MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-09-16 |
| FROM | Ruben I Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] The latest on the WTC Development
|
September 13, 2003 Ground Zero Plan Seems to Circle Back By EDWARD WYATT
When the revised master plan for the rebuilding of the World Trade
Center is released this month, it will include scores of changes to
Daniel Libeskind's design, both major alterations and minor refinements,
many of them never before seen in public.
The plan will retain its signature elements ? the recessed memorial
area, the 1,776-foot spire that will be taller than the original towers,
and a grand new transportation terminal. But other features will come
into sharper focus, like a giant waterfall that has so far attracted
scant attention and shrinking "urban parks" that in reality are little
more than streets with flower beds.
The secretive evolution of the plan contrasts sharply with the
continuing portrayal of the rebuilding process as one of the most open
and inclusive civic building projects in memory. Government officials,
architects, civic groups and developers still speak in awestruck tones
about the town hall meeting in the summer of 2002, when more than 4,000
New Yorkers spent hours discussing, of all things, urban planning.
Ever since, the officials overseeing the rebuilding effort have
congratulated themselves for their courage to go back to the drawing
board after the public rejected the original six designs for the site.
And they have cited that process for their defense of the Libeskind plan
from mutations that would rob it of its singularity.
"It was the aggressive outreach to a broader public that resulted in the
consensus behind this plan," Gov. George E. Pataki said in an interview
last month.
As much as the Libeskind plan evolved by the will of the public,
however, it also turned on the political needs of Mr. Pataki, who was
running for re-election last fall. The governor's decrees, like his
early declaration under pressure from victims' families that the
footprints of the towers be preserved as a memorial, sometimes created
public opinion as much as reflected it.
Mr. Libeskind's plan, for all its ingenious originality, was just as
prized for its flexibility. There also were financial considerations:
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owner of the trade
center, wanted to guarantee its revenues from the site, and its
leaseholder, the developer Larry A. Silverstein, stood alone in his
ability to pay for the rebuilding, thanks to his control of the twin
towers insurance money.
Though the new master plan could be further revised in the environmental
impact review, by most accounts it will be superior to that of the World
Trade Center design of the 1970's. It will reconnect neighborhoods that
were split apart by the original project and provide a somber memorial
to the victims of the 9/11 attack.
In the minds of some officials, though, it also seems reminiscent of a
design rejected by the thousands of citizen planners who packed that
July 2002 town hall meeting in the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center.
Politics of the Memorial
Months before that huge meeting, rebuilding officials knew that almost
all the decisions about the site would be driven by the memorial to the
victims of the Sept. 11 attack, leaving few options for its basic
design.
In early 2002, Louis R. Tomson, the president of the Lower Manhattan
Development Corporation, and others advised Mr. Pataki that the most
sensible plan was to re-establish Fulton and Greenwich Streets through
the site. That would carve the property into quadrants, saving the
largest section ? the southwest corner, where the towers had stood for
some 30 years ? for a memorial. The restored streets would physically
separate the memorial from the remaining nine acres, which could then be
used for office space and the rail connections that carried commuters to
the financial district.
"It was pretty obvious where the memorial was going," Mr. Tomson said in
an interview last month. "And it was clear we were going to put the rail
station where the rails are."
The proposal would satisfy several critical constituencies: the victims'
relatives, who wanted significant space for a memorial; neighborhood
residents and architects, who wanted to break up the much-lamented
16-acre superblock; and the Port Authority, which wanted to keep
receiving $120 million in annual rents from the site.
By doing so, it would help to fulfill another significant goal: muting
any significant controversy over the ground zero project that could
disrupt Mr. Pataki's re-election campaign.
When development officials unveiled the six original proposals, all of
them had streets and pedestrian walkways running through the site, and
four preserved the footprints of the towers for a memorial. It quickly
became evident, however, that the Port Authority's goal of rebuilding
all 10 million square feet of lost office space was fundamentally
incompatible with leaving so much open space.
"We all knew from the beginning that you can't take half of the site
away and put the same bulk back," said Alexander Garvin, who was then
the director of planning, design and development for the Lower Manhattan
Development Corporation.
Even Beyer Blinder Belle, the architecture firm that created most of the
six designs, told the Port Authority as much. And the thousands of
private citizens at the Javits Center said it even more loudly.
But the rough outlines of some rejected designs seem to have endured.
One in particular, called Memorial Plaza, included an eye-catching tower
at one corner, topped by a huge television antenna, and a large, open
memorial space including the tower footprints. Long-absent streets were
re-established through the middle of the former superblock, and a row of
office buildings joined with the tower in an L-shaped formation around
the memorial.
Mr. Libeskind and Mr. Garvin reject the similarity as coincidental at
best. But Joseph Seymour, the executive director of the Port Authority,
sees it differently. "When we roll it out," he said, "the land-use plan
is going to be almost exactly what Beyer Blinder Belle proposed."
To address the perceived shortcomings in the early proposals, in August
2002 the development corporation called for the world's most prominent
architects to think grandly about the future of ground zero.
Port Authority officials were livid at the development corporation's
attempt to establish its own design for what the authority saw as its
site, so the call for entries deliberately stated: "This is not a design
competition and will not result in the selection of a final plan."
Still, Kevin Rampe, who succeeded Mr. Tomson as president of the
development corporation, said the project evolved into a full-blown
competition because of "the prestige of the architects involved and what
they did in exhibiting their plans."
"They ignored the rules and did what they did best," Mr. Rampe said. "I
don't think any of them thought about whether it was a competition of
ideas or a competition of plans."
In December, the agency unveiled nine plans from seven groups of
architects at the World Financial Center's Winter Garden. First to
present was Mr. Libeskind. When he finished, applause echoed through the
Winter Garden. None of the eight plans that followed received as great a
response.
It was not an accident that Mr. Libeskind was the first to present his
design, officials said later. As the design teams met with rebuilding
officials every two weeks during the competition, they said, it became
clear that Mr. Libeskind's "Memory Foundations" was the plan to beat.
When the public weighed in, it favored Sir Norman Foster's "kissing
towers," which evoked the original twin towers but left little room for
a restored street grid. In the minds of the officials, however, the only
feasible alternatives were the World Cultural Center, by the Think team,
which included Rafael Viñoly and Frederic Schwartz, and a design by
Peterson/Littenberg Architecture and Design. Peterson/Littenberg hurt
its cause when Barbara Littenberg, one of the principals, criticized the
design competition and rebuilding officials at a public forum,
infuriating Mr. Tomson and others.
And Then There Were Two
The competition was soon whittled down to Mr. Libeskind and Think. Yet
the final decision was made less by consensus or by appeal to the
public, than by fiat, born of indignation.
The two teams approached the final weeks of the competition in very
different ways, which had significant bearing on their fortunes. The
Think team spent nearly all of its time working on the elaborate
engineering of its cultural towers, twin cylinders of scaffolding within
which multiple buildings and viewing platforms would be suspended.
Mr. Libeskind, meanwhile, spent several days cloistered with Port
Authority officials, working to satisfy their desires for underground
parking and mechanical systems.
"The genius of Daniel Libeskind," said Mr. Seymour, the Port Authority
official, "is that he worked hard with us to understand all the
engineering and transportation elements on the site. He showed his
flexibility."
For example, Mr. Libeskind agreed to raise the floor of the memorial
site from 70 feet below ground level to 30 feet, allowing for the
bracing of the foundation walls and an expanded train station and
pedestrian concourses below the memorial.
When the two teams made presentations in late February to the officials
who would choose the winner, nearly all of the Think team's time was
spent explaining the engineering of its towers. Mr. Libeskind, however,
reprised his stirring monologue portraying his design as the embodiment
of America's hopes and dreams.
The day before the architects made their final pitches, a committee of
development corporation directors had recommended that the Think team's
design be chosen, and one committee member told The New York Times, "We
don't expect anyone to overrule us." Aides say that comment incensed Mr.
Pataki and caused him to favor Mr. Libeskind.
The Think design was favored by Daniel E. Doctoroff, the deputy mayor
for economic development and rebuilding. But his boss, Mayor Michael R.
Bloomberg, was dismayed by the cost of the towers, which without
accounting for any office buildings was estimated at more than $800
million, compared to $330 million for the Libeskind plan.
"How can we spend so much on the memorial?" Mr. Bloomberg asked in a
meeting after the two presentations, according to two people who were
present.
Both the mayor and the governor also expressed a basic dislike for the
Think design. Mr. Bloomberg compared it to industrial natural-gas
storage tanks, and Mr. Pataki said it reminded him of a skeleton. Hours
before a 10-member steering committee of officials from the Port
Authority, the development corporation and the mayor's and governor's
offices was to meet to choose a winner, the decision was already sealed.
Though they picked the design, neither Mr. Pataki nor Mr. Bloomberg was
in a position to pay for its construction. That would fall to Mr.
Silverstein, the developer and leaseholder, who was expecting billions
of dollars in insurance payments for the destroyed towers.
Just before the competition had been narrowed to the two finalists, Mr.
Silverstein sent a letter to rebuilding officials claiming that none of
the proposed designs met his requirements.
After Mr. Libeskind was selected, Mr. Silverstein continued to push for
his own priorities. This summer, Mr. Libeskind agreed that David M.
Childs, who had designed the new 7 World Trade Center for Mr.
Silverstein, would be the primary architect on the 1,776-foot Freedom
Tower, which will dominate the Manhattan skyline.
Mr. Libeskind said that made sense because he has never built a
skyscraper. But Mr. Silverstein went further, asking other architects
about their interest in designing the remaining commercial buildings.
Already the Port Authority has hired another architect, Santiago
Calatrava, to design the train station. Although he will follow
guidelines set by Mr. Libeskind, his characteristic style, gracefully
symmetrical forms, could conflict with Mr. Libeskind's angular
geometries.
Mr. Libeskind says these are all normal accommodations that an architect
has to make for any client on any project. "People are being educated by
the process," Mr. Libeskind said. "They say to me, `You won, what's the
problem?' But I tell them, `No, there's an investor who has a say in
this.' "
An Evolving Master Plan
The accommodations in Mr. Libeskind's design, however, are extensive.
For example, rebuilding officials gushed about his plans for the
intersection of the restored Fulton and Greenwich Streets.
John C. Whitehead, the development corporation chairman, said it would
be "one of the world's most majestic crossroads," a grand piazza on a
par with the open plazas of European capitals, bounded by Mr.
Libeskind's Wedge of Light and the Park of Heroes.
But the open space has been shrinking. Fulton Street, rather than being
part of an open pedestrian plaza, is likely to be active with buses
traveling from the Hudson River ferry terminal to the South Street
Seaport.
The green space in the Park of Heroes, which originally was to mirror
the Wedge of Light across Greenwich Street, has been cut roughly in half
by a redesign of the Freedom Tower and the attached office building.
So the grand piazza appears to be, in recent renderings, more like a
street with flower beds. And at the site's southern edge, the proposed
Liberty Street Park is not much wider than the sidewalk next to it.
"They are urban parks," Mr. Libeskind said last month. "No, it's not
Central Park. But the point is to make a connection through West Street
to the Hudson."
Mr. Libeskind also said he has made changes to the borders of the Wedge
of Light ? a feature meant to mimic how the sun was shining on the
morning of Sept. 11, 2001 ? but he declined to elaborate.
The architect acknowledged that he has not fully designed the waterfall
proposed for the eastern edge of the south tower footprint, which would
help filter out street noise. The waterfall has received almost no
attention in public reviews, but as originally depicted, it would be
mammoth ? up to 100 feet tall, rivaling the world's largest man-made
waterfalls.
The effect of these prospective changes has unnerved some people who
have supported the planning process. Robert Yaro, the president of the
Regional Plan Association, a civic group, said rebuilding officials were
very responsive to public opinion last year. "Since then, it's been a
less open process," he said. "That has been unfortunate."
But Mr. Doctoroff, the deputy mayor, said the general lack of dissension
indicated that the public supported what has happened. "I think it's
remarkable the level of praise that not only the process but the end
result got," he said.
Mr. Libeskind and others credit the aggressiveness of civic groups with
helping to preserve elements of his plan. "The vigilance of the public
in this process has raised the stakes," he said. "People feel very much
that they are a part of this." -- __________________________ Brooklyn
Linux Solutions __________________________ DRM is THEFT - We are the
STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.inns.net <-- Happy
Clients http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and
articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html -
See the New Downtown Brooklyn....
1-718-382-0585
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
