputy mayor of economic development and rebuilding, spoke at the one in Battery Park City. They said they will use the information at the meetings to help them make decisions about Downtown’s future.

This week, there will be workshops in the City Hall/Seaport area and Chinatown. Next week the sessions will cover Tribeca/Soho and the Lower East Side/Little Italy.

Kelly Clarke, a Battery Park City resident whose brother died in the W.T.C., may have been the only participant last week who lost a close relative to the Sept. 11 attack. She said discussing the neighborhood issues in small groups reduced the tensions between 9/11 family members and residents. “Everyone was respectful,” Clarke said Thursday as she was leaving the B.P.C. meeting. “There wasn’t a lot of anger like there was at other meetings.”

Clarke, who was profiled in the June 17 issue of Downtown Express, moved Downtown from New Jersey so she could be closer to the place where her brother died. She said she came to the meeting to give her thoughts about making the pedestrian crossings at West St. safer and heard many good ideas on other subjects from her neighbors. In particular, she liked the idea of turning the closed 10/10 firehouse across the street from the W.T.C. into a fire museum/memorial and opening a new firehouse in Battery Park City, closer to where more people live.

The subject of West St. was a dominant theme at just about all of the tables at the B.P.C. session. At least one person at almost every table expressed opposition to a proposed vehicular tunnel along West St., either because of the costs, the construction disruption or skepticism about whether the tunnel would ease pedestrian connections.

At the Financial District session, the tunnel was hardly mentioned. At both meetings, there was a lot of concern about the amount of construction being planned in and around the W.T.C. site.

“If you have construction going on all of the time and you’re hearing the jack hammering, it is really difficult to live in a place like that,” said Katy Popielarczyk, 24, who lives in the Wall St. area.

One participant, an executive at a large Downtown department store, said she felt the meetings were too geared to residents and did not focus enough on business needs such as easing traffic problems.. In particular, the executive, who requested anonymity, said the city move to close Church St. and make it into a bus lane has made it harder for customers to get to the store. She did say she felt comfortable expressing her views at the forum.

There was a lot of support for improving parks and creating programs, spaces and housing for local artists at the workshops. There was strong support for building a connection to the Long Island Rail Road and J.F.K. Airport at the Wall St. session.

“You’ve got to bring in that transportation center because the businesses are going to leave,” said Donald Simone, a partner at Thacher Proffitt & Wood. The mid-sized law firm had offices in the W.T.C. and plans to move from its temporary Midtown home to the World Financial Center around Labor Day. Simone said he was skeptical that business people would take a train to the airport, but he thought a new commuter connection was essential.

One Battery Park City resident, Victor Chiu, said he was concerned about what will happen once the $280 million in federal grants to encourage residents to move and stay Downtown runs out. He said there needs to be other incentives to get people to stay past the two year commitment that the L.M.D.C. program requires. “What’s going to happen after the grants are over,” Chiu asked.

[JMGarcia]

That is so bad on so many levels I don't even know where to start. The idea that people should be permanently subsidized to live in a neighborhood is especially bad though.

The workshops should be titled "let us know what's best for you personally in the short term".

[Agglomeration]

I'm glad I never have attended these 'workshops'. The LMDC is a mediocre bureaucracy whose members mostly do the bidding of the Pataki Administration.

[Jasonik]

They are invite only.

[NYguy]

Daily News...

Ground Zero growth plan

By MAGGIE HABERMAN and GREG GITTRICH

The boundaries of Ground Zero would grow significantly to accommodate a new park and better safeguards against terrorist strikes, under a revised master plan obtained by the Daily News.
The scheme, being crafted by planning officials, preserves the vision of architect Daniel Libeskind while alleviating many problems that have plagued the rebuilding process.

The Port Authority, which owns Ground Zero, is seeking to expand the 16-acre site to the south by acquiring both the abandoned Deutsche Bank tower and an adjacent parking lot on Liberty St.

With the added acreage, hundreds of delivery trucks could be routed away from the Ground Zero memorial to an underground security checkpoint below the new 1-acre park - a safe distance from the site's skyscrapers, memorial and museum.

If Ground Zero is not expanded, PA planners contend that the truck ramp would jut into the memorial area.

The underground security checkpoint would have to sit below a museum planned for the site and above the PATH platform - creating considerable safety concerns.

PA officials oppose that plan and say adding land is a must. The acreage sought by the PA also would allow the proposed 10 million square feet of office space to be more spread out.

"It gives us more breathing room," PA Executive Director Joseph Seymour said yesterday.

The scheme still must be approved by a committee of officials from the PA, Gov. Pataki's office and City Hall. Financial obstacles remain.

Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff signaled last week the city would be open to expanding Ground Zero. But he said the city would insist that the PA pay full taxes on any new property - something it does not do at the disaster site.

Doctoroff also has said the city opposes using any of the $1 billion in federal aid held by the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. to expand the rebuilding site.

"The issue of how to pay for it is still the open question," Doctoroff said yesterday.

Despite City Hall's objections, Seymour said the PA believes some of the federal aid should be used to expand the site. "The money that has been dedicated to the site should stay on the site ... and should not be used to do other things that are outside the World Trade Center and the immediate vicinity," he said.

The PA or Empire State Development Corp. could acquire the new land, Seymour said.

Environmental concerns also have to be resolved, as some planners are concerned that fumes from the trucks could waft to the memorial, LMDC President Kevin Rampe said.

"The memorial remains our primary focus," Rampe said.

The 40-story Deutsche Bank building, which was damaged by the collapsing twin towers, is expected to be demolished.

Under the master plan, an office tower would rise on the southern end of the bank property. The northern end of the bank property and the parking lot would be turned into a 1-acre park.

Larry Silverstein, who signed a 99-year lease for the twin towers only weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, is expected to pay for much of the rebuilding with insurance proceeds from the towers.

Silverstein's spokesman said the developer would not oppose shifting office space to the Deutsche Bank land.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I wonder if rebuilding the St Nicholas Church is still planned for the parking lot.

St Nicholas (http://www.stnicholasnyc.com/index.asp)

[TLOZ Link5]

I thought that St. Nicholas was going to be rebuilt right at its former site.

The PA's proposal for the Deutsche Bank site is certainly heartening. *The relocation of the proposed bus depot to that site should placate the family groups who opposed the original plan to build underneath the memorial site.

[ZippyTheChimp]

The site of the church was in the parking lot. I think it's strange that it wasn't mentioned in the article - especially since the church owned the land on which it stood.

[TLOZ Link5]

Has there been any news of the congregation's intentions for their property? *Are they concerned with rebuilding in general, or rebuilding on that particular site?

[NoyokA]

I remember reading the church has no intentions of rebuilding and has already agreed to sell.

[NYguy]

Daily News...

Fund feud may slow WTC tower

By MAGGIE HABERMAN and GREG GITTRICH

Gov. Pataki's push to lay the cornerstone for Ground Zero rebuilding by next August may be a bust because of a nasty money fight, the Daily News has learned.

A financial battle between the Port Authority, developer Larry Silverstein and his mortgage company is jeopardizing the schedule - which would see construction of the world's tallest tower begin around the 2004 GOP National Convention.

Each of the three warring parties has significant say over how insurance proceeds from the twin towers are used.

But Silverstein is insisting that the timetable for the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower will be delayed unless his lender - GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corp. - is bought out, sources said.

Silverstein's problems with GMAC date to January 2002, when the company sued him, charging he was misusing insurance money to hire lobbyists and lawyers.

Silverstein's high-priced consultants include several hired guns with sway in Washington, such as Brad Card, brother of White House chief of staff Andrew Card, and Jack Quinn, who was White House counsel for President Bill Clinton.

Former Deputy Mayor Peter Powers, former Pataki law partner William Plunkett and lawyer Herbert Wachtell are also are on the Silverstein team.

Silverstein's spokesman Howard Rubenstein would not discuss GMAC but defended Silverstein's use of the insurance.

"All the money that comes in and that is expended is for project-related expenses. Every penny," he said. "That would include lobbyists and information specialists and lawyers. For this project to move forward, those elements are really essential."

Rubenstein said Silverstein is "hopeful in meeting the governor's timetable" for the tower. He declined further comment.

The developer's legal skirmish with GMAC has been settled. But Silverstein and GMAC - which loaned him $560 million for the twin towers' lease shortly before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks - continue to battle, sources said.

Silverstein believes GMAC is stalling the rebuilding process and wants the PA to side with him and buy out the company, sources said.

The PA has balked so far.

Silverstein initially brought up the idea before Pataki set the tower deadline in April and has used the threat of a delay to press his case, sources said.

The PA board has reviewed the buyout twice and talks continue, sources said.

"The PA doesn't want to write Larry a blank check," said one official.

PA officials told The News that the rebuilding schedule is still on track. But they conceded that the timetable already was lickety-split and any major holdups could wreak havoc.

PA officials said the authority sees some benefit in paying off GMAC, but the agency also values GMAC for helping to rein in Silverstein's demands.

"We want to make sure that as much money as possible goes into actual planning and rebuilding," said a PA official.

Most of the insurance money is tied up in court as Silverstein battles roughly 20 insurers. Yet, $1.3 billion is already in escrow. PA spokesman Greg Trevor declined comment. A GMAC spokeswoman said it has not been party to buyout talks.

[Anonymous]

Well, if Larry was using insurance proceeds for lobbying, etc., then I'd be ticked too if I were the mortgage company. *

[Freedom Tower]

Hey, at least it sounds like they will build something to replace Deustche Bank. However, hopefully it will not be included in the 10 million sq feet, then all the buildings will be shorter and slimmer. Not to mention, all the space Deustche Bank had will be lost. This is getting ridiculous. They still haven't even decided on a basic plan on where to put everything. I really doubt that construction on the Freedom Tower will begin next summer. It is getting delayed way too much. :( *

(Edited by Freedom Tower at 9:16 am on Aug. 7, 2003)

[NYguy]

Libeskind's current plan for the site already does include the Deustche Bank building site - its where the 5th tower will be located. *Everything will stay where planned, including the Freedom Tower.

(Daily News)

Silverstein wants WTC stores, too

By GREG GITTRICH and MAGGIE HABERMAN

Ground Zero developer Larry Silverstein wants control over the whole rebuilt site - including the mall.
Silverstein, who holds a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center site's once-and-future office towers, has begun negotiations with Westfield America to buy out the rights to operate the retail portion of the planned complex, sources said yesterday.

Officials at Westfield, which ran the below-street-level concourse before the Sept. 11 attacks, don't like the plan for rebuilding the shopping mall - with hundreds of square feet of space stacked above ground.

Although the company has denied wanting a lease buyout, sources said Westfield has approached several potential buyers - including City Hall.

Related Cos., run by developer Steve Ross, also is interested in the retail lease, sources said.

Silverstein wants the lease because Westfield claims to have veto power over decisions he makes about rebuilding, according to sources.

But the prospect of Silverstein's undisputed control over rebuilding decisions has some officials concerned - particularly amid disagreements over what kinds of stores there should be at Ground Zero.

Westfield officials declined comment, as did Silverstein.

Officials said the site's owner, the Port Authority, likely would have to approve any kind of buyout.

The Daily News reported yesterday that Silverstein wants the PA to pay back GMAC Commercial Mortgage, the company that helped him buy the original lease, so he can have greater control over decisions.

(Edited by NYguy at 7:30 am on Aug. 8, 2003)

[ZippyTheChimp]

But the prospect of Silverstein's undisputed control over rebuilding decisions has some officials concerned - particularly amid disagreements over what kinds of stores there should be at Ground Zero.

He already has enough voice.

[TLOZ Link5]

And Westfield is just sounding greedy.

[Knarfor]

Quote: from Stern on 9:15 pm on Aug. 6, 2003
I remember reading the church has no intentions of rebuilding and has already agreed to sell.


The church is still planning to rebuild on the site. They are accepting donations and already have about $ 2 million collected already.

http://www.goarch.org/en/special/september11/stnicholas/

I'm a practicing Greek Orthodox, so I keep up on these things.

[James Kovata]

Quote: from Knarfor on 1:30 am on Aug. 10, 2003

Quote: from Stern on 9:15 pm on Aug. 6, 2003
I remember reading the church has no intentions of rebuilding and has already agreed to sell.


So am I.

The church is still planning to rebuild on the site. They are accepting donations and already have about $ 2 million collected already.

http://www.goarch.org/en/special/september11/stnicholas/

I'm a practicing Greek Orthodox, so I keep up on these things.

[Gulcrapek]

Funny how he suddenly has all this money for buying out WA, while he pushes 'cost cutting' regarding the Freedom Tower and other things on site.

[Freedom Tower]

It'd be amazing, but I bet you the church is finished before contstruction on the freedom tower even begins.

[Harmonicaman]

In this Newsday item; various stipends are announced by the LMDC and various tantilizing hints about the jury's progress in the memorial design selection process are mentioned - including a remark that the selection of finalists may not occur until October or November.

(I was awed at the stipend amount, $100,000+, that each finalist is to be granted to further their memorial design! * If I thought they were going to be handing out that kind of cash I would have used colored pencil on the design I submitted:-) * *

Memorial Finalists To Get Stipend

By Katia Hetter
Staff Writer

August 18, 2003, 3:19 PM EDT

When finalists for the World Trade Center memorial competition are chosen sometime this fall, each team will receive more than $100,000 to further develop its ideas, redevelopment officials decided last week.

But the idea that the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower might move from its projected location at Ground Zero's northwest corner was knocked down again -- sort of.

"It will stay where the Libeskind plan placed it .... I think that's final," said John Whitehead, the Lower Manhattan Development Corp.'s board chairman.

The board on Thursday authorized $937,300 for up to eight memorial finalists to develop models and three-dimensional computerized designs. Finalists will be chosen this fall from the 5,200 designs submitted to the agency.

The overall cost of the memorial competition, from the launch in April 2003 to documenting them for historical purposes, is estimated to be $2.7 million to $3 million.

"The memorial process is moving forward," said Anita Contini, the LMDC's memorial director. "The jury has begun to review the submissions. They have been very moved to see not only the enormous number of submissions, but also by the obvious thoughtfulness and sincere compassion evident in each one of them."

The 13 members of the memorial jury, chosen by LMDC officials to select the winning memorial, have begun indicating their preferences, according to a source familiar with the process.

Each jury member places a dot on the memorial design boards he or she likes, and the designs without any dots on them are excluded from further consideration, the source said.

The jury is expected to choose a winner sometime in October or November. Its members include Vietnam Veterans Memorial designer Maya Lin; Paula Grant Berry, who lost her husband in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks; memorial expert James Young; Carnegie Corp. president Vartan Gregorian; former Pataki spokesman Michael McKeon; and Deputy Mayor Patricia Harris.

The LMDC board authorized $250,000 for an exhibit of the memorial finalists and the competition's eventual winner, likely to be held at the World Financial Center's Winter Garden.

Other spending approvals:

--$3 million for an agreement with Parsons Transporation Group of New York Inc. and Systra Engineering Inc. to study links between Lower Manhattan to Kennedy Airport and Long Island.

--$1.75 million for continuing environmental review of the trade center site plan.

--$1.3 million for www.lowermanhattan.info Web site.

--$1 million in agency funds, in conjunction with $1 million from the September 11th Fund, to fund a tourism and marketing campaign to attract visitors to Chinatown.

--$500,000 for the construction of three information kiosks, one at the trade center site and two others at locations to be determined.

--$70,000 for B2B Technical Inc. and Frank Pollack Associates to design a database system to track the LMDC's finances.

[Eugenius]

$1.3 million for the website?!!
They are not exactly Amazon.com here. *That's what they mean when they say that "soft" costs will be in the billions. *This is the kind of pork barrel garbage that keeps things from being done.

[emmeka]

I think that I have to disagree with many people on this site and say that I think the libeskind design was the best out of the lot. They could have done better but out of all of them that was the best.

[NYatKNIGHT]

It said on Drudge today that the blackout cost the city $1 Billion. $1 Billion! Oh well, that sucks. Do these numbers even mean anything?

The $3 billion to study links between Lower Manhattan to Kennedy Airport and Long Island is an aweful lot of money for any study, but believe it, it will all be spent whether they come up with a viable plan or not.

That's why I no longer buy the argument that the short tunnel shouldn't be built on West Street because better things can be done with the money. If money is being spent like this, then at least spend it on something tangible too.

I'll forget the wasted money on the website if the Trade Center development is completed as best as it could possibly be, but......with all these billions already shelled out, let's start seeing some steel and concrete already!

[Moogman5]

Yeah, and they'll knock down that "Freedom Tower" *just as soon as another multi-billion dollar opportunity comes along in the next couple of decades or so.
Rebuild the Twins!!!
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html

[Jasonik]

good grief.

[Chicagoan]

Quote: from emmeka on 11:42 am on Aug. 19, 2003
I think that I have to disagree with many people on this site and say that I think the libeskind design was the best out of the lot. They could have done better but out of all of them that was the best.


Hmm. I had thought that most people here liked the Libeskind design ( among which I am not).

But I disagree; I do not feel it was the best design, nor that the Libeskind proposal could have been any better.

When you get rid of all that Freedom this, democracy that, 1776 this and all those Freddy Krueger scratches on the buildings, they are just like anything else being built nowadays- except they are in a very special place.

Das tut mir leid.

[Freedom Tower]

Quote: from NYatKNIGHT on 11:13 am on Aug. 19, 2003

The $3 billion to study links between Lower Manhattan to Kennedy Airport and Long Island is an aweful lot of money for any study, but believe it, it will all be spent whether they come up with a viable plan or not.


Harmonicaman wrote that it was 3 million dollars. Does anyone know if it is billion or million?

[NYatKNIGHT]

It is $3 million, you're right - millions, billions, zillions, there's so much wasted it almost doesn't matter.

[Harmonicaman]

"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money."

- Senator Everett Dirksen, R Ill. (1896 - 1969)

[georgejmyersjr]

I am not an architect, Gary Cooper played one in the movies, but I was very interested in the documentary on I.M. Pei in Hong Kong where he used to smell the coffee from the processing plant walking to school, and the interesting building he later put up there, with diagonal structural reinforcements, it seems to secure the eye, rather than frighten it. I once lived in a dormitory, the "Governors Residence" named for four New York State governors, when it opened in Amherst, NY, designed by them, (I.M. Pei). An older student, I enjoyed it immensely, as residential education was conducted there in the lounges, architects and artists invited to a "Seminar in the Arts" hosted by Esther Schwartz. *Buffalo, NY is a sometimes "refuge" from NYC. *I later visited the new wing of the American National Gallery, in D.C., when it opened and again was impressed by the I.M. Pei design. I wonder, if you could put all three of them together...hmm.


(Edited by georgejmyersjr at 9:07 pm on Aug. 19, 2003)

[Gulcrapek]

Object of address removed, this too.

(Edited by Gulcrapek at 9:58 pm on Aug. 19, 2003)

[Harmonicaman]

(Flame deleted)

Moogman5's spam was deleted by the mods; thanks!

(Edited by Harmonicaman at 8:51 pm on Aug. 19, 2003)

[Jasonik]

Impermanence is TRUTH. *;)

[NyC MaNiAc]

MoogMan's backing of that ludicrous September 11th theory found on that website he provided in his previous post is ridiculous.

[TLOZ Link5]

At the very least, that is.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Here's a nice Ground Zero Development
http://www.pbase.com/image/20608861.jpg

[Kris]

Where is it exactly? Has it just been completed?

[JMGarcia]

Its at the corner of Liberty and Greenwich. 130 Liberty would be just to the right.

[Chicagoan]

From Architectural Record-

Groundbreaking for Pedestrian Bridge at World Trade Center

August 22, 2003

New York Governor Pataki broke ground Wednesday on a pedestrian bridge linking the World Trade Center with western portions of lower Manhattan.

The temporary bridge, located at the northwest corner of the WTC site, will cross West Street along Vesey street, allowing commuters to safely travel to and from Battery Park City, the Hudson Riverfront, and other areas west of the Trade Center. Officials expect the bridge to be done by November, coinciding with the completion of the temporary PATH station at the site.

The bridge will be built by Earth Tech, part of Tyco International. Renderings of the bridge show it will include light shading, partially opaque glass panels and metal mesh. Construction is being overseen by the New York Department of Transportation and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and will be funded by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation.

“To the men and women who live in lower Manhattan, your confidence in the greatest city in the world is justified,” said Governor Pataki at the ceremony. Pataki was joined by members of the LMDC, Port Authority, and New York DOT, among others.


Sam Lubell

[NYguy]

8/23/03....I have no idea what this development
along West St is or what it will be used for, but I'm
sure the families won't be too happy about it...


http://www.pbase.com/image/20623871/original.jpg

[Gulcrapek]

Isn't it just a zoom of the PATH?

[ZippyTheChimp]

I think he means that steel in the right foreground. It actually sits on what used to be northbound West St.

[Gulcrapek]

I think I'm blind. I don't see any...

[TLOZ Link5]

I think I know what he's talking about.

[dbhstockton]

I noticed it last time I was there, too. *No reference to it ih the Port Authorty's renderings:
http://www.pathrestoration.com/graphics/psr/tpt_wtc_aerial_rendering.gif
http://www.pathrestoration.com/graphics/psr/tpt_wtc_aerial_rendering.gif

Doesn't seem to encroach on the mystical sacred imaginary footprints, so I guess people have been quiet.

[NYguy]

I'll have to check it out again. *From that angle it appeared that the ramp was gone, and a new roadside structure was built in its place. *That could be completely wrong though, but I'm almost sure it was roadside....

(Edited by NYguy at 1:38 pm on Aug. 25, 2003)

[JMGarcia]

Filling the WTC Void
Foreign projects offer visions that NYC could adapt for a reverent, living memorial

By Justin Davidson
STAFF WRITER

August 25, 2003


In Daniel Libeskind's glittering but still unelaborated plans for the World Trade Center site, an L-shaped hole waits to be filled by the winner of the memorial competition that is now under way. For the moment, Libeskind's renderings of the future site show a sprinkling of people on a vast, flat greensward, sunk three stories below street level, a featureless meadow bounded by a sheer wall, a long ramp and a perimeter of crystal- shaped buildings.

The Lower Manhattan Development Corp.'s board members are sifting through thousands of proposals for how to shape those 4.7 acres and focus the nation's painful memories on a constructed place. Eight finalists will be chosen next month. None of those proposals has been made public, but it's safe to say that the area will not wind up looking as plain and barren as Libeskind's drawings suggest. We will not be remembering our dead at the bottom of a big, empty box.

Or let's hope not. What we need at the center of the site is not a somber void, even a gracefully landscaped one, but a true piazza, a junction where memory and mundanity can meet, where people will throng, drawn by a sense of pilgrimage and by the magnetic appeal of a magnificent outdoor urban space. Dignity can be compatible with bustle.

The memorial site contains the gaps where two towering colossi stood separated by a bleak concrete plain. That is a large enough plot of land for a solemn monument, a bower of recollection - and also for a link to the living. We should be careful, lest an excess of reverence for the dead leads us to build a lifeless space.

The development corporation's decision-makers would do well to spend an hour or two at a small exhibit on the sixth floor of the office building at 30 W. 22nd St. in Manhattan called "Open: New Ideas for Public Spaces," presented by a public architecture advocacy organization called the Van Alen Institute. The show, which closes Oct. 31, offers a worldwide tour of civic projects, some freshly finished, some still being worked out. They range widely in scope and purpose. In Rio de Janeiro, the mayor has launched a plan to include the sprawling, unmapped shantytowns into the city by anchoring them with new common buildings. Genoa is converting an obsolete pier, Ponte Parodi, into an amphitheaterlike piazza thrust out into the gritty harbor. A dockside opera house in Oslo, Norway, features a public plaza that inclines to the water from a terrace on the building's roof. In wintertime, children could conceivably sled from the top of the opera house to the frozen fjord.

These projects offer no specific models for a Sept. 11 memorial, but they do give a sense of how many simultaneous functions a public space can serve. Italian urbanists long ago understood the beauty of an open square - or ellipse, lopsided trapezoid, or whatever shape streets and houses would permit - on which civic, religious and commercial institutions front and which different generations adapt to their own purposes. These are hybrid areas, where the sacred rubs up against the profane. In the Campo de' Fiori in Rome, for example, fish vendors and flower sellers set up their stalls at the base of a monument to intellectual freedom, a brooding statue of the Renaissance philosopher Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake on that very spot. In France, the central square of every hamlet has a cafe and a horrifying plaque engraved with the names of the local young men sacrificed to World War I.

The development corporation has set a program that is demanding and intentionally vague. The memorial must include a tomb for unidentified remains of people killed in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a private gathering place for the victims' families and another for the general public, and it must be capable of evolving over time.

But the program is mute on the subject of how the area should be knit into the neighborhood being rebuilt around it. There will be at least four access points, but will someone needing to walk from, say, the corner of West and Fulton streets to the corner of Liberty and Greenwich stay respectfully at street level and walk all the way around the memorial or choose to cut straight across? The September 11th Place that Libeskind has drawn, a passageway between the PATH station and a cultural center, juts toward the sunken space like a viewing terrace over a canyon, emphasizing the difference between street level and the sacred ground below. The competition's rules, too, seem to imply that the memorial will be cordoned off as a huge contemplative sanctum.

There is an example of such a place in the "Open" show: Peter Eisenman's design for the Holocaust Memorial in downtown Berlin, a rolling landscape of bare concrete pillars - 2,700 of them, arranged on a grid over an area roughly the same size as the World Trade Center Memorial site. Berlin, like Lower Manhattan, is in the process of healing a wound at its heart, and the memorial will occupy land between the Brandenburg Gate and the spot where Hitler's bunker stood. Perhaps slaughter on a scale that still defies comprehension merits such a huge, grim metaphor of mechanized, impersonal death. Even then, I am not so sure.

I am sure that an equally single-minded solution, recalling murder by filling the crime scene with dour blocks or some other icon of grief and segregating a sunken plaza from the rest of urban life, would be a terrible mistake. By all means, let a place of memory be separate and contained, and let the slurry wall speak. But the rest of the acreage could become a living slope, a grand, transitional space between the street and the grave, between the past and the present.

One possible model might be the Campo at the center of Siena, a great uneven bowl of a piazza, where the various neighborhoods slide off their separate hills and meet on common ground. Every summer, the city reenacts its history there, staging the wild horse race known as the Palio. On every other day of the year, the Campo teems with pilgrims, tourists, Sienese lawyers clad in immaculate tweeds and skateboarders dressed with careful slovenliness - the whole motley collection of sober and insouciant souls who are drawn to a city's airy core.

The catalog of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks made it brutally clear how much varied humanity gathers in airplanes and office buildings every day. New York City can honor the dead by creating a grand outdoor plaza that they would all have been glad to share.
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.

[NYguy]

it's safe to say that the area will not wind up looking as plain and barren as Libeskind's drawings suggest. We will not be remembering our dead at the bottom of a big, empty box.

Yeah, I think its pretty safe to say, lol...

[JMGarcia]

Nothing like stating the obvious yet so many seemed to have missed that point. ;)

[georgejmyersjr]

Quote: from georgejmyersjr on 7:39 pm on Aug. 19, 2003
I am not an architect, Gary Cooper played one in the movies, but I was very interested in the documentary on I.M. Pei in Hong Kong where he used to smell the coffee from the processing plant walking to school, and the interesting building he later put up there, with diagonal structural reinforcements, it seems to secure the eye, rather than frighten it. I once lived in a dormitory, the "Governors Residence" named for four New York State governors, when it opened in Amherst, NY, designed by them, (I.M. Pei). An older student, I enjoyed it immensely, as residential education was conducted there in the lounges, architects and artists invited to a "Seminar in the Arts" hosted by Esther Schwartz. *Buffalo, NY is a sometimes "refuge" from NYC. *I later visited the new wing of the American National Gallery, in D.C., when it opened and again was impressed by the I.M. Pei design. I wonder, if you could put all three of them together...hmm.


I was working in the archaeology of the Fort McHenry National "Shrine" in Baltimore, MD, with the NPS and the West Wing of the National Gallery had just opened with what was left of the Dresden Collection on exhibit as it opened, it was severely bombed by the Allies.

[JMGarcia]

The NY Times Magazine is supposed to have a special section this Sunday on Ground Zero.

Also, if you've been watching the US Open on TV you may have noticed that they have been using a sort of stylized version of Libeskind's skyline rendering as the background for a lot of their graphics and fades.

http://wtc.e27.com/press/middle/skyline.jpg

[georgejmyersjr]

That's Liberty "Enlightening the World" looking over to the East across Governors Island, where Orville Wright took off from with reportedly a canoe lashed to the bottom of the plane as he flew up the Hudson River and back to Governors Island. Interesting what they can do with computer graphics. Personally it reminds me a bit of Superman's father's place (Marlon Brando) on Krypton, or perhaps "Beneath the Planet of the Apes" doomsday rocket launch console a little. Will those diagonals and angles cast bright spots? Perhaps at sundown or some other time, shafts of light through the air? Hope not, Long Island Helicopters (covered the Watkins Glen Music Festival of 1974) was arbitrarily and capriciously stopped from operating (from Roosevelt Field, NY) by the former Mayor before 9/11/01 and I would hope they are FAA approved.


(Edited by georgejmyersjr at 4:06 pm on Aug. 29, 2003)

[emmeka]

In that last rendering the wtc looks like those crystals that you can buy that have been randomly chopped into shape.

[JMGarcia]

WTC MALL FIGHT

By WILLIAM NEUMAN
NY Post

September 2, 2003 -- While planners try to put the finishing touches on a revised Ground Zero blueprint, sources said development officials continue to argue over where to put retail space at the site - with the city trying to block the return of a large underground shopping mall.

The retail dispute - which pits city planners against the Port Authority - is "the only debate left" before a new site plan is finalized, one official said.

The city is insisting that shops be located at street level or above, while the PA, which owns Ground Zero, is still seeking to recreate at least a portion of the underground mall that was in the original World Trade Center.

At issue is a four-block-long subterranean concourse running parallel to Church Street that, in the PA's plans, would connect to a new, state-of-the-art PATH station and be lined with big-name stores.

The PA favors the underground layout because it could bring higher rents - due to the large number of commuters that would walk by every day.

But city officials want the concourse eliminated or scaled back, fearing an underground mall will sap life from the streets.

Planners have already eliminated much of the spider-like sprawl of underground concourses shown in the site plan by architect Daniel Libeskind that was approved last February - and which is now being reworked.

The revised plan - which also includes a glass-covered "galleria" of shops at Cortlandt Street - will be revealed later this month.

The debate over how to lay out the shops comes as the company that owns the right to rebuild the retail area of the trade center is actively trying to find a way out of the project - talking to the PA and others about selling its interest at the WTC.

Westfield America has also talked to its WTC partner, Twin Towers leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who is eager to buy them out - except he doesn't have the money to do it.

Westfield has made no secret of its dislike for the Libeskind plan, and the company has also talked with developers Forest City Ratner and the Related Companies about taking over its role at the trade center, sources said.

Sources said that if the PA were to buy out Westfield, which signed the WTC lease just weeks before the 9/11 attack, the agency would later resell the retail rights.

[NoyokA]

There's a number of unveilings this month, right JM?

Its an important time to focus on rebuilding.

[emmeka]

I dont know if anyone has already asked this, but is the glass on the wtc going to be mirrored or blue or that purple in the above rendering?

[JMGarcia]

There's a number of unveilings this month, right JM?

The final site plan is definitely scheduled for this month and I wouldn't be surprised if the Freedom Tower came along with it. But, I also wouldn't be surprised to see the Freedom Tower's unveiling to come in October.

IMHO, the way to do it is to unfurl the new renderings on 130 Liberty St. during a press conference at the site.


I dont know if anyone has already asked this, but is the glass on the wtc going to be mirrored or blue or that purple in the above rendering?

Its it still totally up in the air as to what the facades and even the shapes will look like at this point.

[NYguy]

Quote: from Stern on 10:32 am on Sep. 2, 2003
There's a number of unveilings this month, right JM?

Its an important time to focus on rebuilding.


It will most likely mirror the new 7 WTC from Child's earlier statements...

[NYguy]

A quick video shot...
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/wtc/nyc-zerotourvideo0901.realvideo

(Edited by NYguy at 5:15 pm on Sep. 2, 2003)

[NYguy]

Quote: from NYguy on 1:37 pm on Aug. 25, 2003
I'll have to check it out again. *From that angle it appeared that the ramp was gone, and a new roadside structure was built in its place. *That could be completely wrong though, but I'm almost sure it was roadside....

(Edited by NYguy at 1:38 pm on Aug. 25, 2003)


If you look closely in the video, you can see the small structure that rises up above West St...

[NYatKNIGHT]

Looks like it goes all the way down to the bedrock. I wonder what that is, temporary stairway maybe? Oh well, we're soon to see much more significant structures than that go up.

[Harmonicaman]

Just in case this link hasn't been posted recently, here is the Ground Zero live webcam:

http://www.earthcam.com/usa/newyork/groundzero/

[JMGarcia]

BBC
The battle over Ground Zero

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39299000/gif/_39299822_rightone2.gif

Two years after the attack on the World Trade Center, intense passions still swirl around the redevelopment project.

This week, a group of victims' families gathered at the construction site in Lower Manhattan to protest against plans to rebuild on the foundations of the obliterated twin towers.

They argue it constitutes a sacred cemetery for the thousands of people who died there.

This latest protest is one of countless wrangles that have dogged the project so far. The rebuilding has only inched forward and looks certain to take a lot longer to complete that first planned.

Further, designs to rebuild the 17-acre complex may yet be altered by the powerful parties who hold a stake in the site.

Responsibility

Last February, architect Daniel Libeskind won a competition to redesign the World Trade Center site, in a very public selection process.

With its overt symbolism, the design was a popular choice. But, since then, Mr Libeskind's artistic vision has clashed with the commercial demands of prime real estate.

Many people, such as the victims relatives' groups, are questioning whether the public's voice will, in the end, be drowned out.

Part of the problem is that this is widely seen as one of the most important urban redevelopment sites in the world and there are so many interested parties whose differences need to reconciled - victims' families, downtown residents, businessmen, architects, developers and politicians.

Responsibility for the site is divided between the governors of the states of New York and New Jersey, who own the land through the Port Authority and Larry A Silverstein, the leaseholder who holds the right to redevelop the office space.

Two main features of the Libeskind plan aroused opposition from the outset - the centrepiece "Freedom Tower" and a sunken memorial garden, which was welcomed by victims' relatives.

The tower was to be 1,776ft (540m) high, echoing the date of the founding of the republic. Its off-centre spire at the top conjured up the Statue of Liberty's torch.

Changing the spiral

But business groups and leaseholder Mr Silverstein questioned the wisdom of building such a large tower. They asked whether companies would, indeed, want to lease space in such a tall building anymore.

Although Mr Silverstein has no legal right to say what should or should not be built, he has much financial and political clout. He is still paying the rent on the site and it is his multi-billion-dollar insurance claim that is paying for the rebuilding.

A property developer in his 70s, Mr Silverstein has already brought his weight to bear on the design of "Freedom Tower".

He argued that the symbolic spiral at the tip of the tower is too expensive to build and pushed for something more straightforward. As part of a compromise, Mr Libeskind relinquished control for the tower to another architect chosen by Mr Silverstein.

The property developer has also suggested that the tower be moved to a site closer to the transport hub, where he says it will be easier and more profitable to rent.

A further bone of contention in Mr Libeskind's plans is the 4.7-acre pit that was once the foundations, or footprint, of the twin towers. A 70-foot steel-enforced concrete "slurry wall", once encased these foundations.

Memorial

After the attacks, the wall, which was all that was left of the trade center complex, kept the waters of the Hudson River at bay. Mr Libeskind has imbued it with heroic status, as an emblem to resistance to terrorism.

But Mr Silverstein and business groups argued that it would inflict a perpetually open wound on Lower Manhattan. They said companies moving into the trade center may not want to be constantly reminded of their vulnerability. Mr Silverstein also complained that the slurry wall, which was to remain exposed, was simply ugly.

Mr Libeskind originally intended the garden to go the full 70-feet down to the bedrock. This was welcomed by victims' families, who point out that many of their loved ones' remains are still there.

But in the spirit of commercialism there are now plans to build a subterranean shopping complex and a huge public transit terminal from 30ft below ground level.

Many downtown residents were against having the garden sunk at all. One survey carried out during the summer suggested that a majority of New Yorkers wanted it to be at ground level so it is easier to cross the site and reach the planned transportation hub, shops and office buildings.

Many of the victims' families fear that amid the talk of office space, building design, street grids, transit hubs and financing, their voices are becoming fainter.

Ruthless

Dan Cruickshank is a British architectural historian who has talked to relatives, politicians, planners, the leaseholder and the architects over a period of 14 months for a BBC programme documenting the evolution of the plans.

He concludes that while sentiment remained strong for a long time after the attacks, "it is all very ruthless again."

"New York is a very tough place," he says. "At first there were grand gestures to console the public but now it boils down to Larry Silverstein and his obligation to build office and commercial space.

"Mr Silverstein is hard-nosed and tough and he's the one calling the shots. Many of the victims' families are finding the whole process depressing. There was a sense of listening for a year but now commerce is coming to the fore."

Mr Cruickshank says the complex will be built over 20 years, as and when there is commercial demand. The real battle for how it will eventually look may only have just begun.

Towering Ambitions: Dan Cruickshank at Ground Zero is broadcast on BBC Two on Sunday 7 September at 2100 BST.

[Kommissar]

"New York is a very tough place," he says. "At first there were grand gestures to console the public but now it boils down to Larry Silverstein and his obligation to build office and commercial space.

This is ok with me. Function is a form of beauty. Castles weren't build to be romantic, they were build to be defensive. Cathedrals weren't just eye-candy; religious statues and painted ceilings were non-verbal instructions for an illiterate congregation.

Downtown is about business and the pursuit of efficient buildings gave us the Twin Towers in the first place. When they first went up, everyone moaned about them being boring boxes in the sky, eyesores on the landscape. Now their absense is like a stab in our hearts.

I disagree with the view of Dan Cruickshank, we shouldn't cling to expectations. We should give Childs a chance to change our sensabilities.

[ZippyTheChimp]

55 Water is quite functional.

[Kris]

September 7, 2003

THE WAY WE LIVE NOW

Public Building

By JAMES TRAUB

In 1366, the wardens of the Opera del Duomo submitted to the citizens of Florence a referendum on the construction of the dome of the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore. The wardens had chosen a design that would raise the widest and tallest dome ever constructed without recourse to the buttresses that typically supported great church buildings -- an act of boldness they decided required the stamp of public approval. The referendum passed, thus germinating a process that would flower half a century later with Filippo Brunelleschi's extraordinary design for a giant free-standing dome.

The debate that has unfolded over the rebuilding of the World Trade Center for the last year has brought New Yorkers as close as they have ever come to the ancient Florentine conviction that the most profound questions of urban design demand a public voice. When city and state officials presented a plan consisting of a half-dozen unimaginative and practically indistinguishable proposals from two design firms, the sheer force of public scorn compelled them to throw open the process to the world's greatest architects. In February, in a fine triumph for democratic engagement (and inspired rhetoric), a master plan designed by the protean Daniel Libeskind was named the winner.

Now, as the second anniversary of 9/11 approaches, that democratic moment seems to have passed. Larry Silverstein, the developer who holds the lease on the site, has become, with the clear support of Gov. George Pataki, the lead player in the rebuilding process. Silverstein had ridiculed Libeskind's master plan as impractical, and he recently named David Childs, a prominent corporate architect whose own plan was widely deemed the most pedestrian of the seven proposals, as the lead architect on Libeskind's signature 1,776-foot tower. Pataki has said that he wants construction on the tower to begin by next summer, conveniently timed for the Republican National Convention. It's beginning to look like a classic case of regression to the mean.

But if the sense of civic purpose that drove the design process has ominously paused, it has not altogether petered out. The competition to design a memorial to those who died provoked an astonishing 5,200 proposals, the great majority from nonexperts who were plainly moved to use design to express their feelings about the catastrophe. The announcement of the finalists this fall will surely provoke another round of public introspection and debate.

What is more, it's impossible to take the measure of what has already been achieved without understanding how utterly unprecedented the public response has been. In the now discredited era of master planner Robert Moses, development decisions were made by a handful of men. The enormously complex process the city instituted after Moses's downfall changed the size and composition of the group, but development remained an insider's game, sustained by public indifference and thus governed by the conflicting interests of various factions. Very few of the development battles of the modern, putatively democratic era -- Westway, Columbus Circle and Times Square, among others -- actually vindicated the merits of public engagement.

Of course, the reason for this is that most of us just don't care very much: buildings and places do not resonate with meaning for us. The Florentines thought of the physical city as a monument to their own glory, whereas we think of it as a giant machine for the performance of work and the satisfaction of wishes. Think of the contrast with our social or interpersonal environment, which we care about so much -- about smoking in public places or the quality of our gym. In our own endless quest for personal self-perfection, monuments to collective experience, and to a life that existed before us and extends beyond us, exert only the most feeble pull.

And then the terrorists insisted on the meaning of the twin towers by destroying them. Sept. 11 marked a new moment in urban self-awareness. The terrorist attack so profoundly sacralized the World Trade Center that many people seriously spoke of precisely rebuilding the towers, previously known as the most glaring possible example of anti-urban 60's gigantism. Still, the emotional response was right: the kind of meaning that can be expressed through architecture, and the making of places, comes to the fore at moments of profound civic feeling. A new idea dawned, and I don't think that idea has lost its potency.

In fact, the choice of Libeskind was far less surprising than the announcement last month that the Port Authority, which in years past has been famously indifferent to both public and aesthetic values, had selected the Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava to design the trade center's new train station. The fact that officials staged a worldwide competition for an architect was almost as astounding as the fact that they chose a figure widely described as the world's greatest architect of transportation. It seems plain that the public demand for meaningful architecture had altered the climate within which the Port Authority operates.

How lasting will that climactic change prove? The World Trade Center is, of course, sui generis. And yet I am not convinced the public will slip back into its wonted passivity the next time an important project comes along. Architecture has become a matter of public discussion as it never has been before, and a significant number of buildings worth looking at and caring about are either planned or in the process of rising. New Yorkers will never be Florentines -- we have more transitory things than buildings on our minds -- but we will remember the World Trade Center attack as a time when the city began to matter to us in a new way.

James Traub is a contributing writer for the magazine.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Freedom Tower]

"He argued that the symbolic spiral at the tip of the tower is too expensive to build and pushed for something more straightforward. As part of a compromise, Mr Libeskind relinquished control for the tower to another architect chosen by Mr Silverstein. "

This sounds horrible. This sounds absolutely disasterous. :x :cry: If the spire on the Freedom Tower is made cheaper it is going to suck. I hope that it isn't just going to be lattice-work. I'll drop dead if it is. I was actually hoping it'd be made better, not worse. I wanted office space in it, now it'll be a miracle if it's even usable at all.

[TLOZ Link5]

In all fairness, I don't think that Childs was really as involved in SOM's WTC plan as this article lets on. Earlier articles have stated that his concepts were often overruled in favor of Roger Duffy's.

But to play to the argument being presented, yes; Childs is most definitely a corporate architect, albeit somewhat unwitting. The final designs of many of his buildings he has publicly stated he despises, e.g. Bear Stearns, perhaps WorldWide Plaza, and to an extent AOL-TW. We'll have to see how he works with Silverstein, although I myself am not getting my hopes up.

To his credit, Silverstein is not so much fool as he's let on to be. I doubt he'll play the role of a business-as-usual developer to the degree that the press accuses him of. He'll listen to the people to a certain extent for fear of bad public relations.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Today I walked along the Vesey St pedestrian passageway. A few observations:

The concrete base of 7WTC is going up much faster now. As Gulcrapek noted, they are not pouring entire floors, but working from the center out.
You can see the interior structure - I have never seen an office building so massive.

At Verizon, the walkway detours under the now completed arcade (they are working on the street). Glazing has been installed in all the openings. Years ago they were replaced with painted plywood panels. It looks great.

One of the stone arches has a large chunk missing. Not sure, but I think it's being left that way as a historical record.

[Chicagoan]

The concrete base of 7WTC is going up much faster now. As Gulcrapek noted, they are not pouring entire floors, but working from the center out.
You can see the interior structure - I have never seen an office building so massive.

That is the way composite structures are build. It will in essence be a steel structure with reinforced concrete shear wall core.

At Silverstein's website they describe the buildings features and they are impressive. I wonder if the tower will have belt trusses on some of the upper floors.

Too bad the design is not more daring or environmentally friendly.

[JMGarcia]

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/09/09/arts/theater/zero-libeskind184.jpg
An artist's rendering of the performing arts center Daniel Libeskind, the master-plan architect, has envisioned for the redevelopment of the 16-acre property at ground zero.

Proposing a National Theater Downtown
By ROBIN POGREBIN


$170 million three-stage theater complex that its backers say would bring the best of the nation's plays and musicals to Lower Manhattan is being proposed for the redevelopment of ground zero.

The project, called the American National Theater, has gained the support of Arthur Miller, Meryl Streep and the director Harold Prince, among other prominent people in the theater world. The actress Blair Brown is giving a cocktail party in Connecticut tomorrow to raise seed money for the project.

"Theater in New York really needs a shot in the arm," Ms. Brown said. "We're locked into big musicals or plays from England, and actors can't make a living Off Broadway."

The proposal is to be submitted to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which is overseeing the rebuilding of downtown. The corporation has invited arts groups worldwide to submit ideas for the site by Monday. Two of the most prominent institutions already competing to be at ground zero are the New York City Opera and the 92nd Street Y.

The national theater would cull the finest offerings from the country's regional stages and present them in the performing arts center that Daniel Libeskind, the master-plan architect, has called for at the World Trade Center site. The complex would include three theaters: one with 800 seats, one with 700 and one with 400. The backers envision 15 productions a year, five on each stage, each running six weeks.

"They will be presented in New York as near as possible in their original form," said Sean Cullen, an actor who has spearheaded the project.

He said the national theater would have an annual budget of $17 million to $20 million. Financing would come from corporations, foundations and individuals. Mr. Cullen said its pool of money would be potentially wider than that of most arts groups because of its national character.

The project is not the first attempt to create a national theater. Lincoln Center Theater's Vivian Beaumont stage was established with that mandate in mind, and the Kennedy Center in Washington also considers itself the nation's cultural center. Some producers have previously considered creating a permanent acting company that performs plays in repertory, akin to the Royal National Theater in London.

Mr. Cullen said he would pursue the project whether or not it was selected for ground zero.

Several regional theater executives have already embraced the idea of a national theater there. "You could start to see the rich theatrical work that's all over this country," said Emily Mann, artistic director of the McCarter Theater in Princeton, N.J. "It could be an amazing production of `Antigone' or a new play by Nilo Cruz."

She said regional theater needed a presence in New York. "New York still in so many ways lets the nation know what the great pieces are," she said. Unless you see a regional production where it's staged, she added, "you've missed it."

"So many great productions have been lost into the ether because of that," she continued.

The proposed theater complex at ground zero would include four or five rehearsal halls that could be shared with other organizations, like the TriBeCa Film Festival or the Joyce Theater, Mr. Cullen said. He said he had not yet contacted those potential partners, though both have expressed interest in the site and have discussed a partnership with other groups, like City Opera.

The proposal also provides for a restaurant and a "great hall," a ground-level space that would present audiovisual promotions for the shows playing in the theaters.

The national theater would consider the work of about 150 regional theaters, Mr. Cullen said. A jury of five theater professionals — actors, directors, designers, playwrights — would travel the country looking for worthy candidates. These scouts would serve 15-month terms at salaries of about $100,000. "I guess you could liken it to the Peace Corps," Mr. Cullen said. The 15 final productions would be selected by an artistic director.

"It would take imaginative curating, which is exactly what has happened in the dance world," said Carey Perloff, who is artistic director of American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco and serves on the proposed national theater's advisory board. "It's such an enormous country that we don't get to see each other's work enough."

Ms. Perloff would be a strong candidate for the national theater's artistic director, Mr. Cullen said. He also mentioned Ms. Mann, who said she was happy in her current position but welcomed the chance to help.

Mr. Cullen said the idea for such a theater occurred to him four years ago, when he heard Emanuel Azenberg, the Broadway producer, say on television that he imported plays from London because good home-grown work was so scarce. The idea gained momentum when a performing arts center became part of the plans for the World Trade Center site, Mr. Cullen said; he had previously considered the former Coliseum site at Columbus Circle.

Mr. Cullen said he met on May 6 with Mr. Libeskind; Anita Contini, the director of memorial, cultural and civic programs at the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation; Ron Pisapia, a director in the priority capital programs department at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the 16-acre property at ground zero; and James Connors, deputy director of real estate at the Port Authority.

Mr. Cullen said he obtained the meeting through one of his board members, Christopher Cline, the former chief financial officer of ACTV Inc., which builds interactive television technology. Mr. Cline had a real-estate relationship with Mr. Connors, who in turn took the project to Mr. Pisapia.

Mr. Pisapia expressed enthusiasm for the idea on the theater's Web site, americannationaltheatre.org: "On a personal and professional level, it's difficult to not be excited about the prospect of an American National Theater facility as part of the cultural development of the W.T.C. site." A spokesman for the Port Authority said the agency did not support any particular proposal for ground zero.

The Web site says the theater's advisory panel also includes Nina Lannan, a Broadway general manager; Richard Nelson, the playwright; Jennifer Tipton, the lighting designer; and Mr. Prince, who has directed most of Stephen Sondheim's work, as well as "Phantom of the Opera."

Mr. Prince said the country might be too big for one national theater, but that he was interested in a downtown theater district with productions that were not expected to run indefinitely or to turn a profit. "Producers have a priority, and it's `Is this going to make money?' " he said. "And I don't think that should be our qualifying agenda."

"We're spinning out of control in pursuit of `What do people want?' " he continued. "I've been around long enough to remember a time when we weren't worried about what people wanted. We did what we wanted, and people came along."

[JMGarcia]

A very good article from the New Yorker about Libeskind...

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030915fa_fact

A small excerpt...

...Early this summer, Silverstein’s money and chutzpah seemed to be getting him what he wanted, but Libeskind, who was born in Poland and grew up in the Bronx, turned out to know more than a little about street fighting in New York. He had hired a lawyer, Edward Hayes, who is a close friend of Governor Pataki, and Hayes argued that the public expected his client to build everything he had envisioned—that his plans had been presented as a package. Libeskind made it clear that he was prepared to walk off the project, which would have embarrassed both the L.M.D.C. and Pataki, whose support was crucial to Libeskind’s selection, and who has pledged to start construction on the tower by next year, when the Republicans come to town for their Presidential Convention. He made the pledge in April, standing in front of a six-foot-tall rendering of Libeskind’s Freedom Tower.

Pataki urged Kevin Rampe, the president of the L.M.D.C., to force Libeskind and Childs to sort things out, and Rampe called a meeting at L.M.D.C. headquarters at One Liberty Plaza on July 15th. Libeskind came with Edward Hayes and several staff members. Childs, who said later that he hadn’t been told about the draconian aspect of the meeting, brought one of his architectural partners and Janno Lieber, Larry Silverstein’s executive in charge of the World Trade Center site. The architects and their entourages sat in separate conference rooms at opposite ends of the twentieth floor, and Rampe and Matthew Higgins, the chief operating officer of the L.M.D.C., shuttled between the two camps. After five hours of this, nobody had budged from his original position.

“The Libeskinds are afraid of being chewed up by the Skidmore, Owings & Merrill machine,” Rampe told Childs. “Well, I’m afraid of being chewed up by the Libeskind machine,” Childs replied.

Sometime after nine in the evening, Higgins sent out for pizza, and not long after that Rampe suggested that it might be helpful if Libeskind and Childs discussed things face to face, away from everyone else. The two men went into a third room. Childs was firm. He had a design for a tower and he didn’t want Libeskind’s design to be the starting point of any collaboration. “Only if this is a blank slate can I work with you,” he said.

“This is not a tabula rasa,” Libeskind replied. “The Freedom Tower is an image, a basis.”

“I have my own image,” Childs said. “I appreciate and respect what you do, but it is not what I do.”

Libeskind began to sketch his design on a piece of paper. “I have an idea how we can develop it,” he insisted, but Childs continued to demur. Libeskind said that he would agree to a fifty-fifty sharing of authority. Childs said that was impossible: “Someone has to be the writer of the Constitution.”

Childs told me later that he felt that Libeskind was wedded to a sculptural image, and that he found his asymmetrical scheme illogical. “He is shaping a clay block and sticking a sword on one side of it,” Childs said.

“It was gruelling,” Libeskind recalled. “It felt like the Grand Inquisitor scene in ‘The Brothers Karamazov.’”

It is hard to say which architect wore the other down, but shortly before eleven o’clock they came out of the room and announced that they had agreed that while Childs’s firm would be the official architect of the Freedom Tower, Libeskind would “meaningfully collaborate” on the design, and that it would be presented as a joint creation...

-----------------

...Westfield, the enormous mall operator that leased the Trade Center’s retail space, wants to build something like a suburban shopping center on the site, and while Libeskind was trying to resist Westfield he was attacked by left-wing urban planners as having made the project too commercial. His master plan contains ten million square feet of office space, which is what Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority asked for, and it seemed to some people that he had simply conferred an avant-garde veneer on an immense business development. A couple of members of the L.M.D.C.’s board, Carl Weisbrod and Madelyn Wils, who represent the lower Manhattan business and residential communities, objected to the sunken memorial space, because some of their constituents don’t want to walk around it to get from Battery Park City to the subway. They thought the memorial should be moved to ground level. (The seventy-foot exposure had already been changed to thirty feet, for engineering reasons.) The L.M.D.C. defended Libeskind, however, and there appears to be almost no chance that the memorial site will be moved to ground level, or that the area will be turned into a big mall...

[Jasonik]

New Yorker
...Frank Gehry says that he has warned Libeskind about being a celebrity architect. “His political savvy is ahead of his best work, and that can be dangerous,” Gehry says. Gehry’s own international celebrity, he reminded me, came after he designed the museum in Bilbao, which wasn’t finished until he was nearly seventy. “Part of me thinks he’s in over his head, and yet part of me thinks he’s such a survivor, and with her”—Nina—“he can figure it out.”

[Gulcrapek]

Childs is an ass. As is his pimp. If that's not clear by now, I don't know what is.

[James Kovata]

Primary Plan for Redoing Towers Begins Wobbling
By Justin Davidson
Staff Writer

September 11, 2003

Two years after the Twin Towers tumbled, architect Daniel Libeskind's plan for replacing them is beginning to look wobbly.

Among his most powerful selling points was the "Wedge of Light," a term he used to describe the glint of morning sunlight on glass facades each Sept. 11, but the concept withered under analysis. Two other principal components have been assigned to architects whose aesthetics barely overlap with his: David Childs is designing the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower, Santiago Calatrava the transit hub.

It is starting to seem possible that Libeskind's plan could be built without including a single Libeskind building. It is far too early to declare his vision dead, but it is not soon to defend it. Virtually all the work remains to be done -- not just the actual construction, but also the legal wrangling, the political arm-wrestling, even the basic decision-making about what cultural institutions will anchor the site. Libeskind has been designing an opera house for a company that may never arrive.

In all likelihood, Ground Zero will not be made whole again for a generation -- long after current political agendas have become historical and today's power plays have run their course. In the meantime, avoiding a bland downtown that is farmed out piecemeal to architects of convenience must be a top public priority. So far, so good: Childs and Calatrava are both world-class architects, and the chances that they will deliver superb buildings remain high. But in the long run,

Libeskind's plan remains our best shot at embodying idealism in steel and glass and concrete.

Perhaps it was inevitable that all the talk of bold design and airy symbolism that swirled around Ground Zero in February would eventually lift, leaving bare the hard, calcified issue of money. Libeskind found a powerful critic in developer Larry Silverstein, who signed a 99-year lease to the World Trade Center weeks before terrorists destroyed it and claims the right to rebuild what he lost. Silverstein's position to influence the architecture of a new downtown rests on the insurance money he controls: $3.5 billion at least; twice that if a judge rules that the downing of the towers were two separate events.

Gov. George Pataki and the semi-public agency called the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. have been giving him plenty of leeway.

In July, Silverstein forced Libeskind into a shotgun marriage with Childs, of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, who was selected to design the tower intended to restore the skyline and the missing acres of office space. The decision was understandable from a business point of view -- Childs is a proven master of the skyscraper, while Libeskind has never designed one -- and may yet yield marvelous results.

But the move was unnerving in its implication that Libeskind's creative phase was over, to be followed by a long denouement of detail, in which pretty pictures give way to the tough realities of sewage hookups and dollars per square foot.

The public's interest does not necessarily square with Silverstein's. More depends on the World Trade Center site than the billions of dollars in investments. This is a great public works project, not just a mammoth real estate deal, and Libeskind cannot be allowed to become irrelevant.

While the project's future is bleared, Libeskind's design still possesses the powerfully affecting clarity that got him the job in the first place. He envisioned a neighborhood arranged in crystalline trapezoids, with places of commerce and culture and open spaces not neatly stacked or separated, but poking into each other at irregular angles. His buildings speak to a part of Manhattan where the street grid gets warped, where steel was bent and where the stock market's jagged chart is generated every day.

Libeskind was chosen in part because he seemed able to navigate the project's vortex of conflicting forces. The families of the victims craved a sacred site; Silverstein wanted a cash cow. Gov. Pataki urged that rebuilding be carried out at a quick clip; civic groups argued that the process should not be rushed. New buildings had to address future needs and simultaneously honor the past. The plan had to forge a link between memory and mammon.

Libeskind negotiated these shoals with enormous dexterity, and the barbs that were slung at him were less surprising than the rough public consensus that formed around an avant-garde urban design and the notion that contemporary architecture could exert a moral force.

It is true that Libeskind's plan was rushed, vague and longer on metaphor than on technical details. Libeskind himself has been somewhat rubbery about what elements he considers crucial to his plan. Last spring, he was saying that while he assumed others would design some of the office buildings, the Freedom Tower would be his signature. He has since learned the first principle of doing business in New York: Everything is negotiable.

No dream this large gets translated into physical reality without a thousand compromises and adjustments being made along the way. Libeskind certainly understands better than anybody that his plan is not a static document; it is a proclamation of ideals.

In a recent interview, Childs claimed to have understood Libeskind's message, too: "Here is a man who's had an idea about the site. That idea is formative, and that's what we all want to create."

But Childs has deep reservations about that idea. Architects who would shape this city, he argues, have to begin by aligning their buildings with the street, and confine their diagonal lines and canted walls to upper stories. "New York is about filling in the block and then getting away from the grid, releasing your own vigor as you go up," he said. "That's what the Empire State Building does; it's what the Chrysler Building does." The implication is clear: Libeskind's sidewalk-level angularities, with jagged buildings placed askew to the axis of the grid, need to be fixed to conform to a New York tradition.

Whether Childs' desire for understated elegance can be reconciled with Libeskind's angular, expressionistic shards should become apparent when the designs for the Freedom Tower are made public, possibly within the next few weeks. It will more months to see how well Calatrava's fluid forms mesh with Libeskind's stylistic idiosyncrasies.

The long-term question is whether the whole tangle of overlapping interests that govern the site's development can be teased apart so that Lower Manhattan can grow the way the rest of New York did -- block by block, storefront by storefront -- without simply degenerating into a grim patchwork of bland buildings executed on the cheap. Libeskind's plan will change, as all plans do. The public has a compelling interest in seeing those alterations wrought with the same intensity of imagination, the same symbolic fervor, the same sense of mission that he brought to the original design. Libeskind's site plan needs to be treated, not as a merely an infinitely malleable set of abstract wishes, but as an architectural Constitution, to be upheld, updated and interpreted and protected.
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.

[Kris]

September 11, 2003

A Day to Look Forward

For the second anniversary of Sept. 11, New York's leaders have planned a simpler ceremony than the one held a year ago, which marked the conclusion of 12 months of deep mourning. The less-elaborate event at ground zero in many ways suits the moment. It signals a city slowly beginning to mend, a community moving toward the hope that something worthy, even inspiring, will come of so much grief.

Anyone who stands at the fence around the World Trade Center site now sees more than the gaping hole of a year ago. The substructures that will eventually house a much improved network of mass-transit connections are beginning to take shape. Nearby, in buildings that overlook the full 16 acres, planners sift through proposals and computer projections, slowly settling on which powerful ideas deserve to fill the remaining space.

With each week now, more detail about the future of ground zero is coming into focus. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has picked Santiago Calatrava, the famed Spanish architect, to build a new PATH train terminal. The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and the Port Authority, which owns the site, hope to announce by later this fall the finalists in the competition to design the memorial, which will serve as both the physical and emotional center of the area.

Another competition is taking place as well, one that underscores the vision of the new Lower Manhattan as a vibrant multifaceted neighborhood where the very richness of the life on the streets and inside the buildings makes the best possible rejoinder to the terrorists' intents. That involves the search for a cultural center. City Opera is one possibility. Another intriguing proposal would create a new national theatre. A complex of museums focusing on the city's history and the details of the trade center tragedy will also be part of the mix.

Gov. George Pataki, who has worked to meet his own demanding timetable for the site, has done well recently as the head referee among the many competing forces. His timetable, criticized by some as too speedy, seems more like creative prodding to us. But he needs to make certain that Daniel Libeskind's grand design stays intact as the buildings take shape, and he should be more aggressive in making sure that the public keeps participating in this process.

This being New York, such matters are subject to debate, some emotional or even acrimonious. There is nothing wrong with these disagreements. But they cannot go on behind closed doors — even the esoteric discussions about designs or the gritty dialogue over square footage. The people making these choices may regard them as a natural part of their jobs, but others will help make sure they aren't subtly eroding the Libeskind design or neighborhood hopes for the layout of their reinvented and renewed community.

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/09/09/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/11rebuild_slide12.jpg
The aerial view of ground zero in April, 2003.

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/09/09/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/11rebuild_slide13.jpg
A worker walks along the floor of the pit on May 6, 2003.

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/09/09/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/11rebuild_slide16.jpg
A view of ground zero just before sunset on Aug. 13, 2003.

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/09/09/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/11rebuild_slide18.jpg
Work continued at ground zero eight days before the second anniversary of the attacks.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[JMGarcia]

WTC Rebuilding Proceeds, But Outside Public Eye

By Katia Hetter
Staff Writer

September 11, 2003

For all the evidence of rebirth at the World Trade Center site -- from architects' plans and retailers reopening downtown to new information centers giving recommendations to tourists -- Ground Zero has remained a construction zone, off limits to the public.

That will change in November, when the trade center's temporary PATH station on the eastern side of the slurry wall opens, allowing an expected 50,000 displaced New Jersey commuters and others to step on the site of America's worst terrorist attack for the first time since Sept. 11, 2001.

"It's a landmark event to have the public moving en masse through the World Trade Center site," said David Stanke, a longtime lower Manhattan resident who hasn't lived in his home at 114 Liberty Street, across the street from the site, since the attack. "I used to look down at the street and see people pulsing out of the trade center, then listen to the quiet in between. It will be great to have it again."

As PATH, which previously transported 67,000 commuters daily, reopens to cheers from residents and politicians alike, other evidence of revitalization abounds -- from the opening of the Millennium High School to the reopening of the green market kitty-corner to the site and construction of the 7 World Trade Center office building just north of the site. About 800 construction workers are busy at Ground Zero most days, working on the temporary station and stabilizing the site for permanent construction.

Long-term work to rebuild the office and retail space destroyed in the attack could take more than a decade, but it's progressing on schedule. Two key pieces will debut this fall: the revised master site plan expected sometime this month and a winning memorial design by November. Other promising projects will come to fruition in coming months: The historic Verizon building, which was severely damaged by falling debris on Sept. 11, will reopen in November. Developers plan to start construction of more than 2,500 apartments in Battery Park City, a neighborhood that lost many of its renters in the weeks after the attack.

By spring, the Downtown Alliance and its partners will finish installing new sidewalks and signs from Battery Park to City Hall.

By summer, the Con Edison power substation, which forms the base of 7 World Trade Center, should be providing electricity to lower Manhattan.

Lower Manhattan must be more than it was before Sept. 11, said Port Authority executive director Joseph Seymour, whose agency owns the site.

"We need to go beyond where we were before 9/11 to entice people to come downtown, to work and to invest," said Seymour, a Gov. George Pataki appointee.

Transit agencies are developing plans to renovate the convoluted Fulton Street subway station and to partially depress West Street. Agencies are also also conducting studies of other projects planned for downtown, from a train connection to the area's major airports, the East River waterfront to a new Fulton Street retail corridor and the future of Chinatown.

Cultural institutions are vying to be part of the cultural complex at the trade center site. And with more than $1 billion left to spend, the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. has held several facilitated meetings downtown to learn how lower Manhattan residents want the money spent. From affordable housing and cultural facilities to transit improvements and a community center, there will be plenty of options for the money.

"I'm very pleased that the aggressive timeline we laid out in April has so far been kept," Pataki said in a recent telephone interview. "There will always be revisions, marshall a consensus behind a very, very broad, sweeping and visionary plan."

To ensure the process keeps moving, Pataki has settled disputes about the site's future at key points along the way. He supported the victims families' demands that the footprints of the Twin Towers not be covered by commercial construction and that any tour bus parking not be located under the memorial.

He has protected architect Daniel Libeskind's "Memorial Foundations" plan for the site, rejecting proposals by trade center leaseholder Larry Silverstein to add a fifth tower to Libeskind's master plan and move the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower from the northwest to the northeast corner of the site.

Still, this next 12 months is when government agencies start implementing plans -- or not. Already, the plans to place a cornerstone of the Freedom Tower next summer has drawn complaints that it will be a political move -- just in time for the start of the Republican National Convention in late August 2004.

Downtown's largest landlord said the momentum must continue so the destroyed infrastructure gives way to an even better transit system, including train connections to the region's airports.

"We look forward to seeing whether the proposals made by the governor and mayor are executed," said John E. Zucotti, chairman of Brookfield Financial Partners, which owns the World Financial Center in Battery Park City. "Planning gets you to first base. There is a long, long step between planning and execution. It's fraught with problem of politics, the problem of bureaucracy and the problem of money."

The momentum could still be derailed by disputes between key downtown stakeholders, which have already spilled into federal court. Trade center leaseholder Silverstein has a pending lawsuit against most of his insurers, claiming that the collapse of the Twin Towers constituted two attacks that should be covered as such. Silverstein's main financier, GMAC, has filed a lawsuit against him, claiming his company isn't spending enough of GMAC's money on rebuilding at the site.

Silverstein declined to comment on the lawsuits yesterday, saying he was "focused on what's transpiring" on the Sept. 11 anniversary. But he said he had no plans to sell his lease back to any government agencies. Silverstein predicts a decade's worth of rebuilding work, with the first Freedom Tower completed by end of 2008 or beginning of 2009. An office tower will be completed every year until the fifth and final one is done, in 2013.

[b]And it's not clear if government officials' hopes to move some of the trade center's 10 million square feet of office space off-site will happen. If his key piece of property at 140 Liberty Street isn't purchased or condemned by the government, developer Howard Milstein said he would build an apartment building with ground-floor retail "to the full height allowed by zoning."

Deutsche Bank, owner of 130 Liberty Street, has indicated more willingness sell its building to be included in the trade center plans. But the company has also sued its insurer to obtain more coverage for the damage.

Despite many good reviews for the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., which invited renowned architects to redesign the site after an initial group plans were panned, Ground Zero-area Councilman Alan Gerson and other elected officials from lower Manhattan say the Pataki-dominated decision-making process has excluded them.

Gerson would like to see more discussion of affordable housing downtown, environmental restrictions on construction at the site and the reopening of Chinatown's Park Row, which is currently controlled by the New York Police Department.

"As we go about rebuilding, I'd like us follow the values we want the rebuilding to reflect," Gerson said. "If we mean what we say in our commitment to democracy, we should restore the checks and balances of decision-making." Kevin Rampe, president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., insists the process has been more public and democratic than most developments.

"Usually, the the public has not seen the design prior to environmental review," Rampe said. "People aren't looking at a plan for the first time. In this case, the public created the plan, in some ways."

More than any of the lawsuits pending in federal court, Rampe fears a wave of environmental litigation. The mandated environmental review will be completed next April.

"If anything keeps me up at night, that's it," he said.

Even the threat of the insurance lawsuits doesn't worry Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff, who says politicians can intervene if the lawsuits threaten to bog down progress.

"We could encourage the parties to reach any agreement if any of those disputes held anything up," Doctoroff said. "This is not just about money. This is about a moral imperative" to rebuild lower Manhattan.

Nikki Stern, who lost her husband, James Potorti, said she hopes people remember that day without using "Freedom Tower" or "Patriots Day" labels.

"They provide an easy out for people who don't want to think too deeply about what happened," she said. "Somehow, this event has to be transformed into something that affects people, that makes them aware of how precious life is, how precious freedom is, how precious New York is, without resorting to easy platitudes."

As he celebrates the return of 280 PATH trains to the World Trade Center site, resident David Stanke prepares to return home. His apartment, across the street from Ground Zero, is scheduled to be cleaned up by June. As the Stankes prepare for years of construction, every improvement counts, he said.

"I am not excited about living next to the site," Stanke said. "Construction is going to be part of our lives and work downtown."

But he is excited about the next visible sign of progress: the steel coming up out of Silverstein's first reconstruction project in lower Manhattan sometime this fall. Said Stanke, "I can't wait until I see outsides of 7 World Trade Center."
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.

[Kris]

September 13, 2003

Ground Zero Plan Seems to Circle Back

By EDWARD WYATT

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/packages/images/nyregion/20030913_wtc_GROUND03/met_wtc_GROUND03_promo_01.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20030913_wtc_GROUND03/ground03.html)

When the revised master plan for the rebuilding of the World Trade Center is released this month, it will include scores of changes to Daniel Libeskind's design, both major alterations and minor refinements, many of them never before seen in public.

The plan will retain its signature elements — the recessed memorial area, the 1,776-foot spire that will be taller than the original towers, and a grand new transportation terminal. But other features will come into sharper focus, like a giant waterfall that has so far attracted scant attention and shrinking "urban parks" that in reality are little more than streets with flower beds.

The secretive evolution of the plan contrasts sharply with the continuing portrayal of the rebuilding process as one of the most open and inclusive civic building projects in memory. Government officials, architects, civic groups and developers still speak in awestruck tones about the town hall meeting in the summer of 2002, when more than 4,000 New Yorkers spent hours discussing, of all things, urban planning.

Ever since, the officials overseeing the rebuilding effort have congratulated themselves for their courage to go back to the drawing board after the public rejected the original six designs for the site. And they have cited that process for their defense of the Libeskind plan from mutations that would rob it of its singularity.

"It was the aggressive outreach to a broader public that resulted in the consensus behind this plan," Gov. George E. Pataki said in an interview last month.

As much as the Libeskind plan evolved by the will of the public, however, it also turned on the political needs of Mr. Pataki, who was running for re-election last fall. The governor's decrees, like his early declaration under pressure from victims' families that the footprints of the towers be preserved as a memorial, sometimes created public opinion as much as reflected it.

Mr. Libeskind's plan, for all its ingenious originality, was just as prized for its flexibility. There also were financial considerations: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owner of the trade center, wanted to guarantee its revenues from the site, and its leaseholder, the developer Larry A. Silverstein, stood alone in his ability to pay for the rebuilding, thanks to his control of the twin towers insurance money.

Though the new master plan could be further revised in the environmental impact review, by most accounts it will be superior to that of the World Trade Center design of the 1970's. It will reconnect neighborhoods that were split apart by the original project and provide a somber memorial to the victims of the 9/11 attack.

In the minds of some officials, though, it also seems reminiscent of a design rejected by the thousands of citizen planners who packed that July 2002 town hall meeting in the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center.

Politics of the Memorial

Months before that huge meeting, rebuilding officials knew that almost all the decisions about the site would be driven by the memorial to the victims of the Sept. 11 attack, leaving few options for its basic design.

In early 2002, Louis R. Tomson, the president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, and others advised Mr. Pataki that the most sensible plan was to re-establish Fulton and Greenwich Streets through the site. That would carve the property into quadrants, saving the largest section — the southwest corner, where the towers had stood for some 30 years — for a memorial. The restored streets would physically separate the memorial from the remaining nine acres, which could then be used for office space and the rail connections that carried commuters to the financial district.

"It was pretty obvious where the memorial was going," Mr. Tomson said in an interview last month. "And it was clear we were going to put the rail station where the rails are."

The proposal would satisfy several critical constituencies: the victims' relatives, who wanted significant space for a memorial; neighborhood residents and architects, who wanted to break up the much-lamented 16-acre superblock; and the Port Authority, which wanted to keep receiving $120 million in annual rents from the site.

By doing so, it would help to fulfill another significant goal: muting any significant controversy over the ground zero project that could disrupt Mr. Pataki's re-election campaign.

When development officials unveiled the six original proposals, all of them had streets and pedestrian walkways running through the site, and four preserved the footprints of the towers for a memorial. It quickly became evident, however, that the Port Authority's goal of rebuilding all 10 million square feet of lost office space was fundamentally incompatible with leaving so much open space.

"We all knew from the beginning that you can't take half of the site away and put the same bulk back," said Alexander Garvin, who was then the director of planning, design and development for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation.

Even Beyer Blinder Belle, the architecture firm that created most of the six designs, told the Port Authority as much. And the thousands of private citizens at the Javits Center said it even more loudly.

But the rough outlines of some rejected designs seem to have endured. One in particular, called Memorial Plaza, included an eye-catching tower at one corner, topped by a huge television antenna, and a large, open memorial space including the tower footprints. Long-absent streets were re-established through the middle of the former superblock, and a row of office buildings joined with the tower in an L-shaped formation around the memorial.

Mr. Libeskind and Mr. Garvin reject the similarity as coincidental at best. But Joseph Seymour, the executive director of the Port Authority, sees it differently. "When we roll it out," he said, "the land-use plan is going to be almost exactly what Beyer Blinder Belle proposed."

To address the perceived shortcomings in the early proposals, in August 2002 the development corporation called for the world's most prominent architects to think grandly about the future of ground zero.

Port Authority officials were livid at the development corporation's attempt to establish its own design for what the authority saw as its site, so the call for entries deliberately stated: "This is not a design competition and will not result in the selection of a final plan."

Still, Kevin Rampe, who succeeded Mr. Tomson as president of the development corporation, said the project evolved into a full-blown competition because of "the prestige of the architects involved and what they did in exhibiting their plans."

"They ignored the rules and did what they did best," Mr. Rampe said. "I don't think any of them thought about whether it was a competition of ideas or a competition of plans."

In December, the agency unveiled nine plans from seven groups of architects at the World Financial Center's Winter Garden. First to present was Mr. Libeskind. When he finished, applause echoed through the Winter Garden. None of the eight plans that followed received as great a response.

It was not an accident that Mr. Libeskind was the first to present his design, officials said later. As the design teams met with rebuilding officials every two weeks during the competition, they said, it became clear that Mr. Libeskind's "Memory Foundations" was the plan to beat.

When the public weighed in, it favored Sir Norman Foster's "kissing towers," which evoked the original twin towers but left little room for a restored street grid. In the minds of the officials, however, the only feasible alternatives were the World Cultural Center, by the Think team, which included Rafael Viñoly and Frederic Schwartz, and a design by Peterson/Littenberg Architecture and Design. Peterson/Littenberg hurt its cause when Barbara Littenberg, one of the principals, criticized the design competition and rebuilding officials at a public forum, infuriating Mr. Tomson and others.

And Then There Were Two

The competition was soon whittled down to Mr. Libeskind and Think. Yet the final decision was made less by consensus or by appeal to the public, than by fiat, born of indignation.

The two teams approached the final weeks of the competition in very different ways, which had significant bearing on their fortunes. The Think team spent nearly all of its time working on the elaborate engineering of its cultural towers, twin cylinders of scaffolding within which multiple buildings and viewing platforms would be suspended.

Mr. Libeskind, meanwhile, spent several days cloistered with Port Authority officials, working to satisfy their desires for underground parking and mechanical systems.

"The genius of Daniel Libeskind," said Mr. Seymour, the Port Authority official, "is that he worked hard with us to understand all the engineering and transportation elements on the site. He showed his flexibility."

For example, Mr. Libeskind agreed to raise the floor of the memorial site from 70 feet below ground level to 30 feet, allowing for the bracing of the foundation walls and an expanded train station and pedestrian concourses below the memorial.

When the two teams made presentations in late February to the officials who would choose the winner, nearly all of the Think team's time was spent explaining the engineering of its towers. Mr. Libeskind, however, reprised his stirring monologue portraying his design as the embodiment of America's hopes and dreams.

The day before the architects made their final pitches, a committee of development corporation directors had recommended that the Think team's design be chosen, and one committee member told The New York Times, "We don't expect anyone to overrule us." Aides say that comment incensed Mr. Pataki and caused him to favor Mr. Libeskind.

The Think design was favored by Daniel E. Doctoroff, the deputy mayor for economic development and rebuilding. But his boss, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, was dismayed by the cost of the towers, which without accounting for any office buildings was estimated at more than $800 million, compared to $330 million for the Libeskind plan.

"How can we spend so much on the memorial?" Mr. Bloomberg asked in a meeting after the two presentations, according to two people who were present.

Both the mayor and the governor also expressed a basic dislike for the Think design. Mr. Bloomberg compared it to industrial natural-gas storage tanks, and Mr. Pataki said it reminded him of a skeleton. Hours before a 10-member steering committee of officials from the Port Authority, the development corporation and the mayor's and governor's offices was to meet to choose a winner, the decision was already sealed.

Though they picked the design, neither Mr. Pataki nor Mr. Bloomberg was in a position to pay for its construction. That would fall to Mr. Silverstein, the developer and leaseholder, who was expecting billions of dollars in insurance payments for the destroyed towers.

Just before the competition had been narrowed to the two finalists, Mr. Silverstein sent a letter to rebuilding officials claiming that none of the proposed designs met his requirements.

After Mr. Libeskind was selected, Mr. Silverstein continued to push for his own priorities. This summer, Mr. Libeskind agreed that David M. Childs, who had designed the new 7 World Trade Center for Mr. Silverstein, would be the primary architect on the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower, which will dominate the Manhattan skyline.

Mr. Libeskind said that made sense because he has never built a skyscraper. But Mr. Silverstein went further, asking other architects about their interest in designing the remaining commercial buildings.

Already the Port Authority has hired another architect, Santiago Calatrava, to design the train station. Although he will follow guidelines set by Mr. Libeskind, his characteristic style, gracefully symmetrical forms, could conflict with Mr. Libeskind's angular geometries.

Mr. Libeskind says these are all normal accommodations that an architect has to make for any client on any project. "People are being educated by the process," Mr. Libeskind said. "They say to me, `You won, what's the problem?' But I tell them, `No, there's an investor who has a say in this.' "

An Evolving Master Plan

The accommodations in Mr. Libeskind's design, however, are extensive. For example, rebuilding officials gushed about his plans for the intersection of the restored Fulton and Greenwich Streets.

John C. Whitehead, the development corporation chairman, said it would be "one of the world's most majestic crossroads," a grand piazza on a par with the open plazas of European capitals, bounded by Mr. Libeskind's Wedge of Light and the Park of Heroes.

But the open space has been shrinking. Fulton Street, rather than being part of an open pedestrian plaza, is likely to be active with buses traveling from the Hudson River ferry terminal to the South Street Seaport.

The green space in the Park of Heroes, which originally was to mirror the Wedge of Light across Greenwich Street, has been cut roughly in half by a redesign of the Freedom Tower and the attached office building.

So the grand piazza appears to be, in recent renderings, more like a street with flower beds. And at the site's southern edge, the proposed Liberty Street Park is not much wider than the sidewalk next to it.

"They are urban parks," Mr. Libeskind said last month. "No, it's not Central Park. But the point is to make a connection through West Street to the Hudson."

Mr. Libeskind also said he has made changes to the borders of the Wedge of Light — a feature meant to mimic how the sun was shining on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 — but he declined to elaborate.

The architect acknowledged that he has not fully designed the waterfall proposed for the eastern edge of the south tower footprint, which would help filter out street noise. The waterfall has received almost no attention in public reviews, but as originally depicted, it would be mammoth — up to 100 feet tall, rivaling the world's largest man-made waterfalls.

The effect of these prospective changes has unnerved some people who have supported the planning process. Robert Yaro, the president of the Regional Plan Association, a civic group, said rebuilding officials were very responsive to public opinion last year. "Since then, it's been a less open process," he said. "That has been unfortunate."

But Mr. Doctoroff, the deputy mayor, said the general lack of dissension indicated that the public supported what has happened. "I think it's remarkable the level of praise that not only the process but the end result got," he said.

Mr. Libeskind and others credit the aggressiveness of civic groups with helping to preserve elements of his plan. "The vigilance of the public in this process has raised the stakes," he said. "People feel very much that they are a part of this."


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[ZippyTheChimp]

Peterson/Littenberg hurt its cause when Barbara Littenberg, one of the principals, criticized the design competition and rebuilding officials at a public forum, infuriating Mr. Tomson and others.



The day before the architects made their final pitches, a committee of development corporation directors had recommended that the Think team's design be chosen, and one committee member told The New York Times, "We don't expect anyone to overrule us." Aides say that comment incensed Mr. Pataki and caused him to favor Mr. Libeskind.
Be careful what you say in public.

[Freedom Tower]

Well now its past 9/11 2003. I was expecting some new designs to be unveiled by now. I thought they were waiting until 9/11 passed to release them. Seems like the designs may not be finished? Or is there a specific release date anyone knows about?

[James Kovata]

Well now its past 9/11 2003. I was expecting some new designs to be unveiled by now. I thought they were waiting until 9/11 passed to release them. Seems like the designs may not be finished? Or is there a specific release date anyone knows about?

It's only the 13th! But I do have a feeling there is some squabbling in the background.

[GR2NYsoon]

we need twins at 148 floors each. and a 1000 foot spire atop that.

[NyC MaNiAc]

Oooook.

I...er...completly agree! :roll:

148 stories? And a 1,000 foot spire?

[JMGarcia]

Westfield pulls out of World Trade Center
By Virginia Marsh in Sydney
Published: September 15 2003 10:27 | Last Updated: September 15 2003 10:51

Westfield, the Australian property group, has given up its battle over the redevelopment of the retail space in the World Trade Center after two years of difficult negotiations with the New York authorities.

The Sydney-based group said on Monday it had signed a letter of intent with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey under which the authority would buy its interest in the WTC for US$140m.

Westfield signed a 99-year lease on the WTC's retail space just weeks before the Twin Towers were attacked on September 11, 2001 and has therefore been drawn into the sensitive and very public debate over how the site should be redeveloped.

It has made little secret of its unhappiness with Daniel Libeskind's winning design, claiming his Freedom Tower does not take into sufficient account the needs of retailers and shoppers.

Westfield's plans have also been stymied by disagreements between the city's government and the port authority, which owns the Ground Zero site, over the style and location of the retail space within the new development.

The Australian group, the third biggest operator of shopping malls in the US, said that selling its lease back to the port authority would allow public interest to take precedence.

"We are selling our interests to the port to help simplify ...and expedite the rebuilding of the WTC," said Frank Lowy, Westfield's chairman. "While Westfield wanted to be a part of the future of the WTC, we recognised the conflict between the interests of the public and the needs of our commercial, net lease rights."

Westfield said the letter of intent was the culmination of several months of discussion over how best to proceed with the redevelopment and that the proposed deal would allow Westfield America, the listed property trust through which it made its investment, to recover its initial outlay and associated costs.

The trust agreed to pay US$127m for the lease of the retail space below the Twin Towers in mid-2001.

The group, however, remains a party to a US$3bn insurance claim from the terrorist attack. Part of the dispute with the insurers stems from disagreement over whether the terrorist attack - which involved two plane crashes - constituted one or two incidents. If Westfield and the other claimants can establish that it was two incidents, then they stand to win a larger payout.

[ZippyTheChimp]

One down, one to go. (Just wishful thinking)

[JMGarcia]

The city should be so lucky to get rid of Silverstein's height limits.

It does always bother me a bit though that NY is so difficult to conduct business in that many just find it simpler to give up.

[Jasonik]

I makes sense to have a leasing agreement that is based on a known condition.
Westfield made a sound decision by putting any lost value due to the masterplan in the lap of the PA.
I presume they will bid for the new lease when the final configuration is more defined.

The insurance component seems quite complex. Westfield can sell back leasing interest and still recieve insurance money? No wonder they're in court over this.

[TLOZ Link5]

Good riddance.

So long as we're talking about Ground Zero, I was down there last night on my way to Battery Park City with a friend. He and a bunch of his friends in Gallatin were planning to play capture the flag on the North Lawn at 10:00 at night (don't ask), so he asked if I wanted to tag along. It was lots of fun, and apparently the BPC Authority was cool about us doing it. Our team won. I just hope we weren't ticking off anyone in the nearby apartment buildings (did you sleep well last night, Zippy?). :mrgreen:

[ZippyTheChimp]

:shock:

[TLOZ Link5]

Should I infer that that is a "no"? :lol:

[NyC MaNiAc]

I think that means, "I didn't sleep well last night."

It looks like me everytime I wake up in the morning. :shock: Must...go...back...to...sleeeeeeep.

[TLOZ Link5]

I didn't get much sleep last night either, considering that I got back to the dorm at 3:30 in the morning and had to wake up at 7 am for an 8 am class. But at about 11 I went back to my dorm and took a nap. Plus it was a good workout, and we contributed to the nightlife that Downtown still lacks—even though it was technically in BPC, which is generally a very vibrant area.

[JMGarcia]

PA MAKES KEY WTC MALL DEAL

By WILLIAM NEUMAN
NY Post

September 16, 2003 -- The Port Authority has reached a $140 million deal to buy back the development rights to the World Trade Center shopping mall - a key step that would return much of the site to direct public control for the first time since 9/11.

The deal with Westfield America, announced by the company yesterday, gives the PA significantly more leverage over the other developer on the site, Larry Silverstein, who holds the lease on the Twin Towers' office space.

The PA would also gain control over as much as 12 percent of the insurance billions due on the trade center.

The PA and Westfield signed a letter of intent Friday, although details must still be worked out.

Sources said the deal suddenly puts the PA in a much stronger position in its often testy negotiations with Silverstein since Westfield's retail lease had given it development rights to almost 10 of the site's 16 acres, including the old WTC plaza and concourse level.

Silverstein's lease gives him development rights to build on the Twin Towers' "footprints" - just two acres. Because of plans for the memorial, Silverstein's rights must be transferred elsewhere on the site.

The U.S. Customs Service has already signed over to the PA its rights to No. 6 WTC, meaning the agency has now regained control over much of the site it sold in July 2001.

The PA has tried to open talks with Silverstein toward a similar deal to buy back at least a portion of his rights to 10 million square feet of WTC office space, but he has refused.

Silverstein is hoping to win a lawsuit with his WTC insurers that could add billions to the rebuilding pot.

Removing Westfield, which did not like architect Daniel Libeskind's Ground Zero plan, helps streamline the rebuilding process.

Yesterday's deal was cut behind Silverstein's back, angering the developer, sources said.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Interesting developments, JM.

I don't know if this will be a positive or not, but I welcome the PA's increase in bargaining position. The Silverstein status-quo is unacceptable.

[JMGarcia]

In my happy fantasy world ;), I'd like to think the PA is waiting for Silverstein's insurance case to be settled and then have them buy him out so that they get the money and get him out of the way. He is just not the guy for this. He simply has no vision.

[billyblancoNYC]

This is very good. Some street level retail and some new things instead of a boring underground mall.

Also, Silverstein need to be reigned in a bit. Not sure if the PA is the one, but someone needs to be.

Hey, 12% of billions is a lot of money toward a nice "Grand Central - Downtown."

[Kris]

September 16, 2003

Retail Operator at Trade Center Is Pulling Out of the Deal

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

Westfield America, the mall operator that owns the lease for retail space at the World Trade Center, said yesterday that it was negotiating a cash settlement to pull out of its deal on the downtown complex.

While the move could clear the way for significant design changes sought by rebuilding officials, it raises questions about how much money will be available for the downtown project if there are other buyouts.

Westfield, the operator of the underground mall that was destroyed at the trade center, has resisted efforts to create more retailing at street level. Yesterday, the company said that it had signed a nonbinding letter of intent with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to give up its contract for $140 million.

"We are selling our interests to the Port to help simplify the overall rebuilding process and expedite the rebuilding of the World Trade Center," said Peter Lowey, the company's chief executive, in a statement.

The Port Authority, the owner of the 16-acre site, said that it was pleased to "enter into discussions" with Westfield. It said that an agreement would "allow the best interests of the public to take precedence in the development of appropriate retail space."

Officials involved in the negotiations said that Westfield recognized that it would take 10 to 15 years to rebuild the complex, which was once one of the highest-grossing malls in the country, with hundreds of stores. Westfield, a publicly traded company based in Australia, was not confident that the current proposals for retail space would ever generate average sales of $900 a square foot, as the trade center did in 2000, according to executives who have talked with the mall operator. So the company would rather get out.

The announcement illuminates a shift in the discussions over the trade center site, from the design of the site and its memorial to more bottom-line financial concerns.

Westfield's announcement comes 12 days after GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation sued the Port Authority and the developer Larry Silverstein over the $563 million loan it provided Mr. Silverstein and his partners when they acquired the trade center lease. GMAC, which says its loan is secured only by the insurance money, has asked a judge to freeze payments to Mr. Silverstein. Over the last nine months, it has refused to release any insurance proceeds to Mr. Silverstein that would allow him to pay for architects involved in rebuilding.

The insurance companies have put $1.9 billion into an escrow account controlled by GMAC. About $600 million of that total has been spent on ground rent, loan payments and items covered by business interruption insurance.

Last Wednesday, Port Authority commissioners quietly decided to begin discussions to buy out GMAC's mortgage so that the lender would not become an impediment.

Mr. Silverstein and the Port Authority are also awaiting a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in their battle against the insurance companies that provided coverage for the trade center. Mr. Silverstein contends that he is entitled to a double payment of nearly $7 billion because two planes hit two towers in what he describes as two separate "occurrences" on Sept. 11.

The insurance companies contend that the developer is due only the policy limit, about $3.5 billion, a sum that Mr. Silverstein has said is not enough to rebuild the trade center.

Charles A. Gargano, vice chairman of the Port Authority, said the agency was in fundamental agreement with having Mr. Silverstein pay off the GMAC loan, as long as the authority was protected against a lower-than-expected insurance payout.

The elimination of GMAC and Westfield would presumably reduce some of the squabbling over the designs. Westfield, for one, put up $127 million in July 2001 for its retail leases based on estimates of 150,000 office workers and visitors a day. The company opposed efforts to move stores from below ground to create a more energetic street life.

But buyouts could also reduce the money available for rebuilding, an especially critical issue if Mr. Silverstein loses his legal battle and the insurers pay out only $3.2 billion. That figure would drop to about $2.2 billion after taking into account the buyouts and money already spent. The first office building, which is in the design stage, will cost as much as $1.5 billion, and the overall rebuilding project is expected to cost more than $7 billion.

"I've long been concerned that no one is keeping an eye on the finances," said Elliott Sclar, a professor of urban planning at Columbia University. "Despite the city's current fiscal crisis, they say we can do anything downtown and it'll be successful. But there's a complex set of interests at work here and only so much money."

"Somebody's got to foot the bill at the end of the day," said one executive involved in buyout negotiations. "I don't think everyone's worked out the economics yet."


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[dbhstockton]

I just heard on the radio that the PA scrapped the bus garage on the sacred "footprints." There will be nothing but PATH tracks in the pit. I haven't found any news articles on-line, but maybe someone has something?

[JMGarcia]

Liberty Bonds should not be for midtown-LMDC chair
Reuters, 09.16.03, 2:51 PM ET

By Joan Gralla

NEW YORK, Sept 16 (Reuters) - The chairman of the agency charged with rebuilding lower Manhattan said on Tuesday he opposed using tax-free Liberty Bonds for midtown office towers, including projects for the Bank of America Corp. and the New York Times Co.

The two companies are planning to build office towers in midtown. Both the Times' developer, Bruce Ratner, and Bank of America have said they want Liberty Bonds to help pay for the costly projects.

"This board member certainly believes that it should not be used for any purpose other than lower Manhattan," John Whitehead, chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. (LMDC), told reporters after a board meeting.

Asked what he might do to prevent New York State and New York City from approving Liberty Bonds for the two midtown projects, Whitehead replied: "This is my first step. But not my last step."

The federal government approved $8 billion of Liberty Bonds, which are exempt from federal, state and city taxes, to help rebuild New York City after the Sept. 11, 2001, air attacks. Some real estate experts say downtown Manhattan's growth could be sapped by big new midtown projects.

Whitehead's stance put him in conflict with both Gov. George Pataki and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff, who serves on the LMDC board, told Reuters: "We think it's highly appropriate; the city and state agree on that."

Washington earmarked $2 billion of the Liberty Bonds for projects located outside lower Manhattan, Doctoroff noted.

The Times plans to build a 52-story building on Eighth Avenue between 40th and 41st streets. Bank of America wants a two million square-foot tower on 42nd Street at Sixth Avenue. Officials from both companies were either unavailable or declined to comment.

LMDC also approved plans to seek the federal government's approval for a $50 million apartment building with 300 units earmarked for affordable housing that also would be at least partially financed with Liberty Bonds.

On Wednesday afternoon, the LMDC plans to unveil a revised site plan, which will clarify where underground structures -- from truck ramps to subway train lines -- will be located.

Board Member Roland Betts said the design by architect Daniel Libeskind "is 100 percent intact." He explained that, for example, plans to add a fifth office tower or move the tallest office building from the northwest corner to the northeast corner had been rejected.
Copyright 2003, Reuters News Service

[dbhstockton]

I hope that doesn't ruin my day tomorrow.

[Gulcrapek]

The permanent location of FT is a good thing, as is the holding of only four towers at the site. More space, more height.

[JMGarcia]

The following .pdf file is dated 9/16 and has a new ground level plan. The most notable aspect is the park between Liberty and Cedar Sts. on the south side of the site and the bus station moved to the north of the WFC.

http://www.renewnyc.org/content/pdfs/WTC%20GPP%20Amended%2009%2016%2003.pdf

[NoyokA]

NYPOST:

BIAS & REBUILDING

By STEVE CUOZZO

September 17, 2003 -- TODAY, the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. and the Port Authority will unveil Daniel Libeskind's revised master plan for Ground Zero. We'll get to see how well the architect, public agencies and leaseholder have reconciled the needs for commercial renewal, memorial commemoration, footprint preservation, street extension and skyline restoration - all on a site too small for them all.

The design will little resemble Libeskind's original, knife-edged, pit-and-pendulum vision of last year. It retains all the 10 million square feet of offices that Libeskind grudgingly squeezed into a version shown last winter.

The difference is that the new model, which moves about 1.5 million square feet of offices to 130 Liberty St., has a real chance of being built. That's because Gov. Pataki has put his muscle behind it - and because Libeskind agreed to let Larry Silverstein's architect, David Childs, design the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower.

Libeskind has clearly bowed to reality. His accommodations lend hope that the tower might actually poke its head out of the earth by next summer - paving the way for the eventual reclamation of the entire 16-acre site in an appropriate form.

BUT Libeskind's willingness to play ball is bound to infuriate anti-development forces of every stripe: left-wing ideologues, landlords fearful of competition from new office towers and - no secret to readers of this page - The New York Times and the editorial page, at least, of the Daily News.

Whatever the Times' or News' objections to the aesthetics of Ground Zero, they have made no secret as to what they really hate: the restoration of office space there.

What reception awaits the revised site plan may be gleaned from a lavishly illustrated story in Saturday's Times. It expressed shock - actually, horror! - that Libeskind's evolved plan will closely resemble last year's Beyer Blinder Belle designs, which the Times hated.



The headline groaned, "Ground Zero Plan Seems to Circle Back - Compromises Behind the Scenes Echo a Proposal Rejected Earlier."

It's ironic that after a prolonged selection process and much tweaking, Libeskind's final plan will recall BBB's. But it is hardly a secret. It was first brought to public attention on this page in March, where Libeskind's master plan and one of BBB's were shown side by side under the headline, "What's the difference?"

WHY does the Times pretend to notice only now? Because last winter, it didn't suit the paper's purpose to do so.

The Gray Lady had enthusiastically endorsed Libeskind's original vision for a 70-foot-deep pit and knife-edge towers. Even after some rough edges were softened, Libeskind's heart remained more in the plan's exposed slurry wall, "Wedge of Light" and cultural museum than in office buildings.

And the Times just as plainly hoped Libeskind's "vision" would crowd out Silverstein's ambition to restore the office space. Just two months ago, a Times editorial said that "one version" of Libeskind's plan "did make room" for 10 million feet of offices - as if that "one version" were not, in truth, the only plan on the table at that time.

The notion that full office restoration could be rolled back was bolstered by Libeskind's insistence that only he would design the Freedom Tower - even though he had never designed an office building.

But things quickly changed. Prodded by Pataki, Libeskind and Silverstein reached a rough accommodation, and Libeskind yielded to Silverstein's demand for Childs to design the big tower. Now the Times, along with much of the deep-thinking establishment, appears ready to turn its erstwhile fair-haired boy Libeskind into a goat.

It would not be the first time The Times has played a destructive role in delaying Ground Zero's reclamation. Its obsessive assault on last summer's BBB site plans lent an aura of legitimacy to the LMDC's cowardly withdrawal of them, setting things back a year.

IT'S an unfortunate, and under-appreciated, truth that two of New York's three daily newspapers are linked to real-estate interests likely to suffer from office replenishment Downtown - a circumstance that makes both papers something other than disinterested spectators at Ground Zero.

The Times is in a close partnership with developer Forest City Ratner, which plans to build the Times Co.'s new Midtown headquarters tower; it will be jointly owned by the Times and Ratner. Ratner also aspires to develop new office towers in Brooklyn, likely at Downtown's expense.

At the same time, Ratner and the Times have a problem on their hands: The top half of the new Times tower, located on Eighth Avenue and 40th Street, has not yet signed tenants. Ratner's inability so far to obtain a construction loan for its portion of the building has compelled it to seek Liberty Bond financing. The last thing Ratner needs while it searches for companies to fill 700,000 square feet on top of the Times space is a batch of freshly minted, cheaper new offices Downtown.

Lest anyone think that Midtown and Downtown are not competing markets, recall that HIP is leaving the West 30s for 55 Water St. Or consider how giant Midtown landlord Boston Properties is trying to exploit Downtown's weakened condition. The collapse of Arthur Andersen left Boston with a mostly empty new office tower in Times Square. To fill it, Boston is trying to lure law firm Cadwalader Wickersham Taft - a Downtown tenant for 200 years.

And who is Boston's chairman? Mortimer Zuckerman - who also happens to be chairman of the Daily News. If the Times is joined at the wallet to a real-estate firm, the Daily News is joined at the head.

LIKE Ratner or any other landlord, Boston Properties would prefer to keep the inventory of competing space as small as possible to keep rents as high as possible, in accordance with the law of supply and demand. A News editorial last summer warned Silverstein and the PA against even thinking about replacing all the WTC's office space.

The News has long had a beef with the PA. It escalated after Boston Properties, in partnership with Brookfield Properties, tried to buy the World Trade Center leasehold in the winter and spring of 2001 - only to lose out to Silverstein in an epic bidding war.

The News has confined its distaste for office rebuilding and its hostility toward Silverstein to its editorial page. Not so the Times, which for months flagrantly falsified Downtown's condition with exaggerated vacancy rates and hysterical predictions of mass corporate exodus.

EMBARRASSED by revelations that its own new headquarters might swell that vacancy rate, the Times briefly mothballed its blatant propaganda. No longer do news stories directly assail the wisdom of rebuilding 10 million square feet of offices.

But the campaign has returned in stealthier form. On Sunday, a Times survey of the commercial market cited only the most pessimistic data on Manhattan's unoccupied space.

The Times used numbers from Newmark & Co., one of the city's big-three commercial brokerages. As anyone in real estate knows, Newmark always reports higher vacancy rates than competitors such as Cushman & Wakefield, CB Richard Ellis and Jones Lang LaSalle.

The same day, the Times picked up its old drumbeat about jobs not returning to Manhattan. It "reported" old news that of 20,000 financial services jobs lost after 9/11, half had not come back - a handy argument against rebuilding offices.

Why such a non-story now? To discredit Downtown's prospects, the Times relied on prognostications of M. Myers Mermel, the same tenant broker whose wild claims of 20-plus percent "vacancies" Downtown last year emboldened the paper to declare that one floor in five stood "empty." True to form, Mermel told the Times that even when Wall Street firms rehire, "they will place new employees elsewhere."

Yes, The Post also carries bad tidings about Downtown, from Silverstein's insurance woes to the bankruptcy of the Century 21 office tower to Donald Trump's trashing of the Libeskind plan as a "monstrosity."

But The Post (like The Wall Street Journal, Crain's and other papers) has also covered Downtown's declining vacancy rate and the stabilization of the commercial base - phenomena that somehow elude the interest of Times editors.

NO one suggests Times reporters are party to an agenda. What appears in any paper is as much a reflection of editing as of reporting. We rarely get to know how stories are assigned or edited - or which ones are written but never see print.

An exception was the sports columns about the Augusta Golf Club that broke with Howell Raines' party line. Spiked by Raines' lackeys, they saw light of day only after a public outcry.

Maybe one day we'll learn how the Times decides what's fit to print about Ground Zero.

[JMGarcia]

Architect says revisions to World Trade Center plan refine original

September 17, 2003, 5:40 PM EDT

NEW YORK (AP) _ Architect Daniel Libeskind presented a revised plan for the World Trade Center site that he said was a refinement and an improvement of his original vision.

Libeskind denied reports that he has been forced to water down his plan to make it more commercially viable and said he stands by all the changes.

"They improve the scheme," he said Wednesday. "The buildings have become delicate. They've become more slender. Their views are better."

The new plan still includes five office buildings, but it places one just south of the trade center site, where the damaged Deutsche Bank tower now stands.

It also limits development over the footprints of the twin towers, except commuter train tracks. A coalition of victims' relatives had campaigned to preserve the footprints, which they consider sacred ground.

Earlier designs did not protect those areas.

Families said Wednesday the plan was an improvement, but they hesitated to call it a victory.

"They have made progress in the right direction," said Jack Lynch, the father of a fallen firefighter. "It's not everything we wanted, but they have addressed some of our concerns."

Lynch said some relatives object to the addition of a sixth train track, to run over the south tower footprint. The families did not oppose the first five tracks because the first trade center had them.

Libeskind presented the plan Wednesday with officials from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the site, and the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., the agency overseeing the redevelopment.


Copyright © 2003, The Associated Press

[Kris]

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/wtc/nyc-wtc0918,0,429047.story?coll=nyc-topheadlines-left

Revised WTC Plans Unveiled

By Katia Hetter
STAFF WRITER

September 17, 2003, 5:54 PM EDT

Architect Daniel Libeskind's plan for rebuilding the World Trade Center site, which includes the world's tallest structure, now calls for slimmer office buildings and the shifting of office and other development south of Ground Zero, Libeskind said Wednesday.

Many of the changes are improvements to the original plan, Libeskind said, speaking at Wednesday's release of the revised plan.

"I stand by all the changes ... I was not forced to make them by anybody," Libeskind said. "I stand by them. They improve the scheme. They create spaces that are viable, commercially viable, in terms of buildability, and recognize all the complex issues that are not only on the ground, but what's below."

The four slimmed-down office towers on-site allow for a less-crowded site and better views, with 1.6 million square feet of the 10 million square feet of office space moved off-site.

Other changes include the security zone for truck inspections have been moved off-site, the site's public parks have been enlarged and bus parking will handled at a yet-to-be-determined location off-site, officials said.

Retired firefighter Lee Ielpi, who lost his firefighter son at Ground Zero in the terrorist attacks and has often criticized officials for ignoring the families, said he was "optimistic" and "encouraged" by the revised site plan.

Ielpi's group, the Coalition of 9/11 Families, has lobbied to protect the footprints of the Twin Towers to bedrock.

"It's obvious we've made a dent," Ielpi said. "We don't have a ramp through the site, bus terminal, infrastructure, but then again, they did not say you have bedrock or the footprints (protected). When the memorial is picked, we'll see."

Still, Gov. George Pataki's goal of laying a cornerstone of Freedom Tower by next summer could be a problem for Libeskind. Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein's architect was named to lead the design of the Freedom Tower, and asked if Childs' design would resemble Libeskind's vision, Libeskind said, "I'm an optimist."

Silverstein spokesman Howard Rubenstein applauded the more detailed plan, saying in a statement "it moves us another major step closer to rebuilding."

The ongoing environmental review process, which should conclude next spring, and the selection of a memorial design may still change the site plan, officials said. A 13-member panel will choose up to eight finalists, and then a final memorial design, from 5,200 entries submitted this summer.

The Port Authority, which owns the trade center site, asserted more control over the site with its agreement to buy out Westfield Properties' lease for 600,000 square feet of retail space at the site. The financial terms have not been settled, Port Authority's executive director Joseph Seymour said.

The agency is also negotiating with Deutsche Bank and Milstein Properties for property just south of the site for the security zone, either to buy or to seize through the government power of eminent domain, said Seymour.

Deutsche Bank is a willing seller, but the company is suing its insurers to increase its payout for the damaged building at 130 Liberty St. Left alone, Howard Milstein has told Newsday he would develop apartments or a hotel on his land.

Rejected ideas include the Port Authority's proposal to place the security zone and the bus garage at the site below street level and trade center leaseholder Larry Silverstein's proposal to add a fifth tower to the site and move the Freedom Tower from the site's northwest corner to its northeast corner.

Libeskind's initial proposal included a memorial site 70 feet below street level, which was raised to about 30 feet in the current place; and a larger section of the slurry wall was initially left exposed to elements.

See The Revised WTC Plan Presentation (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/wtc/nyc-lmdcreport0917,0,5680086.photogallery?coll=nyc-topheadlines-left)

Virtual Tour of the New PATH Station At Ground Zero (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/wtc/nyc-pathtour0917,0,5032827.realvideo?coll=nyc-topheadlines-left)

Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.

[Gulcrapek]

I may have missed something, but on that rendering on page 4, am I the only one who noticed the 130 Liberty site's building nearly doubled in height? Its roof fits the spiral by acting at an upward curve at the end of it.

[JMGarcia]

Here's some slightly better quality pics of the new plan.

1. Old vs. New

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/New1.jpg

2. New massing model
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/New2.jpg

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/New3.jpg

[Kris]

http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/Sept_2003_refined_design.asp

[NoyokA]

WOW!

Those towers are huge!

I must admit I am impressed.

[Harmonicaman]

Thanks JMGarcia (et. al.) for the great photos and links to the Ground Zero site plan revisions!

QUESTIONS:

Have there been any design changes which impact on the WTC Memorial Design Competition site itself; specifically, the "Bathtub" area? Does the proposed Cultural Center Building on Fulton St. still bridge over the North Tower's footprint? Does the September 11 Place Museum Building still cantilever over the South Tower's footprint? Have there been any changes at all that may affect the parameters of the LMDC's WTC Memorial Design Competition? Have any elevations in the pit been changed (from those stated in the competition guidelines)? Are the access points and ramps still the same?

The images seem to indicate that nothing has changed in the area of the bathtub. Any major revisions to the pit would adversely affect the design competition!

[JMGarcia]

I see no difference in the pit, the museum and the memorial spaces. Some of the underground uses have been moved from beneath the pit though.

[Freedom Tower]

Wow, I must admit that the rest of the towers look better. They seem to be thinner and taller. They look more detailed in the facades and less sloped on the roofs compared to before. Although, I do not really see much of a change in the freedom tower. If anyone sees a major change in it, please point it out. I do see that its main office is taller too, which is great. But I see no change in the spire. I heard that it would be 2100 feet with the antenna, and 1776 with the spire alone. However, the antenna isn't shown so I am confused :? But the other 4 towers look so much better. I like them thinner and taller. There was all this talk about a 5th tower being added. It almost looks like there was a fifth tower in the first design, but they took it away to add height to the rest of the towers. That is what confuses me the most. We were all expecting a tower added for decreased height, but it looks the other way around. Hmm, does anyone know if this will be the FINAL plan, or if it will be subject to more changes? Don't want to get too excited just for them to lower the heights or something.

[NyC MaNiAc]

Those 2 Towers in the middle look like revised Twins :D

How tall are they supposed to be?

[Kris]

September 18, 2003

Design Team for Trade Center Reveals a Revised Master Plan

By EDWARD WYATT

Rebuilding officials released a revised and expanded master plan for the World Trade Center site yesterday that includes a taller, slimmer set of office towers surrounding the central memorial area and a large new park immediately to the south.

As envisioned by Daniel Libeskind, the architect of the plan, the array of office towers spirals upward to the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower at the northwest corner of the site, in a sweeping arc that echoes the lifted arm and torch of the Statue of Liberty.

But the core of each of the towers — the space housing elevator banks and mechanical systems — has been reduced, both to accommodate more retail space at ground level and to reduce the bulk of the buildings, allowing more sunlight to reach the ground. Three of the five towers are also taller than previously planned, by as much as seven floors.

Also changed are the outlines, or footprints, of the base of each tower. Those structures have been made more boxlike, with the removal of most of the odd angles that characterized the earlier versions of Mr. Libeskind's plan. The change was made primarily to align ground-level retail space parallel to the streets.

As a result of all the changes, the experience of a visitor walking through the site is likely to be significantly different than it would have been had more of the street-level elements of Mr. Libeskind's earlier plans survived.

A pedestrian traveling along the main streets through and around the site would see a wall of buildings much like that in any Manhattan office district. But as one walks to the south end of the site, the new, two-square-block park, bounded by Liberty, Greenwich, Cedar and West Streets, creates the site's largest contiguous open area at ground level.

Mr. Libeskind said yesterday that the signature elements of his plan remained intact, including the 1,776-foot tower, the sunken memorial area with the exposed foundation wall of the original trade center site, and the grand new transportation terminal. And he said the changes released yesterday improved the buildings "in every sense."

"I stand by all the changes," he said. "I was not forced to make them by anybody. They create spaces that are viable commercially and buildable and that recognize all the complex interests that are not only on the ground level but also what's below."

The expanded plan formally incorporates two pieces of property outside the borders of the original World Trade Center site: 130 Liberty Street, where a black shroud covers the damaged Deutsche Bank building, and the area at West and Liberty Streets formerly occupied by a parking lot and the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.

City and state officials said yesterday that they had begun talks with the owners to acquire those parcels, but they acknowledged that an agreement was not certain.

Much of the new material in the revised plan concerns the areas below ground, where trucks carrying goods and materials to the office towers and retail stores will be screened for security purposes before traveling to underground loading docks.

Mr. Libeskind and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey worked to meet the demands of a small but vocal group of relatives of the victims of the World Trade Center attack, which sought to keep any of the underground building-service areas from encroaching on the theoretical subterranean boundaries of the original twin towers.

By adding the Liberty Street properties to the plan, rebuilding officials were able to move the truck security checkpoints from the original trade center property to an underground area across Liberty Street, beneath the new parkland.

The revised plan also reconfigures the 600,000 square feet of retail space within the World Trade Center site in a way that is likely to inspire debate about just how attractive the space will be to potential new tenants.

The original site included 430,000 square feet of retail space, most of it along a below-ground concourse. The newly configured space also includes retail stores along two levels of below-ground concourses and at street level.

But roughly one-third of the retail stores would be situated one or two floors above street level, in parcels as large as 42,600 square feet.

Rebuilding officials said they hoped that would make the space attractive to large tenants, like department stores or big-box wholesale-type stores that could spread out among several floors. But multistory shopping malls, while successful in some other large cities, have had a mixed-to-poor experience in Manhattan, a big reason why city officials were pushing for as much retail space as possible at street level.


AN APPRAISAL

A Design Rethought, With Judgment Deferred

By HERBERT MUSCHAMP

Yesterday, in a presentation lasting less than an hour, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation unveiled Daniel Libeskind's "Refined World Trade Center Site Master Plan." The design will delight those who have been pressuring public officials to go full speed ahead toward the completion of a master plan. These people may ultimately get the architecture they deserve. The plan looks like a rush job.

So I want to take some time before writing about it. One of the major defects of the ground zero design process thus far has been the nearly hysterical atmosphere it has generated. Two years ago and even one year ago, the sense of panic was unavoidable. Decisions were being made hastily, while bodies remained on the site. Had the public not aroused itself into aggression, we would now be looking toward construction of an anachronistic, theme-park version of Rockefeller Center, next to the one we've already got across the road in Battery Park City.

It is not yet clear whether the current plans are an improvement. Until design guidelines for individual buildings are issued, perhaps late next month, it will be impossible to judge where the master plan is heading. Will it be a mammoth, walk-in sculpture, designed for all intents and purposes by Mr. Libeskind himself, or will it adhere to the initial vision he outlined last February, when he was chosen to design the master plan? That remains an open question.

What is clear, however, is that many of the ideas he presented last winter remain substantially intact: the 1,776-foot-tall Freedom Tower; the Wedge of Light; the Park of Heroes; the exposed slurry wall. All this and more reappeared in Mr. Libeskind's slide presentation yesterday. His plan, in other words, remains driven more by rhetoric than by urban form. Take away the name 9/11 Place and you are left with a rather ordinary traffic intersection, not the grand public space for which some have been hoping.

It will take time to sort out the differences between words and pictures, pictures and plans, plans and buildings. The collapse of these categories into one another is a hallmark of the Libeskind plan. Even yesterday, it was impossible to distinguish the master plan from the lushly animated computer renderings of buildings used to present it. One gains the feeling that the confusion may be deliberate, and not entirely for reasons of art.

The most substantial additions unveiled yesterday are underground. Considerable work has gone into planning the infrastructure for the transportation systems that converge at the site. Much of this work is technical and will be properly appraised over time by experts in the field. Plans have also been prepared for retail space, to replace that lost in the trade center disaster. The precise configuration of retail areas — how much will face the street, how much placed underground — probably won't be determined until a new retail operator has been selected.

Above ground, however, the new plan strongly resembles the renderings that have already been published. As such, both conceptually and formally, it remains deeply flawed.

Many of the flaws flow directly from the plan's failure to discriminate between drawings, plans, and buildings. This failure is particularly glaring in the "spiral of skyscrapers," a half-circle of five tall buildings that would house the bulk of the commercial space.

In renderings of this feature, shown from aerial perspective, we see the towers rising like a kind of alpine procession to the dramatic height of Freedom Tower. In fact, this effect would be barely noticeable except from helicopters hovering at one or two precise points in the air. Theoretically, the towers are to be designed by different architects. Unless they all decide to employ the same sharply angled tops, the spiral effect would melt into the air.

Conceptually, the design remains more than latently political. In his presentation, Mr. Libeskind protested that ideas like Freedom Tower and the Park of Heroes are "not just rhetoric." Perhaps not "just," but they are rhetorical, nonetheless, whatever else they may be, and it is contrary for a place dedicated to democracy to start telling people what to think.

It would be misleading to appraise the plan on the terms it sets forth. To do so would be to buy into a set of assumptions that should, by themselves, be subject to objective scrutiny. The issues of density and bulk, for example, remain nearly as troubling now as they did in July 2002, when the public rejected the development corporation's original proposals for the site. The corporation is still trying to cramp too much stuff onto too small a site. It's as if the agency has yet to hire anyone who knows how to read a plan.

To say this, of course, is not to be antidevelopment. Being antidevelopment in New York is like being against oxygen. The air smells, but have you tried living without it?

The problem, rather, is that history and architecture are both being made to move at the pace of politics. And the strain shows. Until recently, many observers assumed that the major function of the development corporation was to protect the design process from commercial considerations, like those represented by Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the 16-acre site. But who has been protecting the process from political considerations? That question has become increasingly urgent.

What we saw yesterday was not so much an architectural or urban plan as a tribute to the public agencies that managed to see eye to eye as the design process unfolded. Blind-spot-to-blind-spot might be more apt.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[dbhstockton]

Being antidevelopment in New York is like being against oxygen. The air smells, but have you tried living without it?

Very witty. I wonder if he read the NY Post article above...

[Kris]

He obviously isn't obsessed with Cuozzo the way the latter is with the Times.

[tmg]

I have a slight preference for certain elements of the older plan.

I liked the way towers 4 & 5 were more visibly shorter and wider than the others. It heightened the spiral effect of the whole ensemble. Now the five towers appear too close to one another in height, and I wonder whether the height differences will be all that visible from the pit.

Re: the confusion over the fifth tower... the debate was whether a 5th tower should be added on the WTC site. In the most recent plan, as in the original, there are only four towers on site. The shortest (fifty) tower is south of Liberty St., off the original WTC site.

[NoyokA]

The Hotel was removed in the new plan to allow for an extended park and memorial. I suppose its presence will be made in other future plans.

[JMGarcia]

I believe the hotel is planned for a mid-rise building attached to the tower in the NE corner of the site.

[TonyO]

What is going where the first Libeskind plan's lowest building was? I am referring to the parcel just north of the Deutsche Bank building (the new 5th tower). It looks green in the slide show, is it a park or something?

[JMGarcia]

There will be a park bounded by Liberty, Cedar, West, and Greenwich streets. Under it (underground) will be the truck/service entrance to the complex and where security on all vehicles entering the site takes place. This was done to allow the space under the floor of the pit to not be used so the families wouldn't have that at least to whine about.

[SunsetWorks]

Where will the church be rebuilt? It had been orginally located on a small piece of the Liberty-West-Cedar-Greenwich parcel now allocated to a park/underground screening.

Apparently the presence of the church prior to 9/11 had prevented the developer from building on that area.

[Freedom Tower]

Being antidevelopment in New York is like being against oxygen. The air smells, but have you tried living without it?

Very witty. I wonder if he read the NY Post article above...

Haha. Witty is one way to describe it, I'd rather just call it hypocritical. ;)

[Kris]

Why?

[Kris]

360-View Of Libeskind Revised WTC Plan (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/wtc/nyc-1libeskind360,0,7432352.realvideo?coll=nyc-topheadlines-left)
Libeskind's Plan: 3-D View From Map to Reality (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/wtc/nyc-2libeskind360.realvideo)

[dbhstockton]

Those movies are lame.

[Freedom Tower]

Out of all these new renderings there is still something missing. They claim the building will have an observation deck AT 1,776 feet. and that the antenna will go to 2,100 feet. I did not see that change in the design. And also, it doesn't look a thing like the BBB plans it was alledgedly supposed to. I hope the freedom tower stays similar to how Libeskind designed it, and to the new height of 1,776 AND 2,100. However I have a bad feeling that we are not being told something. If these are the FINAL versions why are they so undetailed? And why does the freedom tower still look the same? I don't want to get excited just to be let down.

[dbhstockton]

They never said the tower desings were final. They're still "massing studies," or whatever you want to call them.

[Freedom Tower]

Ahh ok Got ya. Thanks for clearing that up :).

[OKoranjes]

Didn't Liebeskind win the competition to design the site, not necessarily the buildings? This is why I think it's okay for other architects to be drawn in.

[Kris]

Here are the revised site plans.

Starting from level b-4, the lowest level in the pit. Here you can see the PATH platforms and the planned LIRR platfrom off to the right. There also seems to be a good amount of parking.
http://wtc.e27.com/press/middle/9-WTC-Plan-B4.jpg


Level b-3, the next level up. Here is the PATH mezzanine as well as the truck and service access entrances to the office towers.
http://wtc.e27.com/press/middle/9-WTC-Plan-B3.jpg

Level b-2. Here is the lower mall level and connections off to the WFC to the west as well as to the MTA Transit Center and Fulton/B'wy. Note the central atrium open to the PATH mezzanine below.
http://wtc.e27.com/press/middle/9-WTC-Plan-B2.jpg

Level b-1. The first floor underground. There is additional shopping here as well as the truck entry to the south of the site under the new park on Liberty St. Also note the central atrium continues up into the transit center.
http://wtc.e27.com/press/middle/9-WTC-Plan-B1.jpg


Here is the ground level plan. Heroes park has been shrunk to allow for a larger footprint for the 1776 Freedom Tower. Also, Cedar St. on the south is continued through the old Duetsche Bank site moving the new tower to the back of the site allowing for a park along Liberty St.
http://wtc.e27.com/press/middle/9-WTC-Site-Grnd-NS.jpg

These are the first 2 floors above street level. Notice the retail continue up as well as the Hotel lobby on the NE corner tower.
http://wtc.e27.com/press/middle/9-WTC-Twr-R2.jpg
http://wtc.e27.com/press/middle/9-WTC-Twr-R3.jpg
http://wtc.e27.com/press/pressimages.html

[NYatKNIGHT]

Interesting - lots more detail. Looks like the preserved section of the slurry wall will be accessed by the north wing of the future museum. In the first frame it is shown in red. What's the purple in frames 3 and 4?

[JMGarcia]

The purple is space that is being given to the MTA for subway entrances and token booths.

[Jjrlong254]

Message Erased

[NYatKNIGHT]

What's the red square on the west end of the park on Liberty St.?

Is that the hotel across from St. Paul's churchyard and next to Bldg. 2?