WTC Memorial Pavilion - Visitors Center - by Snohetta [Archive]

czsz

May 20th, 2005, 03:38 PM

Ouroussoff's review, I think, is right on. The building attempts to emphasize the horizontal while being too bulkily vertical (it'll be a story and a half taller when the Port Authority's vents are added on) as well as overwhelming the memorial site with its in-your-face heft. The "International Freedom Center" to be hosted inside is ironically designed...rather than standing as an expression of "freedom," it forces the visitor to wind in one uniform direction down a set path. With more fine-tuning, however, it could be a decent building.

A Temple of Contemplation and Conflict

FOR architects who find inspiration in conflict, ground zero can be perversely fascinating. From the battles over money and security to the nasty political elbowing, all of the ingredients are there.

The strains are evident in the design for a new museum that will house the International Freedom Center and the Drawing Center, unveiled yesterday by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. The building, by the Norwegian firm Snohetta, is strangely seductive: with some fine-tuning, it could even become a fascinating work. It is already closer to the standard set by Santiago Calatrava's soaring glass-and-steel transportation hub than that of the site's troubled Freedom Tower, for example.

But ultimately, the museum is more about politics than architecture - a theme-park view of American ideals in an alluring wrapper.

Under a master plan drafted by the architect Daniel Libeskind, the building would rise on a one-acre site at the northeast corner of the memorial park. This is envisioned as ground zero's main cultural intersection, with Frank Gehry's proposed theater complex across Fulton Street to the north and Mr. Calatrava's transportation hub to the east. Two memorial pools mimicking the footprints of the former Twin Towers are to frame the complex to the south and west.

Snohetta's design, a hulking structure clad in a skin of wood and glass, is a clever response to the challenges posed by the site's bickering constituencies. The museum building lies directly above Mr. Calatrava's train station, for example, and he insisted that its supporting columns not intrude into his space. He also demanded that the design allow light to flow down onto the train platforms.

Then, halfway through the design process, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey informed Snohetta that the museum building would somehow have to absorb up to 40,000 square feet of vents and mechanical equipment, bloating its scale.

Tracking the firm's efforts to come to terms with these conflicting requirements is like watching a circus contortionist. The architects began by lifting the entire building on massive steel-and-concrete pillars to make room for a large ground-level plaza. A 90-foot mirrored light well is carved through the building's core, funneling light to the plaza and - theoretically, at least - onto the underground train platforms.

The decision to vault the building into the air is ingenious, and it should come as a relief to Mr. Calatrava. Approached from the east, the center will provide a striking backdrop for his station. Together with two towers that are part of the larger master plan, it will frame three sides of a public square that is nearly the size of St. Mark's Square in Venice, with the birdlike form of Mr. Calatrava's glass-and-steel structure rising out of its center.

Visitors will be able to stride directly underneath the Freedom Center and on to the memorial park. At its northern end, the underbelly of the museum slopes downward, framing a view of the memorial pools to the west.

Over all, the building creates a series of surprises that draw you along a carefully spaced architectural narrative. Visitors can enter the building from two directions, for example. A broad ramp leads up from the plaza through the light well to the main entrance; a smaller ramp leads into the building from Fulton Street. The entry points converge in an open-air lobby that cantilevers out toward the site of a planned theater complex, linking the museum to part of a bigger cultural nexus. From there, visitors can file into the Drawing Center galleries or continue up another ramp to the Freedom Center.

This entry sequence reinforces what's best about the design, the sense that you are traveling along a series of shifting horizontal planes that gently lift you up out of the hurly-burly of the city into the contemplative world of the galleries. It could also be interpreted as a counterpoint - a moment of psychological relief - to the descent into the voids left by the twin towers.

But the experience soon becomes Orwellian. The center's upper-level galleries will be arranged in a spiral around the central light well. Under the current design, visitors will have to ride an elevator to the top and then walk back down along the spiral on a so-called "Freedom Walk." This kind of manipulation seems silly, especially in a museum that celebrates freedom. By echoing the ramps down into the memorial pools, the downward spiral implies a direct connection between the cataclysm of 9/11 and a global struggle for "freedom" - a bit of simplistic propaganda. (An early rendering of the Freedom Center that was circulated at the development corporation's offices included an image of a woman flashing a victory sign after voting in the recent Iraqi elections; that image has been replaced by a photo of Lyndon B. Johnson and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.)

No doubt, the tortuous choices faced by the architects - and the skill with which they dealt with them - will make this building an intriguing case study for architecture students 50 years from now.

Even so, the architects' finesse could take the building only so far. If the design works in relation to Mr. Calatrava's transportation hub, it fails completely in relation to the memorial site. Given what they were forced to pack into the museum building, it is grossly overscaled. Its enormous blank facade looms over the memorial pools, occupying an area that would have been better served by a public park. And the building's height detracts from the horizontal flow that is its most promising feature.

(Note: because the current plans do not take into account the additional 40,000 square feet of mechanical space demanded by the Port Authority, the renderings unveiled yesterday are a fiction of sorts; the building would be a full story and a half taller than shown.)

Some of these issues could be resolved. The facade overlooking the north memorial pool, for example, could be shaved back, eliminating some of the pressure it places on the memorial area and allowing for a more generous passageway onto the site from the north. And the architects are now working on a facade composed of hundreds of glass prisms to give the building a more ethereal quality.

But this doesn't solve the broader problem at ground zero: clutter. In addition to the Freedom Center, the development corporation has added an underground "memorial center" that will link to the memorial pools as well as to rooms for grieving relatives of the dead. More recently, city and state officials have suggested adding an information center at the base of the museum building to help tourists navigate the area, an idea that would be more appropriate in a theme park.

The clutter results from a tendency to parcel off sections of the site to different political constituencies, be it the developer, Larry Silverstein, the victims' families, or the cultural institutions. Notably, this has not been a bipartisan effort. Both Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Gov. George E. Pataki have invoked ground zero to advance their own agendas; neither of the state's Democratic senators has been invited to appear at recent news conferences on the site's development. And the Freedom Center is bound to be viewed by much of the world as a jingoistic propaganda tool.

What is missing at ground zero is a sense of humility. This is something that cannot be remedied by reducing the scale of a building. We should refocus attention on what matters most: remembering the human beings who were lost at ground zero, while allowing life to return to the void there. The rest is a pointless distraction.

PHLguy

May 20th, 2005, 03:47 PM

The other buildings look short and fat, and FT looks the same.

JMGarcia

May 20th, 2005, 03:55 PM

The other buildings look short and fat, and FT looks the same.

You can't even see the tops of the freaking other buildings. Try to stop being so obsessive compulsive about it. Really.

Jasonik

May 20th, 2005, 05:18 PM

Wood is an odd choice, ephemeral, and uncultivated. (Do I detect a commentary about freedom tuning gray, cracking, and rotting away?) A terra-cotta would offer the same warmth on the exterior with considerably more integrity.

The facade just screams for some GKD mesh. Hmm, prisms... are they trying to echo the waterfalls below?

The spiral is practical when you think about how many school trips will come through here each year. (I like how spiraling down to exit a building symbolizes freedom hmmm....)

RedFerrari360f1

May 20th, 2005, 06:33 PM

I like the principal and having seen one of their other buidlings that uses this plank wood theme I can tell you it will be spectacular. The prisms are a neat idea that will add a dream like sense to this building. I understand it may be a bit bulky but considering what sqfootage was required and the foot-print, they dont have much of a choice... The part about it being stilted and having light filter through to the platforms below is amazing! Im quite excited and I hope this gets going soon.

czsz

May 20th, 2005, 07:12 PM

Yes, they did a good job considering the circumstances. Could those circumstances- including the ridiculous number of requirements hoisted upon them- change? Absolutely, and they should if we're to get a building more suitably massed for the site than this bulky lump.

A spiral is practical? Set aside momentarily the fact that other museums (in cramped spaces, like MoMA) can accomodate schoolchildren quite well without the use of such a theatrical, chimerical forced progresson. That endorsement of presupposed "practicality" would ensure that rather than evoking freedom, the centre would accomodate, instead, efficiency. That order supercedes individual right would hardly seem worthy of the organisation's goals. The reality of freedom is chaotic; packaging and programming something didactically unveiled within this shoebox is its antithesis. This design is as appropriate for the concept as the organisation itself, which I'm told has some rather shadowy ideological sentiments.

Of course, one could question the necessity of a "Freedom Center" altogether, but that would require the public to believe something other than what politicians have so successfully sold- that September 11th represented an attack on "freedom," however vague. I suppose this will stand then as a monument to the longevity of their machinations.

PHLguy

May 20th, 2005, 08:08 PM

You can't even see the tops of the freaking other buildings. Try to stop being so obsessive compulsive about it. Really.

They look just as fat as in the original 2003 rendering. So they are probably just as tall. 600 feet for the smallest tower and 900 for the largest.

I am OCD because I care about the heights of the buildings very much, I don't wan't lower manhattan to become a table top because the buildings at the NWTC have the average height of 750 feet.

JMGarcia

May 20th, 2005, 08:13 PM

You really got to chill. These renderings are from architects that don't have anything to do with any of the other buildings. Did you really suddenly expect to see newly designed buildings in the background?

PHLguy

May 20th, 2005, 08:16 PM

No I didn't. I'm not saying they will LOOK like that, I'm saying they will be about the same height. And they don't look to narrow, I don't expect them to really reach much higher than the top of the page.

I just don't want there to be a table top on the skyline. Since FT will have less than 70 floors the other towers must also be lower. I care about height because the skyline is already flattening out with buildings 600-800 feet.

NoyokA

May 20th, 2005, 08:36 PM

PHLguy

May 20th, 2005, 08:38 PM

NoyokA

May 20th, 2005, 08:57 PM

I KNOW! That's not what I'm saying!! I'm saying that they will follow the same height guidelines because of silverstein that nothing on the site can have an occupied space above 900 feet! I'm not saying they are the final designs!!

Why because the architect of the Cultural Center, he's designing the Cultural Center mind you and is not involved with Silverstein and the buildings, rendered these buildings as placeholders? You're hopeless.

Furthermore the topic of the thread is not Silverstein height limits, it is the Cultural Center. Furthermore the Cultural Center has nothing to do with Silverstein and his height limits or the buildings of the WTC for which there has been no news about for months. Stop your tired cause.

Derek2k3

May 20th, 2005, 09:44 PM

I don't like how the building relates to the memorial or the transit station.
I kind of wish the site wasn't being developed in such a piecemeal way. Without
any unifying elements it might look like a cluttered mess.

Kolbster

May 21st, 2005, 12:15 AM

Good point, i didn't think of that, it seems like a freefor all. It would be better for just one syncronized masterplan that passes as a whole, not a choppy developement

But i must say, i do like the color scheme of this building though. The inside looks pretty interesting, but mainly i like the color scheme, looks interesting in the picture

NYguy

May 21st, 2005, 09:30 AM

These really are nice renderings of the center...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/43640910.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/43640895/original.jpg

Kolbster

May 21st, 2005, 09:55 AM

Your right, it has virtually everything, even the transportation hub!

antinimby

May 21st, 2005, 11:07 AM

I kind of wish the site wasn't being developed in such a piecemeal way. Without You can thank Liebeskind for that. If I'm not mistaken, this is his Master Plan.

BronxBoy

May 21st, 2005, 11:42 AM

It's not Liebeskind's fault whatsoever. All that remains of his site plan is the street pattern.

I do feel that the site is going to be extremely dense. I have said in the past that I wish there wasn't such a push to rebuild all of the office space lost on top of all the extras like this center, the memorial, etc. Then maybe there could be room to spread out and showcase the structures, instead of putting them right up against each other. I have a feeling that when everything is completed, the offices are full and tourists and visitors are at the site, it's going to be as crowded as Times Square with a somber attitude. And we all know that NYers avoid Times Square like the plague.

The Cultural Center looks wonderful. I love it's simplicity. It doesn't take away from the memorial, yet it makes it more special because it's there. The use of wood throughout really puts a smile on my face. It's not overdone like the former Freedom Tower.

czsz

May 21st, 2005, 05:25 PM

And we all know that NYers avoid Times Square like the plague.

Oh yes. This shall be "ground zero" for New York tourism when completed, no matter how terrible the architecture or site plan, and wherever the tourists roam thickest, New Yorkers are scarce to be found. At least this will give locals a chance perhaps to reclaim parts of Midtown. Every Midwesterner sequestered downtown is one less wading into Fifth Avenue outside Rockefeller Center trying to get a nice photo of all the cabs to send back to Waukesha.

You can thank Liebeskind for that.

Sigh. This man is going to be, in the conventional wisdom, the scapegoat for every error politicians and businessmen perpetrate on the site. Would make, at least, for a decent piece of tragic theatre (I'm sure it's being worked on off-Broadway somewhere...)

Fabrizio

May 21st, 2005, 06:25 PM

I could believe this thing as the Norway pavillion at the 1964 NY Worlds Fair.... but what´s it doing downtown?

And made of wood! Sitting next to those pools it looks a European health spa and this is the sauna.

czsz

May 21st, 2005, 09:26 PM

Too late and too many sensitive egos at stake.

Fabrizio

May 22nd, 2005, 06:45 AM

and if they´re going to call in foriegners that should at least make sure they understand New York.

I say hand the whole damn WTC project over to Renzo Piano and be done with it.

czsz

May 22nd, 2005, 11:13 PM

Good point, Fabrizio. I'm not one to engage in senseless xenophobia, but the two best-received architects in New York are Piano and Calatrava, who have also been the most locally engaged personally.

On the other hand, of course, Foster swept in and designed the Hearst Tower with nary a pop-in from London.

ZippyTheChimp

May 25th, 2005, 10:56 AM

One Zero Project Hitting Jackpot: Freedom Center

by Matthew Schuerman (mschuerman@observer.com)

Long before the city’s cultural organizations were thinking about what they might do at Ground Zero, Tom Bernstein, the president of Chelsea Piers, made his pitch for a museum about freedom in a series of private meetings with city and state officials.

Mr. Bernstein had never founded a museum before; nor had the filmmaker friend he’d enlisted as a co-founder. But he was so convinced by the power of his idea that he figured the other stuff would fall into place.

Lou Tomson, then-president of the agency in charge of rebuilding, remembers being impressed with the idea. He also quickly perceived the museum’s potential to draw funding, especially with a well-connected entrepreneur like Mr. Bernstein at the helm: His partnership with George W. Bush’s friend and Lower Manhattan Development Corporation board member Roland Betts and his high-profile donations to the President’s re-election campaign, as well as his service to Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s transition team, all spoke well of his political and fund-raising acumen.

"He presented a really coherent plan showing what level of organization we could expect, what level of people would be involved, and its ability to raise funds," Mr. Tomson told The Observer.

Already, five Fortune 500 corporations—including next-door neighbor American Express—and two of the nation’s largest foundations have stepped up to give early funding for Mr. Bernstein’s concept.

And it’s rapidly becoming clear that Mr. Bernstein’s freshman effort at museum building—not Larry Silverstein’s 4.3 million square feet of office space, or the memorial to those who died at the World Trade Center, which is projected to attract five million people to the site annually—is the unlikely cash cow of Ground Zero.

While the New York Times editorial board wrings its hands over building a temple to tub-thumping, the people responsible for rebuilding Ground Zero have discovered a prettier side to the International Freedom Center.

It will be a magnet to draw money to a 16-acre site that is somehow, even after $20 billion in federal aid, in need of revenue streams. The organization in charge of raising $500 million in private funds for the memorial and two cultural buildings is still in its "quiet phase" and its president, former Consumer Affairs Commissioner Gretchen Dykstra, just started work last week.

Luckily for Ms. Dykstra, however, Mr. Bernstein is the co-chair of the development committee for the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation.

"There will be lots of interest in the Freedom Center," said Ms. Dykstra. "The contacts he makes will be helpful for the whole project. It’s wonderful he’s on the board this way."

The way the foundation is structured means that Mr. Bernstein’s pleas for money won’t focus narrowly on the serene, wooden pavilion building that his museum is meant to share with the Drawing Center, the plans for which were unveiled May 19. He and his colleagues at the foundation will need to raise enough money for the memorial first, because the memorial will be built first—early next year. Mr. Bernstein said that while he will be raising money for his operational budget separately, he has turned what he thought would be a $250 million campaign specifically for the Freedom Center’s building into part of the larger campaign for all the nonprofit projects at Ground Zero.

"These corporations realize that the site will be a magnet for revitalizing downtown," Mr. Bernstein said in an interview this week at Chelsea Piers. "Because of the nature of this project, there is a very large pool to draw on—very large. It was a national and international event. People from 92 countries died in the attack."

Getting one of the four spots at Ground Zero would be a boon to any cultural institution, especially one, like the Freedom Center, that didn’t even exist before Sept. 11. The competition was tight: More than 100 organizations applied to the LMDC. The ability of the Freedom Center to attract donors came up often in meetings set to discuss the applicants, even as more established museums dropped out of the running. Some well-known institutions—including the New-York Historical Society—withdrew from the race, unwilling or unable to put together the financial plan and evidence of backing demanded by the LMDC, the rebuilding agency that Mr. Tomson headed until early 2002. In the end, it was a subcommittee of the LMDC, along with city and state commissions on the arts, which selected the four winners, using, among other criteria, the organizations’ ability to raise funds.

The full board, on which Mr. Betts sits, didn’t step in until later, after the public announcement was made, according to LMDC spokeswoman Joanna Rose.

The genesis of the Freedom Center came about in late 2001, at a time when ideas about freedom, museums and filmmaking were knocking about in Mr. Bernstein’s head. He had just joined the board of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., and had learned that the museum used a filmmaker to design its exhibits in order to impose a narrative structure. Mr. Bernstein had also just met Peter and Philip Kunhardt, brothers who had produced a number of documentaries for public television, including one called Freedom: A History of US.

As they were trying to figure out a way to bring something positive to the site of such extensive destruction, they came up with the idea of creating a center to study freedom. Peter Kunhardt is credited as the center’s co-founder and is its executive director; his brother Philip is the editorial director.

When word of the museum reached the press in 2003, it was immediately seen as little more than a potential outlet for propaganda for the Bush administration. That was partly because Mr. Bernstein contributed to the Bush-Cheney campaign and because his business partner at Chelsea Piers, Roland Betts, was a friend of the President. The center’s Web site even includes, among its list of important documents, the President’s 2005 Inaugural Address, right up there with Magna Carta and the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

But Mr. Bernstein has also given money to Democratic Senators Charles Schumer, Harry Reid and Barack Obama. And even before the controversy began, he’d begun to round up a wide array of advisors from various political points of view. More recently, he has announced that universities will organize evening seminars led by their professors.

The center’s name, Mr. Bernstein said, doesn’t mean that it will endorse the President’s way of interpreting Sept. 11.

"Some people think that it was an attack on freedom," he said. "Other people think that because of the attack, their freedom was challenged."

Mr. Bernstein has asked one of the people who fall squarely into the latter category to serve as an advisor: Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who in lawsuits and media campaigns has assailed the Bush administration’s treatment of detainees from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. Romero knew Mr. Bernstein from before—the Chelsea Piers president is also the president of the board of directors of Human Rights First, formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. The Romero name, needless to say, gives the project tremendous credibility.

"No one fully knows why the attacks came on the U.S.," Mr. Romero told The Observer this week. "What is clear is that the center stands for our core principles and values, and that, in the aftermath of 9/11—unfortunately—our government has forgotten those very same values. And so, in a very interesting way, the center may provide a place where you remind the American people, and maybe even the government, of the importance of freedom, liberty and equality."

The content of the museum is still being worked out. The four-story space will contain a Freedom Walk that tells the history of the concept, flanked by galleries devoted to different struggles for freedom. A mock picture of the inside of the museum shows large photographs hanging from the ceiling, one showing a Ukrainian voter flashing the victory sign, à la Nixon, and the other capturing the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson deep in contemplation. Other names that have been floated include Nelson Mandela, Susan B. Anthony and even Mother ("Fight Like Hell") Jones.

The Freedom Center expects one and a half to two million visitors a year, each paying, on average, $6. (Full adult admission is expected to be $9 when the museum opens in 2009, Mr. Bernstein said.) The rest of the museum’s $15 million to $20 million budget will come from donations.

Mr. Romero, who has had several meetings and telephone conversations with Mr. Bernstein and the Kunhardts, said that he would keep pushing for some mention in the museum’s exhibits of how civil liberties in this country have been curtailed since Sept. 11.

"The events of 9/11 had an impact not just on world events, but they had an effect on home as well," he said. "We have to be as willing to look at some of that impact as on what happened at Ground Zero and overseas. We can use it as an opportunity to discuss what’s gone on in this country."

The list of advisors includes such brand names as Harvard professors Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Orlando Patterson; Vaclav Havel’s pal Timothy Garton Ash; and Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria. The Kunhardts met some of these experts while producing PBS documentaries and will re-interview them to prepare the museum’s content. In addition, nine universities and the Aspen Institute, the nonprofit think tank headed by Walter Isaacson, have agreed to organize evening lectures by their professors. And leading international organizations will be able to use space at the center to reach visitors.

"There will be millions of people visiting Ground Zero," Mr. Bernstein said. "This creates an enormous educational opportunity."

Still, the idea of the museum seems as large and vague as its namesake concept. Even its various advisors have significantly different interpretations about what the Freedom Center is all about.

Columbia University historian Kenneth T. Jackson sees it as a history museum—in no small part because he wanted a history museum at Ground Zero in the first place and discussed a possible collaboration with the heads of other history institutions in the city while he was still president of the New-York Historical Society.

"Many of the figures that are to be focused upon are historical figures, so it is history," Mr. Jackson said. "I wish there was an aspect that talked about New York City. It was no accident that the terrorists attacked New York City and not the University of Michigan football stadium, which holds more people."

Another local luminary, Robert Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association, which was intimately involved in lobbying for a livable Ground Zero, is also listed as an advisor, though he says he has played less of a role. Nonetheless, he is reassured that the center will steer clear of propaganda.

"The general concern some people have is that this is going to become a plug for the Bush administration," Mr. Yaro said. "My sense is that it’s never been that; it’s anything but that. It’s not about the policies of this administration or any administration. Look at the people involved: They are people who are involved in promoting human rights all over the world."

In the meantime, the Freedom Center seems to be winning converts. Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau was quoted as criticizing the center for replicating other museums pertaining to human rights, including Ellis Island and the Museum of Jewish Heritage, of which he is the chairman. But Mr. Morgenthau not only appeared at the press conference last week unveiling the building design; he permitted the conference to be held in his museum.

An executive staff member of one of the finalists in the LMDC contest said that he has come to understand the appeal it will have. Eric Siegel, the executive vice president for programs and planning at the New York Hall of Science, said that he believes his institution lost out in part because of the Freedom Center’s superior political connections—to LMDC board member Roland Betts, as well as to the Mayor.

Nonetheless, Mr. Siegel believes that the Freedom Center will likely turn out to be quite popular for visitors.

"The question is, what will the intellectual context be for this Freedom Museum?" he said. "It’s a magnet for people to investigate that question. But how well they will execute that idea is another matter."

You may reach Matthew Schuerman via email at: mschuerman@observer.com (mscheuerman@observer.com).

This column ran on page 1 in the 5/30/2005 edition of The New York Observer.

Jasonik

July 1st, 2005, 07:50 PM

Quoted from here (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4463&page=9&pp=15)

NY POST

N.Y. POLS: AX MUSEUM AT 9/11 SITE

By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent

July 1, 2005 -- WASHINGTON

New York Republican lawmakers are warning the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. to kill plans for the International Freedom Center at Ground Zero or face the wrath of Congress.

"The principle that should be adhered to is a simple one: On the ground once occupied by the World Trade Center, we should craft a memorial for those killed in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11," Reps. Vito Fossella (R-S.I.), Peter King (R-L.I.) and John Sweeney (R-Saratoga) wrote in a letter sent to the LMDC yesterday.

The lawmakers set a July 11 deadline for pulling the plug on the International Freedom Center art museum — the day Congress returns from its Fourth of July holiday recess.

If plans aren't changed by then, "We will be forced to seek appropriate legislative actions and remedies," lawmakers warned.

The federal government has ponied up about $300 million in community-development grants to help pay for the memorial and redevelopment of the 16-acre Ground Zero site.

LMDC officials have not yet seen the congressmen's letter, but spokeswoman Joanna Rose said, "We're in discussion with the International Freedom Center to ensure their programming is respectful of the [Freedom Center] museum."

News of congressional action delighted Bill Doyle and a host of other 9/11 families, but they still plan to flood the White House with calls and faxes today.

"The only way we're going to get this is to keep it in the spotlight," he said.

lofter1

July 1st, 2005, 08:56 PM

It looks like the writing is on the wall on this...

Too bad because it's a great design.

The one positive outcome from this is that is might free up space in the NE area of the site, between Calatrava's transit center and Arad's memorial.

BPC

July 1st, 2005, 11:05 PM

It looks like the writing is on the wall on this...

Too bad because it's a great design.

No necessarily. The building and what goes into it are two different things. I personally think the design is pretty good, even if the "Freedom Center" is insipid. One solution would be to move the 9/11 museum from underground to the above-ground building.

MidnightRambler

July 2nd, 2005, 01:16 AM

does it bother anyone else that between the museum, the transit center, the memorial, and the towers, the site has absolutely no sense of architectural unity?

Johnnyboy

July 2nd, 2005, 11:37 AM

ablarc

July 2nd, 2005, 11:41 AM

Citytect

July 2nd, 2005, 04:21 PM

Not really.I actually find it more interesting. Each building with its own personality. If all have the same color or same desighn, it won't be as nice as all with its own personality. Imagine if all of New York Skyscrapers were made to have architectural unity with each other. New York would not look as nice.

To get some sense of architectural unity, you don't have to make all the buildings the same color or the same design. Each can still have its own personality, but some relation is needed on the site to give it a sense of belonging together. Right now it seems we're heading towards a park/memorial bound by a number of mismatched building. That's not really a bad thing, but if we're trying to make the site feel like a whole, like it didn't come together randomly, there needs to be some common elements throughout the site's structures - perhaps common elements that can be found in the details.

pianoman11686

July 2nd, 2005, 07:25 PM

I too think the cultural center crowds that area too much, even though it is a great building. I wish they could put it somewhere else in the city, possibly somewhere near the Hudson riverfront, or just to the north of the site. If it's separate from the WTC, it can have whatever content it wants. If it's going to be a WTC memorial building, right next to the memorial, it needs to focus on September 11th, nothing else.

BrooklynRider

July 5th, 2005, 11:00 AM

...That's not really a bad thing, but if we're trying to make the site feel like a whole, like it didn't come together randomly, there needs to be some common elements throughout the site's structures - perhaps common elements that can be found in the details.

Or a big chainlink fence around the whole thing.

NYatKNIGHT

July 5th, 2005, 02:03 PM

It's the only structure located on the memorial block and even stands between the two pools. It has no business being there unless it includes the 9/11 museum, which itself deserves a location overlooking the memorial.

DougGold

July 5th, 2005, 02:16 PM

Actually, the more we can put into that memorial park thing the better, since I'm eagerly awaiting news of the landscaping of that park. If it's just a big flat area with scattered trees, it's not going to be someplace people will hang out.

NoyokA

July 5th, 2005, 02:19 PM

I really don't get the its to crowded argument. Hello, its NYC. We can never have too much culture.

ZippyTheChimp

July 6th, 2005, 09:02 AM

BrooklynRider

July 6th, 2005, 11:16 AM

A good place might be the Deutsche Bank site. It's the least attractive for commercial leasing (farthest from the transit center), and far enough from the memorial not to upset anyone ( I am probably wrong on this point).

That's a great suggestion. And, it prevents a tall structure from keeping the memorial in a shadow during the day.

lofter1

July 6th, 2005, 11:49 AM

Eliminate one of the towers, and put the cultural center there. A good place might be the Deutsche Bank site. It's the least attractive for commercial leasing (farthest from the transit center).

Although it will probably never happen, I agree with Zippy that moving the Snohetta building to the Deutsche Bank site would be a better solution.

Opening up the area where the Snohetta building is now situated would also benefit Calatrava's plan for the transporation center, creating an open vista that will allow his beautiful design to soar (rather than being boxed in as it is under the current plan).

fioco

July 6th, 2005, 06:15 PM

As if my "vote" counts, but I also support placing the Snohetta cultural building in the south plaza. It would be a nearby neighbor to the new Greek Orthodox church and offer a pleasant contrast to the soaring towers. If I may speculate, encouraged by other's musings: presuming the master plan has some fluidity (within reason), the two towers (Freedom Tower; off-site 7 WTC) and the retail in the underground transit concourses would get the site beyond the construction pit and into some sustainable income. If market forces determine the when and how of additional towers, then maybe, one day, a tower could rise higher than Freedom Tower. Tower 2 or 3 would rise as need dictates, and it could be 60 storeys, or more, or less. The site would still make sense. The location of tower 5 for the cultural center makes great sense. Good call, Zippy.

Jake

July 6th, 2005, 07:27 PM

O...K...

anyway, getting back to the actual center...what is going to be in there? Is it going to be a timeline of the struggle for freedom or something like that?

and what's with the stupid names? I understand the need for patriotism but who is naming this stuff? Freedom WALK? WTF is a Freedom Walk?

Take the train to the Freedom Station where you will exit hte Freedom Train and walk across the Freedom Sidewalk to the group of Freedom Trees. There you will look at the Freedom Tower, Freedom Center, Freedom Newstand, Freedom Memorial, Freedom Giftshops Freedom Water and Freedom Air.

pianoman11686

July 6th, 2005, 08:07 PM

Eliminate one of the towers, and put the cultural center there.

A good place might be the Deutsche Bank site. It's the least attractive for commercial leasing (farthest from the transit center), and far enough from the memorial not to upset anyone ( I am probably wrong on this point).

It's good ideas like this that will unfortunately never materialize in a site so preoccupied with restoring all the lost office space, no matter who brings them into the spotlight. As long as Larry controls the redevelopment, what are the realistic odds of eliminating a tower? I think the Port Authority, as bureaucratic and corporate as they are, would be much more open to suggestions like this if they were in full control.

BrooklynRider

July 7th, 2005, 10:28 AM

But, placing the cultural center at the Deutsche site doesn't necessarily diminish the ability to restore the site to its previous level of commercial and retail space. Perhaps the FT could be the beginning of an ascending spiral rather than a descending spiral.

ZippyTheChimp

July 7th, 2005, 11:02 AM

As long as Larry controls the redevelopment, what are the realistic odds of eliminating a tower? I think the Port Authority, as bureaucratic and corporate as they are, would be much more open to suggestions like this if they were in full control.
Silverstein is a roadblock, but the PA should share the blame. They must appreciate the $10 million monthly lease payments from Silverstein, which is based on his rights to rent out 10 million sq ft. It seems logical that a reduction in the amount of space would mean a lower payment. The PA would probably have to reimburse Silverstein for overpayment since 09/11.

As a simple mathematical example: A 1.5 million sq ft reduction would be $18 million less per year in lease payments. Over 4 years, that's $72 million - not chump change.

lofter1

July 7th, 2005, 04:07 PM

Here we go. More downsizing:

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=51987

Officials To Scale Back International Freedom Center At WTC Site

NY1

July 07, 2005

Some major changes could be coming to the controversial museum slated to be built at the World Trade Center site.

Officials say the International Freedom Center will be scaled down in size and moved farther back from the victim’s memorial. IFC officials say this will make the focus of the center more on the victims of 9/11 rather than global freedom movements.

Many family members complained the center would be anti-American and disrespectful to the dead.

The museum's chairman announced the changes in a letter sent to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation on Wednesday. The LMDC says it is in the process of reviewing the letter, and that it hopes to reach a resolution on the issues that have been raised.
</FONT>

BPC

July 7th, 2005, 06:37 PM

Although it will probably never happen, I agree with Zippy that moving the Snohetta building to the Deutsche Bank site would be a better solution.

Opening up the area where the Snohetta building is now situated would also benefit Calatrava's plan for the transporation center, creating an open vista that will allow his beautiful design to soar (rather than being boxed in as it is under the current plan).

This is Manhattan. Since when do we have sweeping vistas? I actually find just the opposite to be true. In this crowded city, many times you will turn a corner and suddenly be face-to-face with a beautiful building. Surrounding the Calatrava Station with buildings may create just that effect. The LAST thing downtown needs is more barren, dead space.

Jasonik

July 7th, 2005, 07:01 PM

International Freedom Center will be scaled down in size and moved farther back from the victim’s memorial
This is good news.

NOW make it a solemn and timeless 'temple of freedom' something as great as the Lincoln Memorial for example. And lose the wood; only the most enduring materials should be used.

And for crying out loud - there should be an AMERICAN FLAG flying from the top of it.

ZippyTheChimp

July 7th, 2005, 07:14 PM

This is Manhattan. Since when do we have sweeping vistas?
It's more than an issue of space. The building itself is already being dumbed-down.

The museum will be burdened with a vague mission, and it seems, an absence of free speech. Well, that's American.

If this continues, I'm going to have to turn the thumbs-up icon around.

BrooklynRider

July 8th, 2005, 01:32 AM

They need to scale that Freedom Center down to the size of the "Imagine" mosaic in Strawberry Fields. That says and does it all with simplicity in a peaceful, yet thriving setting.

lofter1

July 8th, 2005, 11:42 AM

From the LMDC website:

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/news/downtown_review/week_in_review_36776.asp#5

Officials Announce Plans to Change Freedom Center Focus, Design

Thursday, July 7: In response to strong criticisms from family members of 9/11 victims, officials in charge of the International Freedom Center - one of the museums proposed for the new WTC site -- announced that plans for the center will be revised to focus more on the victims of the 2001 terror attacks, the New York Post reported...

LMDC President Stefan Pryor has also called for the museum to be scaled down in size to provide more space between the building and the WTC Memorial. Rebuilding officials are still developing revised plans for the center, the paper added.

americasroof

July 8th, 2005, 03:48 PM

Silverstein is a roadblock, but the PA should share the blame. They must appreciate the $10 million monthly lease payments from Silverstein, which is based on his rights to rent out 10 million sq ft. It seems logical that a reduction in the amount of space would mean a lower payment. The PA would probably have to reimburse Silverstein for overpayment since 09/11.

As a simple mathematical example: A 1.5 million sq ft reduction would be $18 million less per year in lease payments. Over 4 years, that's $72 million - not chump change.
Good point Chimp

Nothing is ever going to get built there once the court cases get going since they have significantly reduced the space where Silverstein can build.

I don't quite understand why they are so deadset on the cultural buildings being stand alone. They could have been included in the neighboring buildings improving the memorial core and ensuring better viability for the both the neighboring buildings and their towers.

In any event, the next big ball to drop at Ground Zero is going to be transportation center (which was never part of the original master plan as a stand alone). The center is basically just a subway/PATH station yet it's cost is $2 billion -- equal to or more than the West Side Stadium. It's pretty certain now that the $6 billion LIRR tunnel will never be built. The temporary station that's there now is already better than almost any on either line.

americasroof

July 11th, 2005, 11:09 AM

To respond to my own post. The Transportation Center is now officially in the crosshairs
http://gutter.curbed.com/archives/2005/07/11/port_authority_clips_calatravas_wings.php

Johnnyboy

July 11th, 2005, 09:44 PM

heck no not the station. That is the only trully perfect proposed structure for the site.

BrooklynRider

July 12th, 2005, 10:06 AM

July 12, 2005
Keeping Ground Zero Free
For nearly four years now, the 9/11 families - those who lost immediate family members in that tragedy - have provided an inestimable service to this nation. They helped drive forward the inquiries of the Sept. 11 commission. They helped formulate any number of the projects being developed at ground zero. They have reminded us conscientiously of what was lost on that day.

But in the past few weeks, we've watched a handful of vocal family members, who may not represent a majority of 9/11 families, change the dynamic at the World Trade Center site for the worse. They have begun a movement to "take back the memorial," which means, in essence, eventually purging ground zero of its cultural partners, including the International Freedom Center.

This protest resulted in a shocking response in late June from Gov. George Pataki. He openly joined the criticism of one of those institutions - the Drawing Center - for an exhibition that it sponsored, in another part of town, that contains controversial images of 9/11 and America's role in the world. And he has called on all the cultural partners at ground zero for reassurances that their programs will harmonize with the concerns of this small group of family members.

The World Trade Center site is of enormous importance to all New Yorkers, to all Americans and to people around the planet who have united to fight the insidious forces that led to 9/11. Mr. Pataki's job is to represent all those deeply interested parties. By attempting to appease one small, vocal group of protesters who are unlikely to be appeased anyway, he is abrogating the rights of everyone else. And he runs the risk of turning ground zero into a place where we bury the freedoms that define this nation.

There must be no mistake about this. If the Drawing Center is forced to withdraw from ground zero rather than accept the censorship of exhibitions that are yet to be imagined, no other respectable arts institution will take its place.

What was offered as an open invitation to restore the artistic life of Lower Manhattan will have turned into an invitation to provide only the kind of cultural offerings that please a vocal group of people whose genuine grief has already taken on a sharply political edge. Those are unacceptable conditions that would undermine the very purpose of the arts. If the International Freedom Center must continually bend over backward to placate a handful of angry family members, then all of its commitment to the conscience of that site, to what it can teach us about the character of freedom in the world, will have been compromised.

What we build at ground zero has to honor the memory of one terrible day in the history of America, but it also has to belong to the future as well, a future as optimistic and forward-looking as we can imagine. It cannot be a place devoted entirely to death. If ground zero is not a place of life and creativity, of true artistic and political freedom, then it will not be successful even as a place of grief.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

billyblancoNYC

July 12th, 2005, 11:52 AM

Typical left-wing shit.

Anyway, I think it's funny that this person says a couple of familes that may not represent everyone is making a big deal about this. Isn't that what happens with all the NIMBYism that runs rampant in this city? Every major project is slowed or killed by a too-vocal few. Yet another example of the Times talking out of its collective ass.

BrooklynRider

July 12th, 2005, 03:15 PM

Typical left-wing shit...Yet another example of the Times talking out of its collective ass.

Taking on attempts to censor art exhibitions on publicy owned land and in publicly financed museums is hardly "left-wing". It is American.

...Anyway, I think it's funny that this person says a couple of familes that may not represent everyone is making a big deal about this. Isn't that what happens with all the NIMBYism that runs rampant in this city? Every major project is slowed or killed by a too-vocal few.

The problem here is that we are getting NIMBYism for folks who (1) don't live here (2) don't own the property and (3) keep deluding themselves into thinking that they represent the prevailing viewpoint.

I think the Times was right on target.

czsz

July 12th, 2005, 03:21 PM

In this case the Times is adamantly anti-"NIMBY". I'm not sure what your problem is, Billy. Are you angry with the Times for disagreeing with the families (in which case you'd be pro-"NIMBY"), or angry at the families, in which case you would agree with the Times?

americasroof

July 13th, 2005, 01:18 PM

It would appear the battle has at least temporary resolution. The Center has been put on hold until funds can be raised for the memorial. That will probably take a few years (and allow a proper debate on its merits -- or lack thereof).

Buried in the article it notes 4 family members on the Foundation approve the center and 3 are against. Despites protests to the contrary the Foundation also adopted a code of conduct aimed at pushing out dissenters.

It was always an interesting battle when Foundation members who were supposed to be raising cash took their battle public.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--attacks-museumcon0712jul12,0,664741.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

BPC

July 13th, 2005, 02:11 PM

The Snohetta design is a good one. Perhaps we can find a use for the building less insipid than the "Freedom Center," and less third-rate than the "Drawing Center."

lofter1

July 13th, 2005, 03:30 PM

The Snohetta design is a good one. Perhaps we can find a use for the building less insipid than the "Freedom Center," and less third-rate than the "Drawing Center."

Curious: Why do you find the Drawing Center to be "third-rate"?

ASchwarz

July 13th, 2005, 04:07 PM

It would appear the battle has at least temporary resolution. The Center has been put on hold until funds can be raised for the memorial. That will probably take a few years (and allow a proper debate on its merits -- or lack thereof).

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--attacks-museumcon0712jul12,0,664741.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

What are you talking about? The Cultural Center has not been put on hold. Your linked article contradicts what you write. No media source or public official has even hinted at your claim.

americasroof

July 13th, 2005, 04:38 PM

The wriggle room would be for LMDC to build the center (and from a logistical point of view the WTC Foundation should never have been involved in the Freedom Center anwyay). Anyway here are some other citations:

At Tuesday's meeting, the board passed a resolution saying it would direct the first contributions it received solely to the memorial and a memorial museum separate from the cultural center
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--attacks-museumcon0712jul12,0,664741.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

The board, meeting for the third time, agreed that its "first fund-raising responsibility will be devoted to the completion of the memorial," Whitehead said.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/327670p-279992c.html

Fund-raising for the memorial has been thrown into some confusion recently by a controversy over the two cultural organizations chosen to occupy a building in the memorial precinct. Trying to clarify matters, the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation board passed a resolution yesterday declaring that its "first fund-raising responsibilities will be devoted to the completion of the memorial" and memorial museum.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/nyregion/13wtc.html

americasroof

July 13th, 2005, 04:41 PM

And I should also add that if LMDC takes over the Freedom Center from the Foundation it will just fan the flames even worse.

The irony of this of course is that it's the Republican controlled LMDC that is doing this while the Take Back The Memorial folks are objecting to the Center as a left wing conspiracy.

americasroof

July 13th, 2005, 06:15 PM

For the record here's the full press release from the WTC Foundation Meeting. With them seeking formal approval of national memorial status and talking exclusively about raising funds for the Arad/Walker memorial, it sure sounds like a Foundation/Freedom Center divorce. The NPS sure as heck ain't gonna want to walk into that chain saw. On the other hand that's LMDC's favorite position.
--------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, July 12, 2005

WORLD TRADE CENTER MEMORIAL FOUNDATION HOLDS
BOARD MEETING

Foundation Renews Priority Fundraising Mission to Memorial,
Memorial Museum, and Endowment;
Board Directors to go to Washington, DC and Albany to Meet With Elected Officials to Raise Awareness About Importance of Memorial;
Four New Directors Elected to Board

The World Trade Center Memorial Foundation today held its third board meeting and first with staff, and passed a resolution renewing its priority mission to fundraise for the World Trade Center Memorial, as well as the Memorial Museum. The Board also announced plans for Board members to travel to Washington, DC and Albany to call for Federal and State legislation which would create a tax check-off in support of a fund for the World Trade Center Memorial.

The Board passed a resolution which clearly stated that the Foundation’s first fundraising responsibilities will be devoted to the completion of the Memorial, “Reflecting Absence” designed by Michael Arad and Peter Walker, and the Memorial Museum, which will be dedicated to exhibiting September 11th artifacts and communicating the events of the day as well as honoring those who died and those who helped. The first dollars contributed to the Foundation will be directed to the Memorial and the Memorial Museum, as well as to the creation of a substantial endowment to ensure their maintenance. The Foundation’s fundraising efforts will be focused on this priority mission until the Foundation determines that completion of the Memorial and the Memorial Museum can be assured.

The Board also announced plans this fall to send a delegation of Board directors to Washington, DC and Albany to meet with elected officials to raise awareness about the Foundation’s mission and garner support for the construction of the World Trade Center Memorial. The Directors will call for Federal and New York State Tax Check-off legislation supporting the funds for the World Trade Center Memorial.

The Board announced support for Congressman Jerrold Nadler’s resolution which recognizes the importance of establishing the memorial at the World Trade Center site as a national memorial. Members of the Board intend to meet with Congressman Nadler and members of the New York Congressional delegation to discuss Foundation fundraising efforts for the Memorial and Memorial Museum this fall in Washington, DC.

At the meeting, four new directors were elected to the Foundation Board. The new board directors include Samuel A. DiPiazza, Jr, Global Chief Executive Officer of Pricewaterhouse Coopers International; Peter M. Lehrer, Chief Executive Officer of Bovis, Inc.; Judith Rodin, President of the Rockefeller Foundation; and Daniel R. Tishman, Chairman & CEO of Tishman Construction Corporation and President of Tishman Realty & Construction Co., Inc.

The World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation established to honor the innocent men, women and children murdered in the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and February 26, 1993 through the creation of a permanent memorial, “Reflecting Absence,” at the World Trade Center site. The Foundation is committed to raising funds and constructing the Memorial and the Memorial Museum, which will be dedicated to telling the story of the events of February 26th, 1993 and September 11th, 2001, and honoring and remembering the lives lost as well as those involved in the response and recovery.

For more information on the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, please visit www.wtcmemorialfoundation.org.

###

Contact: 212-312-8814

lofter1

July 13th, 2005, 06:24 PM

...it sure sounds like a Foundation/Freedom Center divorce. The NPS sure as heck ain't gonna want to walk into that chain saw.

Could you please tell me what NPS is? I checked the forum but didn't find a reference.

americasroof

July 13th, 2005, 07:11 PM

Could you please tell me what NPS is? I checked the forum but didn't find a reference.
National Park Service

Here's your trivia for the day. There's various flavors of national parks -- national parks (ala Grand Canyon), national monuments (ala Mount Rushmore), national battlefields (ala Gettysburg), national recreation areas, national historic sites, etc. Believe it or not New York State does not have a national park!!! Although it does have several national monuments (e.g., Statue of Liberty) and recreation areas.

Anyway inviting the NPS in was what everybody thought was going to happen from the get go (and they are handling Shanksville). But there was resistance because New York thought the feds would bungle it. Hmmmm.

NewYorkYankee

July 13th, 2005, 09:40 PM

So, the WTC is supposed to have the Freedom Center (Cultural Center), Performing Arts Center, AND the Meusem of 9/11? All 3?

americasroof

July 13th, 2005, 11:14 PM

Upon further pondering the apparent Freedom Center/WTC Memorial Foundation breakup:

If the Take Back crowd is correct and George Soros is the "evil mastermind" behind the Center, then now with the break up George can pull a couple hundred mil out of petty cash and build it himself (and it might get built before the memorial!)

If you thought the debate was ugly so far the main course may be well ahead.

BrooklynRider

July 13th, 2005, 11:17 PM

I wonder if WTC will be designated a National Battlefield. Seems it could earn that for the 9/11 event as well as the politics that lead to the building of anything on the site.

americasroof

July 14th, 2005, 02:45 AM

I wonder if WTC will be designated a National Battlefield. Seems it could earn that for the 9/11 event as well as the politics that lead to the building of anything on the site.
I personally feel they should have viewed the site as a national battlefield from the start. It would have more clearly defined how they handled the space.

None the less the formal request is for a National Memorial which is in the same category as the Lincoln Memorial and U.S.S. Arizona.

ZippyTheChimp

July 14th, 2005, 09:24 AM

This thread is for the WTC Cultural Center. Post info relating to the WTC Memorial here.

NoyokA

July 15th, 2005, 11:18 AM

New York Daily News:
Push for new WTC arts center site
By PAUL D. COLFORD
Friday, July 15th, 2005

Redevelopment officials are looking for another place to put a controversial cultural building planned near the World Trade Center memorial, but a key player doubts a new site can be found.

"It's not likely we will find such a place, but we want to make every effort to see if it's feasible," John Whitehead, chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., said yesterday after the agency's monthly board meeting.

Whitehead said the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, whose fund-raising has been hurt by questions about the cultural building's programs, asked the LMDC "to make one final effort" to relocate the structure.

The search will focus on Ground Zero, whose 16 acres already are mapped out in architect Daniel Libeskind's master plan, and the surrounding area.

Yesterday's meeting was attended by about a dozen members of 9/11 family groups that have slammed plans to put the cultural building anywhere near the memorial.

The groups fear that the occupants chosen for the building, the International Freedom Center and the Drawing Center, might mount politically charged exhibits unsuitable for Ground Zero.

One idea the LMDC is said to be discussing with the two groups is the use of an off-site location for some programs.

"We're not opposed to the cultural center, but to the cultural center being on the site," said Jack Lynch of the Coalition of 9/11 Families, whose firefighter son Michael died at Ground Zero.

LMDC President Stefan Pryor stressed that the agency remains "firmly committed to the World Trade Center master plan," while noting that talks with the Freedom Center and the Drawing Center will continue.

The Freedom Center "will never host 'debates' about the 'reasons' for the murder of nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center, nor ... will it be used as a forum for denigrating the country we love," Tom Bernstein, the organization's chairman, wrote to Pryor last week.

The LMDC wants "stronger assurances" from the Freedom Center that its programming will be appropriate for the site, Whitehead said.

Meanwhile, the LMDC moved closer to demolishing the contaminated Deutsche Bank tower overlooking Ground Zero, approving a $13.1 million scaffolding contract and clearing $4 million for other project needs. The 18-month takedown project is supposed to start later this summer.

lofter1

July 15th, 2005, 12:29 PM

Push for new WTC arts center site
Redevelopment officials are looking for another place to put a controversial cultural building planned near the World Trade Center memorial, but a key player doubts a new site can be found.
I know this is probably not feasible given the Master Plan (and also acknowledging that a building designed for one site can't just be plopped down onto another site without major reconsiderations of design, etc.):

How about using the Fitterman Hall site?

That location will be a prime spot for a great piece of architecture.

NYatKNIGHT

July 15th, 2005, 12:42 PM

What's that lowrise area attached to Tower 3 - can't that space be used to house these Cultural museums? Either that, or they could have housed them in one of the towers or combined them with the Performing Arts Center.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/06/29/nyregion/20050630_tower_graphic.gif

JMGarcia

July 15th, 2005, 12:47 PM

Personally, I do not think the park around the memorial needs to be any bigger. There is so much park space in BPC that is on the water that I doubt if the park space around the memorial will be used much at all. Think the old WTC plaza with tress.

NYatKNIGHT

July 15th, 2005, 01:38 PM

I agree, so I'd use that space for the memorial center instead of the cultural center. I don't like the idea of the memorial center being underground, and if I remember correctly many of the artifacts would not even fit there.

JMGarcia

July 15th, 2005, 01:52 PM

^Good idea.

Jake

July 15th, 2005, 08:12 PM

This just occured to me:

Everything on this site is pointless,

The memorial is basically nothing more than two big holes in the ground and the only thing they have that is memorial-like are the victim;s names and we don't even know how well those will be seen. I could go to a field in Kansas and say "oh the emptiness, just like i felt on 9/12"

The FT is nothing more than an office building (and good) so why call it the "freedom tower"?

THe cultural center- what is going to be in there????? I haven't heard anything about what in the cultural center will have to do with the WTC. The site and the event had almost nothing to do with "fighting for freedom" this cultural center should be adjacent to the WWII memorial, not here. Meanwhile there doesn't seem like there will be anything there relating to the awesome human achievement of building the twins or any tribute to the great financial power that they represented. Not to upset anyone here from outside of NY but everything about this site is foreign to me. This should be a site for New Yorkers, a cultural center about the culture of ny, not "freedom" Even the firefighters, who deserve a tribute there above anything or anyone else, didn't stand for "freedom". This cultural center sits right on top of the memorial and has NOTHING to do with it. I am 100% with the families that are protesting. These people should just F off and go push their agendas somewhere else, buld an annex to Liberty Island or something.

If we must have a cultural center I say take the future "Tribute" thing out of that hole on Liberty street and put that in the Cultural Center. It's a lot more fitting. Bottom line IMO is this, scrap the cultural center and instead use the funds for Tribute and not cutting anything from the PATH station.

ok, another bottom line (lol): can we stop building stuff for tourists and actually focus on the people for whom the site is inteded?

billyblancoNYC

July 16th, 2005, 01:34 AM

Still say either put it in the base of a tower or make it stand alone instead of tower 5. Add some height to the other 4.

lofter1

July 18th, 2005, 10:20 PM

and then there were none...

Drawing Center may quit WTC

Fight over content restrictions delays museum's plans; will not be censored

By Miriam Kreinin Souccar (msouccar@crain.com)
Published on July 18, 2005

Amid a storm of controversy over plans for the Ground Zero cultural centers, the Drawing Center says it has put the entire planning process for its move downtown on hold and is considering whether it should pull out of the site. Museum officials have not spoken publicly about their role in the controversy. But in an interview with Crain's last week, Executive Director Catherine de Zegher voiced her frustration with demands that the museum agree to limit the type of art it would show in its new home. The institution wants the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. to guarantee that it will have complete freedom in curating its exhibitions.

"The LMDC knows that we would never be able to accept censorship," says Ms. de Zegher. "Now they have to come to us with their decision."

She added that the group does not feel comfortable attending development meetings "when you don't know where you stand."

The Drawing Center, one of the four cultural institutions chosen to move to Ground Zero a year ago, came under attack last month for exhibiting work that satirizes President George W. Bush's comments about the Axis of Evil. Around the same time, the International Freedom Center, a new museum chosen to share a building with the Drawing Center, came under fire because some potential programs were deemed unpatriotic by families who lost loved ones on Sept. 11.

Since then, the Freedom Center, in response to a request by Gov. George Pataki, has assured the LMDC that its content wouldn't be un-American. The Drawing Center has refused to follow suit. Stefan Pryor, president of the LMDC, would only say that it is in discussions with the two institutions individually about this issue.

The controversy has become a symbol for freedom of speech and a battle over what belongs at the site. Ms. de Zegher says she has received hundreds of supportive e-mails from people around the country. At the same time, numerous petitions have been signed by families of the victims opposing cultural centers on the site.

Last week, Memorial Foundation chairman John Whitehead said he'd try to find a spot for the museum complex further from the Twin Towers footprint, but he said that would be highly unlikely.

Just pull out

A number of arts executives, including one on the committee that selected the Drawing Center for the site, say the center should pull out even if it gets the assurances it wants from the LMDC, because its every move will be intensely scrutinized.

"The Drawing Center just got its first dose of what it's going to be like to be there," says the executive. "Whatever it shows there will be subject to undue criticism. "

Ms. de Zegher says the Drawing Center, which has a $1.8 million budget, will continue to look for a new home in lower Manhattan if its Ground Zero plans fall through. But if it does pull out of the project, it will have lost three grueling years of work.

This isn't the only problem plaguing what was once touted as the highest-profile cultural center in the world. Just a year ago, the groups that beat out more than 100 arts institutions in a well-publicized competition for a spot at Ground Zero were the envy of the New York art world.

Now, officials at some of the groups--the other two winners are the Joyce Theater, a place for dance, and the Signature Theater, an off-Broadway company--are saying privately that they wish they hadn't been selected. A number of executives close to the Joyce and the Signature are skeptical that the performing arts center will become a reality.

Last week, the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation announced it would raise all the money needed for the memorial and its components--including a 100,000-square-foot commemorative museum--before any funds are raised for the cultural centers. The cost of the memorial and memorial museum: an estimated $350 million, not including a substantial endowment.

Delays ahead

Downtown officials say the foundation always planned to start with the memorial, but arts executives say they were led to believe that the fund raising for both sets of buildings would happen at the same time. Sources say the museum complex is now scheduled to be completed in 2010 instead of 2009, although the LMDC says it is still on schedule.

As for the performing arts building, its plans are even more tenuous. That building has been pushed off into a "second phase," and its tenants have been asked to refine their proposals further before the architect, Frank Gehry, continues to design the building.

"We are concerned over the lack of attention to the performing arts groups," says City Council member Alan Gerson. "Putting them on hold is unacceptable, because it will lead to the project not happening."

©2005 Crain Communications Inc.

BrooklynRider

July 19th, 2005, 11:05 AM

I have to agree with the perception of the Drawing Center and other arts organizations. It seems this particular area of downtown redevelopment is going to be most inhospitable to everyone who doesn't choose to dab their eyes and commit to wallowing with others in the crimes of 9/11. It recalls the arguments and laments that BPC had become a haven for monuments to death and suffering and this site will be no different. It seems it will be very hard to bring "life" back to that area, in any form, in the foreseeable future.

pianoman11686

July 23rd, 2005, 01:50 AM

Drawing Center May Drop Plan to Move to Ground Zero

By DAVID W. DUNLAP

Published: July 23, 2005

A year after being chosen as one of the cultural anchors on the World Trade Center site, but now embroiled in a controversy over what it might exhibit there, the Drawing Center may end up elsewhere in Lower Manhattan.

"The prospect of operating on the World Trade Center site is not off the table," Stefan Pryor, the president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, said yesterday. "But we are actively exploring a variety of options downtown for the Drawing Center."

George Negroponte, the president of the Drawing Center, a small art museum at 35 Wooster Street in SoHo, said: "What we are looking to do is find a new home for the Drawing Center as close to the site as possible, because we believe in it. At the same time, obviously we're concerned that we're living in a fishbowl and the pressures we're continuing to feel about our programming might be too much to bear."

The plan to house the Drawing Center and the International Freedom Center in a building at Fulton and Greenwich Streets has come under fire in the last month by relatives of 9/11 victims and other critics who question the appropriateness of their presence in a quadrant of the site set aside for a memorial. The objections have centered on the possibility that there would be anti-American artwork or programs.

On June 24, Gov. George E. Pataki demanded that the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation obtain a guarantee from the institutions that they not mount exhibitions that would offend victims' family members or other visitors. "We will not tolerate anything on that site that denigrates America," he said at the time.

Two weeks later, the International Freedom Center pledged in a letter to Mr. Pryor: "We will not 'blame America' or attack champions of freedom. Any suggestion that we will feature anti-American programming is wrong. We are proud patriots."

Among the possible new locations for all or some of the Drawing Center's programs, Mr. Pryor said, were areas in the trade center site outside the memorial quadrant bounded by Fulton, Greenwich, Liberty and West Streets.

Were the Drawing Center to move out of the planned building designed by Snohetta, that might help reduce the volume of the structure, which has been criticized for looming too closely over the voids in the memorial that are to mark the twin towers' footprints.

But Mr. Pryor said the building's size could be reduced in other ways and that the desired shrinkage would not dictate the Drawing Center's location. Both he and Mr. Negroponte emphasized that their discussions had been cooperative and constructive.

Mr. Pryor also said that there was no connection between the current controversy and the resignation of Anita F. Contini, the corporation's vice president and director for memorial, cultural and civic programs. He said she had achieved the jobs she was charged with when she joined the corporation in 2002: selecting a memorial design, selecting the cultural institutions and securing support for cultural groups downtown.

Last week, Anne Papageorge was appointed senior vice president of the corporation for memorial and cultural development.

In an e-mail message to friends and colleagues on Thursday, Ms. Contini said she was leaving to become the senior vice president and director of corporate and public affairs for the CIT Group, a finance company, beginning after Labor Day. "I don't have a single regret," she said yesterday in a telephone interview. "My job is really done."

While praising Ms. Contini personally, critics of the redevelopment process said they believed her departure was almost inevitable.

"The governor is the final decision-maker," said Jack Lynch, whose son Michael, a firefighter, died in the south tower. "All these people are in a very difficult position because they have to put his agenda into effect and follow whatever direction they're getting."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Jonathan_Hakala

July 23rd, 2005, 11:54 AM

From this morning's New York Post (Saturday, July 23rd, 2005):
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/50586.htm (link good through July 29, 2005)
-----------------------------
THEY'RE STARTING TO GET IT

July 23, 2005 -- Just days after officials at the Drawing Center said they'd sooner scrap plans for a facility at Ground Zero than agree to Gov. Pataki's censorship comes word that two notable figures have quit their involvement with the site.

One is Anita Contini, vice president and director for memorial, cultural and civic programs at the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. (LMDC).

Contini oversaw the selection of the Drawing Center and the International Freedom Center for Ground Zero — choices that ignited a fiery protest over all-too-rational fears these museums would display vulgar, anti-American work.

Contini says she submitted her resignation a couple of months ago and that it had nothing to do with current protests.

Perhaps.

More significant was the other departure: Eric Foner, a left-wing prof at Columbia who was serving as an adviser to the IFC. Foner is the "scholar," you'll recall, who equated the 9/11 attacks with President Bush's rhetoric about a U.S. response.

Good riddance to both of them.

Meanwhile, some 9/11 families are ratcheting up their campaign to keep the museums off the site — and meeting with some early success. In one effort, towns all over the country are signing up to officially reject the plan for the facilities.

Plus, LMDC Chairman John Whitehead has griped increasingly about waning donations, thanks to all the fuss.

Clearly, Gov. Pataki — and Mayor Bloomberg, who controls half the LMDC's board — are getting the message: The Drawing Center and the IFC pose some serious problems for Ground Zero.

But what they still don't get is this: The idea can't work, no matter what they do.

Last month, Pataki demanded the facilities provide "assurances" that they'd ban offensive content. The Drawing Center, showing integrity, balked — demanding the gov relent. The Freedom Center, waiving its own free-speech rights, said it would gladly be censored.

That might explain Foner's departure, though — who knows? — maybe the IFC secretly plans to hire him back once Pataki is gone, which likely will be soon.

The fact is, it's becoming undeniably clear — apparently, to an increasing number of people — that there's no way to ensure these museums will operate, in perpetuity, with the kind of restraint and respect for 9/11 the site demands.

To repeat: They must go. Period.

Copyright 2005 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.
-----------------------------

I wholeheartedly agree with this New York Post editorial. The Drawing Center and the so-called International "Freedom" Center can easily be built somewhere else where they would not be subject to censorship. The hallowed ground that they would have desecrated can instead be used to build a memorial above ground that will accommodate the expected number of visitors, instead of a tiny memorial below ground that even Pataki's minions concede would require turning away more than 3 million people every year!

ablarc

July 23rd, 2005, 12:15 PM

The hallowed ground that they would have desecrated
Bombastic.

.

BPC

July 23rd, 2005, 01:21 PM

What's missing from both sides' overheated debate on this issue is that the Drawing Center is a third-rate cultural organization that never merited consideration for such a prime piece of real estate. I'm not sure who bribed whom, but awarding them a huge spot on the WTC Site (as much space as the memorial itself, which is what millions will be coming to visit) was a travesty. Who on this board had even heard of the Drawing Center before it was selected? The shame was that there were really top notch cultural instututions interested in the sight -- the City Opera, the Museum of the City of New York -- that the corrupt LMDC passed over for this nonsense. It's not too late to correct that mistake.

ablarc

July 23rd, 2005, 01:25 PM

The shame was that there were really top notch cultural instututions interested in the sight -- the City Opera, the Museum of the City of New York -- that the corrupt LMDC passed over for this nonsense. It's not too late to correct that mistake.
Hope that's true; either one of those would be a much better choice.

lofter1

July 23rd, 2005, 02:11 PM

What's missing from both sides' overheated debate on this issue is that the Drawing Center is a third-rate cultural organization that never merited consideration for such a prime piece of real estate.

I'm curious: what is the basis for your ranking the Drawing Center as "third-rate"?

Also, I find it perplexing why this world reknowned cultural institution, which has been a part of the downtown NYC art world for almost 40 years, is receiving such scathing attacks. If anyone can answer that it will be greatly appreciated.

It was decided early on that cultural uses would be a part of the re-built WTC area. I agree that the Museum of the City of NY would have been a good choice (especially since it was bumped from the much more appropriate Tweed Courthouse building) and that a large performing arts group like City Opera would have been a great addition to the cultural life of downtown. However neither of those groups were chosen -- if this was due to payment of bribes as has been claimed in a previous post then I'd love to see the evidence for that (as I go as crazy for a scandal as anyone).

The NY art scene has invariably pushed the envelope regarding what is "acceptable"; this is one of the reasons why NYC is vibrant and challenging and ever-changing. Do we really want as a centerpiece of the new downtown an International Propaganda (oops, meant to write Freedom) Center that challenges nothing and only serves to fulfill pre-conceived expectations for those who travel to the WTC?

Citytect

July 23rd, 2005, 06:50 PM

First, I don't agree with the third-rate assessment of The Drawing Center. I do not agree that they bribed anyone to get a place on the site. And I certainly don't believe that their presence would desecrate the place in anyway. I also believe that cultural institutions are essential to revitalisation of lower Manhattan.

But I don't think ANY good cultural centers can opperate effectively on the WTC site without censorship or without pushing a pro-America agenda. And I feel that it IS too late to correct the "wrong" that was not selecting City Opera and the Museum of the City of NY for places in the new WTC planning.

My suggestion is for the removal of the cultural portions of the planning - including the disturbing IFC- at least for now. Instead, the LMDC should look to place cultural centers in lower Manhattan, off the WTC site. This would allow the centers to function as institutions of free speech and prevent fighting between the memorialists and the culturalists that could, in the end, leave lower Manhattan without the culture piece of the puzzle to revitalization.

ZippyTheChimp

July 24th, 2005, 06:36 AM

I suggested that the Deutsche Bank site be used for a cultural building, but Lofter1's idea of using Fiterman Hall is a better choice.

Like Deutsche Bank, it is at a distance from the memorial, but close enough to be considered a part of the complex. Unlike Deutsche Bank, it is not owned by the PA, but is still state property.

The site is stand alone, at the convergence of Greenwich and West Broadway, with a planned plaza in front. It could be the gateway to the WTC site, a role envisioned for 7WTC.

A partnership between scholastic and cultura institutions is a natural fit.

lofter1

July 24th, 2005, 12:18 PM

Zippy: That's a great shot showing what the prominence Fiterman has on the north side of the WTC site.

Given all the players involved in Fiterman, what are the chances that cultural uses could be incorporated into the replacement for Fiterman?

They should give the job of designing the new Fiterman to Gehry -- it's the perfect site for one of his great buildings.

lofter1

July 24th, 2005, 01:22 PM

http://www.observer.com/politics_wiseguys.asp

Dissent Is No Crime, Inquiry Is Not Treason

By Niall Stanage
NY Observer

Plans and passions are clashing at Ground Zero.

A rancorous debate about what constitutes an appropriate commemoration of the Sept. 11 attacks has been rumbling for weeks. The row is focused on two institutions that will augment the main memorial at the World Trade Center site. The International Freedom Center (I.F.C.) and the Drawing Center will occupy a cultural facility adjacent to where the Twin Towers once stood...

Some of the points leveled against the cultural plans, however, carry very dark overtones.

The New York Post has trumpeted the views of the relatives more than any other media outlet. In a July 7 editorial, the Post scorned a letter written by leading members of the I.F.C. The letter noted that programming at the center would be “provided by world-class universities,” including Columbia, Princeton and Oxford.

The Post wasn’t impressed by the invocation of academic excellence. The universities, it thundered, “are Petri dishes for subversive theorizing—the sort of corrosive nonsense that may have a place on campus, but which has no business whatsoever at Ground Zero.”

Within that one sentence, a line of reasoning that purported to be a defense of Ground Zero’s sanctity revealed itself as an attack upon the spirit of inquiry itself. Such rhetorical assaults help spread the ethos of the current White House, in which dissent is dishonorable.

They also contribute to one of America’s worst traditions—a streak of anti-intellectualism that regards critical thought as worthy of suspicion rather than respect.

ZippyTheChimp

July 24th, 2005, 06:01 PM

Given all the players involved in Fiterman, what are the chances that cultural uses could be incorporated into the replacement for Fiterman?
Email CB1 and make the suggestion. I did.
http://www.cb1.org/

ablarc

July 24th, 2005, 06:22 PM

Email CB1 and make the suggestion. I did.
http://www.cb1.org/
That sure sets a good example for the rest of us, Zippy. Gives us something constructive to channel all this palaver into.

We might as well make this forum count for something outside its hermetic boundaries. But I do suggest that forumers try out their ideas here first, as you did, to get some feedback. No point in getting to be known as crackpots.

fioco

July 26th, 2005, 06:29 PM

ZippyTheChimp and Ablarc, you might actually turn us into good citizens . . . by challenging us to compost our hubris into a product that actually serves a constructive purpose. From BS to usefulness . . . what a concept! And a part of why I enjoy this forum so much. It truly is a forum where ideas are presented, challenged, argued, vilified and/or vindicated, and spawn even greater ideas and concepts.

Astonishingly, the WTC site has become ever more politicized and polarized. As we become further removed in time from the event we become ever more incapable of creating an over-riding vision forged from hard-won community consensus and courageous civic leadership. Instead, invective has poisoned any reasoned debate. By action and by hateful words, select groups profane the very ground they proclaim as being sacred. Opponents are demonized, and highly charged emotional language has replaced any semblance of discourse or debate.

It is cruel irony that such piercing bitterness now inflicts the site that borne our compassion and brought a unity to New Yorkers we could not have fathomed. We shouldered burdens unimaginable; and through it, came to adopt a solidarity that not only embraced the diversity of New York, but recognized it as a strength that would enable us to endure. And eventually thrive.

Lofter1, Zippy, Ablarc, et al, have presented solutions that can get us beyond the impasse of reactivity and polarization. While it may be admirable to fight for freedom of expression unbridled by censorship, the political environment of ground zero is wedded to a narrow agenda that barely hides its lust for power and its need for attention. The pursuits of scholarship and the perspectives gained through artistic endeavor are best explored along the periphery. The 'boundary' is the recognized fertile ground for both theology and philosphy, and so the geographical location of cultural groups near but not in ground zero makes not only a larger political point, but also a psychic sense.

I am saddend by this realization, because my idealism and optimism must give way to a recognition of real politic. The WiredNY forum serves an important function. It is the place where the power of one idea can ignite a conflagration.

BrooklynRider

July 26th, 2005, 09:22 PM

I sent CB1 my suggestion. Now the waiting begins....

lofter1

July 28th, 2005, 01:53 AM

How a Cultural Building Divides the Trade Center
By DAVID W. DUNLAP (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=DAVID W. DUNLAP&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=DAVID W. DUNLAP&inline=nyt-per)
Published: July 28, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/nyregion/28blocks.html

TWO lines on a plan drawn two years ago may have settled the fate of a cultural building at the new World Trade Center.

By dividing the trade center site into quadrants around the east-west line of Fulton Street and the north-south line of Greenwich Street, planners created a clearly defined parcel containing the twin towers' footprints.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/07/28/nyregion/28blocks_lg.jpg
Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, via Associated Press
A rendering of the cultural building, behind the trade center void. A revised plan sets the building farther back from the void.

In retrospect, it seems obvious that this parcel would come to be regarded by some as the memorial precinct exclusively; no matter that planners envisioned a cultural building there as a buffer for the memorial, as a place of "memory and hope"; no matter that people died throughout the whole trade center site.

In retrospect, it also seems obvious that it might grow politically difficult to situate anything in the precinct that was not directly related to 9/11 or that veered at all from a tributary function.

And now there is a mire around the Drawing Center, a 28-year-old museum in SoHo, and the embryonic International Freedom Center, conceived by Tom A. Bernstein, the president of Chelsea Piers, and Peter Kunhardt, a documentary filmmaker.

These institutions were chosen in June 2004 to occupy a cultural building at the northeast corner of the memorial precinct. Last month, responding to critics who foresaw the possibility of anti-American artwork or programs in the building, Gov. George E. Pataki asked the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to secure an "absolute guarantee" from the institutions that they undertake nothing "that denigrates America."

That led in turn to what Stefan Pryor, the corporation president, said yesterday were continuing discussions with both institutions.

The design of the structure, by the firms Snohetta, Adamson Associates and Buro Happold, is already being revised to pull it away from the void and pool in the memorial plaza that will mark the location of the north tower. The current plan calls for the building to be 40 to 45 feet from the void at its closest point, about twice the distance of the design unveiled in May. Over all, the building's footprint is being reduced at least 10 percent, said Craig Dykers, a partner in Snohetta.

Among the rationales for this building are that its open-air base would create an area for sheltering and directing visitors. Its upper floors would offer vantages of the memorial and environs. Its presence between the PATH terminal and the memorial would discourage commuters from using the memorial plaza as a shortcut to and from their offices. Its core could house ventilating and exhaust shafts, staircases and machinery needed by the PATH terminal and by the underground area of the memorial.

Also, Mr. Dykers said, "It creates a transition between urban life and the memorial itself." And it is called for in the master plan by Daniel Libeskind, who wrote in 2003, "Of course, we need a museum at the epicenter of ground zero, a museum of the event, of memory and hope."

The notion of any building in the precinct was rejected by the architect Michael Arad in his initial submission of a memorial design. He envisioned the site functioning "both as a sacred memorial ground for those who descend to the memorial pools and as a large urban plaza." But he and Peter Walker & Partners won the juried competition in 2004 after accommodating a cultural center in their plans.

THE question now seems to be what will occupy that structure. Alternative locations for the Drawing Center, on and off the trade center site, are already being investigated.

To make a case for the freedom center, Mr. Bernstein, the chairman, and Paula Grant Berry, the vice chairwoman, described in a July 6 letter to Mr. Pryor how it could play "an integral role in telling the story of Sept. 11." They also pledged that the center would never "be used as a forum for denigrating the country we love."

They proposed accommodating the Family Room that is now in 1 Liberty Plaza, where victims' relatives come to mourn and remember privately. In one exhibit, they said, they would tell the stories of the men and women lost on Sept. 11 "alongside the freedom heroes of history." They proposed a gallery "devoted to the international outpouring of sympathy and support for the U.S. and the victims."

Mr. Bernstein and Ms. Berry also proposed relocating the Fritz Koenig sculpture "Sphere for Plaza Fountain," which stood at the trade center and is now an interim memorial in Battery Park, to a spot outside the cultural building.

Mr. Pryor said yesterday that any 9/11-related proposals would have to be coordinated with the museum being planned in the memorial precinct. "We're still in the process of analyzing elements of this letter," he said.

But the letter has already had an effect. Eric Foner, the DeWitt Clinton professor of history at Columbia University, said its "general stance of surrender" prompted his resignation from the center's committee of scholars and advisers. (Richard J. Tofel, the president and chief operating officer of the freedom center, declined to comment.)

"I objected to the failure to say a word in defense of freedom of expression, or that difference of opinion is not anti-American but essential to the exercise of freedom," Professor Foner wrote in an e-mail message on Tuesday.

"It convinced me that if the freedom center is in fact built, they will surrender again and again whenever anyone objects to anything in it. In those circumstances, I don't see how a genuinely interesting, complicated and historically accurate presentation about freedom and its history can be developed."

He added, "I hope I'm wrong."

Months ago, in explaining to the center's creators why he was reluctant to become an adviser in the first place, Professor Foner seems to have anticipated the current storm.

"There is a danger that the site itself could overwhelm what any good museum needs to have," he wrote, "which is a critical eye, an ability to look carefully and in a complex way at historical questions."

BrooklynRider

July 28th, 2005, 11:18 AM

Good for Prof. Foner. At least someone gets it - and is getting coverage in the press.

Jasonik

July 28th, 2005, 12:02 PM

Its presence between the PATH terminal and the memorial would discourage commuters from using the memorial plaza as a shortcut to and from their offices.
A contrived and calculated sentiment aimed directly at the 9/11 families (foes of the Freedom Center).

...Mr. Dykers said, "It creates a transition between urban life and the memorial itself."
It thought that is what the trees and descent under the fountains was supposed to accomplish.

[Michael Arad] envisioned the site functioning "both as a sacred memorial ground for those who descend to the memorial pools and as a large urban plaza."
The plaza is not the memorial its a plaza, and as such I think it would be wonderful to come out of the path station and be on the edge of it.

BPC

July 28th, 2005, 05:18 PM

Jasonik, the activists who purport to represent the 9/11 families have always envisioned the Memorial Plaza as a place set aside exclusively for themselves and the tourists who (in their mind) will come to honor their fallen loved ones, and not as an open green space for the tens of thousands of office workers and residents who work and live in the immediate vicinity. The head of one such group (Michael Kuo, I believe) once told a reporter that his worst fear was that someone would use the space to sit and eat a sandwich on his lunch break. The WTC memorial was designed to satisfy those concerns.

Personally, I think that the activists' desire to scare off pedestrian street life from the site is exactly the wrong approach. Already, most family members visit the site only rarely. If the site is to flourish in the yeas to come, it will only be if the community is vested in its well-being, not excluded from it.

Jonathan_Hakala

August 2nd, 2005, 08:04 PM

From this morning's (August 2, 2005) New York Daily News:
--------------------------------------------------------
Honor only the 9/11 dead

By DENNIS SMITH

I feel for Tom Bernstein and Paula Berry, the president and the vice president of the proposed and very controversial Freedom Center at Ground Zero. They have put their hearts into a project they believe in, but it has been met by significant resistance. At the end of each day, at least recently, they must be thinking that no good deed goes unpunished. But, as much as there is inherent good in their deed, it is fundamentally flawed. The International Freedom Center simply doesn't belong where it is proposed.
I cannot speak for the families of 9/11, but I do have many in those groups who are my friends, and I believe my measure of their views to be correct. They see the Drawing Center and the Freedom Center to be inappropriate institutions for a site where so many have died. The First Amendment rights of such institutions would always prevail, and consequently the possibility would always exist for an exhibition to be an affront to the reverence that should be felt at Ground Zero.

Who can object to exhibitions that honor the sacrifices made by the greats of history - Sitting Bull, Michael Collins, Golda Meir and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.? But, would these kinds of exhibitions be put forth in the National Museum of the American Indian in the old Custom House, or the Irish Hunger Memorial on Vesey St., or the Holocaust museum in Battery Park City? The idea of the Freedom Center has important potential, but is not relevant to the 9/11 site. It must be shifted to another place. The Lower Manhattan Development Corp. can easily find an alternative for the Freedom Center.

In the history of Western civilization, when a society wanted to build something public - a bridge, a cathedral, a memorial - its representatives went to an enlightened patron for guidance and building money. Today, public building is usually underwritten by our government in a world where civic action is based more on polling than enlightenment. Because there has not been a consistent vision for Ground Zero, there has been a natural evolution of conflict. Gov. Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg have tried to build a consensus, but almost four years after 9/11, many differences of opinion remain.

Meanwhile, as I see it, the families of the 2,749 souls who perished will have the ultimate say. They have the country on their side, though they have not yet begun to muster all the support they could get from the American people, who continue to connect to the memory of 9/11. Also, the families have not yet asked for a supportive turnout of New York's Finest and Bravest, who continue to represent for us those wonderful men and women who went up those stairs to help others get down.

What feeds this controversy is one great, unrelenting and unforgettable issue: Good people were murdered, and of those 2,749 who were so tragically taken from their families, 1,152 men and women left nothing of themselves behind - not a hair, a fingernail, piece of skin or bone that could be identified. If you will think about it, you will soon realize that these lost men and women are in that space. They can only be in that space. And, so, that space must have a continuing and appropriate honor attached to it, an honor safeguarded from infringement by art exhibitions or memorials that honor others not related to 9/11.

Recently, some editorialists and others have described the families as misguided for objecting to the Drawing Center and the Freedom Center, as being just one censorious group of 9/11 families who are few in number and intransigent in the belief that a memorial must be built that sustains their view of 9/11. How patronizing.

Censorship is perhaps the greatest crime in New York's art world, and it is an unfair charge to attach to the 9/11 families. I am the founding chairman of the New York Academy of Art, and I would gladly donate to a new Drawing Center if it were placed across Church St., for the Drawing Center is a marvelous institution. There is a huge leap from guardianship to censorship, and I believe that the 9/11 families would also give what they could to support a new Drawing Center.

The objecting families of 9/11 are not few in number, and there are more than a dozen 9/11 organizations that can be found at takebackthememorial.com. The families are right to fight against the placement of the Drawing Center and the Freedom Museum at the site of Ground Zero - the usurpation of their honored field. The political leaders and the boards of the involved organizations and committees should see that the families will have the support of all Americans when they determine to ask for it. Right now they are maintaining discipline in their intelligent and prudent opposition. But I don't think there is much time left to resolve this matter.

Smith's latest book, "San Francisco Is Burning," will be published next month.

Originally published on August 2, 2005

All contents © 2005 Daily News, L.P.

Jonathan_Hakala

August 2nd, 2005, 08:26 PM

From this morning's (August 2, 2005) New York Post:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SLURS OF THE TIMES

August 2, 2005 -- After its high-minded defense of "freedom of speech" regarding the debate at Ground Zero, you'd think The New York Times might be a tad less ham-handed in its efforts to silence those who disagree with it.

"Critics of the cultural plan at Ground Zero" say the site "must contain no facilities 'that house controversial debate, dialogue, artistic impressions or exhibits referring to extraneous historical events,' " a Times editorial huffed last week.

"This, to us, sounds un-American."

Now, if we were less high-minded ourselves, we might take that personally. That's because we've been in the forefront of efforts to ensure that the site where the War on Terror began for so many Americans is not politicized.

Ever.

We certainly agree that unfettered "dialogue" and freely expressed "artistic impressions" are, well, as American as apple pie.

But that's not what the Ground Zero debate is about.

Rather, the question is whether it's appropriate to use land in the public trust, and public funds, to transform the very spot where the nation suffered the most devastating domestic attack in its history into a venue for debating whether the terrorists had a point.

By all means, have the debate.

But, please, just don't have it at Ground Zero.

That is to say, please park the proposed International Freedom Center someplace other than Ground Zero.

The center is the brainchild of some folks who think it'll be dandy to discuss — among other things — America's dirty laundry in public, on the public dime. Or, as one put it last spring, "the International Freedom Center will host debates and note points of view with which you, and I, will disagree."

Once the heat was on, museum officials began talking out of both sides of their mouths, saying the facility would "never" feature exhibits that "denigrate" America — but also that "absolute guarantees" to that effect, as Gov. Pataki has demanded, are impossible.

The honorable course is for the facility to bow out of the project — and find a home somewhere off-site.

Freedom of speech would be preserved, but gratuitous insults to 9/11's dead — and the site where they died — would be avoided.

This is the argument we and others, like Debra Burlingame (whose brother was the pilot of one of the hijacked planes on 9/11), have advanced — in the spirit of free and open debate about the future of the site.

Doing so hasn't made us — and, especially, Burlingame — "un-American."

And the readiness to hurl the term says more about the Times than it does about anyone else.

Copyright 2005 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

Jonathan_Hakala

August 2nd, 2005, 08:39 PM

From this morning's New York Times:
-----------------------------------
Politics at Ground Zero (2 Letters)
Published: August 2, 2005

To the Editor:

I am appalled and mystified by your callousness in labeling "un-American" those who seek to separate ground zero from extraneous political controversies ("A Sense of Proportion at Ground Zero," editorial, July 29). It is your editorial board that has lost all sense of proportion.

The compassionate and nonpolitical individual profiles of the victims you published ("Portraits of Grief") helped draw my Minnesota family to the site to remember those killed at their workplaces, and to honor the valor of those who sacrificed their lives to save others.

For generations, similar pilgrimages have honored the fallen at sites like Gettysburg, the U.S.S. Arizona and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Neither artistic expression nor political debate has been stifled by isolating these locations from the divisive raw emotions generated by issues like slavery, the use of atomic bombs, Japanese internments or the morality of the Vietnam War.

There are many places to express opposition to the Iraq war. There is only one ground zero.

Dale E. Beihoffer
Lakeville, Minn., July 29, 2005

•

To the Editor:

The purpose of a memorial is to help us remember. War memorials remind us of the terrible cost we pay whenever we make the decision to send troops to battle. It's a hard lesson, but we need to remember it.

The question I have for opponents of the International Freedom Center is, What do we need to remember about 9/11?

If what we remember is pain and fear, we're bowing to terror. If what we remember is to hold our heads higher, raise our voices louder and fight harder for our ideals, then we're showing the world that terror can scratch the surface of New York City, but can't touch its heart.

Terrorists have already turned ground zero into a cemetery. New York should turn it back.

Stephen Eldridge
Allston, Mass., July 29, 2005

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

BrooklynRider

August 3rd, 2005, 10:59 AM

We ought to build an amusement park on the WTC site. This way all the bitching and moaning can be drowned out by the squeals of delight.

BPC

August 3rd, 2005, 12:03 PM

What a pathetic debate this is. Do we want Freedom and Drawing Centers on "Ground Zero," as the Times proposes, or rather a mega-memorial on "Ground Zero," as the Post proposes? I would vote for neither. Rather, here is my proposal:

First and foremost, the term "Ground Zero" should be wholly removed from the public vocabulary, treated like the hate term that it is. The Times and Post won't use racial pejoratives in their papers, and they shouldn't use a community pejorative like "Ground Zero" either. Then, we should scrap the plans for a six-acre memorial, which is far, far too large -- much larger than the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, which honors a war in which 20x as many Americans died as on 9/11, and which sits in parkland, not in the middle of the world's financial capital. One acre would still make for the biggest memorial in all of NYC. The family activists should be allowed to put on that memorial whatever they want, with no government interference. Then, let's redevelop the rest of the site for commercial uses, just like we had prior to 9/11. The terrorists should not be our urban planners. Finally, when the tourists come looking for "Ground Zero," let's have a map on the site pointing them to Wall Street and Battery Park and the Stock Exchange and the Esplanade and Liberty and Ellis Islands and Chinatown and the Skyscraper Museum and the Irish Hunger Memorial and the statue of the bull and South Street Seaport and the Peking and the American Indian Museum and all of the other great attractions in Lower Manhattan that don't involve having your picture taken in front of a giant hole in the ground.

JMGarcia

August 3rd, 2005, 02:02 PM

Compromise seems to be a lost art in NY.

ablarc

August 3rd, 2005, 02:39 PM

^ ^ Well said, BPC.

sfenn1117

August 3rd, 2005, 04:29 PM

Well put BPC. But in reality the footprints WILL be preserved and the ~6 acre memorial will happen. There's going to be 6 new huge office towers. Anything more and I think it would look too overcrowded. Some low-rise buildings are needed, like the former WTC, the purpose being to increase the scale of the Twin Towers.

But yes, there's so much to do in Lower Manhattan and people should be doing those things. But in reality the world trade center will always be the big star. The new one even more than the old one. That'll never change.

Jake

August 3rd, 2005, 07:15 PM

I agree 90% with BPC's post and 110% with "terrorists should not be our urban planners"

The Trade Center was the big star but something like 700,000 people used to visit the NYSE before it was closed to tours. It's be nice to have that kind of interest back. I'm for a memorial about the WTC, its people and its heroes; and for the reestablishment of the area as "THE" not "A" financial district.

BPC

August 3rd, 2005, 07:18 PM

Well put BPC. But in reality the footprints WILL be preserved and the ~6 acre memorial will happen. There's going to be 6 new huge office towers.

I actually agree with you. The current site plan is a hard-fought compromise that resulted from years of debate. While I do not agree with all elements of the plan, my preference would be that the parties stop bickering and start building. But the family members are now trying to reopen the compromise in order to evict the cultural building and thereby expand the memorial. My point is, if we are going to renegotiate the site plan, then everything -- not just the stupid Freedom Center -- should be back on the table.

BrooklynRider

August 3rd, 2005, 07:35 PM

... My point is, if we are going to renegotiate the site plan, then everything -- not just the stupid Freedom Center -- should be back on the table.

I'll second that.

ablarc

August 3rd, 2005, 08:34 PM

There was a professor at Columbia's architecture school who had his students do each design project twice. The first time was to find out the true parameters of the problem by getting it wrong; the second time you knew enough to do it right.

NYatKNIGHT

August 4th, 2005, 11:29 AM

Meanwhile, those connected to the rebuild effort have probably already depleted the rebuilding funds necessary to actually do it right.

NoyokA

August 10th, 2005, 01:29 PM

New York Observer:

Embattled Libeskind Defends Controversial W.T.C. Museum

By Matthew Schuerman

If Daniel Libeskind’s word is gold at Ground Zero, then the controversial International Freedom Center is going to get rich.

The earnest master planner has long since been cut out of the daily action, but he gets hauled in to bless each change to his acclaimed site plan. His assent, therefore, would most likely be needed before the Freedom Center could be pushed out of its proposed spot right next to the planned memorial. Mr. Libeskind is not taking sides on the controversy just yet, but a statement to The Observer this week shows he thinks the Freedom Center has plenty to do with the terrorist attacks four years ago.

“The International Freedom Center,” Mr. Libeskind said, “will have a significant amount of space and curatorial content relating to Sept. 11 and the tragedy that befell New York that day. It will be a building that speaks about the world’s reaction to that tragic event and the principles upon which this country stands.”

The comment comes two months into a campaign by families of Sept. 11 victims to kick out the Freedom Center, a new museum, from the corner of the reconstituted Greenwich and Fulton streets, in what is known as the “memorial quadrant” of the site. The families have argued variously that the center will be anti-American, or that it takes up prime space that should be devoted instead to a Sept. 11 museum, which is now planned on the lower level of the memorial. But the debate also has a great deal to do with what Mr. Libeskind wanted when his master plan first met with so many goo-goos and gah-gahs from the public—and the Governor—when it was unveiled more than two years ago.

Mr. Libeskind was on vacation and has generally not given interviews on the subject, according to his publicist, so the few words he utters publicly carry a lot of meaning. Since Mr. Libeskind is still on the government payroll, his opinions may proceed more from where Governor Pataki stands on the issue than the other way around, but they nonetheless suggest what the official thinking on the matter is.

So far, what little news has come out indicates that the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the state-city agency overseeing Ground Zero planning, is working out some sort of compromise. The Freedom Center is agreeing to take on more Sept. 11 content and has pledged not to offend anybody. According to a source, officials have scooted the Snøhetta-designed building as much as 40 feet away from the towers’ footprints and are trying to shrink its site below 250,000 square feet. The subterranean Sept. 11 museum has grown to “more than 100,000 square feet” in the words of one official, while it was less than half that size a year ago. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which actually owns the land there, is studying how it can move ventilation and mechanical systems, which were going to take up as much as 30,000 square feet of the so-called cultural building.

And perhaps most significantly, the LMDC has yet to come up with an alternative site for the Freedom Center, according to an individual familiar with downtown planning issues. And this almost a month after LMDC chairman John Whitehead pledged to take one last look for a new location, on or off the World Trade Center property. The agency, in a statement, says it “remains in active and ongoing discussions with the Drawing Center and the International Freedom Center to ensure consistency with the Governor’s directive and the master site plan”—but the details of where these institutions will go have yet to be determined. The Governor, who essentially controls what happens at Ground Zero, is expected to make a decision soon—certainly before the Sept. 11 anniversary rolls around again.

“It’s a tough issue for him,” said Jeremy Soffin, director of public affairs at the Regional Plan Association, a nonprofit organization that supports keeping the Freedom Center in place. “A big piece of it is the perception of progress and control at Ground Zero. There has been a lot of consensus, the process was moving forward, and if you take that building out of the master plan, you will have to start over. What will go there?”

This is merely the latest form of a debate that goes back to the earliest days following the Sept. 11 attacks. Should the 16 acres be preserved as a memorial or integrated with quotidian structures? Should the design please the families of the victims or should it appeal to all comers? The International Freedom Center was chosen a year ago, and the location of some sort of cultural institution was pegged for that spot, at the reconstituted Fulton and Greenwich streets, as far back as two and a half years ago. Yet family members only brought out their pickets and e-mails this June, once The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Debra Burlingame, a former Court TV producer whose brother was the pilot of the plane that ended up crashing into the Pentagon.

“They kept calling it different things,” said Monica Iken, a Sept. 11 widow and founder of September’s Mission, an organization raising money for the memorial. She first understood that the Freedom Center would be adjacent to the memorial in March, during a meeting of the LMDC Families Advisory Committee. “It was called September 11 Place. People were confused. We all got blindsided when we realized what it was.”

Mr. Libeskind always imagined a building complex adjacent to the towers’ footprints that would include both a Sept. 11 museum and a cultural component, and the LMDC Web site posted these plans years ago for all to see. (Culture on the memorial quadrant now consists mainly of the Freedom Center, since the Drawing Center is most likely going to withdraw rather than be censored. A performing-arts complex will go across the street—far enough away to avoid controversy.) In a statement submitted for the competition in December 2002, Mr. Libeskind called for “a museum of the event, of memory and hope” to be placed at the “epicenter” of the site. In accompanying sketches, Mr. Libeskind called for “culture at heart” to act as a “protective filter and open access to hallowed ground.” The sketches show that Mr. Libeskind envisioned both a “museum” and “culture” to be occupying different parts of a building that would also provide an entrance to the memorial below, in the sunken area encompassing the footprints of the Twin Towers—although significantly, the “museum” part seemed to take up at least half of the room.

When it chose Mr. Libeskind’s site plan two months later, the LMDC stated that “an interpretive museum sits at the center of the site” and that “new cultural facilities and a performing arts center are sited around the bathtub Memorial Garden.” Within months, the agency called for proposals from institutions that wanted to locate at Ground Zero. Many revisions of the master site plan later, a February 2004 report included a map showing two cultural buildings—later consolidated into one—with a combined floor space of 200,000 to 250,000 square feet at the corner of Fulton and Greenwich. The report included the short list of institutions vying for the site, including something then called “The Museum of Freedom.” The Sept. 11 museum, only 50,000 to 70,000 square feet at the time, was then underground—a result of the museum including a portion of the slurry wall and other parts of the original foundation. The underground location, Ms. Burlingame likes to say, prompted one family member to say the museum will be “down there with the rats.”

Although the plans appeared on the LMDC’s Web site, the families apparently never saw them or recognized their importance, until Ms. Burlingame brought them to their attention. It wasn’t just the size or location that she objected to, but its politics. This was paradoxical to say the least. A couple of months earlier it was being portrayed by the left as a tool for the Republican Party, since its co-founder, Tom Bernstein of Chelsea Piers fame, was once President Bush’s business partner. But poring over the list of 89 names of advisors and board members, Ms. Burlingame found five to be guilty by association of a lack of patriotism. One was Mr. Bernstein, who is also the former board president of Human Rights First, an organization of human-rights lawyers that sued the Bush administration over Guantánamo. Another objectionable adviser was Eric Foner, a Columbia history professor, whom Ms. Burlingame chastises for attending an Iraq war teach-in where another Columbia colleague called for “a million Mogadishus.” Ms. Burlingame suggests Mr. Foner is sympathetic to the Mogadishu comment, when in fact he quickly called the colleague “idiotic” in the press. But he said enough other stuff to hang himself several times over in Ms. Burlingame’s court of law and ended up resigning as a Freedom Center adviser out of disgust at its unwillingness to stand up for free speech.

Ms. Burlingame says her objections to the Freedom Center are not political, and yet she has clearly emerged as a sort of spokeswoman for pro-Bush families, appearing on shows like Hardball and publishing three other op-eds in The Journal—needless to say, one of the most conservative editorial sections in the nation. She got there in a roundabout way, however. A self-described lifelong Democrat and daughter of a master sergeant in the Air Force, Ms. Burlingame went from being skeptical of President Bush’s reluctance to investigate Sept. 11 to one of his biggest fans, convinced that the real reason Sept. 11 happened was because, simply put, terrorists got a hold of some planes and crashed them into buildings.

By the time last year when liberal widows objected to President Bush’s use of Sept. 11 imagery in his re-election ads, Ms. Burlingame excoriated them for pretending to speak for all survivors. This time around, Ms. Burlingame isn’t claiming to speak for all victims’ families, but she is claiming to speak for the majority of them.
“I felt that it was wrong for a handful of people to speak for the entire universe of 9/11 families on certain subjects, like politics,” she explained in an e-mail to The Observer. “They did not say ‘I think .… ’ They said ‘9/11 families want/need/believe …. ’ Here, we have virtually every major 9/11 family organization coming together and asking for a respectful memorial that adheres to the mission statement.”

She continued, “Our supporters number in the tens of thousands and, we believe, reflect the majority of the public. In fact, over 2,000 family members have signed the petition asking for no politics or unrelated historical exhibits. We have not received one contact, not one, from any family member objecting.”

The Take Back the Memorial Web site counts 39,224 signers of its petition to, well, take back the memorial. Two towns, albeit very small towns, have passed resolutions calling for the Freedom Center to back off, and the Sept. 11 campaigners are planning on making this a real grassroots national movement. Ms. Burlingame counts three million hits to her Web site. It has already forced the Freedom Center to pledge it will not offend victims’ families and the LMDC to scale down the building and move it at least 40 feet away from the memorial. “We all thought the 9/11 museum was the appropriate ‘culture’ for the site,” Ms. Burlingame wrote in an e-mail. “And, frankly, we haven’t heard of anyone who will want to come from all over the country and the world to hear about slavery, the Holocaust, etc.”

Meanwhile, there aren’t a whole lot of Sept. 11 families speaking up in its favor, not publicly. At best, they are indifferent.

“I don’t give a shit. There are more important things to worry about,” said Monica Gabrielle, one of the liberal Sept. 11 widows whom Ms. Burlingame tacitly criticized. Ms. Gabrielle is worrying, for instance, about how the Port Authority is not required to follow city building codes when new structures go up. “Not a rat’s ass.”

The Freedom Center, shunned by liberals and conservatives and too new to have the sort of audience that an existing institution would have, has no natural constituency—other than civic-minded planners and nearby residents who want culture somewhere on the site. The local community board seemingly endorsed the center, but its resolution does not specify that it remain on the memorial quadrant. And yet the Freedom Center just might pull through—if Mr. Libeskind has anything to do with it.

ZippyTheChimp

August 10th, 2005, 02:36 PM

Although the plans appeared on the LMDC’s Web site, the families apparently never saw them or recognized their importance, until Ms. Burlingame brought them to their attention. It wasn’t just the size or location that she objected to, but its politics. This was paradoxical to say the least. A couple of months earlier it was being portrayed by the left as a tool for the Republican Party, since its co-founder, Tom Bernstein of Chelsea Piers fame, was once President Bush’s business partner. But poring over the list of 89 names of advisors and board members, Ms. Burlingame found five to be guilty by association of a lack of patriotism.Give me a break.

liberal widows Liberal widows? Conservative widows?

This is starting to sound like the Mounds People and Dog Run People of Washington Square.

Jonathan_Hakala

August 10th, 2005, 03:13 PM

According to the Observer's Schuerman, Libeskind's "master plan first met with so many goo-goos and gah-gahs from the public ... when it was unveiled more than two years ago". This assertion is factually incorrect.

Libeskind’s scheme never enjoyed broad public support. The January 17, 2003 New York Times reported the results of a New York Times poll of 1,003 people: “Asked an open-ended question about which proposal they thought would be best”, respondents gave Libeskind’s scheme the microscopic total of just 17 votes!

So how did Libeskind react to this stark absence of public support? The February 26, 2003 New York Times revealed, “Shortly before the finalists were selected, an e-mail message emanated from Studio Daniel Libeskind in Berlin urging friends, ‘in a shameless attempt to inflate public opinion’, to vote for the Libeskind plan on the CNN and New York One Web site polls”. Disgusting attempts to manipulate or manufacture public opinion by “stuffing the ballot box” do not change the central fact that Libeskind’s scheme never earned much public support.

Will Libeskind decide the fate of the so-called International "Freedom" Center? No. Governor Pataki aspires to national office, and will soon realize if he doesn't already that moving the IFC away from the Memorial quadrant is politically mandatory in addition to being good public policy.

ASchwarz

August 10th, 2005, 05:03 PM

Jake

August 10th, 2005, 07:45 PM

ASchwarz

August 10th, 2005, 08:01 PM

lol, banning free speech, hardly

I hate the idea of a drawing center so how about if it gets built I'll go there and draw Bin Laden on top of a plane with a smiley face flying into the WTC, on top i will draw sunshine and on the bottom happy people dancing in the streets just like on 911 in quite a few mid. eastern countries. what else what else. Pic two will feature some swastikas maybe throw in a bloody head or something, im full of ideas

If such ideas are judged worthy of merit and artistic value by the curators at the Drawing Center, then they should absolutely be exhibited without any censorship by supposed "freedom-loving" right-wingers. Real freedom is the tolerance of ideas different than one's own.

The opponents of the cultural center have explicitly stated that they seek to censor the free exchange of ideas at the WTC. Absent censorship they seek to completely eliminate any sort of cultural component anywhere near the WTC site. Apparently only brainless flag waving and jingoism is deemed appropriate for Lower Manhattan's heart.

Of course, this is yet another chapter in the Culture Wars. Cultural Center opponents are just projecting their hatred of anything that hints at academia or the arts. No matter that most of these opponents aren't even NYC residents and most will probably never even pass through the site.

ZippyTheChimp

August 10th, 2005, 08:34 PM

BrooklynRider

August 10th, 2005, 11:55 PM

lofter1

August 11th, 2005, 01:27 AM

New York Observer:

Embattled Libeskind Defends Controversial W.T.C. Museum

...It has already forced the Freedom Center to pledge it will not offend victims’ families...

I am offended that an orgainization that professes to represent "freedom" is being forced to "pledge" what it will or will not do.

Perhaps a specific list outlining what offends those who claim to represent the victims would be helpful.

Then we will all know exactly what we can speak about, think and feel while in the vicinity of the WTC.

lofter1

August 11th, 2005, 03:48 PM

So much for "freedom" ...

LMDC Revisits Cultural Center Plans For World Trade Center Site
August 11, 2005

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=52724

Amid concerns that two museums planned for the World Trade Center site could be disrespectful to those who lost their lives on 9/11, one of the museums has been scrapped and the other is headed back to the drawing board.

The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation says the Drawing Center slated for the area has been scrapped. Meanwhile, the LMDC has asked the International Freedom Center to consult 9/11 family members before resubmitting its plans.

Some of the families had expressed concerns the two museums would offer anti-American exhibits.

The Chairman of the LMDC released a statement on the decision saying: "We ... recognize that September 11th represented a terrorist attack aimed at destroying everything that America stands for – our freedoms and our way of life. We believe that the site must reflect a strong positive answer to the terrorists that they will not prevail."

The IFC has until September 23rd to resubmit its proposal.

Jonathan_Hakala

August 11th, 2005, 03:53 PM

^
Could you explain why it's "good public policy" to ban free speech on the WTC site? The opponents of the Cultural Center demand that everything exhibited at either The Drawing Center or the IFC pass through censors in order to prevent "Anti-American" content.

ASchwarz, we all agree that the Drawing Center and the so-called International "Freedom" Center should have freedom of speech. What you may disagree with is the conclusion that these institutions shouldn't be located on the World Trade Center site.

Think about another place where large numbers of innocent people were murdered. Would you propose to build the Drawing Center or the IFC at Auschwitz or at another Nazi concentration camp? Of course not!

londonlawyer

August 11th, 2005, 03:57 PM

The Drawing Center should be built across from the new Fulton Street Transit Center where those crappy buildings now stand on the west side of B'Way.

mkeit

August 11th, 2005, 04:44 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but across from the Fulton St site is a large office building owned by Peter Kalikow, whose value will be enhanced by the new work.

Jonathan_Hakala

August 11th, 2005, 04:49 PM

From http://takebackthememorial.org :

MAJOR 9/11 FAMILY GROUPS APPLAUD DRAWING CENTER’S EXIT FROM WTC SITE

New York, N.Y., August 11, 2005–The alliance of major 9/11 family organizations applauds the departure of the Drawing Center from the World Trade Center Memorial’s Cultural Complex, announced today at a board meeting of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. Recognizing the inherent conflict between the mission of free artistic expression and the LMDC’s obligation to create a respectful memorial which honors the victims of September 11, 2001, the Drawing Center voluntary elected to find a more suitable location in Lower Manhattan. As Chairman John Whitehead pointed out in a formal statement, the Drawing Center does not need to be situated on the World Trade Center site in order to play a “key part of the revitalization of Lower Manhattan.”

We concur.

The First Amendment issues which plagued the Drawing Center still apply to the International Freedom Center, however. The IFC plans to host controversial debates and sponsor inappropriate programming involving the Tribeca Film Festival. On June 24, Gov. George Pataki directed the LMDC to obtain an “absolute guarantee” from cultural institutions located at the memorial site, ordering that they “respect the sanctity of that site,” adding that if they could not comply then “they shouldn’t be there.”

Showing great integrity for free speech ideals and respect for the victims of 9/11, the Drawing Center took action. We have waited with patience for the IFC to demonstrate similar integrity–to no avail. In direct contravention of the wishes of the public, the IFC has dug in its heels. By insisting that it must be located on the WTC site or nowhere, the IFC is depriving other neighborhoods in Lower Manhattan in need of economic and cultural revival of the purported benefit of its existence. In contrast to the Drawing Center, the IFC has chosen to fuel a continuing controversy which is seriously undermining our ability to focus on and fund the effort to build America’s memorial. It is with great regret that we second the governor’s own pledge, to “give the appropriate amount at the appropriate time.”

We encourage the public to support “Campaign America” and to follow our efforts to build the 9/11 memorial the country deserves by visiting www.takebackthememorial.org.

mkeit

August 11th, 2005, 04:55 PM

I couldn't care less if the Drawing center is at the WTC site or not. The problem is the pricipal that one small self-appointed group can control a huge public development.

Last weeks edition of Downtown Express had a great editorial pointing out that these " family" groups can not be allowed to turn Lower Manhattan into a cemetary. This is something that most of us who live downtown feel and that politicians like Pataki and Bloomberg are afraid to admit.

ZippyTheChimp

August 11th, 2005, 05:03 PM

Think about another place where large numbers of innocent people were murdered. Would you propose to build the Drawing Center or the IFC at Auschwitz or at another Nazi concentration camp? Of course not!Weak argument.

Concentration camps were constructed as a place for enslavement and murder. They had no other purpose, and people did not go there for any other reason.

The WTC was constructed as a place of business and transportation. The people that went there, including those that were killed, were participating in freedom, something that is now being somewhat removed.

Concentration camps had well-defined borders.

The WTC memorial border is completely arbitrary.

Jonathan_Hakala

August 11th, 2005, 05:38 PM

^ Weak counterargument.

Phuket, Thailand is "a place of business and transportation. The people [who] went there, including those [who] were killed [in the December 2004 tsunami], were participating in freedom". Many of those killed were on vacation, which some work-weary souls would regard as the ultimate freedom.

The thousands killed in Thailand by the tsunami were killed in a natural disaster instead of being deliberately murdered. And even so, I would never be presumptuous enough to propose building the Drawing Center or the so-called International "Freedom" Center right in the middle of what was Phuket's tsunami disaster zone.

ZippyTheChimp

August 11th, 2005, 05:46 PM

Citytect

August 11th, 2005, 05:55 PM

I fail to see your point.
That's because there was no logical point made.
A tsunami destoys cities = no cultural centers should be built on the devastated area???
What?

mkeit

August 11th, 2005, 05:56 PM

Maybe the people from " Take Back The Memorial" should go to Thailand and teach the Thais how to create a vast cemetary.

Jonathan_Hakala

August 11th, 2005, 06:23 PM

I fail to see your point.

Forget the Drawing Center and the (why do you always refer to it as) "so called" Freedom Center. Are you suggesting the the tsunami disaster zone will be a giant memorial, or is it reasonable to assume that the people of Phuket will rebuild their city?

I refer to the so-called "Freedom" Center because "Freedom" Tower, "Freedom" Center, "Freedom" Walk, etc. strike me as quite Orwellian, especially after the deeply cynical LMDC process.

The tsunami disaster zone will not be a giant memorial, and please rest assured that I'm not suggesting a 16-acre memorial park for the WTC site. IMO, we can build a world-class Memorial above ground, and still have enough room to rebuild and bring back all of the jobs we lost in the atrocities of September 11, 2001.

The people of Phuket are rapidly rebuilding, and once we have much better plans, we should too IMO.

Jonathan_Hakala

August 11th, 2005, 06:35 PM

Maybe the people from " Take Back The Memorial" should go to Thailand and teach the Thais how to create a vast cemetary.

Maybe the people from Take Back The Memorial, who represent the overwhelming majority of the victims' family groups, should meet with representatives of those who live in lower Manhattan.

It's time for real dialogue between stakeholders instead of the deeply cynical LMDC process. It should be possible to build a world-class Memorial above ground that will help bring peace to victims' family members and so many others in a way that residents of lower Manhattan would also be comfortable with.

Citytect

August 11th, 2005, 08:58 PM

the people from Take Back The Memorial, who represent the overwhelming majority of the victims' family groups

Overwhelming majority? I don't buy that.

But I do think it's best that these cultural centers do not set up shop on the WTC site - at least not in the near future. The struggle between free speech and perceived suitability of content presented by these institutes on the site will be a nagging problem for years to come. Save us the headache of having to listening to these overzealous victims bitch about anti-Americanism.

Some sites nearby would be a good alternative to the WTC site because there is a need for cultural activity in the area to help in the revitalisation effort. Maybe the Fitterman Hall site if that building is ever demolished? Perhaps these cultural centers could negotiate for assistance in securing a place to build just off the WTC site.

However, I don't think they should be forced off the site. If they really want to be there despite all the struggles, they should be allowed to because they were awarded those spots. I'm glad the Drawing Center volunteered (well, after being pressured to do so) to abandon their spot. Hopefully the Freedom Center (ugh, why do we need one of those?) will do the same.

Jonathan_Hakala

August 12th, 2005, 12:51 AM

Freedom Center's Place at Ground Zero in Question

By DAVID W. DUNLAP
Published: August 12, 2005

The International Freedom Center was all but shown the door yesterday by state officials, who demanded that the fledgling institution undergo a new round of vetting - by relatives of 9/11 victims, among others - before it can claim the spot it was assigned last year in the World Trade Center's cultural building.

John C. Whitehead, the chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, said the Freedom Center had been asked to develop "specific plans, program and governance structure" by Sept. 23, which would then be presented to the public. "If at the end of this process, the L.M.D.C. is not satisfied with the I.F.C.'s proposal, we will find another use or tenant," he said at yesterday's board meeting.

The building itself, designed by the Norwegian firm Snohetta, will end up about 30 percent smaller than the version unveiled in May, Mr. Whitehead said. It will certainly contain a visitors' center but may lose its other designated tenant, the Drawing Center, which Mr. Whitehead said was "finding it difficult to comply with the requirements that have been laid down that they would never present anything that might be offensive to the families" of 9/11 victims.

Richard J. Tofel, the president and chief operating officer of the International Freedom Center, which describes itself as an institution concerned with the history and role of freedom, said, "We look forward to the opportunity to further detail our plans for content and governance, and will do so." He said the center was "fully and enthusiastically committed" to staying in the Snohetta cultural building.

In order to remain, however, the Freedom Center will have to clear hurdles that have no evident dimensions. It is not clear - and Mr. Whitehead declined to elaborate - what criteria the corporation would use to judge the center's plans, what standards would satisfy the corporation or what the exact vetting procedure would be, other than that it would involve discussions, presentations and Web sites. Mr. Whitehead would not even say whether the Freedom Center would have to meet the test of offering no programs that might offend victims' relatives.

It is also unclear how many board members endorsed this new review procedure, since the measure was not voted on, though Mr. Whitehead said he believed his statement reflected a consensus.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff immediately objected to the manner in which the review procedure was adopted, contrasting it with the master planning to date.

"We decided to have cultural institutions and picked these cultural institutions through a deliberative process that tried to involve all parts of the community with all different kinds of input," the mayor said, "and Dan and I both think that the L.M.D.C. erred in trying to change that without going through another inclusive process."

Plainly, what began two years ago as the search for cultural tenants to enrich the new World Trade Center has turned into a significant dilemma for Gov. George E. Pataki as he explores a run for the presidency.

If the governor defends the initial selection of the Freedom Center, he faces growing opposition by victims' relatives like Debra Burlingame, who say they fear that the center might be used as a forum for anti-American debate and want nothing in the memorial area that is not related directly to the terrorist attacks.

If Mr. Pataki tries to eject the center himself, he can expect objections that he is repudiating a master plan he once embraced, buckling to political pressure and denying a place for free speech at a site that is supposed to embody American values.

Leaving the matter in the corporation's hands would insulate Mr. Pataki from having to make the choice personally. On the other hand, the board itself might split on the issue, since many of its members already support the Freedom Center and would be reluctant to upend the process under which it was selected last year.

Ms. Burlingame, who attended yesterday's board meeting, said both the Freedom Center and Drawing Center should be removed from the memorial area, though she endorsed the Snohetta building if it can be "redesigned to be filled with the story of 9/11."

"The magnitude of that story would fill several Snohetta buildings," she added.

Frances Beatty Adler, the chairwoman of the Drawing Center, a museum in SoHo, acknowledged that it was looking at alternative locations in Lower Manhattan. She added that "no one has said that we're not in the Snohetta building" and said the center was "working cooperatively with the L.M.D.C. to restore cultural life downtown."

As evidence of the corporation's commitment to cultural programs at the trade center site, Mr. Whitehead also announced yesterday that it would earmark $50 million for the creation of a performing arts center across Fulton Street from the Snohetta building, for the Joyce Theater Foundation and Signature Theater Company.

Moments after Mr. Whitehead finished reading his statement, and before he could adjourn the meeting, Mr. Doctoroff - who sits at the board table as the mayor's representative, just three seats from the chairman - raised his hand to make his disappointment known about the Freedom Center review procedure.

"To reach this conclusion without a significant amount - particularly within this body - of debate and public comment leading up to the debate is disappointing," Mr. Doctoroff said.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Jonathan_Hakala

August 12th, 2005, 12:58 AM

Victory for 9/11 families
Plans to turn parts of Ground Zero into a history and culture center are on the wane after intense opposition from relatives of victims

BY PRADNYA JOSHI
STAFF WRITER

August 12, 2005

In another installment of the rancorous debate over the future of Ground Zero, a drawing museum chosen for the site is looking elsewhere, and the equally controversial Freedom Center has a Sept. 23 deadline to address families' objections or face the same fate.

The Drawing Center has not formally pulled out of the World Trade Center site, but is considering its options in the wake of protests and what it views as the potential for censorship. The moves were an apparent victory for Sept. 11 families who feel that locating the museums at Ground Zero doesn't properly respect the memory of their loved ones.

"I believe the Drawing Center board is finding it difficult to comply with the requirements that have been laid down that they must never present anything which might be offensive to families," Lower Manhattan Development Corp. Chairman John C. Whitehead said yesterday at the agency's monthly board meeting.

The corporation, in charge of rebuilding downtown, said the Drawing Center has hired a real-estate adviser to create a list of alternative locations.

The controversy is the latest in what has been a nearly four-year series of battles over what will rise at the site of the former World Trade Center. Plans have been stymied by security concerns over the design of the Freedom Tower that will replace the Twin Towers, along with objections to the original and revised memorial to those killed.

Protests over the planned cultural center have been swelling in recent months over what critics say are unrelated exhibits and lectures to be located on the memorial quadrant. Gov. George Pataki has called on the two museums to provide "an absolute guarantee" that the exhibits and lectures sponsored there will be tasteful and won't be anti-American.

The Drawing Center officials say they want to be a vital part of the "renaissance of lower Manhattan." Still, said Drawing Center spokesman Fraser Seitel, "The Drawing Center, like any cultural institution, represents artistic freedom."

The 27-year-old Drawing Center and the new International Freedom Center were both selected last year to be located at the so-called Cultural Center building designed by the architectural firm Snohetta.

Officials of the Freedom Center have until Sept. 23 to submit written details about its programs and governance. After that date, if the LMDC is not satisfied with its plans, it "will find another use or tenant -- consistent with our objectives," Whitehead said. LMDC board member and deputy mayor Daniel Doctoroff objected to the process, saying, "It is disappointing that this conclusion was reached" without public comment.

Dozens of families of victims of Sept. 11 say a cultural center that is unrelated to the terror attacks shouldn't be located adjacent to the two voids that will make up the World Trade Center memorial. Last month, the International Freedom Center sent a six-page letter pledging that its programs will not be "anti-American," but apparently, rebuilding officials still want the center to present more details of its plans.

In a statement, IFC president Richard Tofel said, "We look forward to the opportunity to further detail our plans for content and governance."

However, family members who attended yesterday's LMDC meeting said the compromise does not answer their objections.

Copyright © 2005, Newsday, Inc.

BPC

August 12th, 2005, 03:23 AM

Who cares? The Drawing Center already is Downtown. Does anyone seriously believe that moving this ridiculous little institution 10 blocks further south will be some great boon to Downtown redevelopment? They should ask City Opera to move Downtown instead. It's a first class instititution which is desperate for space. Plus, operas never criticize current foreign policy, at least not expressly, and nobody understands Italian anyway (not even I, of Italian heritage), so even if they did, no one would know.

And Doctoroff has a lot of balls claiming that the "public process" brought the Drawing Center to the WTC Site in the first place. It was a back-room decision, if ever there was one. It's not like anyone was filling out their WTC comment cards with "Drawing Center" on it.

ablarc

August 12th, 2005, 08:01 AM

^ Agreed, I thought the Opera was a shoo-in when they first announced the institutions being considered.

ZippyTheChimp

August 12th, 2005, 08:35 AM

Opera can be controversial. And those Italians; they're from Italy - right next to France.

If this rancorous battle over square feet and ideology have poisoned your regard for 09/11, consider participating in the Tunnel to Towers Run, a 5k run/walk that traces the path of firefighter Stephen Siller, who ran through the BBT to the WTC on 09/11. Proceeds go to a foundation that helps children who have lost parents.

I did this last year. The experience will make you feel good about being an American.

http://www.tunneltotowersrun.org/

BrooklynRider

August 12th, 2005, 10:48 AM

I still think that Madame Tussaud's should open a downtown location, maybe not as big as Times Square, and focus on the Assholes of 9/11 and the Rebuilding Process. I'd pay to get in.

ZippyTheChimp

August 12th, 2005, 02:59 PM

Maybe the people from Take Back The Memorial, who represent the overwhelming majority of the victims' family groups, should meet with representatives of those who live in lower Manhattan.

It's time for real dialogue between stakeholders instead of the deeply cynical LMDC process.That would accomplish nothing.

Although the government (LMDC, Pataki, Bloomberg, PA, et al) has generally bungled the rebuilding process, it is merely the conduit of the current memorial problems. The source of those problems is now, and has always been, the various family groups that have popped up. I'm not quite sure exactly how many different groups there are.

But two things have been consistent in the behavior of these groups at all the meetings over the last few years over...
Bus storage
Emergency exits for the temporary PATH
Number of station platforms
Footprints
Ashes
Truck ramps
Museums...

1. Their belief that they own the site.

2. Their self-appointed status of moral authority that renders all other viewpoints secondary. The very issues that are important to residents are considered blasphemous.

Do a demographic on the members of these family groups. You will probably find that the majority don't live in NYC. While most residents understand the shared interest in the WTC site, these people only see it as the place where their loved-ones were killed. They don't like NYC, especially Lower Manhattan, a financial symbol, where everyone is greedy and only wants to make money. Making money is what their loved-ones were doing when they were murdered.

Right now, a House of Wax seems pretty appealing.

TLOZ Link5

August 12th, 2005, 03:11 PM

Who cares? The Drawing Center already is Downtown. Does anyone seriously believe that moving this ridiculous little institution 10 blocks further south will be some great boon to Downtown redevelopment? They should ask City Opera to move Downtown instead. It's a first class instititution which is desperate for space. Plus, operas never criticize current foreign policy, at least not expressly, and nobody understands Italian anyway (not even I, of Italian heritage), so even if they did, no one would know.

That's why they have supertitles ;-)

Opera can be controversial. And those Italians; they're from Italy - right next to France.

So I suppose that if City Opera moved to Ground Zero, Carmen (French opera, written by George Bizet) would be struck from its repetoire for good?

I suppose we'd also have to scratch off La Boheme and La Traviata as well, as they're both written by Italians but set in Paris.

ZippyTheChimp

August 12th, 2005, 03:35 PM

I hope no one is upset, but I removed the Thumbs Up icon from the title.

It was really annoying me.

Jasonik

August 12th, 2005, 04:07 PM

Thanks.

lofter1

August 13th, 2005, 12:42 AM

I hope no one is upset, but I removed the Thumbs Up icon from the title.

It was really annoying me.
Seems it might be time to change the title of the thread as well.

Perhaps: "Snohetta, WTC Propaganda Center"

NewYorkYankee

August 15th, 2005, 07:56 PM

Has the whole building been scrapped or just the included Drawing Center? What else will be in the building?

BrooklynRider

August 15th, 2005, 09:17 PM

It should be called the "Victim's Families Cultural Center" and should retain the same outer design, but inside it should be a rustic latrine - without vents.

Jonathan_Hakala

August 17th, 2005, 06:36 PM

From this morning's New York Post:

FDNY UNION FIRES ON FREEDOM CENTER PLAN

By TOM TOPOUSIS

August 17, 2005 -- The union representing New York's Bravest yesterday demanded that the controversial International Freedom Center be removed from Ground Zero.
In another blow to the cultural plans for Ground Zero, Uniformed Firefighters Association President Stephen Cassidy said the Freedom Center would "diminish the sacrifices that the 343 members of the FDNY made on 9/11. That is unacceptable."

Cassidy sent a letter announcing the UFA's position to Memorial Foundation director Gretchen Dykstra on July 27, but union officials made it public only yesterday.

"We cannot help but feel that if the International Freedom Center is to be located alongside the memorial, our membership, along with our 9/11 families, will come out strongly in opposition to supporting your foundation," Cassidy wrote.

Gov. Pataki and the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. have been under intense pressure to drop plans to include the Freedom Center and the Drawing Center in a museum building next to the Ground Zero memorial.

Family members of 9/11 victims have blasted the two cultural institutions, saying they could include anti-American exhibits. Instead, the family members have argued for a facility more clearly devoted to the attacks.

Debra Burlingame, whose airline-pilot brother was killed during the 9/11 attacks and who now serves on the foundation board, said the firefighters' announcement is more proof that most Americans don't want a cultural center at Ground Zero.

"This statement on the part of New York's Bravest shows that they share our deepest concerns that the story of what happened that day will be obscured by the International Freedom Center," said Burlingame.

Cassidy said yesterday the union's leaders haven't yet decided what action they will take to block fund-raising by the Memorial Foundation if the IFC is to be a part of Ground Zero.

Pressure from family groups has already put the squeeze on the Freedom Center project.

The proposed building for the facility has been downsized 30 percent and LMDC Chairman John Whitehead has given the IFC until Sept. 23 to come up with specific programming plans. The Drawing Center is already seeking a new site.

"We're deeply saddened that the Uniformed Firefighters Association would withdraw their support for the memorial to honor all those lost on 9/11, including the sacrifice of the firefighters," said foundation spokeswoman Lynn Rasic.

* A dozen families of 9/11 victims will announce a federal lawsuit today against the city over what they claim is the burial of their loved ones' remains at Fresh Kills Landfill, where trade center material was sorted.

The families believe fragments of remains too small to be caught in sifters used to search rubble are still at the landfill and should be buried in a cemetery.

Copyright 2005 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

Jonathan_Hakala

August 17th, 2005, 06:51 PM

The Post's lead editorial this morning:

TIME TO PULL THE PLUG

August 17, 2005 -- The Uniformed Firefighters Associa tion's decision yesterday to withdraw support for the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, citing two controversial museums proposed there, may have ended the threat of institutionalized activism at Ground Zero.
Good for the UFA.

The union's "membership and our 9/11 families believe that the memorial design will take away from the memory and sacrifice of the firefighters who bravely gave their lives during the most horrific terrorist attacks our country has had to face," UFA President Steve Cassidy said.

Good for Steve Cassidy.

It's going to be especially hard now for the International Freedom Center and the Drawing Center to buck the opposition to their presence at Ground Zero.

The UFA speaks from the moral high ground: 343 firefighters died on 9/11.

Interestingly, the UFA announcement came on the very day that The New York Times — among the staunchest backers of the IFC and the Drawing Center — was reduced to attacking the sister of a pilot killed on one of the 9/11 planes, Debra Burlingame.

In a scathing editorial, the paper said criticizing the IFC's plans "may mean little more than subjecting them, essentially, to the veto of Debra Burlingame."

"Neither Ms. Burlingame nor her followers can be allowed to dictate the future [of Ground Zero]," it continued.

But Debra Burlingame is "dictating" nothing. Neither are the firefighters.

They are simply insisting that anti-American activism of the sort implicitly embedded in the IFC and the Drawing Center is inappropriate at any memorial site. And they are right.

The Times should be ashamed.

Happily, the tide is shifting: The Drawing Center has all but withdrawn, and the IFC was read the riot act last week by Gov. Pataki's main man at the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., Chairman John Whitehead.

If, by Sept. 23, officials aren't satisfied with the IFC's plans, "we will find another use or tenant . . . for that space," Whitehead said.

Again, for the record, there's nothing wrong with critical debate or even negative portrayals of America.

Just not at Ground Zero, where nearly 3,000 innocent people died.

The Times, of course, thrives on trashing America. And where better to do that than at Ground Zero?

But this paper has run scores of editorials, columns and news reports on the issue. So have numerous other publications.

Web sites are abuzz.

Plus, folks all over have joined the movement; 40,000 have signed its petition. (Indeed, grassroots America is taking note: Today, the tiny town of Anthony, Kan., will join in a "Take Back the Memorial" rally. Way to go, Anthony!)

At home, three local congressmen have threatened to work to bar federal funding for the memorial. Philanthropists, too, are balking — as Whitehead relentlessly reminds everyone.

So it's hardly just Burlingame and family members. And now add the UFA, representing 22,000 firefighters and wielding exquisite moral authority, as a foe.

Ironically, the Times, for all its personal vitriol toward Burlingame, essentially admitted she's right: that a chief concern is that the center will be "a place where people engage in free speech."

Now, three cheers for "free speech."

But there's a place for unfettered, raucous, rollicking, disrespectful-for-effect political debate — and that place, purely and simply, is not at the Ground Zero memorial.

To be sure, the Times got one thing right yesterday: It decried Pataki's lack of strong leadership regarding the two museums. He should have pulled the plug on them weeks ago.

So here's hoping the UFA's announcement will give him the cover he apparently feels he needs to do the right thing.

Which is to exorcise the IFC and the Drawing Center from Ground Zero, once and for all.

Copyright 2005 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

lofter1

August 17th, 2005, 07:17 PM

The Post's lead editorial this morning:

TIME TO PULL THE PLUG

They are simply insisting that anti-American activism of the sort implicitly embedded in the IFC and the Drawing Center is inappropriate at any memorial site ... exorcise the IFC and the Drawing Center from Ground Zero, once and for all.

The demonization of the Drawing Center has now reached the point that the Post is calling for an exorcism!!

All of the bru-ha-ha against the DC is reactionary to the nth degree.

Anti-American activism "implicity embedded"??? What is the basis for such a stupid comment?

The Drawing Center is a first class arts institution. It doesn't need to be at WTC to survive. Thankfully it will be around longer than the idiot who wrote the Post editiorial.

I say that the only Snohetta building that should ever appear at WTC is a model of the great building that was designed and never built.

ZippyTheChimp

August 24th, 2005, 02:54 PM

Following post by Jonathan Hakala moved here:

Making a Mockery of Ground Zero

The International Freedom Center, which proposes to run a museum at Ground Zero, announced in April that it has "drawn inspiration and received some important practical advice" from a group of so-called museums of conscience around the world.

The IFC's organizers have also cited plans to host exhibitions by members of the International Coalition of Historic Site Museums of Conscience as a reason why the Freedom Center would be a perfect fit for the hallowed ground where 2,749 people were murdered. To which we can only say that IFC leaders Tom Bernstein and Richard Tofel must be nuts. The advice the coalition gave them is neither inspirational nor practical. It is pure anti-American hogwash.

The coalition's wisdom, as spelled out in its 2004 annual report, begins by expressing concern about how religious Muslims would view the Freedom Center and climaxes by offering Bernstein, Tofel & Co. an offensive prescription: "Don't put America first." The coalition also worries that "the average Bangladeshi" feels "his/her human rights have been violated by the U.S." Come again? Exhibits on what amounts to a mass grave of slaughtered Americans will be decided by what the average Bangladeshi feels? Not bloody likely.

Consider this, too: "The Freedom Center is a caricature of the typical American response to everything (telling every story from an American viewpoint)." Exactly what viewpoint is an American museum on American soil marking an American tragedy supposed to express? Oh, right. Bangladeshi.

The IFC notes that it will not necessarily follow any particular advice and further says it's drawing inspiration from the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia and the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum in Illinois. Fine, but Bernstein and Tofel cannot escape the fact they trumpeted an association with the museums of conscience as one reason to let the Freedom Center overlook the Ground Zero memorial.

The coalition's annual report, brought to light in today's Daily News by reporter Douglas Feiden, certifies that 9/11 families were right to warn that the Freedom Center was being taken over by bash-America propagandists. It also shows, again, that Gov. Pataki had no clue what he was doing in giving the Freedom Center and a second cultural group, the Drawing Center, a franchise at Ground Zero.

The Drawing Center, producer of offensive 9/11-related art, is being booted from the site, and the Freedom Center has until Sept. 23 to present plans for an appropriate institution, as Bernstein and Tofel have promised. Maybe they'll come through this time, but their judgment so far has been abominable. When, for example, the coalition said that, in building a Freedom Tower to replace the World Trade Center, "the U.S. reasserts its power in an arrogant way," Bernstein and Tofel at least should have wondered who they were in bed with. And when the coalition went on to ask, "Does this mean the U.S. will not only build the biggest building, but also define freedom for the world?" their answers should have been: Yes. Yes. And get lost.

All contents © 2005 Daily News, L.P.

ZippyTheChimp

August 24th, 2005, 03:01 PM

Following post by Jonathan Hakala moved here:

From the New York Daily News, August 21, 2005:

Another Insult to America's Heritage at Freedom Center

How International Freedom Center
Risks Fostering Anti-U.S. Sentiment

By DOUGLAS FEIDEN
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

A global network of human rights museums is urging the International Freedom Center to downplay America in its exhibits and programs at Ground Zero, the Daily News has learned.

The outrageous request is the latest controversy to torment the Freedom Center, whose leaders have tried to dispel the perception that it would be a home for America bashers.

"Don't feature America first," the IFC has been advised by the consortium of 14 "museums of conscience" that quietly has been consulting with the Freedom Center for the past two years over plans for the hallowed site. "Think internationally, where America is one of the many nations of the world."

Those words rang hollow with some 9/11 family members.

"I can't think of a greater insult than to invite museums from other countries of the world to come and exploit what should be America's memorial," said Jack Lynch, who helped carry the body of his firefighter son Michael, 30, out of the rubble.

"If you're going to explore slavery, the Holocaust or women's rights, you should do it at Chelsea Piers or on the East River waterfront - anywhere but Ground Zero," said Debra Burlingame, whose brother Charles, 51, was the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

"After all, it was not slavery that caused the terrorists to attack us," said Burlingame, who has led the fight to bar the IFC.

Under fire from 9/11 family members and Gov. Pataki, the IFC on July 6 pronounced itself proudly patriotic, vowed never to "blame America" and said it would celebrate the nation's "leading role in the global fight for freedom."

In April, however, the Freedom Center said on its Web site and newsletter that it had "drawn inspiration" and received "important practical advice" from the International Coalition of Historic Site Museums of Conscience.

"We have many, many advisers who have given us lots of advice," Richard Tofel, Freedom Center president, said last week. "Some of it we've taken and some of it we haven't - that's the nature of advice."

He said the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia and the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington had most inspired the IFC's vision, and that the new Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum in Illinois was also offering extensive advice.

The firefighters union already has demanded the Freedom Center be booted from Ground Zero, and state officials have given it until Sept. 23 to satisfy the objections of family members.

Located in nine countries on five continents, the coalition museums chronicle apartheid in South Africa, slavery in Senegal, torture in Argentina, racism in the South and internment of Japanese-Americans in California, along with other historical horrors.

"No one in the civilized world would ever defend what happened on 9/11," said Sarwar Ali, the coalition's chairman and a trustee of the Liberation War Museum in Bangladesh.

"But what happened after 9/11 - with restrictions placed on human rights and the cycle of revenge and the allegations of human rights abuses in prisons - must also be explored," Ali said in a call from London.

Coalition members gathered for their annual conference at a Holocaust site in the Czech Republic in July 2004 - and assailed the United States for "reasserting its power in an arrogant way," the conference report shows.

Among its suggestions for the place where the United States was attacked and nearly 3,000 innocents massacred: "The Freedom Center must signal its openness to contrary ideas."

Philip Kunhardt, the Freedom Center's editorial director, was in attendance at a session called Bringing Conscience to Ground Zero and was given this advice:

* "Help distinguish between American people and the U.S. government in exhibits ..."

* "Use reports from human rights organizations to examine contemporary abuse of rights."

* "Involve the United Nations, UNESCO and other international bodies."

* "Use the museum as a venue for international meetings, where all views are welcomed and considered."

At the conference, the coalition also leveled barbs at the IFC: "The Freedom Center is a caricature of the typical American response to everything [telling every story from an American viewpoint]."

Members of the coalition also expressed these concerns:

* "It seems that whatever Americans want, Americans get!" the conference report states. "Is the definition of the 'struggle for freedom' simply defined by the victors, or also by those engaged in ongoing struggles? Will Americans really create a balanced vision of freedom?"

* "The WTC was attacked because it was a symbol of power and influence. In building the Freedom Tower, the U.S. reasserts its power in an arrogant way: Does this mean the U.S. will not only build the biggest building, but also define freedom for the world?"

* "Many nonsecular Muslims may be very skeptical about the intent of this museum (e.g. the average Bangladeshi condemns the Sept. 11 attacks, yet at the same time feels his/her human rights have been violated by the U.S.)."

Kunhardt, an ordained Episcopal minister and the writer of the PBS series "Freedom: A History of Us," mostly listened. He agreed with some things that were said, disagreeing with others, an observer said. He didn't return calls.

Tofel said preliminary plans call for an exchange of exhibits with some coalition museums.

"It is hoped and expected that temporary exhibits at the IFC will originate at, or travel to, some of the Historic Site Museums of Conscience - and perhaps vice versa," he said in an e-mail.

Originally published on August 21, 2005

All contents © 2005 Daily News, L.P.

lofter1

September 22nd, 2005, 02:41 AM

Freedom Museum Is Headed for Showdown at Ground Zero

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/22/nyregion/ifc.jpg
Lower Manhattan Development Corporation

An architectural rendering of the International Freedom Center by the firm Snohetta. The museum aims to include Sept. 11-related exhibits, with programs examining the role of freedom around the world.

By DAVID W. DUNLAP (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=DAVID W. DUNLAP&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=DAVID W. DUNLAP&inline=nyt-per)
September 22, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/nyregion/22rebuild.html?hp&ex=1127448000&en=08a34c3faca7a00b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The International Freedom Center, a proposed museum that is facing expulsion from ground zero under pressure from angry relatives of 9/11 victims, will make a forceful new appeal today to stay at the World Trade Center site.

The museum's decision to stand firm would force the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and Gov. George E. Pataki to make a tough choice. They could either infuriate hundreds of impassioned relatives of those who died, or alienate influential cultural, academic and business figures, as well as family members who support the center.

The Freedom Center was chosen by the development corporation in June 2004 to occupy the cultural building on the memorial quadrant. It would portray the history and role of freedom around the world in exhibits and programs.

"You could not put it someplace else," said Tom A. Bernstein, its chairman and co-founder.

But the Freedom Center is now fighting for its life, in part because some victims' relatives do not want anything around the memorial that smacks of anti-American politics or detracts from the story of 9/11.

In August, the development corporation told the center to work with the family members and others to come up with a "suitable and inspiring" plan or risk losing its place in the cultural building. Rather than bow out, today the Freedom Center will submit a 27-page report, which was shown in advance to The New York Times by museum executives.

By turns adamant and conciliatory, the report acknowledges that a crucial part of the center's mission must be to tell the stories of the "heroes of Sept. 11."

The report is unlikely to placate the museum's critics, and it ratchets up the sense of disarray around the redevelopment, which was supposed to be an exercise in cooperation but instead has turned into a quilt work of squabbles among agencies, businesses, neighbors, owners, leaseholders, insurers, planners, architects, artists and victims' families.

The other prospective tenant of the cultural building, the Drawing Center in SoHo, decided to look for alternative space in Lower Manhattan, with the development corporation's assistance, after Mr. Pataki directed both institutions on June 24 to present nothing that "denigrates America," New York, freedom, or the sacrifices and courage shown on Sept. 11.

But if Mr. Pataki and the development corporation had any hope that the Freedom Center would similarly withdraw, they will be disappointed by the new report, which begins:

"The International Freedom Center will be an integral part of humanity's response to Sept. 11. Rising from the hallowed ground of the World Trade Center site, it will serve as a complement to the World Trade Center memorial and play a leading role in the memorial's mission to 'strengthen our resolve to preserve freedom, and inspire an end to hatred, ignorance and intolerance.' "

Casting itself as a living memorial along the lines of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and the planned Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum, the center pledged that its board would ensure that it hew to a mission of including the "heroes of Sept. 11" in its accounts of the history of freedom, sponsoring educational and cultural programs "to advance freedom's cause," and offering visitors opportunities to volunteer "on behalf of freedom within their own communities."

Natan Sharansky, a former dissident and political prisoner in the Soviet Union and a former government minister in Israel (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/israel/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), is one of five new board members the Freedom Center will name in the report. The others are Sara J. Bloomfield, the director of the Holocaust Memorial Museum; Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University; Richard Norton Smith, the former director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, who is now executive director of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum; and Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International.

An exhibition on "The World and Sept. 11" will greet visitors to the Freedom Center, which is to be housed in a building designed by the firm Snohetta. "Visitors will learn that Canada (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/canada/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) declared a national day of mourning," the report said, "and that 100,000 people gathered at a service in Ottawa; that in Berlin the crowd numbered 200,000; that at a soccer match in Tehran, 60,000 people observed a moment of silence."

Visitors will then be shown a brief orientation film, "To Be Free," before proceeding to the Freedom Walk, a long concourse of historical displays that will wind around the perimeter of the building and offer views of the memorial, said Peter W. Kunhardt, the center's other co-founder and its creative director.

Galleries off the concourse will cover freedom's origins; historical documents; the evolution of freedom, as exemplified in an initial exhibit about the lives of Abraham Lincoln and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; and the "Four Freedoms" outlined by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of all people to worship God in their own way, freedom from want and freedom from fear.

Evening programs in the 300-seat Freedom Hall will be developed in cooperation with the Aspen Institute and a group of universities including City University of New York, Columbia University, New School University, New York University, Princeton, Yale and others. The hall will also be used by the TriBeCa Film Festival.

"We worked very closely to meet the call of the L.M.D.C.," Mr. Bernstein said in an interview. "There was a reason we were picked. This is what they were looking for."

Neither the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation nor Governor Pataki, who was in Shanghai, had seen the report yesterday.

Stefan Pryor, the corporation president, said, "Any judgments that are made prior to the I.F.C.'s submission would be premature."

A leading critic of the museum, Debra Burlingame, whose brother Charles was the pilot of the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, said there was nothing the International Freedom Center could do to make itself palatable as a tenant at ground zero. "They don't belong there," she said yesterday.

Her criticisms began with the opening gallery. "So the very first experience that the visitors will get when they come from Cedar Rapids, Portland, Ore., and Tallahassee, Fla., was not how we experienced 9/11 but how the people, say, in Bangladesh (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/bangladesh/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) experienced it?" she asked.

"Imagine erecting an edifice at the U.S.S. Arizona (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/arizona/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) where before we hear their story, we get the world's view, maybe the Axis powers' view of World War II," she said. "I can't imagine how they're thinking."

lofter1

September 22nd, 2005, 02:50 AM

A leading critic of the museum, Debra Burlingame, ... said there was nothing the International Freedom Center could do to make itself palatable as a tenant at ground zero. "They don't belong there," she said yesterday.

Her criticisms began with the opening gallery. "So the very first experience that the visitors will get ... was not how we experienced 9/11 but how the people, say, in Bangladesh (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/bangladesh/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) experienced it?" she asked..."I can't imagine how they're thinking."
Maybe the museum should just be called "The Debra Burlingame Experience": Her story for all the world to see and hear. How she responded, what she felt.

Based on the above quotes it seems she is very narcissistic and self-centered. And exclusionary.

But she's got cojones so she'll probably get her way.

BrooklynRider

September 22nd, 2005, 11:23 AM

Well, maybe someone will fly an airplane into her.

Jake

September 22nd, 2005, 08:49 PM

She is very much right though, I think that USS Arizona example works very well. How about the exhibit - Victory at Pearl: how Japan bombed us back to the 19th century. Hmmm, so in 20 years or so the museum will feature an exhibit from Afghanistan that will feature this drawing (which I made using the GREAT POWER OF PAINT!)

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6/JakeW16/exhibit1.jpg

This will definately be great.

NO Freedom BS
NO Martin Luther King BS
NO Abe Lincoln BS
NO Washington BS
NO Bush BS
NO Art BS

YES Twin Towers
YES New York
YES FDNY,NYPD,EMS etc

You want a freedom center, go visit the Washington DC, this had NOTHING to do with Freedom

lofter1

September 23rd, 2005, 01:04 AM

YES Twin Towers
YES New York
YES FDNY,NYPD,EMS etc
All of those are, of course, worthy of remembrance. And they have a museum space already -- the one that is being developed within the Memorial, and will be part of the huge below-grade complex on the floor of "ground zero".

Would it not be redundant to have museums to FDNY, NYPD, PA, EMS, Twin Towers both in an above-grade space and the below-grade space?

Also the comparison to Pearl Harbor / USS Arizona memorial doesn't really fit. That memorial is really quite small (granted that much of that memorial, which cover s 11 acres, consists of the area of sunken ships beneath the surface of the harbor). But the actual building where people can visit is not at all large, especially compared with the WTC site (see below).

Some info from the Pearl harbor website (http://www.nps.gov/usar/):

Today, visitors come from around the world to see the USS Arizona Memorial, which spans the mid-portion of the sunken battleship. The national memorial is designed to encourage quiet contemplation, and to appeal to our memory and sense of sacrifice.

BrooklynRider

September 23rd, 2005, 01:41 AM

Referring back to the USS Arizona Memorial... I challenge Ms. Burlingame to tell me the name of ONE person who died on that fateful day. People remember exactly what happened and its implications. It was NOT about the individuals killed but about the national experience of the event.

lofter1

September 24th, 2005, 04:03 PM

Freedom Center in Doubt

By DAVID W. DUNLAP (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=DAVID W. DUNLAP&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=DAVID W. DUNLAP&inline=nyt-per)
September 25, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/25/nyregion/25freedom.html?ei=5094&en=6820f25be7d32307&hp=&ex=1127620800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

In fall 2001, not long after hundreds of makeshift hospital beds had been set up at Chelsea Piers to receive injured survivors from the World Trade Center - beds that were never used - Tom A. Bernstein, president of Chelsea Piers, envisioned reclaiming ground zero with the power of an idea.

The idea was freedom, embodied in an institution that would transmit its value to future generations. To build it, Mr. Bernstein said in 2004 he expected "years of intense labor, contentious debate and struggle."

He is getting them.

The institution conceived by Mr. Bernstein and Peter W. Kunhardt has changed names - Museum of Freedom, Freedom Center, International Freedom Center - and it has changed elements.

Exhibits recounting the events of 9/11 were initially integral to its plans, then were removed at the request of state officials and now have been restored.

Mr. Bernstein, who counts President Bush among his friends, has had to defend the center from those who say that it would be jingoistic by depicting an unblemished America as well as from those who complain that it would be un-American by dwelling on failures of social and foreign policy.

Though the center was picked in 2004 to occupy the cultural building in a memorial quadrant - "part of a lasting tribute to freedom," Gov. George E. Pataki said when he unveiled the design - it now faces expulsion by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation unless the agency can be assured of a "suitable and inspiring outcome."

To that end, the center submitted a report last week describing its plans, which can be read at renewnyc.com (http://renewnyc.com/) or ifcwtc.org (http://ifcwtc.org/). The report has not mollified the center's opponents, among them the police officers' and firefighters' unions, three congressmen, The New York Post and many - but not all - relatives of 9/11 victims.

These critics say that the Freedom Center will detract from the memorial.

Last week, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton also said she could not support the center, citing complaints from families of 9/11 victims and first responders.

Mr. Bernstein said he and Mr. Kunhardt, a co-producer and co-director of the PBS television series "Freedom: A History of Us," intended it as a complement to the memorial when they began planning the institution in early 2002.

"I had in my mind's eye an institution like the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum," Mr. Bernstein said. "I had seen how profoundly it affected the people who visited it."

"Historically," he added, "if you look at the response to tyranny - in our view, terror being a modern variant - the only response, and the necessary response, and the crucial response is a reaffirmation of the values that are under assault. The central value here, and around the world, is freedom."

A preliminary blueprint for downtown issued in April 2002 by the corporation said, "Lower Manhattan should be conceived as a Freedom Park, linking the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, the New York Stock Exchange and the World Trade Center memorial."

In his master plan, the architect Daniel Libeskind proposed a museum and other cultural buildings in the quadrant where the twin towers had stood. "Of course, we need a museum at the epicenter of ground zero, a museum of the event, of memory and hope," Mr. Libeskind wrote in February 2003, when his plan was selected.

Working on a parallel path in 2003, with financing from American Express, Mr. Bernstein and Mr. Kunhardt shaped the Museum of Freedom. Exhibits were to begin with the events of Sept. 11, 2001; then move outward to New York City; then to America and the "story of its ever-widening circle of freedom"; then to the world, with a "spotlight on places that lack basic human freedoms."

The museum was one of 113 respondents in September 2003 to the development corporation's invitation for cultural proposals at the trade center site. As the corporation reviewed submissions, it issued a report in February 2004 describing uses that would be "desirable for the cultural buildings adjacent to the memorial site."

"Of special interest," it said, "will be international programming allowing for the exploration of issues and traditions around the world, both secular and religious, and that could highlight the values of tolerance, diversity and understanding among nations."

Because it was developing its own plans for a memorial museum dealing with the events of 9/11, the corporation asked the Freedom Museum to forgo exhibits and programming related to the attacks and to change its name to the Freedom Center.

That was the status of the Freedom Center designated by the development corporation in June 2004 as one of four cultural tenants at the trade center site, along with the Drawing Center, the Joyce Theater Foundation and the Signature Theater Company.

When officials of the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati - the Freedom Center, for short - started hearing about the one in New York, they expressed concern about the possibility of confusion. The name of the ground zero institution was changed again, to the International Freedom Center.

In May 2005, Governor Pataki and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg unveiled the design of the building, by the Norwegian firm Snohetta, that was to house the International Freedom Center and the Drawing Center.

But Debra Burlingame, a member of the new World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, who lost her brother in the Pentagon crash, read accounts of the Snohetta building in The New York Times and said she found references that puzzled her.

"I got curious and started digging," she said. "What are they going to put into it? And who are they? Then I became concerned."

The result was an article, "The Great Ground Zero Heist," published in The Wall Street Journal on June 9, in which Ms. Burlingame said the Freedom Center would be "a high-tech, multimedia tutorial about man's inhumanity to man," by including exhibits about the civil rights struggle in America and oppressive regimes abroad like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

"This is a history all should know and learn," Ms. Burlingame added, "but dispensing it over the ashes of ground zero is like creating a 'Museum of Tolerance' over the sunken graves of the U.S.S. Arizona (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/arizona/index.html?inline=nyt-geo)."

An uproar followed. On June 24, Governor Pataki distanced himself from the Freedom Center and Drawing Center by telling the development corporation to get a guarantee that the site "never be used in a way that is going to denigrate America." The Drawing Center has begun looking for alternative space downtown.

Mr. Bernstein and Paula Grant Berry, the I.F.C.'s vice-chairwoman, whose husband was killed on 9/11, wrote in a July 6 letter to the development corporation, "We believe our institution must and will honor humanity's march toward freedom and highlight America's role as a beacon for freedom throughout the world."

Addressing the criticism, they added, we must "ensure the I.F.C. plays an integral role in telling the story of Sept. 11."

To that end, they set up a family advisory group, whose members include Chris Burke, the president and founder of the Tuesday's Children family services organization.

"It's funny that this all arises over freedom," said Mr. Burke, who lost his brother in the attack. "Isn't a bit of a seismic anomaly that the exercise of freedom has a segment of the very families who paid the cost of freedom up in arms?"

Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

Teno

September 25th, 2005, 06:00 PM

Doesn't really matter to me if they build the memorial or not.

What I do find interesting is the fight over the land and its symbolism or sacredness.

The primary function of this area is and will be the continuation of unequal distribution of wealth. Rich people becoming even richer.

The irony is in the fact that somwhere near this sacred space will be a Starbucks and a Gap.

Teno

September 25th, 2005, 06:08 PM

An uproar followed. On June 24, Governor Pataki distanced himself from the Freedom Center and Drawing Center by telling the development corporation to get a guarantee that the site "never be used in a way that is going to denigrate America."

I guess we can shred constitution law just a little bit in light of special circumstances.

Who and what decides the definition of "denigrate America"?

BPC

September 25th, 2005, 07:06 PM

The primary function of this area is and will be the continuation of unequal distribution of wealth. Rich people becoming even richer.

The irony is in the fact that somwhere near this sacred space will be a Starbucks and a Gap.

I guess I miss the irony. Living breathing people live and work in the area, and some of them, on some occasions, will want to buy a coffee or a sweater. How these retail stores foster the "unequal distribution of wealth" that you decry is beyond me.

Teno

September 25th, 2005, 09:38 PM

Research the primary business function of downtown Manhattan, and you will learn the very definition of unequal distribution of wealth.

Ms. Burlingame said the Freedom Center would be "a high-tech, multimedia tutorial about man's inhumanity to man," by including exhibits about the civil rights struggle in America and oppressive regimes abroad like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

"This is a history all should know and learn," Ms. Burlingame added, "but dispensing it over the ashes of ground zero is like creating a 'Museum of Tolerance' over the sunken graves of the U.S.S. Arizona."

The irony is that "A Museum of Tolerance" that explores human rights and human oppression could have the potential to serve us more than the self serving need to buy a trendy over priced cup of coffee or a trendy over priced sweater.

BPC

September 25th, 2005, 09:59 PM

Just curious -- how old are you?

lofter1

September 25th, 2005, 11:26 PM

The irony is that "A Museum of Tolerance" that explores human rights and human oppression could have the potential to serve us more than the self serving need to buy a trendy over priced cup of coffee or a trendy over priced sweater.
I don't see why the two can't co-exist side-by-side. This is NYC, where everything butts up against each other. The juxtaposition / conflict / dialog are what gives the City a unique energy.

BrooklynRider

September 25th, 2005, 11:34 PM

I guess we can shred constitution law just a little bit in light of special circumstances.

Who and what decides the definition of "denigrate America"?

Excellent point and exactly the issue. Censorship of any kind would be the most denigrating thing.

Teno

September 25th, 2005, 11:50 PM

Just curious -- how old are you?

Is there a particular age group that is not able to appreciate over priced coffee and over priced sweaters?

I don't see why the two can't co-exist side-by-side

Oh yeah they could. If the museum is built they would.

I'm speaking to how the land as being labeled "cherished and sacred". There is heated and emotional debate as to what is appropriate in the space.

The debate is so emotionally charged but the fact is.....no matter what is built a Starbucks is guaranteed to also be there.

I'm not complaining about this or saying its wrong. I find it pretty funny and a bit difficult to take seriously actually.

TonyO

September 28th, 2005, 02:15 PM

NY Sun

Freedom Center's Iraq Approach Is Undefined

By DAVID LOMBINO, Staff Reporter of the Sun

The president of the museum that seeks to relate the events of September 11, 2001, to a global historical movement toward freedom said yesterday it is unclear how Iraq will be treated in its exhibitions - if at all.

A 48-page presentation of the contents of the proposed International Freedom Center at ground zero, released last week, contained no reference to the war or elections in Iraq.

The plan details exhibitions that honor the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., the protests at Tiananmen Square, the fall of the Berlin Wall, Nelson Mandela, Sovietera dissident Andrei Sakharov, and contemporary Chinese writer Liu Xiaobo.

The freedom center will also memorialize Pat Tillman, who according to the plan, "after the attacks quit a career in professional football to fight and die in Afghanistan."

The president of the museum, Richard Tofel, told The New York Sun that the museum is unlikely to open for at least four or five years and now lacks the historical perspective to judge the events in Iraq.

Mr.Tofel said he could envision outcomes in Iraq that could warrant its inclusion or omission.

"It is likely to be extraordinarily different in five years than what it is today. I don't think anyone could have any clue," Mr. Tofel said. "Asking how a museum of freedom will treat Iraq in five years is very similar to asking how a newspaper will cover Iraq in five years."

"I don't think the question, quite frankly, is entirely relevant," he said.

Mr. Tofel said that the decision of how of treat the Iraq War would ultimately belong to freedom center's nine-member board of directors.

This summer, the state agency in charge of ground zero, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, came under pressure from victims' family members and the city's police and fire unions who fear that the museum will contain offensive or overly political material.

Following instructions from the LMDC, the freedom center released more detailed plans last week. Those plans described a museum that will portray September 11 as a pivotal event in a "constantly evolving world movement" toward freedom "in which America has played a leading role."

Supporters of the project say that the museum's broad scope will give meaning to the tragedy, encourage learning, and prevent ground zero from feeling like a permanent graveyard.

Critics charge that focusing on freedom instead of the day's events will bring unwelcome uncertainty over the museum's content and constant debate.

Thomas Roger, who is the father of a flight attendant on a plane that crashed into the World Trade Center, said that the topic of Iraq was too controversial to include in the museum. Mr. Roger serves on the freedom center's family advisory group.

"At this point, the last thing that I would want to see the freedom center doing is covering issues that are currently controversial," Mr. Roger said. "We have enough problems convincing people that talking about Abe Lincoln is not controversial."

An outspoken opponent of the museum, Debra Burlingame, who is the sister of a pilot of the hijacked plane that crashed into the Pentagon, said that, as proposed, the museum "will be chronicling humankind's quest for freedom, except for anything that is controversial."

Rep. Vito Fossella, a Republican who has proposed hearings in Washington over the use of federal funds for the project, said that, as proposed, the museum would invite debate over what constitutes a "freedom fighter."

"We happen to think that in an area where almost 3,000 people were killed, it should solemnly and appropriately acknowledge and memorialize that loss," Mr. Fossella said. "It's not a venue, or a stage, or a place to debate anything else."

A spokesman for the LMDC, John Gallagher, said that board members have indicated they would not comment on the content of the proposal.

The freedom center will present its plans in front of Community Board 1 tonight at 6 p.m. The LMDC's next scheduled meeting is October 6.

LOAD-DATE: September 28, 2005

lofter1

September 28th, 2005, 02:24 PM

Freedom Center's Iraq Approach Is Undefined

The freedom center will also memorialize Pat Tillman, who according to the plan, "after the attacks quit a career in professional football to fight and die in Afghanistan."

I'll lay $100.00 that this exhibit never happens.

See here: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=66620&postcount=127

ZippyTheChimp

September 28th, 2005, 03:48 PM

Why does there have to be a Freedom Center, whether dedicated to 09/11, freedom around the world, or both? There will be a memorial museum in the underground complex, and a museum about freedom can be anywhere.

They should just build the Museum of the Innocuous, dedicated to the excruciating process of exploring every conceivable perspective of a project, lest even one person is ever-so-slightly offended by the result.

kz1000ps

September 28th, 2005, 05:30 PM

That is the best damn idea I've heard in a long time.

TonyO

September 28th, 2005, 06:13 PM

NY1

Governor Cancels Plans For Freedom Center At WTC Site

September 28, 2005

Governor George Pataki has cancelled plans for the controversial International Freedom Center at the World Trade Center site, although he's not ruling out locating it elsewhere.

The center had drawn criticism from some 9/11 victims' family members because it would not focus exclusively on the terror attacks. Family members also said the IFC could potentially contain exhibits that were anti-American.

Pataki said Wednesday that he's given the center a chance to clarify its intentions, but there's just too much opposition.

In a statement, Pataki said: “The creation of an institution that would show the world our unity and our resolve to preserve freedom in the wake of the horrific attacks is a noble pursuit. But freedom should unify us. This center has not.”

Plans to build the IFC do not appear to be scrapped, as the governor has asked the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to work with the IFC to explore other locations for the center.

Just last night, members of a 9/11 family council told Lower Manhattan officials to step up the search for a new location for the IFC, with some saying it should go to the site of the Deutsche Bank building.

Earlier Tuesday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg called the center "problematic," and said it should be scrapped if agreement can't be reached over its mission.

"I think what we have to understand is that this is just not a normal location where you can put a cultural institution and have the cultural institution have total freedom to do anything they want," Bloomberg said.

IFC officials submitted an expanded report last week clarifying the details of their plan at the request of officials in charge of the rebuilding efforts following the 9/11 terror attacks. Officials hoped the additions would help convince critics that its plans will be respectful of 9/11 victims, while placing the terror attacks in the context of other world events.

The 27-page report details the center's design, which includes an exhibit to show visitors how cities around the world paid respects after the 9/11 attacks.

Other galleries will focus on the origins of freedom, and leaders like Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

lofter1

September 28th, 2005, 07:39 PM

Governor Cancels Plans For Freedom Center At WTC Site
Plans to build the IFC do not appear to be scrapped, as the governor has asked the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to work with the IFC to explore other locations for the center.

Just last night, members of a 9/11 family council told Lower Manhattan officials to step up the search for a new location for the IFC, with some saying it should go to the site of the Deutsche Bank building.

Here Here!

Aside from the fact that the entire saga is a travesty moving to the Deutsche Bank site -- or the Fiterman Hall site -- is the least bad of the options.

How much someone want to bet that the Performing Arts Center is the next to go? (Probably why Gehry hasn't wasted his time coming up with designs as of yet.)

Jake

September 28th, 2005, 11:11 PM

WHOOHOOOHOOO, I win! lol, scrap that piece of crap. Great news, now re-do the rendering so we have some new eye candy. It's a win win because:

A)After some more nagging maybe we could get 2WTC to go there, preserving the original WTC separation
or
B)the Hub will not be obstructed by the ugly box and will be seen from the west.

ZippyTheChimp

September 28th, 2005, 11:35 PM

The chance of getting any commercial building, let alone an office tower, built within the memorial boundary is less than that for the Freedom Center.

That site left vacant, combined with the memorial plaza, would remove density from the intersection, and the area would take on the same problems as the original design.

Something will be built there, but its function might be insipid.

So tell me, exactly what have you won?

lofter1

September 28th, 2005, 11:41 PM

After some more nagging maybe we could get 2WTC to go there, preserving the original WTC separation...
It will be a cold day in hell before a tower goes in that slot because of the proximity to the footprints. Before they succeeding in killing the Cultural Center altogether the opponents had succeeded in forcing the edge of that proposed building back away from the south footprint.

lofter1

September 28th, 2005, 11:42 PM

Something will be built there, but its function might be insipid.

The 9/11 Souvenir Shoppe? (Insipid enough?)

lofter1

September 29th, 2005, 12:42 AM

According to the Times the IFC is saying "no museum / no where":

Pataki Bars Museum From World Trade Center Memorial Site

By DAVID W. DUNLAP (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=DAVID W. DUNLAP&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=DAVID W. DUNLAP&inline=nyt-per)
September 28, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/nyregion/28cnd-freedom.html?hp&ex=1127966400&en=8c05e53d9bc70657&ei=5094&partner=homepage

After a summer of furious and steadily rising criticism, Gov. George E. Pataki announced today that he was evicting the proposed International Freedom Center museum from its place next to the World Trade Center memorial site. With that, the center declared itself to be out of business.

"The I.F.C. cannot be located on the memorial quadrant," Mr. Pataki said in a statement issued shortly before 5 p.m. That quadrant, at the southwest corner of the trade center site, contains the footprints of the twin towers. It is regarded by many as sacred ground, too hallowed for a museum dealing with 9/11 in the context of greater geopolitics and social history.

"There remains too much opposition, too much controversy over the programming of the I.F.C.," the governor said, "and we must move forward with our first priority, the creation of an inspiring memorial." Mr. Pataki said he had instructed the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to "work with the I.F.C. to explore other locations."

But 42 minutes later, the center said in its own statement that there was no other location to explore, since the memorial quadrant was "the site for which the I.F.C. was created, at the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation's request, and as an integral part of Daniel Libeskind's master site plan."

"We do not believe there is a viable alternative place for the I.F.C. at the World Trade Center site," the center's executives, Tom A. Bernstein, Peter W. Kunhardt and Richard J. Tofel, said in the statement. "We consider our work, therefore, to have been brought to an end." The Freedom Center was designated for the site in June 2004.

The surprising tumble of events raises new questions around the redevelopment of ground zero: What will go into the cultural building, designed by the firm Snohetta, on the memorial quadrant? (The Drawing Center, its other designated tenant, is already looking for other space.) Will the cultural building be constructed at all? How will that affect plans for an underground 9/11 museum?

What sort of future awaits the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation board, when its three-year planning process can be undone in a stroke by the governor?

And what kind of divisions might emerge at the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation board? Its members include Freedom Center executives and Robert De Niro, whose Tribeca Film Institute was to have been part of the center, as well as Debra Burlingame, who led the opposition to the center, beginning with an article in The Wall Street Journal, "The Great Ground Zero Heist," on June 9.

Ms. Burlingame's brother, Charles F. Burlingame III, was the pilot of the hijacked airliner that was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

"I congratulate Governor Pataki," Ms. Burlingame said, "for recognizing that the International Freedom Center was an obstacle not simply for the families, the first responders and all those who were personally affected by the events of Sept. 11, but for all Americans who will be coming to the World Trade Center memorial to hear the story of 9/11 and that story only.

"And I believe that story will be able to convey all the core values that Governor Pataki so eloquently enunciated again in his statement," she said, adding that "9/11 is not only a story of loss, it's an uplifting story of decency triumphing over depravity."

Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

212

September 29th, 2005, 04:22 AM

We may never figure out an appropriate building for this site ...

I'd like to see some grass, trees, wildflowers, maybe a hill or valley, not as formal as the rest of the memorial area. Someplace unprogrammed.

I have a question that's a little off topic (administrators, please relocate it if there's a more appropriate thread): Are there any plans for those ruins of the towers, the exteriors that were several stories tall after the collapse? i'm not sure if they should be at Ground Zero, but maybe there should be a place for them, somewhere.

ZippyTheChimp

September 29th, 2005, 08:18 AM

^
The subject has been discussed in the WTC Memorial thread, and in this post, there is mention of the "trident shaped remnant of the tower facade" that may be placed at the entrance. To my knowledge, all artifacts will be underground, but I don't understand why a giant piece of wreckage will not be incorporated into the plaza design. Assuming something has been saved, it could easily be done (physically anyway) in the future. I think the artifacts are in storage at a PA facility at JFK.

Continue this discussion in the WTC Memorial thread.

From the article
Its members include Freedom Center executives and Robert De Niro, whose Tribeca Film Institute was to have been part of the center, For this to work, the Motion Picture Production Code (Hays Code) would have to be resurrected.

Maybe this building should be reconsidered as a cultural center. They probably could still get City Opera to move in, but music can be controversial (Richard Wagner in Israel).

ZippyTheChimp

September 29th, 2005, 09:22 AM

September 29, 2005

Pataki Solution on Museum Flies in Face of Planning

By DAVID W. DUNLAP (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=DAVID W. DUNLAP&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=DAVID W. DUNLAP&inline=nyt-per)

OBVIOUSLY, Gov. George E. Pataki got more than he bargained for 15 months ago when he announced that the Freedom Center museum would be one of four cultural tenants at the World Trade Center site.

But in another sense, he and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg got exactly what they bargained for. The Freedom Center that Mr. Pataki evicted from its site yesterday emerged from a planning process going back three years.

A growing number of critics - whom Mr. Pataki was trying to mollify - contended that the center would take away space that could be used for a museum devoted solely to 9/11 and that it would detract from the solemnity of the memorial by focusing on geopolitics and on national and international social history. But the notion of a freedom museum was one of the earliest elements considered for ground zero.

And it was one the governor endorsed.

In an April 2002 blueprint for downtown, the development corporation said one possibility was "a new museum dedicated to American freedom, tolerance and the values that the World Trade Center represented," referring to a proposal by Tom A. Bernstein, the president of Chelsea Piers, and Peter W. Kunhardt, a documentary filmmaker.

Three months later, the development corporation and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey noted the plan for the Museum of Freedom and Remembrance in their preliminary urban design study for the trade center site.

In June 2003, the corporation invited cultural proposals for ground zero. It encouraged those who had already come up with ideas - like a museum that would interpret the terrorist attacks "within the context of freedom, democracy and the history of New York" - to submit them formally. Mr. Bernstein and Mr. Kunhardt did so.

As it evaluated these submissions, in February 2004, the corporation listed some "possible and desirable" uses of the cultural buildings adjacent to the memorial site:

"Civic organizations that would create humanities programs and conduct forums drawing from cultural and academic resources in the region, building an identity for the World Trade Center site as a place for inquiry and discussion."

"International programming allowing for the exploration of issues and traditions around the world, both secular and religious" that "could highlight the values of tolerance, diversity and understanding among nations."

A committee drawn from the corporation, the city's Department of Cultural Affairs and the state's Council on the Arts reached a consensus in June 2004 on the prospective tenants: the Freedom Center, as the museum was then called; the Drawing Center; the Signature Theater Company; and the Joyce Theater Foundation.

AT the time, the Freedom Center said it would feature exhibits in collaboration with the International Coalition of Historic Site Museums of Conscience - including the Gulag Museum at Perm-36 in Perm, Russia (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/russia/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), and the District Six Museum in Cape Town - among others. It also said it would develop lectures, films and other programs "in partnership with leading arts, cultural, media and academic institutions."

Governor Pataki himself described the center in a Nov. 22, 2004, speech.

"The Freedom Center has formed a committee of outstanding individuals to create vibrant content on the global quest for what our own Declaration of Independence deems the inalienable rights of humanity," the governor said.

Linking the opening of the Freedom Center in 2009 to the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth and the 80th anniversary of the birth of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the governor said: "The Freedom Center will unveil a major exhibit that explores the birth, rearing and maturation of liberty in America.

"The Freedom Center will also convey stories of courage and inspiration like those of Amchok Thubten, a Tibetan monk, and Yousif Hasan, a Sudanese citizen, two brave men who fled to America after peaceful political protest subjected them to years of brutal imprisonment in their own countries."

Of the four cultural institutions chosen for ground zero, only the Freedom Center secured seats on the board of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, which will build and own the memorial and cultural buildings. Paula Grant Berry, the center's vice chairwoman, was named to the board in December 2004 and Mr. Bernstein in April 2005.

The point of this timeline is to suggest that Mr. Pataki's decision to evict the Freedom Center flies in the face of a long planning process, a point that the mayor has acknowledged.

Perhaps the result will be salutary. It is not hard to imagine the cultural building in the memorial quadrant, now emptied of the Freedom Center and the Drawing Center (which is looking for alternative space), serving usefully as an extension of the underground memorial museum devoted to 9/11.

Now the question is what else in the master plan is open for revision. If ground zero is too hallowed for a freedom museum, how much longer will a performing arts center be considered appropriate? Or a million square feet of retail space? Or four office towers? Especially if one of them is named Freedom.

Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

The only hope here may be to wait out the exit of the gutless pandering Pataki, and his delusional quest for the Presidency.

ZippyTheChimp

September 29th, 2005, 10:05 AM

Freedom Center

New York Sun Staff Editorial
September 29, 2005

URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/20774

The proposition that new institutions devoted to freedom can flourish in Lower Manhattan after September 11, 2001, is a fundamental one for the editors and owners of this newspaper, whose parent company was founded in October of 2001 and which shortly thereafter rented a newsroom a few blocks from ground zero. So it is with sadness that we learned last evening that the International Freedom Center, a museum and center dedicated to freedom, has decided to fold its tent after Governor Pataki declared that the center "cannot be located on the Memorial quadrant" of the ground zero site. "We consider our work," the center said in an unsigned statement last night, "to have been brought to an end."

The Freedom Center was not like a privately funded newspaper, of course; the Freedom Center was to be built with private money but on land owned by the Port Authority and would have received at least some other government funding. As the Freedom Center's board and staff have now learned following Senator Clinton and Governor Pataki's decisions to undercut the project, reliance on government funding and approval isn't always conducive to freedom.

Still, they could press ahead. There's a surfeit of commercial real estate available elsewhere at the ground zero site - so much that Governor Pataki was in Communist China last week trying to rent space to the various state-owned companies. The Freedom Center could rent some of the space that Larry Silverstein has available and already built at Seven World Trade Center, and it could be off to a running start.

While the center was at times naive or clumsy in its execution or presentation, it was admirably idealistic in its goal - a goal shared by President Bush and by so many Americans who hung flags after the attack - of making September 11, 2001, about more than just death and destruction, but about renewed patriotism and commitment to the freedom attacked on that day. There were some wonderful people involved with unalloyed commitments to freedom and impeccable ideological credentials. We speak of, to name but two, Natan Sharansky, the Israeli politician and former Soviet refusenik who is on the center's board, and Richard Pipes, the historian of the Soviet Union who served in the Reagan administration and who is a professor emeritus at Harvard, where he taught us that the Bolsheviks were not real revolutionaries but a gang of self-serving thugs.

With so many university faculties full of members of the blame-America-first crowd and with even public school history classes often pureed into a politically correct "social studies" pablum, as Diane Ravitch has documented, our own view is that museums will play an increasingly important educational role in the years ahead. We think of the wonderful site at Ellis Island that focuses on immigration and is maintained jointly by the National Park Service and the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation. Or the recent exhibit on Alexander Hamilton at the New-York Historical Society. Or the exhibit on slavery in New York that is about to open there. Or the excitement that attended the recent opening of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

We can understand the decision of the leaders of the Freedom Center not to go ahead. They have been subjected to withering attacks from some family members of September 11 victims; we share a number of Debra Burlingame's concerns. Starting a new institution from scratch is a capital-intensive, time-consuming process, and there are always plenty of people out there rooting for one to fail. If the leaders of the International Freedom Center don't think it is feasible to soldier on under these circumstances, they can at least know that New York is a city, and America is a country, with vast resources devoted to explaining and advancing freedom.

Both the Freedom Center's critics and its backers can go forward with the hope that at least some of the worthy programs and activism and education that would have been carried out by the Freedom Center will go on under the banner of other institutions, whether Freedom House or the Hudson Institute or the New-York Historical Society or the New York Public Library or Ellis Island or Federal Hall National Memorial or the City University of New York or the Smithsonian Institution or the Cold War Museum or some other institution that is still yet a glimmer in the imagination of some entrepreneurial New Yorker.

lofter1

September 29th, 2005, 10:53 AM

Maybe this building should be reconsidered as a cultural center. They probably could still get City Opera to move in, but music can be controversial (Richard Wagner in Israel).
City Opera would never pass muster under the current situation. Take for example one of their offerings in the upcoming season: "Lysystrata". Based upon the play by Aristophanes, the NYCO website ( http://www.nycopera.com/productions/productiondetail.aspx?id=41&src=l )offers the following description of "Lysistrata":

The bawdy satire about marriage and other armed conflicts revolves around a group of wives who employ a most unusual weapon—a sex boycott—to end an age-old war ...

If your head is skewed in a particular way then such a "statement" could definitely be viewed as anti-American in this day and age.

How dare one talk of No War when on sacred ground?

lofter1

September 29th, 2005, 11:01 AM

Freedom Center

There's a surfeit of commercial real estate available elsewhere at the ground zero site - so much that Governor Pataki was in Communist China last week trying to rent space to the various state-owned companies.
Oh, the irony cuts deep.

Pataki, in his pandering and utter lack of core principals, is worse than a crack ho.

krulltime

September 29th, 2005, 11:11 AM

You know I alway thought that the Freedom Center and the Waterfall Memorial was a waste of space. But the design of the Center did look promising. So what do we have left a plaza with two gigantic waterfalls. This is too bad really. At least that center would had bring some life to that place.

BrooklynRider

September 29th, 2005, 11:53 AM

The WTC cemetary wins out thanks to an outspoken woman who's relative wasn't even killed in the WTC.

NYatKNIGHT

September 29th, 2005, 11:56 AM

I remember it mentioned that the underground museum didn't have enough space to house all of the artifacts. Well now it could, which allows the timelines and other exhibits to be displayed in a place with windows looking out over the site.

It's sort of like the Freedom Tower's latest design change which was supposedly due to security concerns but in this case due to too much opposition. It seems they could have thought it all through sooner, but I do like the Freedom Tower design better, and in the case of the museum it always seemed sort of vague or maybe even too intellective of a concept for that prominent site.

And now the absurdity of names like Freedom Tower and Freedom Center are all too obvious since, awkwardly, controversial displays of freedom are not tolerated at the site. Was it ever really about freedom?

Two down, two to go before the site is as sterile as it used to be.

BrooklynRider

September 29th, 2005, 11:58 AM

Next comes the astroturf and plastic trees.

NYatKNIGHT

September 29th, 2005, 12:00 PM

Right - we can't have real leaves falling into those sacred pools.

lofter1

September 29th, 2005, 12:51 PM

Re: the waterfalls ( I should probably post this under the "memorial" thread, but just to follow up on the on-going conversation) ...

In theory I like the design, but anyone who has lived in NYC for more than 10 years can readily remember that when the economy goes into a downturn one of the first things to stop working are the fountains.

Think back to Bethesda fountain empty and forlorn. And Columbus Circle ...

Plus water works seem to have a big gap between design and execution. Two great examples:

1. The western plaza at One Penn Plaza near 8th Avenue between 34th / 33rd:

http://www.tbany.com/download.php?fileid=17

A fountain (of sorts) was installed when this plaza was built a few years ago, but now the "fountain" has been turned off and instead has beecome a huge planter with sorry little ivy plantings.

From http://greatgridlock.net/NYC/nyc3b.html:

There are entry plazas on the 33th and 34th Street sides, as well as one facing Eighth Avenue, complete with trees and planters and flanked by restaurants and cafés. Due to the windiness of an open plaza, a conventional fountain was out of question, so a "fog fountain" was conceived instead: a high dark stone pyramid that emits water spray in summer and steam in winter.
The problem is that the fountain is no more.

2. The plaza at the Federal Building (Chambers / Lafayette across from Foley Square).

Here a number of fountain type mound structures covered in grass were installed a few years back when the swirling benches were put in, but these have been shut off and now are covered in ridiculous boxwood hedge plants.

It almost makes you wish for the return of Richard Serra's amazing "Tilted Arc", which was installed in this Plaza from 1981 - 1989 ( http://www.arts.arizona.edu/are476/files/tilted_arc.htm ):

http://www.arts.arizona.edu/are476/images/Serra-Tilted_ArcBIG.jpeg

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D06E7DF123BF93AA25756C0A9639482 60

I'm forseeing a time in the future when NYC / USA is once again pressed for cash and these water-works aren't doing there thing.

How horrifying and pathetic this area will be (which in some ways might re-capture the feelings of 9/11 better than any operating design could ever achieve).

BPC

September 29th, 2005, 01:19 PM

Even the Battery Park City Authority, which spends lavishly on public spaces down here (for which it taxes local home owners even more lavishly, FYI), has had a lot of trouble keeping the fountains running. A couple of years ago the local paper, the BPC Broadsheet, ran an expose on how none of BPC's fountains were turned on. As it turns out, outdoor fountains are a real pain in the butt to maintain. Waterfalls sound even more difficult.

BPC

September 29th, 2005, 01:55 PM

Two down, two to go before the site is as sterile as it used to be.

I dunno. Somehow I suspect that if someone asked you on 9/10/01 what the WTC site needed to become less sterile, "International Freedom Center" would not have been the first words to jump off your lips.

NYatKNIGHT

September 29th, 2005, 02:19 PM

^Like I thought I implied, it was never my first choice.
outdoor fountains are a real pain in the butt to maintain. Waterfalls sound even more difficult.This was my complaint from day one - fountains and waterfalls aren't always running, and when they're not they are an eyesore. But that's what they went with, and the whole site is based around them.

BPC

September 29th, 2005, 02:30 PM

THE FREEDOM CENTER: GOOD RIDDANCE

Gov. Pataki put the International Freedom Center out of its misery yesterday. Good for him.

"There remains too much opposi tion, too much controversy over the programming of the IFC, and we must move forward with our first priority — the creation of an inspiring memorial," Pataki said. "The IFC cannot be located on the memorial quadrant."

Again, good for the governor.

And, if you don't mind, we'll indulge in a little back-patting, too — of ourselves.

After all, from the moment Debra Burlingame — whose brother was a pilot of one of the hijacked 9/11 planes — blew the whistle on the Freedom Center, The Post waged a relentless fight to keep it away from Ground Zero.

Month after month, we made the case for moving it elsewhere, imploring the governor and mayor to take action.

"The International Freedom Center is to be a 250,000-square-foot museum with a self-professed mission to 'harness the power of history and use it as a springboard for contemporary dialogue and debate' on the meaning of freedom," we wrote back in June.

" 'Dialogue and debate,' huh?

"Time to reach for the revolver.

"Because odds are that, at the end of the day, this center won't focus on freedom's triumphs, so much as on its failures — particularly those in which America can be painted as the culprit."

Others, like The New York Times and the Daily News — whether out of innocent naiveté or outright sympathy for the IFC's America-bashing agenda — took the opposite approach.

The Times actually attacked Burlingame and her supporters for having the nerve to challenge what the Gray Lady deemed a noble cause.

The Snooze sat on the fence for months, scratching its head, wondering if some compromise could be worked out.

On Sunday, a News editorial urged officials to give the center's sponsors "the go-ahead to keep developing their plans while trying to build public support."

Exquisite timing, no?

Burlingame herself credited The Post with playing a key role in turning the tide and getting officials to act.

"The New York Post was instrumental in helping us with this fight," Burlingame said yesterday. "The New York Post recognized what was at stake here . . .

"The New York Post never let go of this issue when other papers were twiddling their thumbs."

You're welcome, Debra.

And we don't mind saying we're grateful — America is grateful — that you took up the cause in the first place.

Over the course of the past few weeks, more and more folks climbed aboard.

Last Friday, New York's junior senator, Hillary Clinton, issued an exclusive statement to The Post, saying that she couldn't support the plan.

"I am troubled by the serious concerns family members and first responders have expressed to me," Clinton said. "I do not believe we can move forward until it . . . addresses their concerns."

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani — who speaks with singular authority — also weighed in: "They should change the whole concept and scrap [the] plans and focus it on 9/11. I think it's a mistake."

That, after condemnations by the city's firefighters union, which lost 343 members on that grim day, and the police union, which lost 23.

There were even plans by three local congressmen to launch a congressional probe into the use of federal funds at Ground Zero.

Not to mention Burlingame herself — plus at least 15 groups representing 9/11 families and some 47,000 anti-museum petition-signers.

Of course, there were fence-sitters.

Most notably was state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer — who presumes to oversee Ground Zero as governor; he was being briefed on the center yesterday when Pataki killed the idea.

New York's senior senator, Chuck Schumer, too, believed it was possible to split the baby at Ground Zero.

As did Mayor Bloomberg: "Although I understand Gov. Pataki's decision, I am disappointed that we were not able to find a way to reconcile the freedoms we hold so dear with the sanctity of the site," Hizzoner said.

Frankly, it's a wonder this travesty was hatched in the first place.

The center was the brainchild of one Tom Bernstein, whose group, Human Rights First, is devoted exclusively to blaming America for just about everything wrong in the world.

It invited in "scholars," like Columbia Univesity's Eric Foner, who wrote after 9/11: "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating from the White House."

Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, was made an IFC adviser.

Meanwhile, the center planned to hand over control of its programming to ultra-liberal academicians. Its exhibits and forums were to focus heavily on the international role in the march of freedom — the world's response to 9/11.

And, as if further proof was necessary, the IFC provided it yesterday.

Pataki had explicitly offered to "work with the IFC to explore other locations for the center" — even some spots within the 16-acre Ground Zero footprint. But center officials thumbed their noses at him (and New York), saying they wouldn't even consider another locale.

The memorial quadrant at Ground Zero "is the site for which the IFC was cre ated," it said, "as an integral part of Daniel Libeskind's master site plan." (Well, whoop de-do!)

"We do not believe there is a viable alternative place for the IFC at the World Trade Center site. We consider our work, therefore, to have been brought to an end." (Three cheers for that!)

What did New York lose? "[A] museum of freedom at the place where freedom was so brutally challenged. The failure to accept the offer of nine great universities to offer cultural programming on freedom issues in the heart of Lower Manhattan. . ." Blah, blah, blah.

And so on and so forth.

We have no regrets.

Pataki did the right thing by pulling the plug on the International Freedom Center.

May it rest in peace.

BPC

September 29th, 2005, 02:33 PM

^Like I thought I implied, it was never my first choice. This was my complaint from day one - fountains and waterfalls aren't always running, and when they're not they are an eyesore. But that's what they went with, and the whole site is based around them.

Hopefully, the Snohetta design can be put to better use. I think rotating cultural programming could work just as well as making the building the permanent home of anything in particular. I do not want to see the memorial plaza expanded anymore, as it is already plenty large.

BrooklynRider

September 29th, 2005, 06:04 PM

Teno

September 29th, 2005, 06:44 PM

Doesn't really matter to me whether this place is built or not.

The reason for the reaction against it does bother me.

There is no public place on American soil that is so sacred it abridges our constituional right to freely express ourselves.

To deny building an institution to stem a view that does not agree with your own is the beginning of a dark path.

I can understand Pataki's decision though. And I can agree. He doesn't want the museum to become another fight that continues to delay the rebuilding of the area.

But I think he should denounce the censorship from those who disagree with the centers mission statement.

Teno

September 29th, 2005, 07:13 PM

As I read the NY Post article above, I can’t believe they are proud of this stance.

"The International Freedom Center is to be a 250,000-square-foot museum with a self-professed mission to 'harness the power of history and use it as a springboard for contemporary dialogue and debate' on the meaning of freedom”

Are the WTC memorial grounds a proper place to hold this study, this dialogue and debate. Symbolically yes they are.

Bush gave us a simple easy to digest reason that the WTC was destroyed. I see no problem with deconstructing his answer. This would entail study. Study of the Middle East, study of its history, its culture, study of US involvement and interaction with the Middle East.

"Because odds are that, at the end of the day, this center won't focus on freedom's triumphs, so much as on its failures — particularly those in which America can be painted as the culprit."

If this study finds in its final answer US foreign policy played part in the motivation of the destruction of the WTC. We need to face the truth. More importantly we need to learn from past mistakes.

To stop discovery in fear of what is found is cowardice.

lofter1

September 29th, 2005, 10:33 PM

Are the WTC memorial grounds a proper place to hold this study, this dialogue and debate. Symbolically yes they are.

To stop discovery in fear of what is found is cowardice.
I couldn't agree with you more.

Unfortunately it was but a short-lived moment when this country had the opportunity to go on that path. The road we are on now will be long -- and much time will pass before we return to a place where we can have such a dialog / debate in any real constructive way.

TomAuch

September 30th, 2005, 01:00 AM

There is something incredibly sinister in this Burlingame woman. Here she is in New York talking about what is appropriate to memorialize her brother - allegedly killed in DC at the Pentagon. Where was her big opinionated mouth when that building was patched up and the "sacred ground" on which he died was put back online as a purveyor of death and destruction of poor people around the globe. She's getting a lor of press for her opinions, but how did she - whose brother died in DC - wind up on the advisory committee for a memorial to those killed in New York at the WTC?

Too bad journalism died on September 11th as well.

She's a big supporter of Bush. She actively campaigned for him last year and battled fellow 9/11 Family members who were/still are critical of Bush in debates on the cable channels. I might be wrong, but didn't she say a while ago that she wants a section at the WTC Memorial for the IRAQ WAR? If this is true, then she is a hypocrite in telling us that we should not have anything on the site that doesn't relate to September 11th itself.

NYguy

September 30th, 2005, 09:42 AM

NY POST

IFC-FREE MUSEUM WILL BE BUILT 'BY 9/11/09'

By TOM TOPOUSIS
September 30, 2005

The International Freedom Center is history, but construction of the building it was to occupy will go forward amid a national search for a 9/11 museum director, officials said yesterday.

In a speech to business leaders, rebuilding czar John Cahill said the highest priority at Ground Zero now is construction of the World Trade Center Memorial — a project that will be made easier without the controversy surrounding the IFC.

"The construction of the memorial and memorial museum will begin in early 2006 and conclude by Sept. 11, 2009," Cahill said at a breakfast sponsored by Crain's New York Business.

"Rest assured, we will not let one person, one entity or one constituency prevent us from fulfilling this solemn obligation," said Cahill, who is serving as Gov. Pataki's chief for rebuilding Ground Zero and lower Manhattan.

Pataki booted the IFC from Ground Zero on Wednesday, amid a growing chorus of opposition from 9/11 families, firefighters, cops and elected officials, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Debra Burlingame, who spearheaded the battle against the IFC, said she hopes the 9/11 families "aren't viewed as some hostile constituency."

"We are a tremendous resource, and they should use us," said Burlingame, whose brother piloted the doomed Pentagon plane.

In his decision to oust the Freedom Center, Pataki declared that the exhibit space in the proposed 300,000-square- foot building that will sit alongside the WTC Memorial will be devoted strictly to telling the story of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The project will now dovetail with a nearby underground memorial museum already slated for the site, officials said.

Lower Manhattan officials have teamed up with the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation in a search for a director of national prominence to develop 9/11 programming for both the memorial museum and for the former IFC space.

Lynn Rasic, a spokeswoman for the foundation, said some interviews had already been conducted, and she said the project had attracted "great expressions of interest" from top candidates around the nation.

The controversy over the IFC cast a pall over fund-raising efforts for the memorial, which has a target of $500 million.

"We hope to regain momentum," Rasic said.

Cahill also said a new plan is in the works to bring commercial activity back to the World Trade Center site, with a corridor of retail shops slated for Church Street.

Business and community leaders in lower Manhattan "have told me firsthand about the need to expeditiously restore retail at the World Trade Center site, and I could not agree more," Cahill said.

lofter1

September 30th, 2005, 10:07 AM

Debra Burlingame, who spearheaded the battle against the IFC, said she hopes the 9/11 families "aren't viewed as some hostile constituency."
Now she plays nice. It's a little late for that.

The controversy over the IFC cast a pall over fund-raising efforts for the memorial, which has a target of $500 million.

"We hope to regain momentum," Rasic said.
Despite the fact I like the Snohetta building they won't be getting a dime out of me. The marketing on this should be interesting to watch.

NYatKNIGHT

September 30th, 2005, 11:19 AM

....Pataki declared that the exhibit space....will be devoted strictly to telling the story of the Sept. 11 attacks.
There really should be at least some exhibits that come and go over time, not just an unchaging eternal museum.

One installment of the proposed Freedom Center actually did sound interesting; an exhibit which put the day in context of the history of New York City along with the many huge events that have occured here which have impacted the city, country, and the world. In other words, not strictly the story of September 11.

Jasonik

September 30th, 2005, 12:14 PM

The design by Snohetta is completely WRONG for that site.

WOOD?! in Manhattan? Huh?!

I would rather see a large 'gateway' sculpture forming the vent stacks than this gracelessly aging toy building.

Teno

September 30th, 2005, 01:48 PM

Sign of the times.

The museum can go forward if it is restricted to telling the emotional pain of 9/11. But is not allowed any intellectual study of why 9/11 happened.

It's ok to feel but don't think.

BrooklynRider

September 30th, 2005, 02:23 PM

Maybe they'll work a little Christian chapel into it to as well

JMGarcia

September 30th, 2005, 04:01 PM

^Maybe something evangelical to recruit converts.

ZippyTheChimp

September 30th, 2005, 05:29 PM

I would like a Pagan Temple. It's bad enough I don't get any holidays.

Jake

September 30th, 2005, 11:53 PM

Does anyone know what is the roof of this building like? It seems to me that if the memorial won't take the Tribute in Light maybe we could put it up there? It would be perfect, out of the way, close to the site.

lofter1

October 1st, 2005, 01:15 AM

Based on info about necessary ventilation systems (none of which were included in the published renderings) we can bet the roof won't look like anything this --

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/05/18/arts/19wtc_slide1.jpg

lofter1

October 1st, 2005, 11:21 AM

Arts Patron Resigns Over Move by Pataki

By ROBIN POGREBIN (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=ROBIN POGREBIN&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=ROBIN POGREBIN&inline=nyt-per)
October 1, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/arts/01gund.html

Protesting Gov. George E. Pataki's decision to remove the International Freedom Center from the rebuilding effort at ground zero, Agnes Gund, one of the city's leading cultural figures, has resigned from the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation board.

In a letter to John C. Whitehead, the foundation's chairman, Ms. Gund lamented the erosion of the original master plan for the site, which was drafted to "permanently memorialize what happened on Sept. 11, while also bringing and weaving the site back into the fabric of the city."

Now, she wrote in her letter dated Thursday, "Governor Pataki (and it saddens me to say, Senator Clinton has joined him) has caved and virtually ensured that there will be no cultural component to the redevelopment."

"I hate to walk away from this situation and leave it to you and the others to sort out," continued Ms. Gund, who is a president emerita of the Museum of Modern Art. "But I am afraid that the governor and those few family members have succeeded in destroying what could not be destroyed on that awful Tuesday, which is our hope."

Gretchen Dykstra, president of the memorial foundation - the organization charged with raising money for a memorial and for cultural institutions at ground zero - said yesterday that she was disappointed by Ms. Gund's departure but not discouraged.

"Of course, we will miss Aggie, not just for her wealth but for her wisdom," she said. "But we in no way find this a setback."

The governor announced on Wednesday that he had eliminated the Freedom Center after well-publicized arguments by some relatives of 9/11 victims that its mission - exploring human rights and freedom around the globe - detracted from the reality of what unfolded on Sept. 11.

Ms. Dykstra suggested that the removal of the Freedom Center might even attract new financial contributions from donors. She said that on Thursday, "we got a lot of very encouraging phone calls from potentially very large donors who had been holding back." So far, no other foundation directors have resigned in response to the governor's decision.

Paula Grant Berry, a vice chairman of the Freedom Center who serves on the foundation board, said yesterday that she was considering it, although "it's important that we have many voices there now so it's a well-rounded representation."

Barbara Walters of ABC News, a board member, resigned in August, though she later agreed to stay on until an October board meeting, saying in a letter to the foundation that it might not be wise for her "to appear on a board which is certain to involve some controversy."

The building designed for the Freedom Center by the Norwegian firm Snohetta, was also to have housed the Drawing Center, a SoHo institution for works on paper that is looking for other space. Some 9/11 family members had faulted works exhibited in the past by the Drawing Center, calling them unpatriotic.

The building is now to contain the 9/11 museum and a visitors center. Since the Freedom Center was to have charged admission to support an annual operating budget of $15 million to $20 million, it is unclear how these activities will be supported. Because many of New York's philanthropic dollars flow from arts patrons, some people involved in rebuilding downtown speculated yesterday that Ms. Gund's departure could hurt fund-raising.

But Ms. Dykstra said that she remained optimistic about the foundation's capacity to raise $500 million, the cost of the memorial and the museum building, in an international campaign and that she hoped "to reach the first major benchmark soon." And some board members said dropping the Freedom Center would provide the clarity that potential donors were craving. "It will be easier now than it was before," said Ira M. Millstein, a foundation director. "There is no confusion about walking into something where people are going to be fighting forever."

Thomas Rogér, a board member who lost his daughter on 9/11, said yesterday that the elimination of the Freedom Center had "to some extent resolved issues but also undercut the master plan."

In a statement yesterday, Governor Pataki said, "We remain staunchly committed to building the cultural building and the performing arts center and to bringing life-affirming cultural activity to the World Trade Center site."

In her letter, Ms. Gund took aim at the family members of 9/11 victims who had campaigned against the Freedom Center. "I fear that certain vocal family members, who as near as I can tell do not represent a majority of anything, have taken over the process and are uninterested entirely in the needs of the people who actually live and work in Lower Manhattan," she wrote.

A leader of the battle over the Freedom Center, Debra Burlingame, a member of the memorial foundation whose brother was a pilot on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, defended the Snohetta building's new purpose yesterday. "The 9/11 memorial and memorial museum is a cultural institution," she said, while adding that Ms. Gund's departure was regrettable.

Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

lofter1

October 1st, 2005, 11:34 AM

Is Culture Gone at Ground Zero?

By ROBIN POGREBIN (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=ROBIN POGREBIN&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=ROBIN POGREBIN&inline=nyt-per)
September 30, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/arts/design/30zero.html

It's not easy to pinpoint the day culture died at ground zero.
Since four cultural organizations were selected for the site a year ago, the notion of giving the arts an integral role has been gradually - and more lately precipitously - slipping away.

Daniel Libeskind's master plan for the former World Trade Center site called for life-affirming, forward-looking cultural activities that would coexist with a memorial's somber acknowledgment of lives lost. Culture was supposed to make the site a hub of round-the-clock activity for tourists and to provide a vibrant gathering place for people who live downtown.

But at this point, culture is being cast as a suspicious interloper. On Wednesday, Gov. George E. Pataki kicked the International Freedom Center off the site, saying that its goal of exploring the realm of human rights had attracted "too much controversy." Relatives of 9/11 victims had argued that such a theme did not belong at ground zero.

The Freedom Center's board rebuffed suggestions that it look for a different location downtown, pointing out that it was conceived specifically for that site and that context.

"During the planning process there was a clear consensus that culture was essential for the revitalization of Lower Manhattan," said Kate D. Levin, the city's cultural affairs commissioner. "Clearly, it needs to be repaired."

Stefan Pryor, president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which is supervising the rebuilding effort, said, "The L.M.D.C. is deeply committed to culture." Yet the power of the development corporation's board members is now in question, given that the decision on the Freedom Center was supposed to be theirs. In acting unilaterally, Governor Pataki has signaled that even if the board had voted in favor of the Freedom Center, the decision would have been an insufficient counterweight. John P. Cahill, the governor's point man on ground zero, said in an interview yesterday that culture remained "an integral part of the site plan."

Several prominent members of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, which is overseeing the fund-raising, are reputed to care about culture - Michael D. Eisner of Disney, Kenneth I. Chenault of American Express, Richard D. Parsons of Time Warner and the actor Robert De Niro (http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=17593&inline=nyt-per) - but have been notably silent.

A lack of powerful, outspoken advocates seems to have been a significant ingredient in the erosion of culture at the site. By putting the development corporation in charge of choosing the cultural groups, the state failed to enlist an enthusiastic commitment from business leaders and philanthropists, some arts executives say.

"So when they got in trouble, no one was willing to stick their neck out against the families," said Tom Healy, president of the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council.

"The arts are critical to ground zero," Mr. Healy said. "There was a process. Maybe the process needs to be looked at, but it certainly shouldn't be abandoned."

In an interview yesterday, Mr. Libeskind said he believed culture must remain part of the master plan to foster activity and to act as a "buffer between commercial, memorial and retail space."

"This is not just an empty site of sadness," he said. "There has to be something that heals." He added that he supports the governor's decision.

Weeks earlier, another cultural institution on the slate of four, the Drawing Center, was driven from the site by victims' families and New York newspaper accounts asserting that some of the center's exhibitions had been "anti-American."

That leaves the museum building at the northeast corner of the site, designed by the Norwegian firm Snohetta, with neither of its original tenants. It was designed specifically to accommodate the Freedom Center and the Drawing Center. The talk now is that it will house a visitors center and some kind of permanent 9/11 exhibition.

The master plan's other major cultural component, a performing arts center, increasingly looks like a pipe dream. The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation recently committed $50 million to the project. But given that the designated architect is Frank Gehry, and a Gehry building would cost eight times that amount, the commitment is a drop in the bucket.

Raising the rest seems like a tall order. The two groups designated for the building, the Joyce Theater and the Signature Theater, are modest in size and relatively little known. What's more, the Memorial Foundation has made clear that it intends to put its muscle behind memorializing the victims.

The design process is in limbo. "We have not had any contact at all," Mr. Gehry said in a recent telephone interview, adding, "I can see that it's precarious."

The Joyce, which presents dance, and the Signature, an Off Broadway theater, continue to hone their proposals without any sense of whether they have a real shot at a new home at ground zero.

Nonetheless, Gretchen Dykstra, president of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, said yesterday, "The commitment to the performing arts center is strong and deep."

On a broader level, the public has only the haziest notion of what cultural groups will reside at the site, given the current plans for a World Trade Center Memorial Museum, a Memorial Hall, and contemplation and family rooms.

And some are asking what remains of Mr. Libeskind's master plan. This state of affairs is a far cry from the 2002 "Blueprint for the Future of Lower Manhattan," in which the development corporation called for "a diverse mixed-use magnet for the arts, culture, tourism, education and recreation."

Or Governor Pataki's 2003 invitation to cultural institutions, in which he called the arts "an essential element to creating a thriving urban environment in Lower Manhattan."

Or a February 2004 report in which the development corporation quoted Matthew Arnold: "Culture is acquainting ourselves with the best that has been known and said in the world, and thus with the history of the human spirit."

In remarks before the Association for a Better New York last November, Governor Pataki said the planned cultural buildings would "stand as symbols of the enduring grace and goodness of humanity," adding that the Freedom Center would "convey stories of courage and inspiration."

The first strong signal that this commitment was fading came in April, when John C. Whitehead, the development corporation's chairman, said the performing arts center was effectively on the fund-raising back burner. A $500 million capital campaign that was supposed to benefit the memorial, and both cultural buildings would now exclude the performing arts center, which would instead be part of a "second phase."

Then came a June 8 op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal in which Debra Burlingame - who serves on the memorial foundation's board, and whose brother was killed on 9/11 - called the Freedom Center a "multi-million-dollar insult."

The attack surprised those who had initially feared that the Freedom Center would be simplistically patriotic, because of its name and because Tom A. Bernstein, the founder of the center, is associated with Roland W. Betts, a close friend of President Bush. Mr. Bernstein and Mr. Betts are partners in Chelsea Piers, and both are former owners with Mr. Bush of the Texas Rangers. Mr. Betts is also a director of the development corporation.

Later that month, The Daily News reported that the Drawing Center had once displayed a work obliquely linking President Bush to Osama bin Laden and another showing a hooded victim of American abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. In an editorial that day, the paper demanded, "Show these people the door."

In a July letter to the development corporation, Mr. Bernstein tried to defend the Freedom Center. "We will not 'blame America' or attack champions of freedom," he said. "Any suggestion that we will feature anti-American programming is wrong. We are proud patriots."

Some saw this pledge as an outright capitulation. Eric Foner, a Columbia University history professor, quickly resigned as an adviser to the Freedom Center.

From then on, a contingent of victims' families steadfastly denounced the Drawing Center and the Freedom Center as unpatriotic distractions.

Governor Pataki felt the pressure. With a potential presidential race looming, he had staked his legacy on the rapid reconstruction of ground zero. On July 24, he issued an ultimatum - "We will not tolerate anything on that site that denigrates America" - insisting that cultural institutions guarantee their presentations would not violate "the sanctity of that site."

The Drawing Center quickly realized it was finished; what art organization could retain its identity without being able to show what it wants? The development corporation gave the center $150,000 to conduct feasibility studies on locating elsewhere.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg voiced disappointment this week that officials did not find a way to make their peace with the Freedom Center. He has otherwise stayed out of the controversy, a noticeable absence given his widely known commitment to culture. But the mayor long ago made a bargain with Mr. Pataki to let the governor take the lead at ground zero in exchange for a free hand in planning the future of the Far West Side.

Madelyn Wils, a development corporation director, said yesterday, "I'm deeply disappointed that we could not have worked out a way to have the Freedom Center on the site."

Mr. Gehry said of the squabbles, "From the beginning, I thought it was going to be messy, given all the politics, all the people you have to please."

Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

LeCom

October 1st, 2005, 11:53 PM

It should be moved to the southwest corner of the site so it wouldn't block the view of Calatrava's PATH station and it would make a good plaza in the middle of the WTC site.

BrooklynRider

October 1st, 2005, 11:54 PM

I have to say that I truly hope the fundraising for the Memorial fails - monumentally. It is now the only realistic way to prevent the feared graveyard scenario. For folks who have watched this process unfold, I encourage you to withhold donations and certainly advocate on to stop this monstrosity from materializing. I'll take the underground mall over this private mourning pit in the blink of an eye.

lofter1

October 2nd, 2005, 02:51 AM

It would be brilliant if Snohetta were to withdraw their plan in protest.

Fat chance -- but, wow, would I cheer that move.

BPC

October 2nd, 2005, 03:09 AM

It would be brilliant if Snohetta were to withdraw their plan in protest.

Fat chance -- but, wow, would I cheer that move.

In protest of what? They are Norwegian architects. They are paid to design a building, which they did. They have no say in Lower Manhattan land use decisions.

lofter1

October 2nd, 2005, 10:46 AM

^ My understanding is that Snohetta was paid to design a cultural center. While I'm not certain of the specifics of their contract -- or the extent of the design work that has been submitted on this project -- the core purpose of the building has changed. It would not surprise me if architectural changes will be required as well.

Does the building as now designed serve the newly-stated purpose of the building to be built (Cultural Center v. Museum)?

Would Snohetta have become involved in this project if the course of events that have now transpired taken place prior to the choosing of the architect? Knowing that the building does not fulfill what was outlined in the original master plan for the site?

Of course all of us (no matter our profession) could view the contracting of our services as being merely guns for hire, no matter the details of the transaction. Sometimes "creative differences" on a project can result in the ending of what once appeared to be a mutually beneficial working relationship.

I don't foresee that Snohetta will actually withdraw from this project. If nothing else the firm might want to protect the integrity of their design.

BrooklynRider

October 2nd, 2005, 08:35 PM

Well, they can withdraw their design and then David Childs can copy it to the last detail, submit it to the LMDC and call it his brilliant masterpiece.

BigMac

October 3rd, 2005, 10:14 AM

New York Times
October 3, 2005

For Ground Zero Building, It's Back to Drawing Board

By DAVID W. DUNLAP

The practice of recycling buildings goes back millennia. But the World Trade Center project may claim a new distinction by recycling a structure that has not yet been built.

The Norwegian firm Snohetta was chosen last October to design the cultural building at ground zero to house the International Freedom Center and the Drawing Center.

Because Gov. George E. Pataki evicted the Freedom Center last week as too controversial, and the Drawing Center is looking for space elsewhere, state officials say that the "Snohetta building" will instead be used in conjunction with the underground memorial nearby, to tell the story of 9/11.

The building was custom designed for its original tenants, however, and it is unclear how much the new version will resemble the renderings that have been in the public eye since May.

"Of course, we'll be engaging in a design process to be sure the building meets the needs of its new program," said Stefan Pryor, president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which is overseeing cultural and memorial planning at the trade center site. "But its appearance - especially in terms of the signature elements - will be substantially similar. And the building will remain spectacular."

It will be at least 30 percent smaller than the 250,000-square-foot design that was unveiled five months ago, Mr. Pryor said. He said it was too early to tell which signature elements would survive: the broad entry ramp, the way the building seems to float over the plaza, the prismatic facade studded with glass, the light court at the center.

The executive director of the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects, Fredric M. Bell, put in a word for the ascending ramp. He said it would connect an appropriately "skyward-pointing" element to the largely underground memorial complex.

Others despaired of salvaging anything from the project.

"The beautiful Snohetta-designed building is now a relic - a design without a program or a purpose," Agnes Gund, president emerita of the Museum of Modern Art, said on Thursday, in the letter she wrote resigning from the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation to protest the Freedom Center's eviction. Her comment carries particular weight, since Ms. Gund was a member of the panel that chose Snohetta.

Monica Iken, another board member of the foundation, which will build and own the memorial and cultural buildings, said in an e-mail message, "There is no reason from a cost or time standpoint that they could not reconsider the look and location of that building."

Ms. Iken said the architects should determine how many visitors can be expected, then account for 9/11 artifacts like the twin tower columns, stored in Hangar 17 at Kennedy Airport.

Ms. Iken, whose husband, Michael Iken, was killed on Sept. 11, 2001, said the Snohetta building was "beautiful in some ways." But she said, "It blocks the views of the memorial and important sight lines and vistas that would help tie the whole area together."

In addition, Ms. Iken said, planners should consider moving the cultural building to the corner of West and Liberty Streets, where it was shown in an early version of Michael Arad's design for the memorial.

There seems to be no chance of that, however.

The building belongs at the northeast corner of the memorial quadrant in part because it will house the visitors center, Mr. Pryor said, and most visitors will approach from that direction. It also was placed there, he said, because the architect Daniel Libeskind called for it in his master plan as a buffer between the memorial and the city. At that location, the building will also serve the unglamorous but essential role of containing, and effectively hiding, the huge ventilation shafts from the PATH terminal.

"Our desire," said Craig Dykers, a founding partner of Snohetta, "has always been to create a building that respects the memorial setting, protects it from its immediate urban surroundings and provides a place where visitors to and from this important location can find a place of transition. This will remain the case whatever institution remains present in the building."

And Snohetta remains on contract with the development corporation.

"The L.M.D.C. have stated clearly to us that they are dedicated to building a life-affirming, interactive and invigorating facility," Mr. Dykers said on Friday in an e-mail message, "and we therefore remain committed to proceeding."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

ZippyTheChimp

October 3rd, 2005, 10:51 AM

the architect Daniel Libeskind called for it in his master plan as a buffer between the memorial and the city.
This goes to the core of the problem with removing the Freedom Center from the building. The Freedom Center was an ill-defined concept, but its removal should have reopened the process of finding a suitable cultural institution for the site.

Instead of shielding the memorial from the street, the building now becomes part of the memorial, and there will be pressure from memorial groups to regulate the environment across Greenwich St.

BrooklynRider

October 3rd, 2005, 11:10 AM

...The Freedom Center was an ill-defined concept...

Actually, it wasn't. The president defined the attack as being perpetrated by "people who hate us for our freedoms." The people who commited the crimes believed they were patriots in the defense of their belief systems. Although the curatorial content can be debated, the relevance of this center and the relevance of questioning America's role in the world at the time of the attack is very appropriate. To show charred remains without context, is not so much ill-defined as it is propaganda. Although the severity of these attacks was shocking, the fact that we as a nation were on the receiving end of these attacks was not - especially under the George W. Bush and the professed neocon philosophy, which was a pronounced threat to other countries around the world.

The Freedom Center was the only true "educational" aspect of this project as it proposed to engage visitors in critical thinking as opposed to weepy remembrance. Considering the process we are seeing, I imagine the next step will be to erect a wax museim where we can watch life-size replicas of people hanging out the windows of the recreated top floors of the towers and see them jump to an explosive death. What we are seeing is perverse and disgusting. It would be like forever keeping chalk outlines on the streets of New York for every person ever murdered over time.

The loss of th Freedom Center is just terrible. It was the only thing that brought context and counterbalance to an event that is going to be rewritten as some patriotic American moment - which it was not.

ZippyTheChimp

October 3rd, 2005, 11:40 AM

What you are describing is not a Freedom Center, but a 09/11 Interpretive Museum, a learning center for the event. That narrow scope would not require 275,000 sq ft. The museum broadened (and diluted) its scope to well, fill up the space. The Freedom Center could have been built anywhere.

A 09/11 learning center should have been part of the memorial museum.

What the memorial groups are objecting to is what they view as objectionable content; I am objecting to the museum's mission - the struggle for freedom.

That's the history of humanity.

BrooklynRider

October 3rd, 2005, 02:31 PM

Hmmm. I guess I might be describing it that way, although I don't see it that way. In some ways I have come to expect the "9/11 Memorial & Museum" to be hijacked by the families as well to tell THEIR story as opposed to THE story. That would seem to be more of an "interpretive" center than anything else.

BPC

October 3rd, 2005, 02:51 PM

Although the severity of these attacks was shocking, the fact that we as a nation were on the receiving end of these attacks was not - especially under the George W. Bush and the professed neocon philosophy, which was a pronounced threat to other countries around the world.

No offense, but this is left wing crapola. First, as of 9/11/01, GWB had not yet invaded Iraq or Afghanistan yet; indeed, he ran for office on an isolationist philosophy that should have been comforting to all the Islamo-fascists out there. Second, the 9/11 tactics were in the planning stages for many years, years in which Bill Clinton was president, so if anyone's foreign policy is to blame, his is the one. Note also that the Clinton presidency was filled with ever-heightening attacks from Al Qaida -- Sudan, Yemen, Kenya, etc. Third, even blaming Clinton's foreign policy would be wrong. Clinton's two main military interventions -- Bosnia and Kosovo -- were interventions on the Muslim side, against the Christian side.

In short, your blame America (or blame Bush) propaganda is just sad.

Teno

October 3rd, 2005, 04:46 PM

Blame for 9/11 cannot be fully laid on any single or recent President, as US involvement (oil, war, regime changes) with the Middle East dates back 60 years and over several presidential administrations.

Jasonik

October 3rd, 2005, 05:12 PM

We must have at the site a self-blaming viewpoint where the 9/11 attacks are seen as justified, reasonable and proportionate retribution for the collective foreign policy wrongs done in our name over the past 60 yrs. We the people have the blood of those 3000 citizens on our collective hands, we are all guilty.

Does that sound about right?

(Kind of a bummer message, huh? Have the terrorists won if this is the message of the memorial?)

Teno

October 3rd, 2005, 06:09 PM

That's a bit dramatic. No one said that 9/11 is justifiable. Debating the cause and getting at the truth is different from justifying the event.

At best we can learn from past mistakes. A truly enlightened people would look beyond killing the people who have the potential for such an act of violence. Instead learn from the past and stop the seed of motivation right where it begins.

BrooklynRider

October 3rd, 2005, 07:02 PM

...In short, your blame America (or blame Bush) propaganda is just sad.

Anyone remotely familar with PNAC and their manifesto knew that once the neocons got in office it was only a matter of time before the US would be sending troops to "install democracy". For our enemies, it was a matter of hit or get hit. They hit first.

What happened under Clinton, happened under Clinton. As to your theories on what was planned regarding 9/11 and when, I guess we'll just have to wait for a trial by jury to determine the facts. However, the Downing Street memos, ignored in the US media, offered pretty strong evidence that, although we didn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan before 9/11, we had a plan of attack against Iraq all laid out - waiting for the opportune moment. You think it was all inevitable. Everything a shocking coincidence. I believe the Bush administration knew it was coming, allowed it to happen, and used it to advance a neocon agenda.

What you believe is no more true than what I believe. Who you choose to believe are no more credible than who I choose to believe.

When we restore law in this land and repeal the PATRIOT Act, maybe we'll have a trial or two to actually establish the facts. In the meantime, all of the "material witnesses" to what actually happened are being flown by this government to foreign soil for torture.

"Left wing crapola" is what the folks in the red states are facing in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Bush and his team are really innocent, harmless pussycats? Tell it to the floating corpses in Louisiana and the body bags in Iraq.

And, he was only able to do it by stealing an election - twice!

Now, back to our topic.

BPC

October 4th, 2005, 01:12 AM

What you believe is no more true than what I believe. Who you choose to believe are no more credible than who I choose to believe.

No, what I believe is based on the facts as reported by reputable historic, academic and journalistic sources. What you believe is based on conspiracy internet sites. They are not equivalent, just like evolution and "intelligent design" are not equivalent. You, of course, are free to believe what you want, but I am also free to call you on your BS. As someone who lived through one horrible terrorist attack that destroyed my community and my home and left me displaced, I can no longer laugh off idiotic Islamist propaganda and let it go unchallenged, because the militant Islamists threaten to undermine civilization and all that is good in the world, and turn us back to the dark ages. You don't like Bush, fine. I don't either. But the militant Islamists hit us under Clinton (several times), they hit us under Bush, and they surely will hit us under our next dozen presidents, whether you personally like those presidents' political affiliations or not. Unless we can separate ourselves from obnoxious partisan politics and get real about the enemy who is trying to destroy us, we are all going down the tubes.

Which is actually (bring us back to our topic) one of the reasons why the 9/11 memorial is a bad idea. War memorials have always been built AFTER the war was over. Here, our war with the militant Islamists (not the war on "terrorism") -- or rather, there war with us -- has barely begun. It is as if we put up the Pearl Harbor memorial in January 1942. Of course, there were apologists for the NAZIs in WWII as well ...

lofter1

October 4th, 2005, 10:12 AM

Public Input Dies With Freedom Center

by Barry Owens and Etta Sanders
Tuesday October 4, 2005

http://www.tribecatrib.com/

When Gov. George Pataki pulled the plug on the International Freedom Center at the World Trade Center site late last month, he brought an end to the tabloid sniping and angry protests by opponents of the institution.

And, as it turned out, he shut the door on community input as well.

Pataki's announcement, delivered at 5 p.m. on Sept. 28, came exactly an hour before a planned public meeting at P.S. 234 among the Freedom Center's organizers, Community Board 1 members, and interested local residents. The presentation by the International Freedom Center (IFC) would have been the first one for the public since the institution's concept was championed by Pataki in 2001.

Luc Journe, 27, an urban planning student from Paris, arrived early. He read the sign that had been posted on the school's doors announcing the cancellation of the meeting, and shook his head.

"They didn't want to discuss whether it was a good idea to build all that office space, either," he said, referring to the commercial buildings planned for the trade center site.

For his post-graduate work Journe is studying the planning process for the site's redevelopment.

"My thesis is that they are pretending to allow for participation, but they don't really want participation," he said. "I guess that is the messy part of democracy."

When Harold Reed, chairman of the community board's Arts and Culture Committee, arrived, he, too, pronounced his disappointment.

"I came with an open mind," he said. "I just wanted to hear both sides."

The Freedom Center was originally discussed by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) as a living memorial where the story of Sept. 11 would be couched in the context of the global struggle for freedom.

But critics of the IFC, notably some relatives of Sept. 11 victims, said that the six acres where the trade center towers had stood was no place for world politics, and that the only stories that should be told there are those of the day's victims and heroes.

Earlier in the month, IFC executives presented a report detailing the programming they were planning for the museum. John Whitehead, the corporation's chairman, had warned in August that programs construed as offensive to family members would put the center's place at the site at risk.

In his announcement evicting the IFC, Pataki said, "There remains too much opposition, too much controversy over the programming of the IFC and we must move forward with our first priority, the creation of an inspiring memorial to pay tribute to our lost loved ones and tell their stories to the world." He added that the LMDC would work with the IFC to find an alternate site.

"We do not believe there is a viable alternative place for the IFC at the World Trade Center Site," the center's executives, Tom Bernstein, Peter Kunhardt and Richard Tofel, said in a statement released shortly after Pataki's announcement.

During a public workshop on Sept. 19 on plans for a memorial museum separate from the cultural center, Diane Horning said her opposition to the IFC was not about content, but about its placement on the site. Calling the position "non negotiable," she expressed frustration that the LMDC had not acted sooner to nix the center or to solicit public views on the matter.

"It's been very dictatorial," she said. "There hasn't been a good faith cooperative effort. They don't want our input."

On the sidewalk outside P.S. 234 others expressed similar complaints, along with questions about the future of the cultural center, now that its two prospective tenants are out.

The Drawing Center, a Soho-based art gallery, withdrew its plans to occupy the building in August. It, too, was forced out by suspicions that it may show work that is "anti-American."

"If they decide not to build a cultural center on the site, we'd like it somewhere else in Lower Manhattan," said Paul Goldstein, Community Board 1's district manager, who chatted on the sidewalk with several board members in what on this day would have to pass for public discussion.

"There's a ton of places Downtown, just not at the site," said board member Meyer Feig, who said he opposed the proposed content of the IFC.

"I never thought it made sense for it to be there in the first place," said Paul Sipos, another board member. "It was the only sensible thing that Pataki could do."

"A missed opportunity," said Reed, who pined for the New York City Opera on the site. The opera, with the 92nd Street Y, was originally favored by the board to be part of the site.

"They really need to stop the politics on this thing and get it done," said Joel Kopel, arriving late. "Enough is enough, already."

GLNY

October 4th, 2005, 11:28 AM

No, what I believe is based on the facts as reported by reputable historic, academic and journalistic sources. What you believe is based on conspiracy internet sites. They are not equivalent, just like evolution and "intelligent design" are not equivalent. ...

BPC,
Wasn't the "debate" on ultimate culpability for 9/11 already resolved on this forum? This is getting tiresome.

There has not been a trial with regard to the World Trade Center attack. It has never been established in a court of law with substantiated evidence and cross examination that Muslims or extremists were responsible. Murderers certainly, but try to hold back on repeating unsubstantiated government press releases. Seven of the men whose pictures we saw and whose names we were given by the US Government as conspirators and hijackers have been proven to be alive and well and had no part in the attack. The only threat we face is the failure of our own government to respond - thus facilitating an attack as some argue happened on 9/11. ...

ZippyTheChimp

October 4th, 2005, 12:19 PM

Try to focus the political discussion on a relationship with the the Snohetta Museum. BPC brought up a good point:

War memorials have always been built AFTER the war was over. Here, our war with the militant Islamists (not the war on "terrorism") -- or rather, there war with us -- has barely begun. It is as if we put up the Pearl Harbor memorial in January 1942. Of course, there were apologists for the NAZIs in WWII as well ...Since there is no chance the memorial itself will be altered, and given that there is political opposition to "extraneous" exhibits at the museum; maybe the cultural building should tell the story of the entire war (sorry, there is no adequate name for this war).

The soldiers seem to be the forgotten people at the memorial; easy to do when they don't die in our midst, broadcast live by the networks. All they get is a 30 second blurb on CBS.

I sense another email to CB1.

NYatKNIGHT

October 4th, 2005, 01:00 PM

This wasn't intended to be a war memorial, it's a memorial to those who died on September 11, 2001, and a replacement for the destroyed memorial for those who died in the '93 attack. The Arizona memorial has the names of those who died on that ship and commemorates those who died in the attack on Pearl Harbor, not everyone who was killed in the war.

From the USS Arizona Memorial (http://www.nps.gov/usar/home.htm) website:
Suggestions for the memorial started in 1943....it started as a wartime desire to establish some sort of memorial to honor those who died in the attack.

The logical place for a war memorial in the future is probably the Mall in D.C. like the National WWII Memorial is.

So the site deserves some sort of memorial for the event, and it doesn't necessarily have to honor everyone who died in the war. Maybe this will be the logical place to tell the story of the entire war in the future, and if so, this building could provide that space, hopefully despite protests by family members.

JMGarcia

October 4th, 2005, 01:33 PM

One thing I think that is interesting about the whole Memorial/Freedom Center debate is how self-centered it all is.

It is self-centered on the micro level from the stand point of the families and there unending demands.

It is self-centered from the viewpoint of the symbolism being self-serving to the politicians.

It is even self-centered on the macro level. So many americans seem to think the attack was all about the US, whether it be the "they hate us for our freedom" drivel from the right or the "they hate us for being asshole bullies" from the left. Both sides seem to think it is all about us and if we were just somehow different or behaved differently none of this would have happened.

I disagree completely.

My personal opinion is that the attacks, before, after and including 9/11 are a propaganda tool aimed at the muslim populace as a whole. Attacking the US is simply a means to an end. We are nothing more than a tool in Al Qaeda's battle for the hearts and minds of the muslim world in order to raise them to power in the promised muslim caliphate and onward to world domination by the islamic faith, the "one true" faith in their eyes.

The best analogy I can come up with is a child being bullied by a classmate. The victim of the bully often reacts in a way that it is all his fault, if only he were just stronger, more popular, less nerdy, nicer or whatever he wouldn't be victimized. The truth is that the bully himself bullies for his own reasons, the specific victim is simply an after-thought in most cases beyond surving the bully's purposes.

It is just this "self-centeredness" by familes, politicians and americans in general that I find most disturbing about the whole thing. It is parochial and arrogant in the worst sense of the words.

BPC

October 4th, 2005, 02:03 PM

BPC,
Wasn't the "debate" on ultimate culpability for 9/11 already resolved on this forum? This is getting tiresome.

I wasn't the one who raised it again, dude. You seem to be directing your post to the wrong poster. But if you let a new lie just sit there unaddressed, eventually it becomes the "truth."

ZippyTheChimp

October 4th, 2005, 02:25 PM

This wasn't intended to be a war memorial, it's a memorial to those who died on September 11, 2001, and a replacement for the destroyed memorial for those who died in the '93 attack.
If this is an event memorial, it has to rank as one of the most overblown in history. It doesn't need all that space plus two museums.

JMGarcia

October 4th, 2005, 02:53 PM

If this is an event memorial, it has to rank as one of the most overblown in history. It doesn't need all that space plus two museums.

But a self-centered "event memorial" is exactly what the most vocal faction of the families are pushing for and in fact are getting. It seems many of them, to this day, want an even larger memorial, the entire site, focused solely on their loses and events of that day.

lofter1

October 4th, 2005, 03:47 PM

But a self-centered "event memorial" is exactly what the most vocal faction of the families are pushing for and in fact are getting. It seems many of them, to this day, want an even larger memorial, the entire site, focused solely on their loses and events of that day.
And the politicians (Pataki, Hillary, et al) are caving in because they know the huge amount of negative PR that would be leveled against them if they don't pander to the Burlingame gang.

NYatKNIGHT

October 4th, 2005, 03:55 PM

If this is an event memorial, it has to rank as one of the most overblown in history. It doesn't need all that space plus two museums.I agree it doesn't need two museums. Just use the building as THE museum and as a buffer perhaps, but let time dictate what should and shouldn't be displayed there. There's plenty to display there before anyone figure's out the meaning of it all.

Jasonik

October 4th, 2005, 04:10 PM

Westchester Housewife
Meet Debra Burlingame, who won a battle at Ground Zero.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/100105burlingame.jpg

BY TUNKU VARADARAJAN
Saturday, October 1, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Rage renders some people incoherent and others blind. It causes some to flare up--fiercely, but briefly--and then to burn out. In others, it does no more than instill sadness, and paralysis. Yet in Debra Burlingame--the 51-year-old sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that was crashed into the Pentagon by terrorists on September 11, 2001--rage has fueled eloquence, an impressively mulish obstinacy, and an almost eerie moral clarity.

These are not all virtues, however, if you happen to be--like the founders and planners of the International Freedom Center--the object of that rage. Just this week, George Pataki, New York's governor, ordered the ousting of the Freedom Center from the World Trade Center memorial site: He did so, it should be said, in response to the relentless pressure exerted by Ms. Burlingame and the Take Back the Memorial Movement, a coalition of little platoons of 9/11 family members assembled to boot the Freedom Center off Ground Zero. This is ground that Ms. Burlingame and numerous Americans regard as hallowed; for them, the Freedom Center's apparent mission--the establishment of an educational venue focused more squarely on such matters as the Native American genocide and the Jim Crow South than on the victims and perpetrators of 9/11--was pure anathema, proof not merely of leftist muddle-headedness but also of an elitist contempt for popular feeling.

The Take Back the Memorial Movement's best-known voice--and certainly the most articulate critic of the Freedom Center--is Ms. Burlingame, who started it all on these pages in early June, when she wrote an op-ed essay titled "The Great Ground Zero Heist." (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006791) In it, she made public the Freedom Center's determination to build a memorial that "stubbornly refuses to acknowledge" 9/11.

"Rather than a respectful tribute to our individual and collective loss," she wrote, "[we] will get a slanted history lesson, a didactic lecture on the meaning of liberty in a post-9/11 world . . . [and] a heaping foreign policy discussion over the greater meaning of Abu Ghraib and what it portends for the country and the rest of the world." She also asked whether it was seemly for the Freedom Center's advisory board to include members who had said, "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House" (Columbia's Eric Foner); pushed for the center to highlight how 9/11 had led to the curtailment of civil liberties (the ACLU's Anthony Romero); and led a world-wide "Stop Torture Now" campaign focused on the U.S. military (Michael Posner, of Human Rights First).

Her rage was irrefutable, and one got the sense, after her piece appeared in print, that the Freedom Center did not stand a chance.

When I called Ms. Burlingame on Wednesday, the day Gov. Pataki put a stop to the Freedom Center, she sounded contemplative, not triumphal. "We're not really done," were her first words--the Freedom Center may have gone, but it was still not certain what would take its place. She wanted the recognition of her victory to be restrained, not raucous, and her voice betrayed some of the fatigue that can so often set in as soon as a battle of attrition is over. I suggested that we meet the next morning, to talk about the turn events had taken.
"Oh no!" she protested, "Not in the morning! I look horrible in the morning!" This last assertion turns out to be the only thing I've heard her say that is open to refutation.

At 10 a.m. the next day, I found her outside her home in Pelham, N.Y., in prosperous Westchester County, looking the very picture of blond, suburban poise: neat hair, pearly teeth, understated jewelry, crisp white cotton shirt, laundered blue jeans, blue flip-flops, pink toenails. She was hauling empty garbage cans off the sidewalk and back onto her drive, where her SUV was parked. Two dogs barked their greetings as we stepped into a house so immaculate that it was hard to believe it was kept not by a Full-time Homemaker, but by a Full-time Activist.

" 'Activist'. . . I'm not entirely happy with the term," she said to me with mild reproof. "I'm a citizen." We were seated in her small office--a place where Mexican oil paintings vied for space with pictures of her brother and a collage of yellow Post-it Notes on the wall. This was, in fact, the one part of her house that was less than perfectly ordered; I confess that I was reassured by this--Ms. Burlingame, disconcertingly, can come across as a seemingly flawless person on a seemingly flawless mission.

This was not the view, of course, of the men she took on at the Freedom Center. "They dismissed me as a Westchester housewife," Ms. Burlingame said, more in mirth than in indignation. She was referring, principally, to Tom Bernstein, the center's chairman, best known before this project as a founder of Manhattan's Chelsea Piers leisure complex. Mr. Bernstein led a triumvirate, along with Peter Kunhardt (the creative director of the center and a filmmaker of repute) and Richard Tofel (the president and COO of the center, and formerly the assistant publisher of The Wall Street Journal), that sought to derail Ms. Burlingame's opposition to the Freedom Center.
"When I talked to Tom Bernstein in person about what they were about to do at the center," Ms. Burlingame recounted, "he said to me, 'You know, 9/11, if we don't put it in a broader context, it will be forgotten. It will not stand the test of time if we do not put it in a broader historical context.' The arrogance of this was stunning. And when I told him that Ground Zero was, to the 9/11 family people, and especially the military, a sacred place, and that you cannot put anything on this site that ignores that, denigrates that, marginalizes that, or does not give it the acknowledgment that is due . . . he looked at me blankly. Completely blankly. They were trying to cut 9/11 out of it completely."

So is there no broader context for 9/11? "Absolutely!" she exclaimed, chafing mildly at the idea that she might have come across as one-dimensional. "Of course there is! But one of the challenges of putting together a memorial museum is doing it in real time. This history is still unfolding. We have these people who are still at large, not the least of whom is Osama bin Laden. . . . So when people say, 'Hurry, hurry, hurry, and build this,' I say, 'Why? We still don't have a grasp on the full story here.' "

Here, Ms. Burlingame resorts to her greatest strength--forensic rigor acquired at law school (where she went, at the age of 37, after working for TWA as a flight attendant for several tedious years): "You can't tell the broader story of 9/11 and not talk about terrorism, or Islamo-fascism, or the jihad. . . . But in the Freedom Center's 49-page report they never once mention bin Laden. The words 'al Qaeda' never appear anywhere in it. There's nothing about the war on terrorism."

This is the woman Messrs. Bernstein and company dismissed as a hausfrau. How they did so is baffling: She has the facts at her fingertips, the confidence of a person at ease with authority, and the rhetorical skills of one at home with the language. How could they have believed that she would just go away? "They were ambitious," Ms. Burlingame replied, "and myopic. Bernstein is an ideologue, a true believer. He told me that he was prepared to dedicate the next 10 years of his life to the center." They patronized her: By her account, Mr. Bernstein said, "Debra, we're calling on people from all sides of the political spectrum . . . very balanced . . . people who are very dignified." To which she responded, "Oh really! Tell me who you have that's conservative. And he replied, 'Fareed Zakaria' [editor of Newsweek International]. I squinched my face up and said, 'He's not conservative,' and Bernstein goes, 'Naah . . . he's not, yeah, you're right, he's not.' "

This gets to the heart of the problem: The Freedom Center's progenitors were convinced--utterly and adamantly--of their own reasonableness. In an inversion of the usual conditions of passion, the Forces of Rage--here, led by Ms. Burlingame--had an impressive clarity of vision; by contrast, the self-styled Forces of Reason were blinded by their own certitudes. (Ms. Burlingame insists that the blind include the editorial page of the New York Times, which twice attacked her by name--describing her, even, as "the Governor's Proxy"--yet did not consider it important to print a letter from her in response. The page's editor, Gail Collins, would not, it seems, take her calls. "A very, very snotty assistant said to me, 'Let me take your information.' Ms. Collins was 'busy,' 'unavailable' . . .")
Finding interlocutors on the telephone wasn't always this hard for Ms. Burlingame. After her op-ed appeared in the Journal in June, she received calls from political players in Washington, asking her to drop her opposition to Mr. Bernstein's project. She is prepared, only, to name John Bridgeland--a former director of the Domestic Policy Council in President Bush's White House, deputy policy director for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign, and, after 9/11, the first director of the USA Freedom Corps Office. He called twice "to discourage me . . . no, not discourage, to 'explain what was actually going to be happening [at the Freedom Center],' and that I'd 'got it all wrong.' I said to him, 'Are you aware of some of the exhibits that they're talking about?' " He wasn't. "Here's a man who didn't know what was happening, yet he was picking up the phone and trying to effect an outcome."

Ms. Burlingame's face, never inscrutable, reflects afresh some of the fury she must have felt at the time. Composure is only a part of her arsenal. "Anger can be very, very productive, as long as it's focused and you don't lose your mind. After the London bombings [in July], someone asked me, 'Have we become complacent? Do you miss 9/11, when people had more unity?' And I say, 'No, no, no. What I miss is the anger. And the clarity. That's what I miss.' "

Mr. Varadarajan is editorial features editor at The Wall Street Journal.

BrooklynRider

October 4th, 2005, 04:12 PM

No, what I believe is based on the facts as reported by reputable historic, academic and journalistic sources...

Exactly which sources would those be? Because YOU believe them doesn't make them reputable. And, there are as many academics endowed by funding from corporations and highly partisan individuals to make "academia" itself a joke. Name your sources. The New York Times? Jayson Blair. CNN? Gallop Polls Wall Street Journal? Paul Gigot Spare me the high brow condescension.

What you believe is based on conspiracy internet sites. ...

That's quite a crystal ball you have there. Care to share with me what Zippy's beliefs are based on? What Edward's beliefs are based on? What Stern's beliefs are based on? You haven't countered anything I've said with a fact. Just an attack on me.

They are not equivalent, just like evolution and "intelligent design" are not equivalent....

Apparently, you are an expert on every subject out there. Thank you for clearing this subject up for me with with more factual information.

As someone who lived through one horrible terrorist attack that destroyed my community and my home and left me displaced, I can no longer laugh off idiotic Islamist propaganda and let it go unchallenged, because the militant Islamists threaten to undermine civilization and all that is good in the world, and turn us back to the dark ages....

That's a page right out of the "victim's families'" play book. No one could possibly have had as terrible experience as you. Because of what YOU went through, I should defer and you should feel emboldened to dismiss my comments.

...I can no longer laugh off idiotic Islamist propaganda and let it go unchallenged, because the militant Islamists threaten to undermine civilization and all that is good in the world, and turn us back to the dark ages....

Yeah, the Islamic propaganda - blah, blah, blah. And before that, the communist propaganda - blah, blah, blah. If we spent as much money and energy feeding, clothing and educating the world as we do killing people, we wouldn't have this problem. And - check YOUR facts. The "Islamic" problem is not about religion it is very specific and started at a very specific time: The U.S. stayed in Saudi Arabia after the first gulf war. THAT is what ignited these attacks. Before that, we did not have this "Islamic" threat. Iran? We supported the Shah - a dictator. Iraq? We supported Saddam - a dictator. Saudi Arabia - we supported the Faud Family - dictators. Egypt? We support Mubarak - a dictator. Afghanistan? We supported the Taliban.

The current "terrorist threat" derives from our continued military presence in Saudi Arabia - home to Mecca. This isn't some "idiotic Islamic propaganda" - there are reasons that apparently your "reputable", "academic" and ""respected journalist" sources haven't told you about.

But the militant Islamists hit us under Clinton (several times), they hit us under Bush, and they surely will hit us under our next dozen presidents, whether you personally like those presidents' political affiliations or not. Unless we can separate ourselves from obnoxious partisan politics and get real about the enemy who is trying to destroy us, we are all going down the tubes....

Right - see above.

I'd rather have a shopping mall than a memorial. All this will memorialize is the terrorist victory.

BPC

October 4th, 2005, 04:46 PM

Yeah, the Islamic propaganda - blah, blah, blah. And before that, the communist propaganda - blah, blah, blah. If we spent as much money and energy feeding, clothing and educating the world as we do killing people, we wouldn't have this problem. And - check YOUR facts. The "Islamic" problem is not about religion it is very specific and started at a very specific time: The U.S. stayed in Saudi Arabia after the first gulf war. THAT is what ignited these attacks. Before that, we did not have this "Islamic" threat. Iran? We supported the Shah - a dictator. Iraq? We supported Saddam - a dictator. Saudi Arabia - we supported the Faud Family - dictators. Egypt? We support Mubarak - a dictator. Afghanistan? We supported the Taliban.

The current "terrorist threat" derives from our continued military presence in Saudi Arabia - home to Mecca. This isn't some "idiotic Islamic propaganda" - there are reasons that apparently your "reputable", "academic" and ""respected journalist" sources haven't told you about.

Wow. So much Islamist propaganda, so little time to respond. OK, just the basics. What they don't tell you on your 9/11 conspiracy web sites. The Islamists are not democrats, and do not object to dictatorships. Indeed, the one regime that gave them state sponsorship, the Taleban, was the most repressive regime in the history of mankind. What they want is world Islamist rule. As for Saudi Arabia, our troops were there at the invitation of the rulers of that country, to protect that country from an external threat, the Iraqi army amassed just outside its border. Once that threat was removed, we left and have no military presence left in that country tpday, contrary to your post. BTW, it was Clinton who kept the troops in Saudi Arabia for eight years, Bush who pulled them out. So much for your theory of the Islamists as liberal democrats! As for our support of various dictators, again that policy has been consistent throughout the past dozen presidents, republican and democrat, and for good reason. There is no viable democratic alternative in most of these countries. The only current alternative to the secular dictators who afford their citizens some rights are Islamist dictators who would afford their citizens no rights. The only American president who has actively supported democracy in Islamic countries is the current one, who brought democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh yeah, that's right, you think that means we deserved to have our civilian airplanes hijacked and crashed into office towers, even though 9/11 came first, because the Islamists knew it was "hit or be hit." Do you even read what you type? Even the NAZIs had propagandists before WW2, but they at least were good at what they did.