View Full Version : The Memorial Competition

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

March 14th, 2003, 05:19 AM
March 14, 2003

9/11 Memorial Will Pay Tribute to All Victims


A memorial to the victims of Sept. 11 will recognize all of those killed as a single group rather than as members of separate groups like firefighters, rescue workers or World Trade Center tenants, rebuilding officials said yesterday.

Directors of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation agreed at a board meeting yesterday to adopt a resolution laying out the guidelines for the memorial's content, including the provision that all the victims receive comparable recognition.

The agency also extended a contract with Daniel Libeskind, the architect whose design for the World Trade Center site was chosen for development, to allow him to do further work on the design of the memorial area at the site. Including the $180,000 extension approved yesterday, Mr. Libeskind has so far earned $548,817 for his work.

The agreement on a single memorial will be formalized by a vote of the board next month, John C. Whitehead, the chairman of the board, said yesterday. The vote was delayed until the board's April meeting pending the drafting of a formal resolution, but none of the 10 board members attending yesterday expressed disagreement with the provision.

The issue of whether to separately identify groups of victims, particularly uniformed rescue workers, has been the subject of a discussion for months. Firefighters' groups and others have testified publicly and written letters to the development corporation supporting a separate tribute.

John Finucane, a retired Fire Department lieutenant who helped put together the group Advocates for a 9/11 Fallen Heroes Memorial, said in an interview yesterday that the rescue workers who were killed deserved recognition apart from the others.

"I've heard people say that they were just doing their job," Mr. Finucane said of the firefighters and other rescue workers who died in the collapse of the twin towers. "But a firefighter knows when he's not supposed to be somewhere. And once those firefighters knew what they had in that building, and they decided to keep going up anyway, they were no longer doing their job."

Stephen J. Cassidy, the president of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, said there should be "some designation for those people who died willingly, who risked their lives to save others, as opposed to those who were tragically caught up in the consequences" of the attack.

Several groups representing victims' families said they felt otherwise. "We believe each individual who lost their life on that tragic day should be treated with honor and extraordinary respect," said Edie Lutnick, the executive director of the Cantor Fitzgerald Relief Fund. Nearly 700 employees of Cantor, a bond investment and trading firm that was in the trade center, were killed in the attack.

Thomas S. Johnson, a development corporation director whose son, a financial analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, was killed at the trade center, said a committee of directors overseeing the development of the memorial "feels very strongly that what is called for is one memorial."

"That's got to be stated," Mr. Johnson said. "It should be very clear that that is a policy of this board." Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Mr. Johnson added, "One memorial could have four separate pieces, but not four pieces for four different groups."
The development corporation's board also discussed revisions to the memorial mission statement and program, which identifies the design elements that will be included in the memorial competition.

Among them, the board called for the memorial to say that those killed in the attack were "murdered by terrorists."

Previously, a draft statement said simply that the victims were "killed."

Another revision calls for the memorial to "enhance the sacred quality of the overall site" rather than just the space designated for the memorial. And a principle that called for the memorial to "evolve over time with our understanding of the events" was modified to say simply "evolve over time." A report by the development corporation said that the change reflected the view of many "that it would be impossible to understand the rationale of such a savage attack."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

March 14th, 2003, 07:23 AM
And a principle that called for the memorial to "evolve over time with our understanding of the events" was modified to say simply "evolve over time."

What's the point of this principle ?
I don't like it. As if the history had to be rewritten.

March 14th, 2003, 09:11 AM
Star Ledger...

WTC memorial to include the'93 victims

Friday, March 14, 2003


NEW YORK -- Tributes to the victims of the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center will be incorporated in one memorial at the devastated site, the planners of Ground Zero's future said yesterday.

The Lower Manhattan Development Corp. will include remembrances to the six people killed in the 1993 bombing in a memorial to be built on the site where more than 2,800 died on 9/11.

LMDC officials are revising the memorial mission statement to prominently include the victims of the bomb that exploded in an underground parking garage. The statement, expected to be approved next month, says the memorial's goal is, in part, to: "remember and honor the thousands of innocent men, women and children murdered by terrorists in the horrific attacks of Feb. 26, 1993, and Sept. 11, 2001."

Family members of the six who died in the bombing have clamored for more recognition for their loved ones in the wake of 9/11. Last month, on the 10th anniversary of the first attack, officials announced that a piece from the original red granite memorial, which was destroyed on 9/11, would be included in a rebuilt, temporary tribute to the six.

"We're all thrilled to be included," said Michael Macko, whose father, William Macko of Bayonne, was killed. "It's so important to us not to be forgotten. ...We were never looking for anything separate, just to be included."

The LMDC plans an international design competition this spring for the memorial, with a tentative goal of selecting a winner by Sept. 11, the second anniversary of the destruction of the Twin Towers by the hijackers of two airliners.

LMDC board member Thomas Johnson, whose son Scott was killed on 9/11, said agency members formulating the criteria for a memorial felt "strongly that there be one memorial with no hierarchy" of victims. Other board members agreed and an official vote is expected next month.

Tom Roger of New Haven, Conn., whose 24-year-old daughter, Jean, was aboard one of the hijacked planes, agreed with the idea of one memorial and giving the victims of the 1993 attack prominent mention in the mission statement.

"From the beginning, we've pretty much agreed that was a reasonable thing to do," said Roger, who serves on the LMDC's memorial committee

March 14th, 2003, 08:47 PM
The Heroes Park will do enough to honor the rescuers.

Another revision calls for the memorial to "enhance the sacred quality of the overall site" rather than just the space designated for the memorial.

How can that be achieved? Is it even desirable?

April 27th, 2003, 01:40 PM
I think it would be a good idea to have a design competition held by wired new york for the wtc memorial design.....then submitted by wired new york....it may hold more clout than say a design submitted by joe blow....anyone interested in that, yes, no, maybe so...? *

April 27th, 2003, 01:54 PM
Another revision calls for the memorial to "enhance the sacred quality of the overall site" rather than just the space designated for the memorial.

How can that be achieved? Is it even desirable?

If it means that it shouldn't overwhelm or clash with the rest of the site then I can understand it. Otherwise, I can't quite imagine what it would be.

I'll say this about the much maligned pit, it certainly clearly demarcates how far the memorial can extend its tendrils into the site.

I think it would be a good idea to have a design competition held by wired new york for the wtc memorial design.....

I have what I think is a good idea for the memorial but doubt that I have the artistic or rendering abilities to present it properly.

April 27th, 2003, 05:32 PM

That's a good one. :)
Memorial Kudzu.

April 28th, 2003, 05:20 PM
I only noticed one thing in reading through the site that I'm disappointed in. They require 2500 sq. ft. for a place for the un-identified remains of the victims.

There is also a requirement for an area for family members and loved ones of victims. I wonder if they are going to issue special badges for access?

TLOZ Link5
April 28th, 2003, 06:28 PM
Time to play Devil's Advocate, and with quite generic language...

I can understand the families' desire for special access to the memorial. *They are the most affected out of any of us who weren't in—or near—the buildings when the attack occured. *If they want to—shall I say—"be with" their loved ones, I don't think it's necessarily fair that they should be forced to wait on a huge line amongst thousands of tourists who will not feel the same personal connection to the site as they would.

How security or park rangers or whoever would police the memorial would be able to distinguish between a geniune family member and someone who simply wants to skip the line is something to debate, however.

April 29th, 2003, 05:31 AM
April 29, 2003

In 9/11 Design, Rules Are Set to Be Broken

Officials overseeing the competition to design a memorial to the victims of the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001, and the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center promised yesterday that all entries would be considered, even those that stray from the official guidelines for the placement and content of the memorial.

At a news conference announcing the start of the design competition, some of the jurors who will select the winner encouraged entrants to challenge those boundaries. Maya Lin, the designer of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and one of 13 jurors in the World Trade Center competition, challenged entrants to come up with "a new way of defining what a memorial can be."

Another juror, James E. Young, a scholar with expertise in memorials and remembrance, said of entrants: "Anything they might have in mind, any response, will be considered here. We want architects and artists — anybody who submits — to feel they can go where their imaginations, where their mourning needs to take them in order to articulate some relationship to this terrible loss."

In essentially voiding some of the guidelines that they had just released, the officials said they were trying to signal that neither the memorial competition nor the jury would be influenced by the kind of political pressure that shaped the selection of Daniel Libeskind's design for the trade center site.

Earlier this year, a committee of directors of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation recommended a design by a group called Think, one of two finalists in the site competition. Think proposed two latticework towers as a symbolic replacement for the destroyed twin towers.

But Gov. George E. Pataki and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who favored Mr. Libeskind's design, overruled the directors.

Kevin Rampe, the interim president of the development corporation, which is overseeing the competition, said yesterday that officials were open to the possibility that "it may take going outside of those guidelines" for competitors to express their creativity.

As an example of breaking boundaries, Dr. Young pointed to Ms. Lin, who he said "broke some of the rules on the way to her spectacular Vietnam Veterans Memorial," and to Mr. Libeskind, the architect of the site design, who "had to break all kinds of rules to make his design."

Mr. Libeskind will be a technical consultant to the jury, but he will not be involved in the selection of the winning design, Mr. Rampe said.

Competitors have until May 29 to register and until June 30 to submit their designs. The field will be narrowed to about five finalists, and the winner will be selected in the fall, officials said.

The officials said that all entries must conform to the display guidelines published by the development corporation. Those can be seen at www.wtcsitememorial.org on the Internet or obtained by faxing a request, with the entrant's mailing address, to 800-717-5699.

A $25 entry fee is required to register for the competition. Officials said the money would go toward building the memorial.

The guidelines say that competitors may create a memorial "of any type, shape, height or concept," that includes five physical elements: a recognition of each victim of the attacks; an area for quiet contemplation; a separate area for visitation by the families of the victims; a 2,500-square-foot area for the unidentified human remains collected at the trade center site; and a way to make visible the footprints of the original twin towers.

Officials expect all those elements to be placed within the 4.5 acres bounded by the walls built to hold back the waters of the Hudson River. The walls are at the center of Mr. Libeskind's design.

But the guidelines also note that areas outside the sunken area can be included in a design and "may be considered by the jury if, in collaboration with the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, they are deemed feasible and consistent with site plan objectives."

The jury, made up largely of artists, museum curators and design professionals, also includes a downtown resident and the spouse of a victim of the 9/11 attack.

Paula Grant Berry, a juror whose husband, David, was killed at the trade center, said the memorial would "be for all the people of New York and really for the world, but especially for all the families."

Ms. Berry added: "I am determined that a memorial be built where we will be proud to bring our children. We must never lose sight of why we are doing this and who we are doing it for. Magnificent people died, and we must be magnificent in how we honor them."

Asked what advice she had for those entering the competition, Ms. Lin said: "You enter a competition not necessarily to win but to say what you truly believe needs to be done there. I think you should think about what could a memorial be here. Is it a place? Is it an object? Does it frame the site? I hope we get submissions from people who just believe that their solution is right."

Copyright 2003*The New York Times Company

April 29th, 2003, 11:37 AM
TLOZ, do you really think there would be a line to get into the memorial? Interesting, I wasn't envisioning it like that. I sort of thought it more like the Washington Memorials - enter wherever and whenever. Maybe on Sept. 11 and other big days relatives of course should have preferred access, but other than that, providing "a separate area for visitation by the families of the victims" is one rule I would certainly break.

(Edited by NYatKNIGHT at 11:40 am on April 29, 2003)

April 29th, 2003, 01:17 PM
I only envisioned a line at the museum entrance, but there are three other access points, two on the corners of West St. I wonder if there will be controlled entry at these places?

April 29th, 2003, 01:32 PM
I can't imagine the process would be anything like the Statue of Liberty, for example. Security presence for sure, but a controlled line and a bag check?

Picture both the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and the Vietnam Memorial wall. There are multiple access points, people just walk up to it, but the mood is serious and somber, and with the presence of guards the site is respected and protected.

TLOZ Link5
April 29th, 2003, 05:59 PM
Perhaps, but most Washington memorials have buffer zones between them and the streets to prevent crowding when visitors approach them. *New York is obviously too dense to afford that sort of space. *I could obviously be wrong about this.

April 30th, 2003, 09:57 AM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 5:20 pm on April 28, 2003
They require 2500 sq. ft. for a place for the un-identified remains of the victims.

Assuming the area required is being dictated by the amount of unidentified remains, it is a bit staggering to imagine how much of the remains haven't been identified.

April 30th, 2003, 10:19 AM
To put it in perspective, 2500 sq ft is about 1/8 of one of the footprints.

May 31st, 2003, 06:19 AM
May 31, 2003

Memorial Jury to Decide How to List 9/11 Rescuers


A top rebuilding official said yesterday that the guidelines for the World Trade Center memorial were flexible enough to allow the professional affiliations of firefighters and other rescue workers to be listed on it with their names, if the memorial jury chose a design that did so.

The issue has been the subject of aggressive lobbying and demonstrations by firefighters and other rescue workers in recent weeks. While some firefighters have campaigned for a separate memorial for rescue workers, a larger number have asked that "F.D.N.Y." or other such affiliations be listed with the names of rescue workers who were killed at the trade center.

That request has been opposed by many relatives of other victims of the Sept. 11 attack. Some who oppose the idea have said that those identifiers set apart some victims as more worthy of recognition.

The issue is addressed ambiguously in the memorial guidelines; these say the memorial should "honor the loss of life equally and the contributions of all without establishing any hierarchies," but they also say it should "acknowledge all those who aided in rescue, recovery and healing."

Kevin Rampe, the interim president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which is overseeing the memorial design competition, said yesterday that he wanted "to correct some misperceptions about the memorial guidelines, particularly about individual recognition of victims."

"The term `hierarchy of life' means that the memorial should not place a higher value on one person's life over another," Mr. Rampe said. "Beyond that, we leave it to the memorial designers and the jury to interpret."

In addition, "names of victims need not be listed alphabetically or, for that matter, even listed at all," he said. "The program calls for each individual to be recognized in the memorial. How to do so is best left to the creative minds of the thousands of designers and, ultimately, to the jury."

Mr. Rampe also spoke skeptically of a proposal to raise the site of the memorial to ground level from its proposed position 30 feet below street level, where Daniel Libeskind, the architect of the site plan, wanted it to be surrounded by the foundation walls of the original World Trade Center site.

The proposal to raise the memorial to street level was made at a public hearing this week by Carl Weisbrod, a director of the development corporation. He said it was favored by downtown residents and businesspeople who want to make it easier to navigate the memorial site on foot.

Yesterday, Mr. Rampe said that while the competition guidelines called for designers to be mindful of the memorial's urban setting and the need for people to get easily from one side of the site to the other, "it's important that the ultimate memorial design be consistent with the overall site plan and the spirit of that site plan."

"A memorial design that took away from the spirit of the Libeskind plan would not be an acceptable design," he added.

Mr. Rampe's remarks came at a news conference announcing that 13,683 people had registered to submit designs in the memorial competition, nearly three times the number that registered for the competition for the Oklahoma City National Memorial and five times as many as registered for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial competition.

About 13 percent of those registered in Oklahoma City and 55 percent in the case of the Vietnam memorial actually submitted designs.

The registrants come from all 50 states, several United States territories and 93 other countries. Submissions are due by June 30, and a winning design will be selected in the fall.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

May 31st, 2003, 08:35 AM
News Channel 4 now reports 16,000 people involved in the competition. They will have an interview with Libeskind tommorow at 6:30am, it might be worthwhile to tune in.

(Edited by Stern at 8:36 am on May 31, 2003)

June 5th, 2003, 09:50 AM
June 5, 2003

The 9/11 Memorial (2 Letters)

To the Editor:

Re "Demonstration Over Memorial" (photograph, May 29):

I am proud of my two brothers, both New York City firefighters, yet it disappoints me that members of the Fire Department refuse to accept a 9/11 memorial recognizing as equal the sacrifice made by all the Americans who were murdered that day.

No, the secretaries, kitchen help, brokers, tech people and other civilians who went to work at the World Trade Center did not choose to face death as part of their jobs. Yet when the unexpected — and, to this day, still unimaginable — struck, these men and women, without any specialized training or preparation, met their fates heroically, with courage, nobility and calm, as evidenced by their phone calls and e-mail messages as well as the accounts of survivors.

We have all breathed their dust: The nonuniformed Sept. 11 martyrs deserve better than second-class status for absorbing the blow that was directed at each and every one of us.

Brooklyn, May 30, 2003

To the Editor:

Contrary to what you report in "Demonstration Over Memorial" (photograph, May 29), no firefighters and none of the family members of those who sacrificed their lives on Sept. 11, 2001, called for "separate recognition" on a ground zero memorial. What we ask for is simple: that those who died in the line of duty at the World Trade Center be remembered as the firefighters, police officers and Emergency Medical Service personnel they were.

Some in the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation are against this, not because they oppose a "hierarchy" of victims, but rather because they plan to describe all who died there as heroes. Thus, identifying the firefighters would create, as some corporation officials define it, a hierarchy. Their word, not ours.

Bronx, May 29, 2003
The writer's brother, Capt. William F. Burke Jr. of Engine Company 21, died at the World Trade Center.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

June 5th, 2003, 12:27 PM
I attended the forum and these are very representative of the prevailing sentiments expressed. *What was both heartening and at times bordering on combative was the vigor and unity the FDNY exuded over this percieved slight. *The energy and frustration leveled directly at the jury seemed to me misguided, as the choice of how to designate each of the dead is ulimately incumbent on the memorial designers. *Even if the advocates for 'hero status' politely requested the jury to base their selection on how the dead are individually represented, I doubt if this is a good criteria for design selection. *Any reasonable designer making it to the final round will have much work to do retailoring their vision to the cacauphony of advocacy that will undoubtedly influence the final selection. *Adding FDNY after someones name,(if even cataloged) is not a big deal. *To reiterate my appeal to the jury; have faith in the artist.

June 27th, 2003, 08:56 AM
Memorial a big
deal, says Rudy

Thursday, June 26th, 2003

Rudy Giuliani wants to nearly double the size of the planned Ground Zero memorial - and believes federal intervention might be necessary to guarantee a fitting tribute. The ex-mayor said the "sacred ground" within the site's retaining walls - about 9 acres - should be preserved to honor those killed on Sept. 11, 2001.

Doing so would roughly double the area now proposed for the memorial by rebuilding officials, including Gov. Pataki.

"If it takes federal legislation to preserve it, then that's what should happen," Giuliani says in a videotape being shown this week to Congress by a coalition of victims' families.

Earlier in the 10-minute video, which includes comments from victims' loved ones, Giuliani says, "This should really be regarded as sacred ground."

Giuliani stops short of advocating an act of Congress in his call for a larger memorial. "Whether that's accomplished at the city level, the state level, the federal level, that's what really has to be accomplished," said Giuliani, who previously has said a memorial takes precedent over commercial development.

He said the area where the twin towers, 6 World Trade Center and the Marriott hotel stood should be set aside for the memorial. It was within that section where most of the nearly 2,800 victims' remains were recovered.

"Forty, fifty, sixty years from now, people are going to be very, very annoyed with us if we don't handle it correctly," Giuliani says on the tape that was filmed last week.

The official rebuilding plan, created by architect Daniel Libeskind, preserves about 4.5 acres of the 16-acre site for the memorial.

A 13-member memorial jury is expected to select a memorial design in October. The worldwide competition is being overseen by the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., the state-city agency that along with the Port Authority endorsed Libeskind's vision for the site.

Pataki's office did not respond to a request for comment.

LMDC spokesman Matt Higgins noted that thousands of people are taking part in the memorial design competition. "We are confident a fitting and lasting memorial will emerge," he said.

June 28th, 2003, 09:13 AM
from the Gotham Gazette:


One of the competition entrants has released his proposal.He has taken the suggestion that designs outside the boundaries would be considered to the extreme.


June 28th, 2003, 12:34 PM
Bye-Bye Winter Garden?
Extreme is right.

June 28th, 2003, 01:33 PM
Those mega-memorialists are so overzealous it's not even amusing. :angry:

June 28th, 2003, 02:49 PM
In reply to Member TAFisher123 (from pg. 1): *The rules of the WTC Memorial Competition state that all designs submitted must be anonymous - or be disqualified! *No entry may receive more weight than any other just because some esteemed organization or prominent personage has submitted the proposal.

In reply to Members JMGarcia's and TLOZ Link5's posts (from pg. 1): *I believe you may be confused by the WTC Memorial Competition program element which stipulates that around 2,500 square feet of space should be set aside in your design for the over 16,000 unidentified remains.

Currently the unidentified remains are stored by the NYC Coroner's Office in several "Reefer" trailers located around the city. *The plan is to provide a space at the memorial site which is not generally accessible to the public where the remains can be conveniently catalogued and safely stored for the continuing identification processes. * The Coroner's Office (and other city agencies) would control access to this space.

Although the rules state that this is to be the permanent and final resting place for the unidentified remains (in a big freezer???), I submitted an amateur design to the WTC Memorial Competition which suggests an alternative final resting place for the unidentified remains. *After a suitable amount of time has passed, (say 20 ~ 50 years) the remains which still elude the best scientific attempts at identification should be gathered together and cremated. *A representative portion of these ashes should then be distributed to each of the victim's families to provide them with some degree of closure to the events of 9/11 and the remaining ashes would then be permanently interred in a Memorial Crypt which I included in the design which I submitted to the Memorial Competition.

June 28th, 2003, 08:33 PM
It is a violation of competition rules to release any information concerning a design to a member of the press.

Therefore, this winter garden killer has already disqualified itself.

In addition, it would probably be wise not to post details on personal design submissions to this board for the same reason.

June 28th, 2003, 09:20 PM
He must have realized the problems associated with his design. It would block the new PA ferry terminal, and building out into the river, if allowed at all, would require a lengthy federal environmental review.

The article stated that he needed to "get his ideas down on paper,"

June 28th, 2003, 10:59 PM
I read the Gazette article and it touched on something I felt undercut the LMDC desire to have an "international" competition open to anyone over 18. Most people will not have the resources, even if they did have a good idea, to produce the drawings/representations to enter the competition.

I went to the Memorial Competition website and read the memorial guidelines and I was not sure how some of the guidlines and the mission statement could be committed to a built object. This is a matter of interpretation and that, considering the matter, would be too subjective to be universal.

June 29th, 2003, 10:58 AM
That's a nice point Chicagoan; the WTC Memorial Competition instructions did put a lot of emphasis on nebulous ideas such as "keeping the footprints visible" (either in actuality or symbolically) and in providing areas of "quiet contemplation and repose"; etc. *But I think these concepts just give the designer a guiding hand to freely turn these abstract thoughts into something solid - much like a composer evokes different emotions through his music; this is the challenge for the memorial designers!

As far as the instructions limiting the entrants to only established architects with unlimited resources; anybody who can scrounge up a 30" by 40" piece of foam core and the $25.00 dollar submission fee may enter! *A simple pencil sketch would suffice and if the design is compelling enough the jury might consider it!

June 29th, 2003, 12:31 PM
Artistry is not 100%, a good design concept needs some understanding of the rebuilding issues and groups. *This forum has been very useful in reading the pulse.

For myself the process of placing my visual images on paper was the most difficult. *My art background is 2D and *3D rendering of concepts was a challenge. *

If the design is lousy, no fancy 3D computer rendering will make it great. *

Pencil will work in the right hands - No computer was used in the design of the Chrysler, Flatiron, Woolworth, or *Empire State Building!

Remember, no design will please everyone.

June 29th, 2003, 12:48 PM
Im expecting most competition entries to be post-modern or contemporary. I am hoping for something that is modern in that it pushes boundaries....

June 29th, 2003, 01:48 PM
I guess that, in the end, only the results will bear this out. I will be happy to be wrong, but I am betting that the winners, chosen for further development, will have fancy graphics, renderings, and the like. You can have a good idea, but it IS, presentation, presentation, presentation. Libeskind is testament to that.

But I have another issue- were concepts to be submitted? In sudio I was tought that a concept is different thatn... say a more concrete vision. The first allows some modification and the latter does not. I am also betting that most of the winners will have very concrete and specific things in their proposals.

Disclaimer- I do not like the Libeskind plan.

August 24th, 2003, 11:35 PM
August 25, 2003

Memorial Space at Ground Zero Will Hold Unidentified Remains


The remains of more than a thousand people who died in the attack on the World Trade Center will be preserved in a memorial space built at ground zero, in the hope that science will advance to the point that they can be identified, according to city and state officials.

Many relatives of victims killed in the attack have asked that unidentified remains be interred at the former World Trade Center site. The challenge was to accommodate that wish in a way that did not complicate the project design but did preserve the remains for future scientific study.

Investigators have been unable to identify more than 12,000 remains — from body parts weighing as much as 100 pounds to those as small as a tooth or a bone chip — because in most cases the DNA, the genetic code unique to each individual, was too badly damaged, Shiya Ribowsky, the deputy director of investigation for the medical examiner's office said yesterday.

Faced with the limitations of modern science, the medical examiner's office has adopted an approach similar to one relied on thousands of years ago. The remains are being slowly dried, and when they are free of moisture, they will be vacuum-sealed individually in white opaque pouches, Mr. Ribowsky said.

This will relieve the memorial designers of having to include a refrigeration or freezer system in their plans and will ultimately do a better job of preserving the remains for future study, he said.

"Our job isn't to inter them and forget about them," Mr. Ribowsky said. "Our job is to inter them and if technology changes in the future, and we have a better chance to identify them, we will have to keep and preserve the remains in such a way that we can use this new technology."

"This is a very respectful and practical way for caring for these remains in perpetuity," he added.

In the nearly two years since the collapse of the trade center towers, the medical examiner's office has worked to match the 19,936 remains recovered with the 2,792 people listed as missing.

The main tool they used was DNA. Relatives brought DNA samples of loved ones — for example, hair collected from an old brush — to match against samples taken from the remains. As of Thursday, 12,471 remains, or 63 percent, and 1,271 victims, or 46 percent, had not been identified.

"Nobody is happy with the thought of leaving so many people unidentified, not the families, not us," Mr. Ribowsky said. "It's the reality."

Many of those who lost family and friends in the terrorist strike said that they understood the situation and welcomed the plan to preserve the remains and to store them at a permanent memorial at ground zero.

"Right now I can look up at the sky and talk to him, but I can't go anywhere and reflect on his life,' said Lorie Van Auken, 48, whose husband, Kenneth, was on the 105th floor of the north tower on Sept. 11. His birthday is in a few days, and she said she yearns to have a place to visit on that day. "I go outside and I don't know where to look for him. You feel lost. This would give me somewhere to go."

In its memorial design competition, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation required every entry to include a suitable space to store the remains. The contestants were not required to actually design the storage — that will be done later. There were 5,200 design entries from 62 countries; a winner is to be selected this fall.

The memorial will not just store unidentified remains. It will also house remains that have not been collected by victims' relatives. Families, not surprisingly, have reacted in many different ways to news of a positive identification of a relative's remains, which sometimes are made up of dozens — perhaps hundreds — of pieces. Relatives are given the choice of being notified when the first identification is made, or at any point over the course of the investigation. Some buried or cremated the first remains, only to face the task of dealing with remains identified later.

Some victims' families have chosen not to retrieve any remains, while others have asked that after a certain point, they not be notified if additional remains are identified.

The remains of Dee Ragusa's son, Michael, a 29-year-old city firefighter, have not been located. Ms. Ragusa said yesterday that she told the authorities that if nothing is found by the end of this month, she does not want to be notified. She has come up with a vial of blood that her son had given for use as a potential bone marrow donor, she said, and plans to bury that at a memorial service in September.

"I wish that they will be interred at a proper and fitting memorial at ground zero," she said of the unidentified remains. "It is the only proper thing to do. At this point my family is content to bury his blood and to know that he is finally at rest."

Initially some Lower Manhattan residents were concerned about the possibility of keeping the remains at the memorial, but several residents said yesterday those concerns had been resolved.

It has been clear since shortly after the attack that it was highly unlikely that every victim would be identified. Many DNA samples were damaged by the thunderous forces that caused the two towers to collapse, in the ensuing fires, and in some cases the many months it took for recovery.

The medical examiner's office continues to identify remains, officials said, but most of them are from victims who have already been identified. The preservation process for all uncollected remains will be complete long before the memorial is built. The remains will stay with the medical examiner's office until a final resting site at the memorial is completed.

The decision to preserve the remains by drying and sealing them was reached after refrigeration, chemical preservation and burial were rejected as failing to provide the best chance for future identification, Mr. Ribowsky said.

"Those remains would not have kept as well even if they were frozen," he said. "We have gotten DNA from mummies that are 3,000 years old. Drying is a great way to preserve things for a long period of time."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

August 25th, 2003, 09:01 AM
Although we are focusing on the memorial design and/or concept, I'm more concerned witht he make up of the jury. *If the jury is mediocre in make up or is being driven by a preconceived vision, the best designs in the world may be completely overlooked for something more appropriate for the National Mall.

August 30th, 2003, 11:05 PM
August 31, 2003


Finding Comfort in the Safety of Names



THE capitalized words printed just above these, which you may have read or maybe your eye skipped over them, are my first and last names. In the cafeteria of the building where I work, a similar name — Jay M. Kimmelsman — appears on a plaque commemorating New York Times employees killed during World War II. Jay M. Kimmelsman worked in the department of outgoing mail. When I pass the plaque, I think of him. I feel a connection.

What is it about a name? Its power is palpable but mysterious. Without thinking, we say we know someone when we know his name. "Do you know who that is?" "Yes, that's Jay from outgoing mail." But how much do we know? We react to names that resemble ours, or resemble the names of people we know, in the same vague way that we scour other people's family snapshots. We hunt for clues to what they tell us, often idly. We look for something of ourselves.

But names, like photographs, unless they are ours or those of our friends and family, say much less than we expect.

The competition guidelines for the memorial at ground zero require that the design "recognize each individual who was a victim" on Sept. 11, 2001, and on Feb. 26, 1993, when the World Trade Center was first attacked. It's a safe bet that many of the 5,200 submissions interpret that as some kind of list of names. By aesthetic and social consensus, names are today a kind of reflexive memorial impulse, lists of names having come almost automatically to connote "memorial," just as minimalism has come to be the presumptive sculptural style for memorial design, the monumental blank slate onto which the names can be inscribed.

During the past week the news broke that the remains of more than 1,000 of the 2,792 people who are missing from the Sept. 11 attack will be buried at the memorial. Investigators cannot identify more than 12,000 body parts — the DNA is too badly damaged — and so the remains will be dried and vacuum sealed, preserved, like ancient mummies, in white opaque pouches, in the hope that technologies of the future can decode who is who. The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, in addition to requiring recognition of each victim, instructed entrants in the competition to include space to store remains, just in case.

So now the memorial becomes a literal cemetery, with the oldest form of human identification, names, most likely testifying to victims the newest science can't distinguish. The ethos will be different from that of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. There are no bodies buried at the Vietnam memorial, nor any unaccounted-for remains. That memorial is a list of names, a neutral place to meditate abstractly on the war and on the dead and missing, who are elsewhere.

By the afternoon of Sept. 11, people were already taping photocopied fliers with the names and pictures of their dead or missing friends and relatives at makeshift shrines around the city: instant, homegrown demonstrations against the anonymity of mass killing. The fliers, which were at first missing-persons posters, quickly became private memorials, reminding everybody that the people who died at the World Trade Center were not numbers but someone's husband or sister or son.

This isn't new. The impulse to name names already became commonplace with World War I. Partly, it democratized war. Foot soldiers were recognized not as nameless peons but as individuals, like the generals who sent them to die. The war had made many people cynical about everything except the doughboys in the trenches. These men emerged as the everyday heroes, if there still were any heroes, instead of the military leaders or lone Paul Revere types who had traditionally been singled out for memorials. The listing of their names reduced the distance between the recruit and the officer but also represented a tacit protest against the anonymity of modern warfare. Names both stood for the individual soldier and, correlatively, pleaded for a more humane approach to battle, which is to say they gained both literal and symbolic value.

World War I also inspired tombs of the unknown soldier. The tomb tried to reconcile two conflicting ideologies about war: the dehumanizing anonymity of death and the nobility of personal sacrifice. The unknown soldier symbolized both the masses of anonymous dead and each missing soldier, whose name we were implicitly meant to attach to the tomb.

To this morbid history, World War II contributed lists of innocent victims. Fifty years after its founding, Israel's Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, which in Hebrew means "a monument and a name," is still recovering the names of the Jews who died during the Holocaust, a vain and fruitful enterprise in that all the names will never be accounted for, so that the process of trying to remember cannot end.

By the time of Maya Lin's Vietnam memorial in 1982, the idea of names, engraved simply and identically — a visual equivalent to the monotone roll-call of the dead, which has also become a standard memorial ritual — achieved Platonic form, more moving for being so spare. Minimalism proved itself there as the sculptural language of the memorial sublime, combining the abstraction of the memorial's physical form with the absolute specificity of the names of every dead and missing soldier. It was the inverse of the tomb to the unknown soldier, which had become nearly obsolete, thanks to improved forensic science and record keeping, or so it seemed until Sept. 11.

Ms. Lin's memorial, which carefully took no side in the debate about Vietnam, was made out of polished black granite so that people would literally see themselves reflected in the names on the wall, a mirror of perception. The Vietnam War was an unresolved issue, but the dead and missing from that war could be listed. Names seemed morally neutral. They were a compromise in a society that could not decide where it stood. Today, it is too early to know the historical lessons of the attacks on the World Trade Towers, but the casualty list can be drawn up. A world that does not seem to agree about anything can settle on the names of the dead. Lists of names promise closure, a conflict-averse path to catharsis in an age of instant gratification and short attention spans.

But written words, as Shimon Attie, an artist of memorials, has said, are images, and images have an aesthetic component and a political one. A long list of names is, first of all, an incantatory sight, the length of the list implying the scale of the event memorialized. Seeing 57,000 names is not the same as seeing 168 (the number of people killed in the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City) or 2,792 or 6 million, by which point a list becomes almost unreadable. Numbers suggest the enormity of loss but are a dubious measure of history. Not many people died at Lexington and Concord but what happened there changed the fate of the nation.

And names only seem morally neutral. Ms. Lin's Vietnam memorial made names the basic irreducible fact of this episode in history. Names were all that was left after the pomp and flourish of old-fashioned memorial design were stripped away. In hundreds of years, when the historical debates Ms. Lin studiously sidestepped may be forgotten, the names of the men will be what remain written in stone. Picture, for a second, that memorial without the names: a plain black tombstone, an open wound on the Washington Mall, which was how Ms. Lin imagined the design sculpturally. The message about the war would be very different.

Names animate space. They are like ghosts. We read into them. The ethnic variety of names on the Vietnam memorial summons up an image of a diverse population, a model democracy, a political portrait that belies the rifts of the culture. One nation. One family.

The Vietnam memorial is also shaped like a book. Ms. Lin purposely chose a small typeface, unheard of in monumental design, so that reading the names would seem more intimate, like scanning a printed page. The memorial is supposed to be our national story. She also listed the 57,000 names not alphabetically but chronologically according to when the soldiers died or went missing, an artistic device. Imagine all the John Smiths who died in Vietnam listed alphabetically. Now imagine that your father or son or brother or husband were one of them. Which John Smith on the wall would you touch or pin a photograph beside or leave flowers underneath?

The engraved style of these names, sans pomp and serif, is now standard. The names on the 168 chairs that, like headstones in rows, represent the dead in Oklahoma City are graphic descendants of the names on the Vietnam memorial. But names are fickle signifiers, containers for information that can be filled differently by different people, depending on what they know or think or hear about the person named. In Oklahoma City, some parents, unhappy with their sons-in-law, wanted their dead daughters' maiden names on the memorial, not their daughters' married names. Names are loaded. A list of the dead SS officers buried at Kolmeshohe cemetery in Bitburg, Germany, would have a different effect on their relatives than on Jews.

We engrave the names of donors on walls of museums and other public buildings. Your money or your life. Lists democratize veterans in battle, but they are also signs of difference. At Oklahoma City, a committee needed to be formed to decide who qualified for a list of survivors. If you were injured and went to a hospital, you would be eligible; if you went to a doctor's office, you might not be. If you lost friends and colleagues and your life was turned upside down but you had left the Murrah building for a dentist's appointment before the explosion or had stayed home sick that day, you were not a survivor, although of course you were. Just not in name.

Edward Linenthal, who wrote a book about the memorial in Oklahoma City, has described memorial hierarchies. Resolving them — who gets named and how — is, he argues, part of the process of setting history right, a service to the dead, the essence of what memorials are for. In Oklahoma City, there are the names of the dead on the chairs but also a museum, in which anyone can tell his or her story. Ground zero may consider something similar: the museum as egalitarian bulletin board, a repository of consolations to survivors, who can decide how they want to remember their dead. Families of the firefighters who died in the World Trade Center, for example, have pleaded publicly that their dead relatives be identified as firefighters in the memorial. The families said the men lived and died as firefighters. Their ladder units were their other families. It isn't that they were greater human beings than the stockbrokers and restaurant workers who died, only that the dead men would want to be remembered as firefighters. They belonged to a community. Their names should be accompanied by F.D.N.Y., maybe even grouped separately. But then how does a list not rank the dead?

The memorial at ground zero, with its unidentified remains, will be a special kind of memorial. It is partly a tomb of the unknown victim, with the abstract language of memorial design, if it ends up being abstract, that much more in tension with the literal: in this case not just literally lists of names but parts of bodies, the corporeal and the symbolic. Many people may think about these bodies when they stand there reading the names: about their own inability to connect the remains to names, about the insufficiency of names to conjure up and stand in for the people who are lost.

What's in a name? Memorials are ultimately local, as the historian James Young has said. They are above all for the families and for a community, common ground to grieve. There are many ways to enshrine and recall the dead. Memorials can be places of contention, which keep alive history through debate. Names, foreclosing political conflicts that may be the real unhealed wounds of the event memorialized, provide instead the possibility of solace for the relatives of the victims. Strangers show up and may be overwhelmed by the sight of long lists of people they did not know, with whom they can only try to identify, just as we all greet unfamiliar names, whose meanings remain elusive.

Finally, only the families and friends of the dead can really know what those names mean. *

Audio Slide Show: Names and Remembrance (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/arts/20030831_KIMMELMAN)

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

September 4th, 2003, 06:50 PM

wondering where an entry may be at this moment...

on the floor... or out the door... 86'd

disqualified or being studied closely....??

keep thinking back to the questions we asked regarding the memorial guidelines...

while there are countless reasons to be DQ'd... having already 'given' the idea away with a public license seems unlikely...

but stranger things have happened...

a question for this forum...

do you think it still possible at this stage of the 'process' that a wtc memorial may find expression strictly through architecture and buildings at the site?

would the jury dare to go there?


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Public Licenses and the World Trade Center Memorial Competition questions
To: questions@wtcsitememorial.org

Dear Questions:

Under the Terms and Conditions of the WTC Memorial


Does the 'Ownership of the Submissions" clause
apply just to the physical 'Presentation Board' itself?

If a proposal for the WTC Memorial Competition were already
deeded to the public domain, would that render it
inelegible for jury review?

If a proposal has already been released under a 'public
license' similar to those described here:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html or here
would that proposal be inelegible for jury review?

Thank you

Ownership of the Submissions
All submissions in Stage I and Stage II shall become the
sole property of LMDC. LMDC shall own the entire copyright
in all submissions selected, in whole or in part, for use
in the final memorial design. Competitors whose submissions
are not selected, in whole or in part, for use in the
memorial shall grant to LMDC a worldwide, perpetual, gratis
license to reproduce and/or use the submission in any way,
in any medium now known or hereafter devised, for any
purpose, including but not limited to publication and
exhibition of the competition results. Use of any
submissions will be properly credited.

September 4th, 2003, 07:54 PM
Not a chance.

September 4th, 2003, 10:00 PM
Anonmemo -

I agree with Zippy. I believe the jury will choose finalists whose proposals contain comprehensive plans for the entire "Bathtub" memorial site. I don't think they will choose any ideas that stray too far from the competition boundaries or one's that failed to include all the required memorial elements.

I also think they will tend to choose conservatively; even though Kevin Rampe (and others) stated publicly that they wanted to see "spectacular and extraordinary design proposals".

I hope they select the finalists soon as I am most curious to see the designs they are considering. I'm betting they will post their selection of finalists on 9/11; but who knows...

I'm also curious as to how a finalist is suppoosed to create a model of his memorial proposal, for Phase II of the competition, in only about 30 days!

September 4th, 2003, 10:05 PM
I have no idea what to expect. I just hope there are no chairs...I mean "memorial units."

NyC MaNiAc
September 4th, 2003, 10:30 PM
Ya know Christian, I've never seen an angle quite like that in that picture...

Once the Freedom Tower is Built, that would be a "Killer" angle for the WTC site, and the rest of Lower Manhattan.

September 5th, 2003, 09:05 AM
I hope it doesn't look like the Flying Nuns hat a la Staten Islands Memorial. That one is just terrible.

TLOZ Link5
September 5th, 2003, 03:17 PM
Yes, Rider. I hope that future memorial designers don't get into that habit. Pun intended. :mrgreen:

I know, I know, bad joke. :roll:

September 11th, 2003, 11:07 AM
If anybody is interested...

William Stratas, President of Planetcast Presentations, Inc. (a Toronto, Canada based design firm) will be in NYC from September 18 - 21 and he's trying to organize an informal get together with other WTC Memorial Design Competition participants who may wish to discuss general issues related to the competition. I don't know if he is also offering to buy the food and drinks... :roll:

Here's his WTC webpage (with the item): http://www.planetcast.com/wtc/

And you may e-mail him here: president@planetcast.com

I believe several members of Planetcast submitted designs to the competition.

September 18th, 2003, 09:47 AM
More WTC Memorial Design Competition gossip from the Planetcast website:

SEPTEMBER 18th, 2003 - A fellow competitor, 'J', who attended the Municipal Art Society event last night has reported that a panelist at this meeting who claims to be close to one of the WTC memorial jurors had commented that "they are down to 11 proposals." Apparently then he backtracked and corrected, "Between 11 and 18." This is not confirmed information but I pass it on for the benefit of my fellow anxious competitors who have chewed all 10 of their fingers down to the bone. You should know that this source close to a juror apparently also commented that 4,500 proposals were eliminated immediately (86% of the 5,200!), separating the emotional-based submissions from the serious ones. I conclude that an announcement of finalists is likely to come in the next two weeks -- but how tough will it be for the jury to work 20 down to the final 8?

September 18th, 2003, 11:05 AM
When did it change from 5 finalists to 8?

September 18th, 2003, 11:30 AM
Jasonic -

Several weeks ago there was an item published by the LMDC (I don't know where off hand you'll find it in here) which stated that there will be up to eight finalists selected and they will share a stipend pool of almost $1,000,000! That's over $100,000 each for the up to eight finalists to complete Phase II of the WTC Memorial Design Competition selection process.

September 30th, 2003, 01:33 PM
Has anyone heard news of when the finalists for the WTC memorial will be announced? The last I heard was sometime in the middle of October.

September 30th, 2003, 02:49 PM
The jury is still out but their deadline is fast approaching. October starts tommorow!

September 30th, 2003, 03:40 PM
This link is to a story that appears in a New Hampshire newspaper and quotes one of the WTC memorial jurors who says a finalists announcement won't come until mid-October:

September 30th, 2003, 03:51 PM
I have come to suspect the finalists have been notified, and what will be unveiled in October are the models and press materials they have developed in the meantime with the 100k.

There has been a buzz about a dream team of contemporary masters working away at MIT. I don't know how credible my source is, but this scenario does not seem the least bit implausable IMO.

Either way, we will soon see.

September 30th, 2003, 04:55 PM
This waiting around for any kind of information about the selection of finalists is very nerve wracking. The THINK design team had links to MIT; but I don't think there is anything underhanded going on with the competition - at least I would hope not!

According to William Stratas at Planetcast.com (and a fellow WTC Memorial competitor), there was a revelation about a week ago at a design seminar in NYC. This information came from a source close to the jury and revealed that they had narrowed down their selection to about 11 entries; (later qualified to be about 18 entries still under consideration). It was also revealed that about 85% of the entries were quickly rejected by the jury because they were "emotionally driven designs" and immediately deemed unsuitable. That means the jury seriously contemplated about 780 of the 5,200 submitted art boards.

September 30th, 2003, 05:12 PM
I'm guessing there are going to be a whole lot of ideas that are very similar like reflecting pools in the shapes of the tower footprints, etc. I wonder if they like an idea that is very common how they will resolve that?

September 30th, 2003, 06:57 PM
There is an anecdotal tidbit from the jury deliberations that the most popular design concept submitted was the "3,000 whatevers" idea. (3,000 benches, 3,000 trees, 3,000 glass tubes, 3,000 lights, 3,000 things on a stick; etc.). It wasn't revealed if this concept was appreciated by the jury members or not, but in my opinion a memorial consisting of "3,000 whatevers" is just too many singular items to be the best approach for the WTC Memorial design; and it takes the competition instruction to "honor each victim individually" much too literally.

September 30th, 2003, 07:44 PM
The "3000 whatever" idea was selected by the jury in Oklahoma City and the Pentagon as well as the many smaller wtc memorials around the country. Physical space limitations will prohibit large "memorial units" such as benches and trees at the wtc site.

September 30th, 2003, 09:55 PM
I mostly agree that the "3000 things" idea is not so great. But I will say this for it, seeing 3000 of anything will really give you a sense of the loss.

NyC MaNiAc
October 1st, 2003, 06:20 AM
Very True JM Garcia. But the Heart of Lower Manhattan is not the place.

A memorial in such a place is unheard of, but then terrorists crashing 747's into Huge Buildings is also unheard of. The World Sucks.

Thankfully, New York City dosn't suck as much. That's why I live here.

October 2nd, 2003, 05:19 PM
I was just going to forward to someone the some text that I KNOW was on the LMDC site:


about during Stage 1 of the competition ... talking w. member of the press etc would be grounds for DISqualification...

it is no longer on the rules site... (or at least I can't find it)


can we talk about what we all did now?

October 2nd, 2003, 07:42 PM
It is on the Presentation Board page of the site.


October 2nd, 2003, 11:03 PM
More questions about the wtcsitememorial website -

How does this date correlate with the following italicized sentence?

September Completion of stage I. (???)

*Schedule and deadlines are subject to change at any time by LMDC. LMDC will provide reasonable prior notice of any such changes on this website. (!!!)

This is from the SCHEDULE page; linked below:


Does anybody know exactly what will be required of the finalists in stage II of the competition? (With a stipend of over $100,000, I'm sure they will demand that a lot of detailed work will be required to be performed on the designs!)

Could the jury have possibly completed its selection of finalists and the LMDC is just waiting to have these designs reviewed by Pataki and/or possibly Mayor Bloomberg? Maybe there's just a million little details to take care of before the finalists are actually announced...

October 3rd, 2003, 12:14 AM
My opinion is the jurors have come to a decision.

I assume a customized set of design instructions and modifications is being prepared for each finalist plan before the 100K is handed over.

The LMDC may also be looking for any finalist rule violations such as media leaks.

October 3rd, 2003, 08:33 AM
I'm guessing they are also doing background checks on the finalists, they probably wouldn't want a convicted murderer or rapist as one of the potential winners.

October 4th, 2003, 08:23 PM
The following is an interesting excerpt from an interview with LMDC President Kevin Rampe given to Josh Rogers of DowntownExpress.com -

Link to item: http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_23/rampeonbuses.html

"Rampe said Libeskind’s proposed 150-foot waterfall adjacent to the memorial would be taken out of the design if the 13-member jury decides it does not fit in with whatever plan is selected. Exactly 5,200 artists or art teams made submissions for the memorial, which will be selected later this year. The guidelines told designers to assume the waterfall would be included, but Rampe and some juror members also made statements encouraging artists to be daring and break the rules."

"Rampe said the proposed cultural facilities around the memorial may be adjusted to accommodate the selected design. 'Cultural buildings may have to move, museums may end up moving,' he said. 'The key is to provide a context for the memorial.'”

Maybe they're considering a memorial design that changes everything!

October 4th, 2003, 08:50 PM
I would put money on it that the chosen finalists have all completely disregarded at least one if not all of the guidelines and rules set out in the memorial requirements. They are not looking for people who have set out to 'ace' a design competition. The jurors have said they are looking for someone with a sincere idea of what should be there and don't care whether they win or lose. I think anyone who went down the checklist of requirements and made sure that each one was covered simply to make sure they wouldn't be eliminated...have been eliminated. IMHO

October 10th, 2003, 08:03 AM
October 10, 2003 -- The jury picking a memorial for the World Trade Center site has selected a group of finalists from among 5,200 submissions, and the designers have been asked to begin refining their ideas, The Post has learned.

Development officials yesterday refused to discuss details of the competition and would say only that the public will see a number of designs in the "coming weeks."

As with nearly everything related to the memorial competition, the names of the finalists, and even how many were chosen, remain a closely guarded secret - although officials had previously predicted there would be five to eight finalists.

William Neuman

October 10th, 2003, 09:04 AM
I'm not sure I understand what they mean when they say the finalists are being asked to "refine their ideas".

October 10th, 2003, 10:22 AM
Don't they give them money (like $100,000) to turn their initial drawing into a more detailed model? But beyond that, you're right, do they tell them what their submissions are lacking and allow them to try to incorporate more in their plans? I guess we'll see in the "coming weeks" (how vague).

October 10th, 2003, 10:27 AM
I think they are probably going to give the finalists more time to make suggested changes and create a more detailed and slicker presentation. They've learned from the initial 6 site proposals that fancy graphics and renderings go a long way with an unimaginative public.

October 10th, 2003, 11:26 AM
...the designers have been asked to begin refining their ideas...
And 5,192 people breathe a collective sigh.

October 10th, 2003, 11:35 AM
More than 5,192 - as many teams participated.

Now I am waiting for those who were not selected to post their plans on the web for the public to browse. Many will be very good, others patriotic soup. Something to view as we wait for the finalists to be revealed.

October 10th, 2003, 12:20 PM
The timing of the NY Post story is interesting. It was posted at 3am this morning, and none of the other dailies are reporting this as yet. You'd think the NY Times and Muschamp would have something on this by now.

I wonder if someone (one of the political toadies on the jury?) leaked something to the press prematurely. No doubt they want to protect the finalists from media pressure, but you would think the LMDC would get ahead of the story.

I bet there is one very pissed off receptionist at the LMDC who has been fielding calls about the NY Post story all morning....

October 10th, 2003, 12:29 PM
The LMDC should have the courtesy to e-mail notify the non-winning entrants as to the selection of finalists. The finalist identities would not have to be revealed at this time.

This would help calm (but not stop) the rumor mill.

October 10th, 2003, 12:42 PM
I agree. I am an entrant, and didn't really care whether my design made the final cut. I figure it will end up in a book or online exhibit, which is good enough for me.

However, the total lack of communication throughout the process is frustrating. It really isn't asking much for them to email everyone a Dear John letter, or to have set a deadline several weeks ago. I bet a lot of peoples' productivity went out the window for the past couple of weeks.

I guess we'll know soon enough...

Hoping they didn't go for the colossal weeping bald eagle that I saw on the CNN site earlier this year. Shudder.

October 10th, 2003, 05:43 PM
Post subject: NY Post reports finalists have been selected and notified

that news flash is apparently false... (if one is to believe the LMDC or as false as the THINK team being chosen only to wake up the next morning to Libeskind)

no finalists have been chosen or notified

I think it will be a few more weeks as I trust the jury is actually doing their job...

October 10th, 2003, 05:56 PM
Interesting. I thought there was something fishy about this article. If there was anything to it, the NY Times would have been all over it by now.

October 10th, 2003, 06:23 PM
And to think I would have posted my design had I a place for a hotlink.

I may be responsible for the rumor :roll:

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:51 pm** *Post subject:
I have come to suspect the finalists have been notified, and what will be unveiled in October are the models and press materials they have developed in the meantime with the 100k.

I also heard they're goin' with the weepin' eagle memorial. :wink:

October 10th, 2003, 06:48 PM
I don't think anybody has a clue what is happening now. except that the story hasn't been corroborated by any other newspaper.

I'd be interested to hear from other designers. Can't speak for others, but yay or nay, I am eager to publish my work. Regardless of how it all turns out, it was the most interesting and worthwhile project I ever worked on.

October 10th, 2003, 09:48 PM
Hdunwood -

I agree with you 100%! If the finalists have been chosen then in my opinion the notifications could not possibly have all been made or there would be a news leak somewhere...

There are just too many teams of people who would know about this to keep such a huge secret under wraps!

I'm just about ready to activate my WTC Memorial design webpage though:-)

Latest news about this WTC Memorial Competition development:


October 13th, 2003, 05:30 AM
Would the LMDC please have mercy on our impassioned memorial designing souls?

:| aarghh

October 17th, 2003, 07:10 PM
This forum really got going for a while, but has dropped completely off.
Please post other forums where the WTC Site Memorial Competition is being discussed, in case I am not aware of them all.

Or better yet, lets get some serious discussion going here.

October 17th, 2003, 08:06 PM
I agree, it would be helpful to have an intelligent forum, since the only recent activity seems to be taking place on an unmoderated site (http://www.archinect.com/discuss_cgi/groups/1257.html). Otherwise, we're left to surf, speculate and wonder in isolation...the other two sites I've found with any sort of updating is www.planetcast.com/wtc, and http://www.archinect.com/discuss_cgi/groups/1257.html. It's nice, however, to have a community where people can share ideas and communicate their hopes, ideas and frustrations.

For my own two cents, I--an entrant from New Jersey--personally feel that the recent Post article was simply poor journalism and that the jury is still deliberating. It would be extremely difficult to keep the lid on notification of finalists; the story would be bound to leak. I also believe to have read elsewhere that LMDC has denied veracity of the story.

We probably have a situation where either the exceptional quality of the last few submissions has gridlocked the jury, or else they are stymied by internal divisions based on other personal/political considerations. Let's hope it's a problem of the former type. :?

October 17th, 2003, 09:42 PM
Here is another:


It can be a little difficult to follow, since posts are not chronological, but organized by hierarchical thread and noted as to the time of post.

Most of the discussion is considered and serious.

Also, the Planetcast site is going to start a forum soon, which will require registration in order to limit participation to the 5,200.

The consensus seems to support your views both on the NYP article and on the situation with the Jury. Yet I keep coming back to this article:


which quotes James Young as saying mid-October for a jury decision. This article raises the possibility that it was simply clear to the jury, way back then, that it would take until mid-October, and that the jury is not deadlocked nor has it splintered into factions.

I have thought about the jury a lot since the submission deadline passed.
Do you have any critique of the jury makeup?

October 17th, 2003, 09:43 PM

I agree that it's nice to have a well moderated forum to discuss the competition and related issues.

Something which really irks me about this lack of information is that on the "SCHEDULE" page of the official WTC Memorial Competition website, it clearly states that Stage I ended in September; and at the very bottom it states that any changes to the schedule will be posted on their website in a timely manner - which they have clearly not done!

Very frustrating!

Would anybody like to reveal any tantalizing tidbits or teasers about their memorial designs???

You go first...:-)

Traj - There are several other forums out there which are discussing WTC Memorial related issues, but I've found the WiredNY Forums to be the only board that doesn't REALLY SUCK and/or isn't infested with trolls, psychobabble and vacuous twits...

October 18th, 2003, 04:45 PM

probably DQ'd immediately 'cause it was released under the GNU general public license which puts 'ownership' beyond reach of the POB

October 18th, 2003, 06:11 PM
Anonmemo--nice entry. Much more intricate than what I submitted with a partner. If I eventually get the cd-rom version from him, I'll post mine in the future. It is a sculptural piece, something of a conceptual walkway.

There has been a lot of talk about what the jury will be looking for, and also a lot of discussion about the jury itself. I have thought a lot about both, and believe it would be difficult to speculate much. I think that there will be many forces at play in the decision-making process, and no matter how much the process is being touted as remaining apolitical, NO ONE is immune to outside influences and we can never underestimate the kinds of things that can happen at this level.

That being said, although Maya Lin urged competitors to "break the rules" in the pursuit of excellence, I believe the Program Elements were devised for one simple purpose: to provide the jurors with an anchor during the complex and potentially messy deliberations. Keep in mind that the WTC Memorial jury did their "homework"; they toured other memorials, and they learned about the processes used to develop them. Oklahoma City had expert counselors who recommended also to that jury that they create a mission statement and guidelines, because they knew that when the choices became difficult, emotions and personal aesthetics beginning to cloud the issue, they could always go back to the set of guidelines they had initially agreed upon for a sobering realignment of priorities.

Therefore it's really a hard thing to predict. We have some jurors who may be seeking something avant-garde and daring; then you have Rockefeller, a family member, and others who could have greatly differing opinions--maybe some of them more conservative. On top of all this there were the meetings with the community that took place with the jury members last spring so that they could hear what downtown merchants and residents wanted out of a memorial.

Final thoughts regarding announcement--
I remember that there is some sort of disclaimer in the memorial information on the LMDC website which states that dates were flexible at their discretion. I also saw in an older article (released when the decision was made to awared finalists $100,000 each) that "finalists would be chosen in October or November". Therefore, we can only continue to wait. The only thing we know is that we are drawing nearer; I would put money on the next couple of weeks bringing some news.

October 19th, 2003, 12:50 AM
Arrrgh. I too am anxious about the results for the competition. But just stick to the official sources for updates and information, LMDC website and jury members, etc.

But really, I cannot waite to hear the results.

NyC MaNiAc
October 19th, 2003, 07:14 PM
I'm getting very impatient with the final renderings...

It's Mid-October and I see nothing...What Gives?

October 19th, 2003, 07:40 PM
I think the jury just had so many designs to review that they need extra time to decide on the eight finalists. Even if the finalists have already been selected, the LMDC must still write the specific instructions that each team must follow in Phase II of the competition. This is only one possible scenario for the delay.

They have certainly not notified any of the finalists yet, because human nature being what it is, people would let the secret out of the bag and the world would know! I am very impressed with the LMDC for being so tight lipped about the jury deliberations. Washington could take a lesson from the absolute secrecy surrounding the WTC Memorial Competition.

October 19th, 2003, 09:31 PM
This weekend I read about the Pentagon memorial design competition. The problem the jurors face is not sifting through 5,200 entries. They would have eliminated 90% of them during the first few days.

The Pentagon jury deliberated for only three days, and narrowed roughly 1,200 entries to 45 semi-finalists on day one. They narrowed those 45 entries to six in the remaining two days. The WTC competition is much more complicated because the memorial is supposed to serve many purposes, where the Pentagon memorial is primarily for the families.

My hunch is that the selection process went something like this:

late July, early August : jury spends two to three days reviewing all 5,200 submissions after they have been catalogued and processed. The goal at this stage is to eliminate the crap and to highlight proposals that merit discussion. The jury may also have set some preliminary criteria for themes they are _not_ interested in, like a Vietnam memorial ripoff. the jury picks a few hundred entries, or about 10 to 15% of the total submissions. Each juror picks a few dozen of these for closer study.

late August, early September : the jurors have spent time viewing 500 to 700 submissions, and meet to discuss which themes seem to work. at this point, they are trying to identify what works and does not work in many of these proposals. they may or not eliminate proposals during these meetings. they start to get an idea of what qualities the winning entries should have. at the end of this session, they narrow the list from several hundred to several dozen.

September to October : the jurors discuss the remaining entries at length and attempt to reach consensus on which 6-8 proposals should be selected as finalists. This becomes progressively more difficult, especially if the quality of the remaining proposals is very high, or if there is philosophical disagreement among the jurors.

Since the jurors have busy schedules and this is such a difficult decision, they probably have had fairly long breaks between their sessions, to allow for scheduling, and to allow each juror to do their own independent thinking and research without deadline pressure.

October 1 - ??? : the jurors select the finalists. Earliest rumors of the finalists being selected and notified began to surface in the first week of October, none corroborated as of yet.

October 19th, 2003, 09:41 PM

Are you familiar with the article that described the jury process that was mentioned on planetcast.com/wtc?

How about Greg Allen's comments on this subject? Greg.org

This makes me wonder why the LMDC did not provide access to the boards to the jurors over the internet since they digitally photographed all the entries...

One of the best perks of winning this competition would be the inevitable invitations to jury future design competitions...

October 19th, 2003, 09:47 PM
yes, the article you mention describes the first round of the vetting process. apparently the jurors would place a dot on boards they wanted to study further. boards that received no dots were thrown out.

this type of point system was probably useful only in the first round. once they narrowed the field to a few hundred qualified proposals, they would have to study and discuss them as a group.

another interesting note about the Pentagon memorial competition. they did not only display the six finalists, they also displayed 45 other designs to show a cross section of the entries (these were the de facto semi-finalists in the competition).

I hope the LMDC does the same thing for this competition by displaying the top 50 or 100 entries so the public can see what else was proposed.

October 19th, 2003, 09:49 PM

and from Greg.org:

For a few days, anyway. I got my Memorial competition submission done, expensively printed at Kinko's, and delivered. (The official Competition Site forbade hand delivery and said couriers must be "listed in the phone book," a verification system clearly designed to thwart my plan if I missed the Fedex deadline: dress up as a bike messenger using gear from my Kozmo.com collection.)

Until I saw Ed Wyatt's Times article about plans pouring in yesterday, I was pretty satisfied with my efforts. My idea's still great, but now, I think I didn't pack it carefully enough.

Faced with actually producing a thing that could explain my idea in a (hopefully, at least remotely) compelling way, I holed up with the computer, but without the weblog. Trust me, at 2AM, scanning schematics drawn with fabric paint at the Alexandria, VA Kinko's, I longed for what The Gothamsts call the "all talk, no action" approach. (Scanning barely-dry paint is like washing your dog's blanket; it's better to use someone else's machine.)

But webloggers can't stay quiet for long, even if the competition rules preclude publicly identifying oneself with one's design. Jeff Jarvis worked the competition into a sermon and kept posting (making me jealous of either his weekly magazine-crankin' production discipline or the team of elves he had working on his poster). So now that it's over, I'll tell you, not what I did, but how I did it. Inevitably, I took the ex-consultant and GMAT-taker's Princeton Review-like approach to the competition, imagining what the real goal should be and how the judging process would play out.

Substance moves ahead of Style
This stated objective for Stage I is not to choose The Memorial, but to choose "approximately five finalists" , who will develop their concepts in Stage II. If a design has enough substance, i.e., if it's promising, clearly thought through, and successfully fulfills the Mission & Principles, jurors will want to see it developed further. But the Final Five is just one possible goal. You could also set out to be one of the 100 concepts that'll probably be exhibited, or the 2-300 that'll get published in some book. Or you could hit a sacrifice fly, submitting a concept that tries to impact the juror's thinking/discussion. Imagine how 1,000 proposals to recognize firefighters separately might ripple through the selection process.

About "clearly thought through"
Maya Lin's nearly abstract rendering of her Vietnam Memorial proposal is repeatedly cited as a competition precedent, but that belies the understanding it actually represented. Lin said she spent far more time on her written concept than on her drawings. One juror noted that the submission showed that "(s)he obviously knew what (s)he was talking about." "Clearly thought through," then, applies to the concept and the experience. It specifically doesn't require deciding every detail, material, and elevation: that's Stage II. Get the right balance of concept images, descriptive text, and relevant, evocative references.

Memorial is not Monument
So many times, people have conflated the two things. It's understandable, given the monumental scale of the Towers. Last year, I quoted two German artists who said, "The traditional concept of a monument only encourages people to contemplate a hulking stone building and an abstracted past.". I took Maya Lin at her word when she asked for "a new way of defining what a memorial can be."

Design for yourself
Maya Lin called for people to submit "what [they] truly believe needs to be done there." Handicapping the jurors to reverse-engineer the concept or designing to meet currently irreconcilable agendas, or playing it as a political game won't work.

Produce for the process
We talked about it at the Charette; I imagine the judging process will comprise a series of filters, each with different criteria:
Sanity Check -- move crackpot schemes into the Outsider Art bracket. Pick a few fascinating ones for the exhibit.
Elevator Pitch -- Can it pass the 30-second test and get the meeting? (i.e., Does it appear compelling and smart/effective/interesting enough to warrant fuller evaluation?)
Clustering -- There are only so many possibilities under the sun. Group all the Put Bush and Giuliani on Mount Rushmore proposals over here, all the How About A Gift From the French? proposals over there. Best of Breed will move on. Anything remotely French will be saved for public burning at the Republican convention.
Libeskind/Silverstein/Westfield Factor -- Does a concept play well with other uses and forces on the site? Does it break the rules in a net-positive way? I figured a concept that stayed entirely within the competition's parameters, that didn't attempt to inform other aspects of the site, was shirking its mission.
Take the Heat -- A Final Five concept will be subject to incredible pubic/family/political scrutiny, but only after they're selected. I can't imagine the jurors selecting a straw man concept they know will get pilloried. Unlike the Port Authority's first attempt to redesign the site (which I, with forced idealism, choose to read as a negotiating ploy to gain public outrage-driven leverage over Silverstein and Westfield), playing hardball with the memorial won't be tolerated.

The unweighted probability of a concept making it to the Final Five is extremely low, but back-of-the-envelope calculations reveal submitting to be a worthwhile exercise. I feel confident that my concept will get relatively serious consideration by jurors. And if it influences their minds as they choose a memorial, it'll be well worth it.
# of registrants: 13,683
# who submitted: 10,000
minus # who meet submission criteria: 8,500
minus # of Outsider Art entries: 7,500
minus # of "traditional monuments": 2,500
% that are evocative--beautiful, even--but ultimately unrealizable: 10
% that are conceptually interesting, but ultimately unrealizable: 10
% that break the rules, but whose concept obviously can't survive to completion: 10
% that are compelling, but that have some dealbreaking shortcoming in terms of Mission/Principle: 20
% that are admirable descendants of the Vietnam Memorial, but which lack its refinement and staying power: 30
# of Stage II slots going to such entries: 2/5 or 3/6
Minimum percentile where I can, without agonizing arrogance, imagine my submission rankng among the 500 that are left: 80th
Where I actually rank it now, without having seen any other entries: 99.9th

I certainly hope there are proposals much better than mine.

October 20th, 2003, 08:07 AM
yes, the article you mention describes the first round of the vetting process. apparently the jurors would place a dot on boards they wanted to study further. boards that received no dots were thrown out.

Thrown out? I read in a newspaper article that the intention, in the end, was to display all of the borads that had been entered.

Besides, if these boards had actually been thrown out, there possibly would have been alot of garbage men talking.

October 20th, 2003, 08:24 AM
Hdunwood meant that they were placed back in storage marked "no longer under consideration" instead of literally "thrown out" with the trash.

Eventually they will dispose of them, though, because they have the digital photography as a "permanent" record.

Correct me if I am wrong.

October 20th, 2003, 09:00 AM
I think you're right Traj.

From this news item:


...we find the following quote:

"The LMDC board authorized $250,000 for an exhibit of the memorial finalists and the competition's eventual winner, likely to be held at the World Financial Center's Winter Garden."

I also believe the LMDC has set aside funds to archive and display many of the competition's submissions, but I couldn't find the exact reference. The LMDC is photographing every entry, though, as part of the competition process... No entry will be discarded, IMHO!

October 20th, 2003, 04:01 PM
There was a TV program Rebuilding Ground Zero (?) that actually showed a staff member photographing a board.

There is no doubt about the existance of a digital archive of the boards, the question is one of access to that information...

October 21st, 2003, 06:06 PM
Firefighters Deliver WTC Memorial Petition

October 21, 2003, 3:26 PM EDT

NEW YORK -- Firefighters who want rescue workers' names listed together on a World Trade Center memorial site delivered a petition to Gov. George Pataki with more than 65,000 signatures today, saying they hope he will influence the decision of memorial designers to give rescuers special recognition.

The Advocates for a Fallen 9-11 Fallen Heroes Memorial has lobbied for months to separately list the names of the more than 400 firefighters, police officers and other rescue workers killed in the line of duty on Sept. 11.

"One hundred years from now, people should know what went on that day," said Fire Lt. Jim McCaffrey, whose brother-in-law, Battalion Chief Orio Palmer, was killed at the trade center.

McCaffrey said the group doesn't want a separate memorial, but wants the rescue workers' names, units and badge numbers to listed next to their names, and wants the workers' names to be grouped together on any memorial

The firefighters collected several final signatures outside Pataki's Manhattan offices Tuesday, then delivered the petition.

"The governor has made clear that the creation of a memorial befitting the heroes who died that tragic day is his top priority and the decisions regarding the memorial are now in the hands of a distinguished jury which has been entrusted with the important responsibility of selecting the winning memorial design," Pataki spokeswoman Mollie Fullington said Tuesday.

Next month, the 13-person jury is expected to disclose the names of finalists selected to design a memorial at the site. A record 5,200 groups and individuals submitted design proposals for the memorial to the Feb. 26, 1993 bombing of the trade center as well as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York, at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania.

The firefighters' group has been backed by former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who has said the rescue workers deserve some form of special recognition, while victims' relatives have said that no victims should be separated into a special class.

The Lower Manhattan Development Corp. has adopted guidelines saying any design should "honor the loss of life equally and the contributions of all without establishing any hierarchies."

Copyright © 2003, The Associated Press

October 21st, 2003, 06:10 PM
Just my opinion, but this seems to be a bit premature. They haven't even decided on what the memorial is going to look like yet and already they're whining about it!

And the highlighted sentence seems to indicate an inside knowledge that we may still have to wait a bit more before the WTC Memorial Design Competition finalists are announced. The winning design may not be chosen until Spring at this rate...

October 22nd, 2003, 01:00 PM
Memorial Petition Asks That Firefighters Lost 9/11 Be Listed Together

NY1's Amanda Farinacci explains how one group is proposing to honor New York City firefighters lost in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

It may seem like a last-ditch effort, but a table boasting the signatures of thousands of New Yorkers outside Governor Pataki's Midtown office Tuesday was the end result of an aggressive campaign to list firefighters killed on September 11 together in an eventual memorial at the World Trade Center.

“Sometimes some people are under the impression that we're asking for a separate memorial,” said Marisol Torres, who lost her cousin, firefighter Manny del Valle in the attacks. “That's not what we're asking for. We're simply asking that rescue workers be listed together by department.”

The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the agency charged with rebuilding, created memorial guidelines simply stating that each victim of the attack be recognized. The ultimate decision rests in the hands of a 13-member jury, but the advocates want the public to weigh in.

“How can you even question it?” said Steve Dunne, a New Yorker who supports the petition. “How could you even come in this lifetime and question what they request? They saved so many lives, sacrificed so much.”

“They definitely should be memorialized, and I agree with what they're doing,” said Jane Schwartz, another supporter of the petition. “That they want to have their names and their departments who they were with; their badge number and have them represented as the people who they were.”

Not everyone thinks listing the members together is a no-brainer. Families of non-uniformed personnel killed in the attacks fear a separation of names will create a hierarchy. Firefighters NY1 spoke with disagree.

“We're not saying that our guys are better than the civilians,” said Firefighter Patrick McCarvill of Engine 92. “It's just that we want them listed together; we don't want to be placed higher up on the list. It's OK if our guys go at the end of the list or at the bottom. It’s just that we feel they should be together.”

The bulk of the more than 65,000 signatures have been collected in the past two months. Feeling anxious about a pending memorial decision, organizers say they wanted to take their message straight to the governor.

“We want the governor to know, to make sure that he knows that the public is aware of this and they're watching him and they're expecting him to take care of our rescuers,” said John Finucaine of Advocates for 911 fallen Heroes Memorial

The governor's office said, "The creation of a memorial befitting the heroes who died that tragic day is his top priority, and the decisions regarding the memorial are now in the hands of a distinguished jury, which has been entrusted with the important responsibility of selecting the winning memorial design."

There is no word yet on exactly when the finalists will be announced, but a design is expected to be selected before the end of the year and the group will be waiting anxiously to see how their heroes will be remembered.

--Amanda Farinacci


How do you like them apples?

October 24th, 2003, 08:13 PM
Unless I'm missing the right location at Wired, this forum is not as active as it could be for discussing the WTC memorial. Those of you still checking in should visit http://openforum.eternalwtc.org/24/H/dpA9DitkHd3z, newly put up by planetcast.com's William Stratas.

See you there.

NJ Artist

October 27th, 2003, 05:43 PM
Continue this discussion with everyone from all the boards:


This is the same link as above. See everyone there.

October 27th, 2003, 07:26 PM
This forum went through its phase of violent upheaval and heated arguments over WTC and the memorial. However, people have since remembered that there is a world of architecture and skyscrapers out there that merits our attention.

October 27th, 2003, 07:58 PM
Well said, Eugenius.

However, many feel that the issues surrounding the WTC site memorial competition are still compelling. For them I suggest


November 1st, 2003, 01:00 PM
Pataki Sets New Timeline For Lower Manhattan Development

October 31, 2003

New York Governor George Pataki today announced an updated schedule for development in Lower Mannhattan. The governor stated that the timeline he set forth in April was "right on track." Dates are as follows:

November 17: Eight proposals for the WTC memorial will go on display at the Winter Garden at the World Trade Center. The jury, meanwhile, will continue to deliberate on the winner.

November 22: The Vesey Street Pedestrian Bridge, crossing West Street, will open, linking the World Trade Center with Battery Park City and other areas to the west.

November 23: Reopening of the temporary PATH terminal at the World Trade Center, linking Lower Manhattan to New Jersey.

December 15: The design for Daniel Libeskind and David Child’s Freedom Tower will be displayed. Pataki called the endeavor "a collaboration of two of the greatest architects of our time."

January 2004: A menu of options for direct access from downtown Manhattan to JFK and Newark Liberty airports will be announced. A selection will be made in April 2004.

End 2004: Fast ferry service to LaGuardia will begin operating. By 2005, a fast ferry will begin operating to JFK airport.

Sam Lubell
Architectural Record

November 7th, 2003, 07:27 AM



November 7, 2003 -- An unusual proposal for a World Trade Center memorial was initially selected by judges as a potential finalist - but then got bounced when it was discovered the author broke contest rules, The Post has learned.

The proposal, dubbed Twin Piers, called for two enormous jetties, the size of the Twin Towers, extending into the harbor from Battery Park - bypassing entirely what was supposed to be the main memorial site inside the Ground Zero pit.

Gov. Pataki announced last week that eight memorial finalists will be unveiled Nov. 17, but The Post has learned the panel of jurors initially picked nine designs to move on to a second stage of the competition.

Manhattan journalist Fred Bernstein says the ninth design was the Twin Piers, which he created last year and posted online.

But the design was apparently disqualified because it was determined that he was the author of two memorial submissions - a violation of the rules.

The near-inclusion of the Twin Piers among the finalists provides a window into the secretive workings of the 13-member jury, which spent months sorting through 5,200 entries.

Some jury members had urged designers to think outside the box about memorial designs - and the Twin Piers show how far the panel was willing to go in that direction.

Bernstein told The Post he had once hoped to submit the piers idea in the memorial competition, but when the rules were announced last April, he realized it fell completely outside the guidelines.

"I lost faith in it," Bernstein said. "I gave up and thought it didn't have a chance."

Instead, Bernstein, 46, came up with another idea and submitted last June.

At the same time, he said a friend, Charles Upchurch, urged him not to give up on his original concept - and Bernstein gave permission to have the Twin Piers submitted under Upchurch's name.

In September, Bernstein said Upchurch, a Florida history professor, got a call from the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., saying the Twin Piers design had been picked by the jury.

Bernstein said he was elated, but after a series of phone calls and letters to and from the LMDC, Upchurch got an e-mail in early October saying the piers would not be among the finalists.

Bernstein, who writes about architecture, said the LMDC gave no reason for its decision.

But it appears the agency found the piers online under Bernstein's copyright, making him the author of two submissions.

"The judges picked it . . . and it was disqualified on a technicality," said Bernstein, who insists he did nothing wrong.

A source familiar with the competition confirmed that the design was disqualified for breaking the rules, and that jurors understood their selections must pass such a check.


This concept for "Twin Piers" the size of the Twin Towers was once a finalist, but got tossed since the designer broke contest rules.

November 7th, 2003, 10:25 AM
So the jury wanted to tell all the WTC tourist/pilgrims: "walk the plank?"

I hope all the finalists are as underwhelming as this. :?

November 7th, 2003, 10:09 PM
On Saturday, June 28, 2003
from the Gotham Gazette:


One of the competition entrants has released his proposal.He has taken the suggestion that designs outside the boundaries would be considered to the extreme.

The design by Bernstein mentioned in the NY Post article has a conceptual twin with the Gentile design that Zippy the Chimp referenced earlier in this thread. Somehow I'm having a hard time buying all of this. The journalistic practices of the NY Post are easy to call into question, yet the writer appears to have done his homework. Could this design have been among the finalists? Really?

Although I am working to keep my expectations in check, nonetheless I am looking forward to the unveiling of the eight memorial designs on November 17. I hope to be moved, challenged, and inspired.

Already I have crossed my fingers, my limbs, and tonight, my eyes. The only thing left is my disposition.

November 9th, 2003, 11:56 AM

I was intimately involved with the effort to collect those 65000 signatures. Perhaps we are a whiny bunch, but don't you think the almost 400 Uniformed Heroes that died that day, while saving over 50,000 lives, deserve a little more respect???

We are just asking for the privelege of our brothers being put on the memorial together, with their FDNY firehouse, NYPD precinct, etc.
next to their names.

I don't think this is too much to ask for the ultimate sacrifice.


TLOZ Link5
November 9th, 2003, 01:35 PM
I can't see why not include every victim's affiliation, whether they worked for Cantor Fitzgerald or the FDNY. If there is a wall of names, then list the rescue workers who died together with the other victims and perhaps engrave the insignia of their department next to their name.

November 9th, 2003, 02:34 PM
I can't see why not include every victim's affiliation, whether they worked for Cantor Fitzgerald or the FDNY. If there is a wall of names, then list the rescue workers who died together with the other victims and perhaps engrave the insignia of their department next to their name.

I agree. That was what I had thought the issue was in the beginning.

On that horrible day not only firefighters, but also everyday people, including workers in the buildings- who would later died themselves, were heroes saving the lives of many- and it wasn't even their job to do so.

This attempt to make more of some people's sacrifice and less of others ( by default) is unbecoming and pathetic.

Just another indication that many people did not learn anything on that day!

November 13th, 2003, 07:18 AM
November 13, 2003


A 16-Acre Memorial That'll Never Be


TAKE a deep breath.

A week from now, many New Yorkers may be consumed by the question, "Which memorial should we build at the World Trade Center site?" Eight designs culled from 5,200 submissions will be on display at Battery Park City as the memorial jury prepares to choose a winner. The aesthetic appeal, spiritual resonance, public mindedness and financial soundness of each proposal will be the subject of soliloquies, arguments, essays and chatter.

So take a breath now, because this may be the last opportunity to contemplate quietly the entire 16-acre World Trade Center site as a memorial.

The point is not to second-guess the competition but to affirm the magnitude of what is being remembered, since the devastation was not confined to the corner where the twin towers stood, now a 4.5-acre memorial polygon, 384 feet along Liberty Street, 552 feet along West Street.

Theoretically, proposals may exceed these boundaries, but they must be deemed "feasible and consistent with site plan objectives" by the jurors and by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which is running the competition. There is little chance that any plan would be chosen that foreclosed a new PATH terminal, office towers, cultural centers and stores.

"By and large, people believe that it's imperative to rebuild the site," said Kevin M. Rampe, president of the corporation. "There is a question of the mix of uses and what predominates. But the debate as to whether to rebuild has passed."

That particularly New York conviction that construction equals regeneration may have obscured other voices, but they are still out there. And they are worth listening to, if only because they may offer a useful yardstick for gauging the gravity and scope of the eight proposed plans.

"Nothing could more faithfully represent the loss we suffered on Sept. 11, 2001, than a big, terrifying, unhelpful void," Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic, said yesterday. "There should be a substantial patch of ground that one is almost afraid to approach, but that one must. There should be something frightening about it."

Or something lovely.

Dr. Sherwin B. Nuland of the Yale School of Medicine, the author of "How We Die: Reflections on Life's Final Chapter," imagines a "parklike oasis of foliage and trees and benches and secluded walkways and fountains and small statuary and above all retreat, in the midst of the towering city and the din around it."

"One of the things Americans do least well," he said, "is to contemplate, meditate and be alone with themselves and with their thoughts."

Dr. Nuland conceded yesterday that this garden of meditation would never come to pass. "I was told rather harshly that commerce is all, and that it is impossible for such a valuable piece of real estate to be put to the use that I suggested," he said. "Of course, it represents a huge sacrifice, but what a small price to pay for the opportunity to discover and rediscover ourselves."

By contrast, he said, a building is "a monument not to the people who died, but it becomes a monument to the brilliance of the architect."

There are architects who have thought along the same lines. Tadao Ando, for example, who won the Pritzker Architecture Prize in 1995, has proposed a "memorial tomb" in the form of a spherical mound 90 feet high.

"If we are to fill the void at the site of the lost World Trade Center, it should not be with architecture but with a 'place' to remember and reflect," he wrote. "What we need now is the courage to construct nothing more."

And Michael Sorkin, an architect and director of the graduate program in urban design at City College, would create a "great space of gathering, something between a plaza and a park," he wrote in a recent essay. He called for federal financing, on the grounds that "no less than Gettysburg or Pearl Harbor, this is the site of a national trauma."

"If terror demands a civic reply," he wrote, "what better one than a solemn memorial to those lost and a space for the most fundamental exercise of democracy in space, the freedom to gather in a place that is our own."

MANY family members of those who were killed are focused on preserving the footprints of the twin towers, outlined 70 feet below street level at bedrock. But that does not necessarily rule out development on the east side of the site.

"My opinion is that there needs to be a balance between the commercial component and historic preservation, with the memorial done as the centerpiece," said Anthony Gardner, a board member of the Coalition of 9/11 Families. His brother Harvey Joseph Gardner III died in the attack.

Asked yesterday about leaving the whole site vacant, Nikki Stern, who lost her husband, James E. Potorti, said, "Anything that economically devastates New York would not be a good legacy in terms of remembering our loved ones."

"Besides," she said, "I wouldn't want to send the message that no one could ever again work where the towers once stood."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

November 13th, 2003, 09:01 AM
I wonder how many of the people advocating 16 acre memorials live near the site - or will this be a to-do item when visiting Manhattan.

I generally agree with TLOZ, except what do you do with the self-employed, or unemployed?

Regarding the two highlighted items:

while saving over 50,000 lives, and

and it wasn't even their job to do so.
While the first elevates the rescue personnel, the second diminishes them.

November 13th, 2003, 09:41 AM
We agree. We think that if you worked @Cantor, or if you worked @ PANY/NJ, or wherever you worked, that you should have your affiliation there next to your name. We have never asked that other people be slighted by the memorial in favor of FDNY guys, just that our guys be together with an FDNY after their name.


November 13th, 2003, 01:34 PM

I was intimately involved with the effort to collect those 65000 signatures. Perhaps we are a whiny bunch, but don't you think the almost 400 Uniformed Heroes that died that day, while saving over 50,000 lives, deserve a little more respect???

We are just asking for the privelege of our brothers being put on the memorial together, with their FDNY firehouse, NYPD precinct, etc.
next to their names.

I don't think this is too much to ask for the ultimate sacrifice.


Jeff, I'd like to know up front what group you are advocating for on this site - just as a matter of courtesy to other posters. In your second post, you used the pronoun of "we". Who is "we"? And, are you their designated spokesperson?

In reaction to your statement, I think many people behaved heroically that day, some died, others survived. I'll also lay on the table that some uniformed personnel high-tailed it out of there to save their own butts - which I neither condemn nor applaud. Human nature - fight or flight.

I do not advocate for any survivor or victim to gain advantage or privilege over any other. They all perished together and, frankly, there is nothing to support that any of the purported "uniformed heroes" were any more stoic, brave or helpful than people you would diminish by categorizing them as civilians.

I would, however, like to see a special monument to the cops and firemen who raided retailers and stole merchandise as others were dying as well as those "uniformed heroes" who beat the daylights out of the construction workers attempting to keep the site clear of sight seeing people who showed complete disregard for safety rules.

I had no more admiration for our cops and fireman in the aftermath of September 11th than I did for the citizens of this city, who reacted with bravery, comradery and compassion equal to any union member.

These are the same cops and firemen who tried to hijaack the "hero" logo not long after 9/11/01, wrap themselves in it, and had a tantrum for major wage increases in the midst of "our city's crisis".

The elevated respect for them was earned by their behavior that day. It's two and a half years later and I realize again that most are not New Yorkers - they are suburbanites. They are average folks in civil service jobs. Most are not there because of high test scores or qualifications, but rather because Daddy was a fireman or a policeman. It is a group closed to the average New York City resident and a group I hold in no higher esteem than any other union screaming about the perils of a job they CHOOSE to work.

If you want a memorial, buy the land and raise the funds on your own. I support a memorial to those who perished on September 11th - not a rallying point for a bunch of suburban yahoos to rally around everytime they want to scream that the career of their choosing doesn't afford them a summer home in the Hamptons.

Okay gentle posters, flame away. I know I asked for it. But, boy, do I feel better.

November 13th, 2003, 01:55 PM
I submitted a design to the competition, and thought I would weigh in on different ways of recognizing heroes.

My view was that heroism is an individual act of self-sacrifice and should be recognized as such in the memorial.

In our design, each person is recognized by a headstone that displays their name, affiliation and, if known, their actions or the names of the people they rescued. The last bit is especially important, because there were many stories about people who stayed behind to help their friends and co-workers escape. This would allow the memorial to pay tribute to the dead, but also to record the history of the people who escaped and the people who helped them escape in a way that does not encourage a political pissing match.

Our design was not selected for further study, but I am optimistic that one of the finalists will have taken a similar approach to dealing with the question of how to recognize heroes without creating a segregated memorial.

November 13th, 2003, 03:50 PM
We are the Advocates For A 9-11 Memorial. I am not a spokesperson, just someone who has been working hard to achieve a goal.


And, I won't even dignify the other post. Well, maybe I will . I get the right to feel better, too.

Yes, we live in the suburbs, and often work another job or 2, but that is because we can't afford to live on the UES. And, yes, there is a lot of evidence that our brothers knew they were in dire straits. Video footage of firemen hugging each other and saying their farewells, etc. Perhaps you have been too busy picking on old ladies to see them. I am not saying they are better than the civilians that died that day, if you bothered to read my other post. They were going up as others were going down. Perhaps you missed the FEMA report that says the FDNY saved over than 50,000 people that day. Too busy for that, too. Must've been stealing candy from little babies that day.

I bet you're probably one of those stock brockers that steals money from old people, lives in a triplex and vacations 4 or 5 times a year.

I am glad there aren't many other people with you're point of view. The city would have burned down years ago. Good luck to you...you'll need it.


November 13th, 2003, 04:04 PM

Did you submit yourself, or work with any designers to submit a competition design that meets the memorial standard for which your group so stidently advocates?

Have you seen any design that you or your group feel is worthy of a 9-11 Memorial?

Does your group have a vision for a memorial that you wish to share, or is your desire solely for this idiosyncratic categorization?

November 13th, 2003, 04:13 PM
No...we did not design nor did we work on or approve any design, to my knowledge. All we are asking is that FDNY firemen and all other uniformed personnel be listed together with their firehouse, precinct, badge number, etc.

That's it. Very simple. Very uncontroversial, I think.

Jeff K

November 13th, 2003, 04:18 PM
I guess I'd like to see just the names on the "official" memorial, but a separate firefighters statue or even a restaurant workers statue in, say, the Heros Park, wouldn't be inappropriate.

November 13th, 2003, 05:24 PM
I agree. Dissociate the celebration of the heroes from the commemoration of the dead. They are two different acts and there should be no ambiguity as to the equal value of human life in the latter. Besides, not everyone wishes to be remembered in relation with his or her function in society.

November 13th, 2003, 08:12 PM
You folks have an excellent argument going. And it's timely. The very issues raised in these discussions are the same artistic challenges that the finalists are missioned to resolve. (All to be unveiled on Monday, Nov. 17).

NYatKnight and Christian make an excellent point that requires creative thinking beyond the 4 acres of the below-grade memorial. Their suggestion would add appropriate function to the already named "Heroes Park." It also permits the commemoration of those who died to seek an equilibrium -- one unencumbered with yet another layer of "definition" and "separation." Did either of you, NYatKnight or Christian, participate in the memorial competition? Your ideas would have been a contribution.

The memorial design competition covers a complexity not seen in other design competitions. I am eager to see how the eight designs acheived their creative solutions to such an intricate puzzle: commemoration of the dead, with the remains of the unidentified, on the actual historical site, in the midst of the city's financial center, and in a sunken garden (or not). How big have they thought out of the box (literally and metaphorically). I can hardly wait to see. Disappointment would be painful to bear.

November 14th, 2003, 01:09 PM
My memorial design included a provision for EVERY company that lost someone on 9/11 to have a space to create a memorial as they see fit. The largest (Cantor) would only be allotted an area 4 times larger than those firms grieving over a single employee, and that provision was only because 658 (343, etc) names do take up a substantial amount of space. This would allow the FDNY, NYPD, PAPD, etc. to create their heroes memorial, along with whatever Cantor, AON, Windows, etc. would choose to honor their lost.

November 14th, 2003, 02:30 PM
In my opinion, the memorial space should not include any blank space for any group or individual to create their own memorial. Whether it's Cantor Fitzgerald or a restaurant worker or a visitor to the building, the memorial should be universal. This is not a cemetery.

Individual expressions are best left to the museum.

November 14th, 2003, 02:59 PM
I beg to differ, respectfully...the footprints are the final resting place for the remains of 2000 people who were not found. As of September, 2003, the OCME still reports 1271 people missing. There were 12,800 "remains" that are still unidentified. The Coalition of 9-11 families considers the 2 footprints "hallowed ground", in that respect. They have petitioned for the footprints, and in fact the entire slurry wall area to be considered "historic places" by the National Parks Service.


November 14th, 2003, 03:06 PM
Zippy, I think you have hit upon what will be the central debate in this issue.

Is the pit a memorial or a cemetary?

A cemetary would arguably be more meaningful to many (most?) of the people who actually lost someone, at least for as long as they are alive. On the other hand a memorial would arguably be more meaningful to vast majority who did not lose someone and for longer than the lifespan of the victim's family.

I fully expect this debate to sink to lows unimaginable at this point. It won't be pretty.

November 14th, 2003, 03:15 PM
While I don't necessarily agree that the entire bathtub slurry area should be undeveloped (it is a large area) I don't think it is unreasonable to keep the footprints undeveloped and have the memorial there.Keep in mind the vast majority of those "remains" were found where the North Tower stood. I think that history would be underserved if commercial development occurs on that spot. If anyone wants the link for the
Coalition, I am happy to put in in a future post.


November 14th, 2003, 05:09 PM
Lets get real here, no memorial will be selected that does not give the families some individual expression at their loved one's 'gravesite'. But this will not be in the public area, or definitely not the main focus of the memorial. This macabre element cannot be too prominent, it must be something the viewer can engage with and not feel accosted.

Going to a graveyard is not an uplifting experience, so to balance this there must be an over-riding inspirational element that serves as the iconic image of bittersweet endurance, the 'picture postcard' factor if you will. That is how I saw the design problem, and how I addressed it in my design.

If someone can recall the individual lives/deaths and inspire grand thoughts and emotions at the same time (without creating hierachies or categories) their proposal will win. It must be unabashedly confident and optimistic or it will suck the life out of the surrounding development and forever be a blight on the city. The 'pit' is already a step in this undesirable direction, the memorial needs to help fill the void.

November 14th, 2003, 05:46 PM

Bill Would Require National Park Service to Conduct Feasibility Study for Memorial at Twin Towers' Footprints

WASHINGTON -- Representatives Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) today introduced the World Trade Center Historic Study Act, directing the National Park Service (NPS) to conduct a study of the feasibility and suitability of establishing a memorial at the Twin Towers site to commemorate the tragic events of September 11, 2001.The Coalition of 9/11 Families supports the bill, which would require the NPS to report its findings to Congress within six months of enactment. These families are eager for the footprints, where the greatest number of victims lost their lives and where the majority of remains were found, to be preserved

."The Coalition of 9/11 Families is grateful and encouraged by the leadership of Congressman Shays and Congresswoman Maloney in introducing legislation to assess the historic significance of the World Trade Center Site," said Mary Fetchet, a Coalition of 9/11 Families board member and Chair of Voices of September 11."As we move forward rebuilding the former World Trade Center site, it is crucial we remember the extraordinary courage and honor showed by so many, and the innocent victims who lost their lives that day," said Shays. "This study is an important step in both moving our country forward and providing the families some measure of peace."

Congresswoman Maloney said, "The footprints of the World Trade Center towers need to be protected and honored. This is the wish of the families who lost loved ones that day, and it ought to become a shared goal for the country as well. This bill is about finding the best way to achieve that goal, preserving the footprints and expressing the nation's interest in a shared remembrance and lasting tribute to those lost."

"This assessment is a vital first step in identifying the tangible historical ruins," said Mrs. Fetchet. She and her husband lost their 24-year-old son, Brad, on September 11. "The existing box beam columns, other structural remains from the buildings and the true bedrock footprints should be accessible and preserved for ALL Americans and future generations who visit this historic site," she said.

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to use the criteria contained in Section 8 of Public Law 91-383, the National Park System General Authorities Act, to conduct a study of the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan to evaluate the national significance of the site and the feasibility and suitability of establishing the site as a unit of the National Park System. Sponsors are being sought for the legislation in the Senate.

November 14th, 2003, 06:39 PM
well here's another... i still won't count out that our entry may have influenced one of the finalists as we shared the ideas with many designers and architects...


November 14th, 2003, 10:06 PM
the footprints are the final resting place for the remains of 2000 people who were not found.
You could make that statement concerning much of lower Manhattan, but in reality, the footprints are symbolic.

My example of cemetery was in reference to the individuality of memorializing, not the sacredness of the ground.

The consideration of the site as a national historic place is appropriate, and brings a question to mind: What will this place represent in 50 years?

An example may be further downtown in Battery Park. The East Coast Memorial honors the 4600 men who were lost, and never recovered, in the battle of the North Atlantic. I’m sure many of their family members considered this memorial as a sacred place, but that is no longer the case. People who visit now still read names, and it makes you wonder – for what purpose? Then you realize that the power in the eight slabs of rock is the anonymity, names from Brooklyn and Kentucky and Arizona, all came together in a historic event.

If the (public) memorial becomes too much a conduit for family grief, it will lose significance as the decades pass.

Anonmemo: Maybe it's just me, but I can't open your file.

November 16th, 2003, 05:41 PM
A person who is willing to enter a burning building, to help others, is a better person than me. Thank those who entered the WTC & recognise them. The rescue workers are an integral part of the 9/11 story, a fact that should not be ignored

November 16th, 2003, 06:12 PM
Thank those who entered the WTC & recognise them.
The question is, in what manner?

November 16th, 2003, 08:05 PM
In the manner that the firefighters have requested. I'm glad our society has people willing to risk their own lives to save others. Let's let future generations know this about our society. To me, it's about getting the story of THAT day right. To identify rescue workers as such, just gets the story right. It's a small thank-you; they aren't asking for a monument to their heroism, just to be identified as firefighters and such.

November 16th, 2003, 08:48 PM
Museums are the best venue for documenting history.

My understanding of the request by the FDNY is to be listed with their units, not to be given any special distinction. Given the close bonds of a firehouse, I can understand this. I'm just not sure if this is appropriate.

Don't equate my indecision for a lack of respect.

November 17th, 2003, 07:19 AM
If anybody gets to the Wintergarden today, please post some pics...much appreciated!!

Thanks, JK

November 17th, 2003, 07:29 AM
Actually the plans won't be unveiled until Wednesday. Two more days. :(

November 17th, 2003, 07:45 AM



November 17, 2003 -- Just days before eight Ground Zero memorial designs are made public, development officials yesterday criticized a proposed federal study aimed at putting the National Park Service in charge of the tribute.

They said a bill introduced in Congress by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan) that authorizes the study could cause delays in rebuilding if it is passed

But Maloney and 9/11 family members said the study is needed to determine whether the Twin Towers' "footprints" should be given landmark status - which could keep anything but the memorial from being built on them.

"We are undertaking a comprehensive environmental review which incorporates the historic nature of the footprints," said Lower Manhattan Development Corp. president Kevin Rampe.

"An additional layer of bureaucracy will not lead to a better result but will serve only to delay the construction of an appropriate memorial."

He warned that decisions about things like the Freedom Tower, a permanent PATH station and the memorial itself could be stalled.

Giving the memorial site federal status now could take control away from state and city officials, he added.

On Wednesday, the LMDC will reveal eight finalists chosen by a jury in an international memorial design competition. A winning design will be picked before the end of the year.

The bill, introduced earlier this month by Maloney and Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), would require the Park Service to complete a study within six months "to evaluate the national significance of the site and the suitability and feasibility of establishing the site as a unit of the national park system."

The bill is backed by the Coalition of 9/11 Families, which wants to preserve the footprints of the Twin Towers down to bedrock - and objects to projects such as an expanded PATH train platform that would encroach on them.

Anthony Gardner, whose brother, Harvey, was killed on Sept. 11, 2001, said the study would focus on things such as the remains of the Twin Towers' steel columns, which were cut down to bedrock during the Ground Zero recovery effort.

"They're the last trace of the original towers on bedrock," Gardner said. "There needs to be a closer evaluation and assessment of what is there before they go ahead and pour millions of tons of concrete on top of these [columns]."

Maloney defended the bill, saying, "A quick rebuilding is a wonderful goal but not at the expense of getting this right."

.................................................. ......................................


WTC Memorial Designs to Be Displayed


NEW YORK (AP) -- The public will get its first look this week at the design proposals for what could become the most-visited memorial in the world -- the victims' monument planned for the World Trade Center site.

Officials on Wednesday will reveal the proposals of eight finalists competing to design the ground zero memorial to the nearly 3,000 people killed in the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, and at the 1993 bombing at the trade center.

Dozens of victims' groups have long been voicing their interest in the memorial's size, shape and design.

Many family members have said the towers' footprints -- where the two, looming buildings once stood -- need to be left empty, and say as large a space as possible is needed to separate the area from commercial development. Families of fallen firefighters and rescue workers want their loved ones' names listed as a group.

Others have expressed preferences on everything from the size of the inscribed victims' names to the need for play areas for children. But despite the intense interest, it's unclear how much public opinion will affect the selection.

The decision rests with a 13-member jury appointed by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to choose the memorial. There will be no formal public comment process, and jurors have been instructed not to speak publicly about their deliberations.

Asked whether the public's views on the designs would matter, corporation president Kevin Rampe said, "Obviously the public will express their opinion and I'm sure the jury will hear them.'' But he added, "the jury will make the final decision.''

They are expected to choose a design by the end of the year.

The process differs from the way officials chose the chief rebuilding plan for the site. Redevelopment leaders solicited public comment after finalists' designs were displayed, and said the decision was largely guided by those responses.

The corporation chose Daniel Libeskind's Freedom Tower design; leaseholder Larry Silverstein later appointed David Childs lead architect. The two architects are currently working toward a mid-December deadline to reach a compromise on the 1,776-foot tower's design.

Officials say they are using a different process for the memorial because it is public art, as opposed to urban redevelopment.

But many who lost loved ones at the towers feel it is more important to be heard about the memorial than anything else.

"The process is not being open to the public and it's despicable,'' said Bruce Decell, whose son-in-law, Mark Petrocelli, was killed.

Monica Iken, who lost her husband in the 2001 attack, is concerned whether the memorial can accommodate the projected flow of visitors. Some have estimated up to 20,000 people already visit the trade center site daily.

Iken also wants the victims' families to have a private place to reflect and mourn.

"We have to share this with the world, we understand that,'' said Iken, founder of the family group September's Mission. "But we also need a separate place.''

The finalists' designs, chosen from 5,200 submissions, will be displayed at the World Financial Center near ground zero. Corporation officials refused to discuss any details of the entries, saying only that the jurors have spent hundreds of hours deliberating and looked at each submission.

The jury is a diverse group that includes Maya Lin, designer of the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial; former college president and New York Library president Vartan Gregorian; Michael McKeon, Gov. George Pataki's former spokesman; and Paula Grant Berry, whose husband, David, was killed at the trade center.

November 17th, 2003, 06:00 PM
The decision rests with a 13-member jury appointed by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to choose the memorial. There will be no formal public comment process, and jurors have been instructed not to speak publicly about their deliberations.

Asked whether the public's views on the designs would matter, corporation president Kevin Rampe said, "Obviously the public will express their opinion and I'm sure the jury will hear them.'' But he added, "the jury will make the final decision.''

Public workshops at Pace Univ. - Nov. 20, 21 & 22

November 18th, 2003, 06:18 AM
November 18, 2003

5 Principles, and Many Voices, Go Into Trade Center Memorial Design


The designs for a World Trade Center memorial cannot satisfy everyone. They will almost surely not satisfy anyone who believes in the inviolability of the twin towers' structural outlines. But the eight proposals to be unveiled tomorrow must satisfy a carefully worded mission and five key principles.

Though it may seem hard to imagine what criteria could be used to judge the finalists in the competition — given the number of lives affected, the scope of the international response and the range of reaction from inchoate grief to steel-edged anger — the 13 jurors have had a road map.

Two road maps, actually. There is a brief mission statement embracing abstract concepts like "eternal beacons" and a slightly longer program statement with details as specific as setting aside about 2,500 square feet of space as a "final resting place for the unidentified remains."

The criteria were prepared by two committees for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which is sponsoring the competition. They drew on the earlier work of the corporation's families advisory council, which included Nikki Stern, whose husband, James E. Potorti, was in the trade center, and Tom Rogèr, whose daughter, Jean Rogèr, was aboard one of the hijacked jetliners.

Committee members debated whether to say the victims had been "killed" or "murdered," whether to cite "terrorists" or "Islamic fundamentalist terrorists," whether the dead ought to be grouped in some way (say, as firefighters or as employees of Cantor Fitzgerald) and whether the structural outlines of the twin towers should be preserved or expressed visually.

They also received public comments. Michael Kuo, a member of the mission committee, said about a hearing last January: "Much of what we heard was: `How can the word "terrorist" not be in there? My brother wasn't killed. He was murdered.' " Mr. Kuo lost his father, Frederick Kuo Jr.

The program committee struggled with how detailed their recommendations should be until the middle of December 2002, when the prospective master plans for the trade center site were released.

"Once we saw those plans, we realized that there are solutions out there, that the creativity of architects and designers should be left to do that," said Albert Capsouto, a committee member and the proprietor of the restaurant Capsouto Frères in TriBeCa.

In the end, the mission committee stated the memorial's overall purpose in four sentences:

"Remember and honor the thousands of innocent men, women and children murdered by terrorists in the horrific attacks of Feb. 26, 1993, and Sept. 11, 2001.

"Respect this place made sacred through tragic loss.

"Recognize the endurance of those who survived, the courage of those who risked their lives to save others and the compassion of all who supported us in our darkest hours.

"May the lives remembered, the deeds recognized and the spirit reawakened be eternal beacons, which reaffirm respect for life, strengthen our resolve to preserve freedom, and inspire an end to hatred, ignorance and intolerance."

The five principles articulated by the program committee are: that the memorial recognize "each individual who was a victim of the attacks" at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and aboard United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania; provide an "area for quiet visitation and contemplation"; provide an "area for families and loved ones of victims"; create a separate interment area for unidentified remains; and "make visible the footprints of the original World Trade Center towers."

That last provision is probably the most controversial. It does not call for preservation of the structural vestiges — or "footprints" — of the twin towers, 70 feet below sidewalk level. The memorial site specified in the competition includes the area where the towers stood. But it is only 30 feet deep, that is, 40 feet above bedrock.

"Forty feet above this site is midair," said Anthony Gardner, whose brother, Harvey Joseph Gardner III, was killed in the attack. "How is that a footprint?"

Mr. Gardner and other members of the Coalition of 9/11 Families were joined at the site yesterday by Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York, and Representative Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut, who have introduced a bill directing the Interior Department to study the "feasibility and suitability of establishing a national memorial on the site of, or proximate to, the footprints of the former World Trade Center towers."

"This is the Gettysburg of the 21st century, the Pearl Harbor of our time," Ms. Maloney said, gesturing behind her during a sidewalk news conference on Church Street.

Mary Fetchet, whose son, Bradley James Fetchet, would have turned 27 yesterday had he not perished in the attack, drew an analogy with the battleship Arizona at Pearl Harbor to explain the significance of the towers' remnants.

"Preservation of the ship in the very place it sank maintained authenticity and reverence," she said. "I ask what if the ship had been raised, removed, destroyed, infringed upon or, worse — covered over? What if these historical ruins were not identified or preserved? This is the situation we now face."

The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation later issued a statement saying that it "certainly appreciates the historic nature of the footprints and has included it as an important part of the comprehensive environmental review process."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

November 18th, 2003, 06:19 AM
November 18, 2003

Court Questions Eliminating Trade Center Memorial Entry


The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation was ordered yesterday by a State Supreme Court justice to explain why it eliminated an entry titled "Twin Piers" from the World Trade Center memorial competition. The entry was apparently under serious consideration until early last month.

The justice, William A. Wetzel, did not go so far as to prevent the corporation from announcing eight competition finalists tomorrow. Instead, he scheduled a hearing next Tuesday, leaving open the possibility that he might reinstate "Twin Piers," at least temporarily.

The entry calls for two piers extending from Battery Park that would be as long as the trade center towers were tall. Conceived by Fred A. Bernstein, who contributes articles on architecture for The New York Times and other publications, the proposal was submitted to the competition by Mr. Bernstein's domestic partner, Charles Upchurch, an assistant professor at Florida State University. Mr. Bernstein, who has a Web site describing "Twin Piers," submitted a separate proposal called "Listen" under his own name.

Competition rules specify that no one may register more than once or be a member of more than one team. "We have an obligation to protect the integrity of the process," said Matthew Higgins, the chief operating officer of the development corporation.

Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer for Mr. Upchurch, who filed the lawsuit that led to yesterday's order, said Mr. Bernstein had given up on "Twin Piers" as a competition possibility. Mr. Upchurch submitted it on his own, believing that it was the best proposal.

Mr. Upchurch said he was told on Sept. 17 that the proposal had made it to the next round of the competition. Three weeks later, he was told it was no longer being considered. An article in The New York Post on Nov. 7 said the design "got bounced when it was discovered the author broke contest rules."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

November 18th, 2003, 07:32 AM



November 18, 2003 -- A Ground Zero memorial designer who was disqualified as a finalist went to court yesterday to force officials to put his plan back in the running - but redevelopment officials accused him of a "shell game."

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice William Wetzel told the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. to explain why it rejected the design - dubbed "Twin Piers" - but refused to halt tomorrow's highly anticipated rollout of the eight other Sept. 11 memorial proposals.

The judge said he may still order the LMDC to reinstate "Twin Piers" as a finalist.

The lawsuit was filed by attorney Glenn Greenwald for Florida State University professor Charles Upchurch, who says in court papers that the LMDC told him on Sept. 17 that the competition's 13-member jury "selected [his] proposal as one of nine finalists."

But on Oct. 8, the LMDC sent Upchurch an e-mail saying his design - which calls for Twin Towers-sized piers extending into the harbor - was no longer in the running.

What the LMDC didn't tell Upchurch was that officials booted him after they discovered "Twin Piers" was originally created by Manhattan journalist Fred Bernstein, whom the court papers identify as his domestic partner.

Bernstein had submitted a different design to the competition - and says he gave Upchurch permission to send in the piers idea.

That raised a red flag at the LMDC - which barred people from making more than one entry.

LMDC lawyer David Yohai called the move a "little bit of a shell game." Bernstein responded that "there's been absolutely no subterfuge."

November 18th, 2003, 07:44 AM
The Twin Piers...



November 18th, 2003, 09:42 AM
If they wanted to do this, why couldn't the peirs just be made in addition to the design winner?

November 18th, 2003, 10:48 AM
If they wanted to do this, why couldn't the peirs just be made in addition to the design winner?


November 18th, 2003, 11:24 AM
This doesn't interfere with ship traffic?

It's a neat idea, but it's pretty far removed from "Ground Zero".

November 18th, 2003, 11:51 AM
This doesn't interfere with ship traffic?

Yep. Barges being towed out of the East River going north on the Hudson are unhooked right in that area, and free-float while the tug repositions itself on the other side.

November 18th, 2003, 04:43 PM
The memorial utilizes Battery Park -- which is already a tourist gathering-site -- as a meeting place and staging area. It could be built within a year. It could, with the approval of the victims' families, use steel recycled from the World Trade Center.

The piers would not block harbor traffic. In this image, which is to scale, the world's largest cruise ship can be seen moving up the Hudson River after passing the Twin Piers.

It doesn't sound like too bad an idea, but I don't know if it will work with the Libeskind plan...

November 18th, 2003, 05:17 PM
It could be built within a year.
Maybe, but construction wouldn't start for years. The Hudson is federally regulated, and this would be subject to an extensive review. Look how long it took for Hudson River Park, and that was rebuilding existing structures within the pierline.

November 18th, 2003, 05:54 PM
I hope you all don't think this design is worthy as competition winner. It's as lame as it has been from way before the competition. "Fred A. Bernstein, who contributes articles on architecture for The New York Times and other publications," abandoned it because it was crap, and so should we.

Go ahead and build it, build piers everywhere, piers on the southern tip of Manhattan sounds great, but NOT in lieu of a real memorial.

If this pompous ass gets any LMDC money or further undue recognition from this lame media-storm. . . I'll have to start getting critical.

November 18th, 2003, 06:16 PM
I don't like it as memorial or pier.

The piers would not block harbor traffic. In this image, which is to scale, the world's largest cruise ship can be seen moving up the Hudson River after passing the Twin Piers

Doesn't this guy ever look at the river, or does he think all traffic is cruise ships in the middle of the channel.

November 19th, 2003, 05:58 AM
November 19, 2003

9/11 Memorial Designs to Be Unveiled Today


It would be a luminous place, a verdant place.

The outlines of the twin towers might rise like islands from a watery setting. Or they might be preserved in some fashion all the way down to bedrock. Visitors might find themselves under a kind of structural cloud, while family members could gather in their own sanctuary. It would be a quiet place.

Everywhere, there would be names. Alphabetically. Chronologically, by age. Collegially, alongside fellow workers. Geographically, by tower. But all accounted for: those who struggled and died at the Pentagon, in a Pennsylvania field and on that very spot in Lower Manhattan.

And on that spot, along with the pools and the trees and the points of light like votive candles, there would also be a tomb for those who are still nameless — the unidentified dead — so they might at last come to rest.

These are some of the ways New York may choose to memorialize the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and Feb. 26, 1993, at the site of the World Trade Center.

After four months of extraordinary secrecy, the veil started to lift last night, fold by fold, on the eight finalists chosen by the jury in the memorial design competition. Many designers are young; one is French, one Israeli.

The descriptions came from relatives of those who were killed in the terrorist attacks as they emerged last night from a preview of the exhibition at the Winter Garden in Battery Park City. The show will open to the public today.

Neither the jurors nor the entrants will be present today when the plans are formally announced. This is meant to guarantee that the 13-member jury can keep deliberating in some isolation from politics and public-relations as it narrows the choices to a winner, probably by the end of the year.

The family members had been asked not to talk with reporters by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which is sponsoring the competition, but some said they had refused to sign confidentiality agreements. Most of those who spoke requested anonymity.

They used words like "reverential" and "respectful" to describe the designs. And "overwhelmed" when speaking of their own feelings. But some expressed disappointment that the plans did not set aside more of the twin towers' foundations as a setting for the memorial.

In one design are glass memorial columns, one for each victim, divided by the footprints of the two towers. They would be placed chronologically by the age of the victims when they died, with the names of the victims etched into the glass, which would be six to eight feet tall, looking vaguely like the towers. There would also be trees in the area so that it would look, from a distance, like a grove.

The glass columns would be on a bed of water within the towers' footprints that would be connected by a bridge representing Pennsylvania and Washington, where the other victims died on Sept. 11. Behind the two footprints would be an area called the Weeping Wall, which would have an outlet of water for each victim. And the water from this wall would fill the pools set up in the footprints of the towers.

"There were really amazing things there," said one family member who saw the designs. "I was very impressed."

A woman who lost her husband on Sept. 11 said that the designs paid an enormous amount of respect to those who died. "But at the end of the day," she said, "they are not depressing."

A widower said, "You always know where the footprints are." And a man who lost his daughter exclaimed that each plan found a place for the names. "It's very exciting," he said. "Very creative. Very high level."

The secrecy around the competition was intended to limit the influence on the jury by passionate family members, smooth-talking designers and chattering journalists; opinion polls and opinion makers.

Apparently, it bought the 13 jurors the breathing room they needed to focus on ideas rather than fending off lobbyists, and winnow 5,201 entries to 8. (Of course, there is no way to know for sure. They aren't talking.)

"Our role is to protect the jury and provide them with the time and resources they need," said Kevin M. Rampe, president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. "We moved at a pace that allows them to go through their own contemplative process."

That process began in August as jurors — including Deputy Mayor Patricia E. Harris; Maya Lin, the designer of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington; and Vartan Gregorian, the president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York — started sifting through 30-by-40-inch boards, labeled only by number.

Entrants were warned, on pain of disqualification, not to "directly or indirectly reveal the authorship of any design concepts" to jurors or reporters. Entrants were also prohibited from disparaging the corporation, the jurors and the other designs.

The jury picked the eight finalists anonymously. Corporation officials saw to it that their meetings with entrants never included the whole group, so that no one finalist would know the identity of all the others.

At the opening of the exhibition today, jurors and entrants will be heard only through prepared statements, not interviews. "The reasoning is to ensure this becomes a dialogue of ideas and not personalities, and that a public relations campaign doesn't erupt," said Matthew Higgins, the chief operating officer of the development corporation.

To level the playing field further, each finalist was given up to $130,000 for a professional-grade presentation. "That was very helpful," said Anita Contini, who directed the competition, "because they come from different walks of life." Even the model makers, illustrators and computer animators signed confidentiality agreements.

The guidelines do not require the preservation of the twin towers' outlines, or footprints, merely that they be made visible. Those who regard the footprints as historic, sacred and inviolable found some reason to cheer in their preview of the plans, but were not entirely satisfied.

There will be no formal public comment as the jury completes its work, though the jurors cannot help but overhear the debate.

Three public meetings, under the rubric "Imagine New York," are to be held tomorrow, Friday and Saturday by the Municipal Art Society and the Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New York (www .imaginenewyork.org).

Michael Kuo, the planner of "Imagine New York," said he expected about 500 people to participate in person and 10,000 others to join on the Web. The results, in a 10- to 12-page summary, will be delivered to each juror.

13 Who Will Do the Choosing: Jurors for the Memorial Competition

PAULA GRANT BERRY serves on the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation Families Advisory Council and was a Memorial Program Drafting Committee member. Her husband, David Berry, was killed in the south tower of the World Trade Center. She has held several executive positions in publishing and marketing.

SUSAN FREEDMAN is the president of the Public Art Fund. She currently serves as a representative on the board of the Museum of Modern Art. She served as assistant to Mayor Edward I. Koch and director of special projects and events for the Arts Commission of the City of New York.

VARTAN GREGORIAN is the president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Before that, he was president of Brown University and president of the New York Public Library. He was the founding dean of the faculty of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania and also served as provost at Penn.

PATRICIA E. HARRIS is deputy mayor for administration for New York City. Previously, she managed Bloomberg LP's Corporate Communications Department, overseeing its philanthropy, public relations, and governmental affairs divisions. Under Mayor Koch, she served as executive director of the Art Commission.

MAYA LIN runs her own studio in New York City, creating installations and buildings throughout the country. Ms. Lin gained international recognition for creating the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington and the Civil Rights Memorial in Montgomery, Ala.

MICHAEL McKEON is now a managing director of Mercury Public Affairs and has served as Gov. George E. Pataki's director of communications and as the governor's chief spokesman. Mr. McKeon also worked for more than 10 years as a reporter for three New York newspapers.

JULIE MENIN is the president and founder of Wall Street Rising, a nonprofit organization founded in October 2001. Ms. Menin was formerly senior regulatory attorney at Colgate-Palmolive and now owns Vine Restaurant in the financial district.

ENRIQUE NORTEN, of TEN Arquitectos, received his first commission in the United States in 2002, from the Brooklyn Public Library, to design its visual and performing arts library. He will also design the new Marriott hotel in Harlem. He holds the Miller Chair of Architecture at the University of Pennsylvania.

MARTIN PURYEAR is an artist who, in 1989, received a MacArthur Foundation Grant and was awarded the grand prize at the São Paolo Biennale in Brazil, where he represented the United States.

NANCY ROSEN runs Nancy Rosen Incorporated, which helps clients plan public art programs and fine art collections. She has served on the city's Art Commission since 2002.

LOWERY STOKES SIMS is the executive director of the Studio Museum in Harlem, where she has overseen expansion and renovation projects of the museum and its collection. Before her appointment in January 2000, she was curator of modern art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

MICHAEL VAN VALKENBURGH is founder of Michael Van Valkenburgh Architects in Manhattan and Cambridge, Mass. Mr. Van Valkenburgh is the Charles Eliot professor in practice of landscape architecture at the Harvard Graduate School of Design.

JAMES E. YOUNG is a professor and chair of the Department of Judaic and Near Eastern Studies at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Professor Young was guest curator for an exhibition at the Jewish Museum and is on the five-member commission for Germany's national "Memorial to Europe's Murdered Jews," now under construction in Berlin.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

November 19th, 2003, 07:39 AM
The Associated Press

NEW YORK Nov. 19 — A day before the public was offered it's first view of competing designs for the World Trade Center memorial, relatives of those killed got a chance to preview the eight proposals for the site.
In one, the names are listed chronologically. In another, they are arranged by age. A third chronicles each victim by where they perished on that fateful morning.

"I thought they captured the essence of what the memorial should be," said Christine Huhn-Graifman, who lost her husband, David Graifman in the Sept. 11, 2001, attack.

Nikki Stern, who lost her husband Jim Potorti, said all of the designs were responsive to the memorial's mission statement crafted several months ago by victims' families.

She said each design offered a sanctuary of some sort and one featured a vast lawn area to be accessed only by family members for the next 20 years.

The memorial will commemorate the 2001 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania, as well as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Each included different plans for displaying the names of those killed.

The eight proposals, accompanied by videotaped interviews of finalists talking about their designs, were to be officially unveiled Wednesday at the World Financial Center's Winter Garden, near where the twin towers stood.

The eight plans were picked from a pool of 5,200 by a 13-member jury established by The Lower Manhattan Development Corp. The jury will decide the winning design by the end of the year.

Officials have said the jury may hear the public's opinion, but have scheduled no formal public comment process to preserve the jury's independence. Neither the designers nor jurors were to be present Wednesday.

The debate over the size, shape and design of the memorial has been one of the most emotionally charged of those surrounding the site's redevelopment, in some cases pitting some family groups against firefighters.

Yet several members of the group that got a preliminary viewing indicated that they were generally pleased with the designs.

Thomas Roger, whose daughter Jean died aboard Flight 11, said that all the designs also offered access to the slurry wall and the bedrock of the towers, but in varying degrees. The slurry wall, a three-feet thick concrete barrier that keeps the Hudson River at bay, is the only surviving remnant of the trade center.

If there were any complaints, it was that the designs didn't feature enough of the bedrock at the base of where the towers once stood, an area viewed by some families as a sacred cemetery for the nearly 2,800 people who died there.

Associated Press Writer Jennifer Friedlin contributed to this report.

November 19th, 2003, 10:19 AM
The outlines of the twin towers might rise like islands from a watery setting.

I wonder how high? I've always said that THINK was going to submit the WCC towers to the memorial competition. ;)

November 19th, 2003, 11:01 AM
The designs have been released here...


November 19th, 2003, 11:09 AM
Thank you for providing the link.


November 19th, 2003, 11:21 AM
My favorites are right now:

Inversions of light and the cloud.

They are all good however, each with its own distinctions...!

November 19th, 2003, 11:26 AM
World Trade Center memorial designs unveiled

The Associated Press

NEW YORK -- The eight designs unveiled Wednesday as finalists for a World Trade Center memorial remember the dead with quiet gardens, reflecting pools, inscribed names and lights for lost lives.

All eight designs, selected from a pool of 5,200, list the names of those who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, as well as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. They are inscribed on granite walls, glass panels and stone columns.

"We have sought designs that represent the heights of imagination while incorporating aesthetic grace and spiritual strength," the jury that chose the finalists said in a statement.

The finalists, whose identities were made public for the first time Wednesday, range from local artists to international architects.

One design proposes an open air structure with cathedral-like vaults and a glass walkway overhead where thousands of lights illuminate engraved names of the victims. It groups the rescuers' names separately in a ribbon that loops through the other names.

Another suggests votive lights suspended over a reflecting pool, with each light representing a victim.

One design includes a park sloping from street level to 30 feet below, a garden where the south tower stood, and a structure where the north tower stood with a staircase waterfall.

The proposals include private areas for relatives of the victims and a tomb for unidentified remains of people killed when the twin towers were hit by hijacked planes and collapsed. One design envisions a blue light projected upward from the place where the unidentified remains are entombed.

All of the designs preserve the slurry wall, the only surviving remnant of the original trade center.

The eight proposals, accompanied by videotaped interviews of finalists talking about their designs, were displayed at the World Financial Center's Winter Garden, near where the towers stood.

John Whitehead, chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which is overseeing the rebuilding of the site, said the jury "identified the best work of highly creative individuals and teams from around the globe."

Family members of those who died were shown the designs prior to the unveiling and said they mostly approved of the plans.

"I thought they captured the essence of what the memorial should be," said Christine Huhn-Graifman, who lost her husband in the attack.

But some said Tuesday that the plans did not provide enough access to the bedrock level of the trade center site. As it stands now, the redevelopment plan preserves the approximate circumference of the towers, but construction would encroach on the twin towers' footprints at bedrock level.

Wednesday's viewing was the public's first chance to see the eight proposals, picked by a 13-member jury, which will decide the winning design by the end of the year.

November 19th, 2003, 11:49 AM
I just watched an LMDC provided video of all plans with commentary by the designers, on NY1.

My initial impression: In no order, I like
Lower Waters
Inversion of Light
Reflecting Absense

November 19th, 2003, 11:54 AM
Somewhat interesting photos from Newsday...










November 19th, 2003, 11:58 AM
More from Newsday...







http://www.nynewsday.com/media/photo/2003-11/10289627.jpg . http://www.nynewsday.com/media/photo/2003-11/10289630.jpg








November 19th, 2003, 11:59 AM
My favorites are right now:

1. Inversion of Light

2. Reflecting Absence

3. Suspending Memory

They are all good however, each with similar distinctions...!

I like the DUAL and SUSPENDING memory, but the DUAL memory concept can work well as part of the museum...

November 19th, 2003, 12:09 PM
One more...





November 19th, 2003, 12:10 PM
Here's another view of that last one...


November 19th, 2003, 12:20 PM
The only one I'm eliminating so far is Reflecting Absence. The waterfalls in the footprints are nice but it is unremarkable otherwise.

November 19th, 2003, 12:27 PM
I'm not too fond of Memorial Cloud, but they have solved access across the site.

November 19th, 2003, 12:27 PM
The choices are harder than I thought they would be. I like the Suspended Memories concept, especially if the waterfall is still included in the site plan. But I'm not sure if the Port Authority would build a huge pool over the PATH center. And other designs seem to have more room for visitors...



November 19th, 2003, 12:39 PM
I'm impressed by all of them. Suspended Memories looks very nice on the drawing, but like I've said many times, I don't think reflecting pools look as good in real life - especially in winter.

I'm not too fond of Memorial Cloud
No? I'm sort of intrigued by its uniqueness.

November 19th, 2003, 12:46 PM


Yes this is my favorite as well, i love water, and i think that with those 'wedge of light' buildings at the sides and slightly above it it will make great reflections. Also i think that water is peaceful.

I dont like this one at all.


November 19th, 2003, 12:57 PM
Mu first thought of Suspending Memory was - not enough room.

None of these are bad, and thankfully, to varying degrees, are urban in character. I need to get to the Wintergarden. I hope the presentations are of good quality.

Note: As stated this morning, the plan chosen will need additional refinement.

November 19th, 2003, 12:58 PM
I'm glad I didn't take part in a memorial process like this one. Think about it folks, 30 feet below ground, even more inaccessible from ground level than the original plaza, and every bit as sterile, the WTC memorial I expect will be rather depressing no matter which one is chosen. I don't like any of them.

November 19th, 2003, 01:14 PM
With the such a large expanse of water in Suspended Memories I would worry about what the wind is going to do to it.

There's a very large reflecting pool at the Christian Science Center in Boston and its a nightmare of spray in the wind. The pit may give it some protection from the wind but judging from the swirling going on during the 1 year anniversary ceremony I'd be worried about that much water in the wind.

Other than that concern I do like it but it looks like its going to be the second that I'll eliminate after Reflecting Absence.

TLOZ Link5
November 19th, 2003, 01:27 PM
I agree, Garcia. The less water, the better. The original WTC plaza was windy enough as it was. Plus, with that big a reflecting pool there's just not sufficient space; it's essentially cutting the viable memorial space in half, with just the tower footprints above water.

November 19th, 2003, 01:42 PM
Its not quite clear to me what underground space there is in Suspending Memory. That may make up for the lack of space above ground.

November 19th, 2003, 02:06 PM
I greatly dislike Reflecting Absences. It looks like a graveyard. So gloomy.

Suspended Memories doesn't really have enough room. Maybe if some trees were cut out.

I like Memorial Cloud and Lower Waters. The sheltered yet exposed slurry wall intrigues me the most.

November 19th, 2003, 02:34 PM
I think the Memorial Cloud is impressive looking, and seems to be a very good fit for the site... able to hold up in any weather, etc. I also like the street level access and I think it said portions go to the bedrock... important to certain groups. Overall, it's the most awe inspiring and most realistic one of the bunch, in my opinion.

I was pleasantly surprised with most of them, but the water ones might be a little tough in the "real" world.

When is this supposed to start construction?

November 19th, 2003, 03:16 PM
Here are my first impressions....

Reflecting Absence
My least favorite, too sterile. The waterfalls in the footprints are its best feature but not enough to make up for the rest of it. What were they thinking with that wall of a building on West St.?

Chances of being chosen: None

Suspending Memory
Aesthetically pleasing on a number of levels. The footprints themselves are nicely doen. But the large exapanse of water is a deal breaker for anyone who remembers the swirling winds that marked the first anniversay ceremonies. The whole thing would become a nightmare of spray. I think that this will be a popular plan with those who don't think about the ergonomics of it.

Chances of being chosen: Slight. Water spray and lack of space will doom it despite its aesthetic appeal.

Votives in Suspension
I like how the footprints are turned into indoor spaces. The votives hanging there may be a bit hokey or could be transcendent. I haven't really decided. It treats all the LMDC "required" elements with respect. I think its weakest point is the open expanses of lawn. A few trees would be nice. Its one of my initial favorites.

Chances of being chosen: Good. Respectful and easy to build.

Dual Memory
An interesting site plan that works well withing the confines of the pit. It also has a little something for everyone which is its biggest asset. That is also its biggest flaw in that it lacks a single, simple statement.
Chances of being chosen: Mediocre. A lot depends on what the judges are looking for. The multimedia aspects of the displays in the north tower footprint may also be frowned upon. They may age quickly. There's nothing less appealing than high-tech 10 years out of date.

Inversion of Light
The glass wall of names will be popular with those who like the Vietnam Memorial. Beyond that the memorial will be best at night because of its excellent lighting scheme. The multi-level nature of the memorial is easily visible and inviting. The use of the north footprint to recreate the tower's floor plan is original and speaks more literally to the event more than the other plans. I'm not sure about the open grass platform spanning the pit. While it improves access across the diagonal it may make the whole plan too sterile.

Chances of being chosen: Good. A lot to like with no real drawbacks.

Passages of Light: Memorial Cloud
This will be popular with those who like to see big things built. Beyond that it will end up as either a "love it" or "hate it" depending on whether you think the cloud is attractive or not. Personally I like the cloud but the actual elements of the memorial lack a bit of imagination. The cloud does give diagonal access across the site. Its biggest drawback might be the lack of attention to doing anything with the footprints.

Chances of being chosen: Good. A lot may depend on how hard the cloud will be to build and maintain.

Lower Waters
This plan removes the cultural spaces proposed by Libeskind and pushes them underground. The sybmolism around the footprints is a bit trite IMO. I'm not sure how the slant will go over either as access seems to be limited from "deep end".

Chances of being chosen: Slight. Too much change from the original guidelines to be politically acceptable especially since it provides no compelling reason to change them.

Garden of Lights
Very sterile IMO and I question whether the lighing effects will have as much impact in the real world as they do in the renderings. Other than that its a good, not great, plan that offers a lot of little things to different groups.
Chances of being chosen: Mediocre. Nothing particularly compelling about it.

November 19th, 2003, 03:19 PM
On Veterans Day the president lays a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers. On September 11, what will happen at this memorial? Will all activity occur below ground? No photo op? I'm trying to consider which one of these is best not only for every day life, but on September 11 itself, which will serve the anniversary best.

November 19th, 2003, 03:28 PM
Good assessment JMG. I like the cloud, but there's nothing else there - not even trees. Talk about a windswept plaza. Perhaps the next phase will improve upon all these schemes. I'd like that cloud even more if some of the top was undulating, as clouds do. I'm also wary of the access being TOO good, i.e. a major shortcut for commuters.

On the other hand, one of the requirements was that the memorial have the ability to change over time, which most of these can do with their empty, open spaces. It is also obvious that the jury didn't agree with Rudy Guiliani - that there should be a "soaring memorial".

November 19th, 2003, 04:38 PM
Like NYatKNIGHT said, good assessment JM. I like Inversion of Light as my favorate, followed by Memorial Clouds. However, my only problem with Inversion of Light is that it has that blue light beam, which may over-do the skyline, if you count the annual ceremony of the Tribute of Light, and the Freedom Tower. Another problem is with the north tower footprint. The hanging museum kind of obstructs it's ability to shine. I just hope the jury isn't dumb enough to choose the one with the footprint reflecting pools. I noticed that someone on NYCS predicted a few days ago something similar to that being chosen as the winner.

November 19th, 2003, 04:55 PM
1.Is the memorial able to transport the viewer away from the everyday?
2.Is the memorial weatherproof?
3.Will the memorial lose its austerity when clogged with people?

My three favorites
Votives in Suspension: The delicacy of the individual lights will really overwhelm the viewer. If you have ever been to a candelight vigil with a few thousand people you know what I am talking about.

1: Yes
2: Yes
3: ? With higher ceilings and longer cables it may work.

Inversion of Light: The volume becomes apparent and as a void is highly charged.

1: To some extent.
2: To some extent.
3: Likely

Passages of Light: Memorial Cloud: Otherworldly experience for the viewer. I love how it compels the viewer to look upward.

Ethereal, (my favorite)
1: Yes
2: To some extent.
3: Not if the powerful view is upward.

November 19th, 2003, 05:13 PM
What is beginning to bother me most about this is that none of the finalists are especially different from one another. They all focus on light and water and space through a modern interpretation accentuating clean lines and spare spaces. They all seem to me to be variations on a theme.

Not that I'm saying I would prefer any of these but, for example, where is the "neo-classical" finalist, a "gardens" finalist, a "monument" finalist, a"hypostile hall", or even a "sculpture" finalist?

TLOZ Link5
November 19th, 2003, 05:22 PM
The memorials have gotten a positive reception on the AOL boards. People are debating which one is best as opposed to which ones they hate most.

November 19th, 2003, 05:48 PM
I stopped by the Wintergarden on my way home. The display is similar to the site plan competition, but all the models are displayed outside of the glass, so you can walk around them.

Judging solely on the overall memorial sites, I’ve added Memorial Cloud and removed Reflecting Absence.

With all the talk the last several months about The Pit, most of the plans are successful in abating its impact – from Reflecting Absence, which eliminates it entirely, to the worst Suspending Memory, which fills it with water.

Reflecting Absence is just too stark; Greenwich St looks barren.

Memorial Cloud is at street level along Liberty St from West St to the footprint, and flows from the small park on Liberty.
There is another access point along West St, and it flows into Sept 11 Place under the museum. The plaza above the memorial can be further developed.

TLOZ: I think the positive reaction is the visualization minus the pit.

November 19th, 2003, 05:53 PM
Unlike the WTC site plans, I still don't have a heavy favorite, and probably never will. There are aspects to every plan I like, as well as drawbacks. I think I"ll cross off REFLECTING ABSENCE and LOWER WATERS.

I do like this light from the INVERSION OF LIGHT plan:


I like this view from VOTIVES IN SUSPENSION:


It seems to be the most clearly defined of the plans at least...


MEMORIAL CLOUD has a lot of appeal:



I like the representation of the victims in the DUAL MEMORY plan, but this could be included in the museum:



And its a little more visually interesting than the others:



November 19th, 2003, 07:40 PM
great...a putting green....


November 19th, 2003, 07:43 PM
A video report with reaction...(Newsday)

November 19th, 2003, 08:48 PM
What is beginning to bother me most about this is that none of the finalists are especially different from one another. They all focus on light and water and space through a modern interpretation accentuating clean lines and spare spaces. They all seem to me to be variations on a theme.

Not that I'm saying I would prefer any of these but, for example, where is the "neo-classical" finalist, a "gardens" finalist, a "monument" finalist, a"hypostile hall", or even a "sculpture" finalist?

right -- where are statues, torches, and eternal flames?

November 20th, 2003, 07:10 AM
That would expedite the process of elimination.

November 20th, 2003, 08:14 AM
for that you need eternal prunes.

November 20th, 2003, 08:26 AM
Keep it simple. Eliminate inessentials. Cut the rhetoric. These are the principles that should be adhered to when considering ground zero.

November 20th, 2003, 08:31 AM
November 20, 2003


Presenting Several Versions of the Shape of Grief and Recollection


Slide Show: Design Finalists (http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2003/11/19/nyregion/20031119WTC_SLIDESHOW_1.html)

Eight possible memorials at the World Trade Center site, each deferring in some way to the ghosts of the twin towers, were shown to the nation yesterday.

The plans, chosen by a 13-member jury for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, did not come from the hands of celebrated architects but rather a diverse group of designers, many of them young, who live in and work in Brooklyn, Manhattan, Chicago, Houston, Paris, Ithaca, N.Y., and Oakland, Calif.

Most designs followed the lead of Daniel Libeskind's overall plan by depressing some or all of the memorial area that has been set aside at the southwest corner of the trade center site. Some expressed the presence of the towers as voids. Others turned the building footprints into islands, waterfalls, pavilions, sanctuaries and even small prairies.

As one of the most keenly anticipated events in the redevelopment of Lower Manhattan, the unveiling drew dozens of victims' relatives and firefighters in their bunker coats. They mingled with officials, civic leaders, architects and reporters among eight models set up on pedestals in a semicircular gallery at the Winter Garden in Battery Park City.

The unveiling also drew Vartan Gregorian, the chairman of the jury and president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York. He broke a long public silence to introduce the eight plans that the panel culled from 5,201 submissions in the hope of finding "a design that will begin to repair both the wounded cityscape and our wounded souls."

Until now, the process had been kept secret, in part to insulate jurors from politics, pressure groups and public relations. The entrants were not present yesterday and are still barred from talking to reporters.

The jury must narrow the choice to first- , second- and third-place finalists, which could happen by the end of the year. Under the competition guidelines, if the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and the winners are "unable to reach an agreement" about development details, the corporation will open negotiations with the other finalists.

Even the winning design is likely to change before construction is begun. Dr. Gregorian said the jury would seek refinements in "how the names of each of the victims should be recognized, how to respect the tower footprints and keep them unencumbered, how to provide access to bedrock, and what the relationship of the memorial will be to the site's interpretive museum."

Until a winner is chosen, the finalists will be on display at the Winter Garden, the glass-roofed centerpiece of the World Financial Center, directly across West Street from the trade center site. It is open from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily. The plans are also at www.wtcsitememorial.org . Eventually, all 5,201 submissions will go on public display, at the jurors' request.

There will be no formal public comment period, although the Municipal Art Society and the Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New York are conducting three public meetings today, tomorrow and Saturday ( www.imaginenewyork.org ). The results of those meetings will be summarized and presented to jury members.

In any case, such a well-connected jury — it includes the designer Maya Lin and Deputy Mayor Patricia E. Harris — cannot possibly avoid hearing what will certainly be a lively, if not stormy, civic debate.

On first impression, the plans all seem to have been shaped by the implicit impression of the twin towers, whose absence is still the most remarkable thing about the Lower Manhattan skyline. Their outlines are seen in every design.

As such, the designs tend to look downward, some as far as bedrock. Many are organized around subterranean or covered spaces and chambers. There are few elements in any plan much higher above sidewalk level than a treetop.

"They strive neither to overwhelm the visitor nor their immediate surroundings," Dr. Gregorian said. "They aspire to soar — not by competing with the soaring skyline of New York but rather by creating spaces that strive to reconcile vertical and horizontal, green and concrete, contemplation and inspiration.

"They allow for the change of seasons, passage of years and evolution over time. They emphasize the process of memorialization over their own grandeur and present themselves as living landscapes of living memory that both connect us to our past and carry us forward into the decades ahead."

The memorial is intended to remember the people and events of Feb. 26, 1993, when the trade center was bombed, and Sept. 11, 2001, when the twin towers were destroyed and the Pentagon badly damaged by three hijacked jetliners, as a fourth hijacked airplane crashed in Pennsylvania.

Six plans closely follow Mr. Libeskind's architectural outline, which calls for a museum wing bridging over the footprint of the north tower and another wing cantilevered over the footprint of the south tower.

Asked yesterday whether any or all of the designs fit his own vision of the site, Mr. Libeskind answered diplomatically, "I think the jury will have to make that decision."

It was Mr. Libeskind's Memory Foundations plan of December 2002 that awakened the possibility of setting the memorial on bedrock, 70 feet below ground, framed in part by the surviving foundation walls of the trade center. He has since modified his plan to a 30-foot depression.

But the issue of connecting the memorial to bedrock is potent and emotional.

Although the guidelines instructed the designers only to "make visible the footprints," Kevin M. Rampe, the president of the development corporation, seemed to go further than that yesterday when he said that "no matter which plan is chosen, the L.M.D.C. will ensure that bedrock can be accessed at each of the tower footprints."

Some access has been designed into Passages of Light: The Memorial Cloud, which leaves the footprints empty and creates an enclosed space between them with an undulating roof made of translucent tubes.

The footprints would become enclosed sanctuaries in the plan Votives in Suspension, punctuated by a light for each victim, suspended by cable over a reflecting pool. In Lower Waters, a granite-clad memorial space would fill the north footprint, with a grove of trees in the south.

Sugar maples would fill the south tower footprint in Dual Memory, with a pavilion in the north. Garden of Lights would establish an orchard in the space between the footprints, which would be set aside as small prairies.

Inversion of Light would include perhaps the most literal recollection of the twin towers by reproducing a floor plan based on those of the 94th and 95th floors in the north footprint. In the south footprint would be a pond.

In Reflecting Absence, both footprints would be turned into 30-foot-deep reflective pools, edged with curtains of falling water. This proposal offers the most radical departure from Mr. Libeskind's plan by proposing to situate the cultural building along West Street as a barrier to the highway.

Reversing that arrangement, Suspending Memory would make a pool out of the entire site except the footprints, which would become garden islands, joined by a bridge, with small glass columns representing each life lost.

While almost everyone around him was dissecting individual plans, Albert Capsouto, the proprietor of the restaurant Capsouto Frères in TriBeCa, took a moment to discuss the impact of the competition on the Lower Manhattan community.

"Our biggest enemy is inaction," he said. "When you have a presentation that tries to pull it together — and they have pulled it together — that gives us optimism. And optimism is fuel for healing.

"There's going to be something there again."

8 Designs Confront Many Agendas at Ground Zero


Victims' families yearned to touch the bedrock where the World Trade Center stood. Firefighters had to see their buddies' names listed together. Artists dreamed of a revelation. The fiercely protective hoped for an expression of the essential horror of the tragedy, and the spirit of the city that endured.

Expectations could not have been higher yesterday when the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation announced eight designs chosen by a 13-member jury to memorialize those lost to terror, and to engender hope while bearing witness to evil.

The jurors had many constituencies to please. And many were unhappy, although there was nowhere near the vehemence as when the initial plans to rebuild the site were announced last year. The chorus of conflicting voices ranged from the outraged to those who found inspiration in the proposals' creativity, but many also expressed the need for further contemplation.

"These plans are impersonal and generic," said one of the disappointed, Debra Brown Steinberg, a lawyer with Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft who has donated her time to represent many victims' families. "There is nothing about them that is unique to the tragedy that happened down there. These plans could be in any park, or any memorial, for any purpose."

Ms. Steinberg was hardly the only critic after the plans were unveiled before some 200 guests and a live television audience in the Winter Garden of the World Financial Center, adjacent to ground zero.

"Uniformed rescuers gave their lives on 9/11, and it's not too much to ask that there be a simple acknowledgment that they gave their lives while saving lives," said John Finucane, 59, a retired New York Fire Department lieutenant, who opposes the A-to-Z listing of victims' names.

Rosaleen Tallon, 32, whose 26-year-old brother, Sean Patrick Tallon, a firefighter, died rescuing victims of the terrorist attacks, said that 14 Fire Department families were ready to remove their relatives' names from the memorial if they were listed along with civilians. "They shed their blood knowingly as they went to their deaths," she said.

The plans also drew the ire of groups opposing the incursion of ground-zero construction on the footprints of the towers. The Coalition of 9/11 Families issued a Memorial Design Finalists Report Card, which gave each of the proposals an F. "All these designs have failed because none really incorporate the historic remnants of the towers," said a spokesman, Anthony Gardner, whose brother, Harvey Joseph Gardner III, died in the north tower.

Mary Fetchet, who represents another advocacy group, Voices of Sept. 11, said, "As it is, I have had no access to the south tower footprint, and now I may never have access." Her son, Bradley James Fetchet, died in the south tower. He would have been 27 on Monday. She said the tower footprints at bedrock, and their surviving support columns, were an especially powerful memorial for nearly half of all the families whose relatives' remains have not been identified.

Others objected to what they saw as the designs' banality. "They all look pretty much the same," said Raymond Smith, 49, an illustrator and painter. As he surfed the images on the Internet in his apartment in Hoboken, N.J., he likened many of the designs to hotel lobbies.

"When I first saw the Maya Lin thing, I walked right up to it and I started crying," he said, referring to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and its designer. (Ms. Lin served as a judge, not a participant, in this competition.) Mr. Smith clicked on another image. "This wouldn't make me cry. This looks like an airport design in the 60's." He viewed another and said, "Welcome to the MGM Grand."

Certainly the plans did generate enthusiasm among many. "Over all, these plans show an amazing breadth of talent and creativity," said Michael Macko, 39, whose father, William Macko, 57, of Bayonne, N.J., was one of six people killed on Feb. 26, 1993, when a truck filled with explosives detonated in the parking garage of the north tower.

"I'm gratified that the names of all the 1993 victims are included in each of the plans," he said.

Michael Casey, an advertising executive in Boston whose wife, Neilie, died on Flight 11, said he was grateful "for the care taken to think out each one of these," he said.

"It means so much to me that something will actually be done there," he added. "But I am looking forward to it being done well."

Some were stunned by the solemn impact of the designs. "I have so much emotion about them that I'll really have to think some more," said Jimmy Renne, a 47-year-old firefighter from Engine Company 259 in Queens who lost many friends on Sept. 11. "I'll be talking to the guys in the house about it."

Richard A. Pecorella, 51, a Wall Street managing director who was to marry Karen S. Juday, who perished at Cantor Fitzgerald, said he liked the Dual Memory entry. "The projected images of the victims are nicer than engraved names," he said, "and will put a face on these real people who died."

Others thought it premature to venture an opinion. "I don't have a favorite yet, because it's hard to judge from what you see on the Web site," said the architect David Rockwell, referring to renewnyc.com. He was part of a team of finalists in the master-plan competition and designed — and helped pay for — the viewing platform at ground zero.

He added, "I'm struck by how they've gotten away from the traditional notions of monuments, to the experience of memorialization."

Kim Foster, 46, an art gallery owner who lives in Battery Park City, said she had expected the eight designs to have been created by famous architects or designers, and was gratified to see that young, lesser-known people had been included. "I was sort of shocked," she said.

The winning design is expected to be picked before the end of the year, but for some, any choice seems moot. The loss of their loved ones still overshadows any notion of a memorial. "I don't feel the emotional strength to get involved in this process," said Jennifer Gardner, whose husband, Douglas, died in the north tower.

"I don't know if I will ever be able to go down there," she said of the memorial. "But there has to be something that reminds you of the violence. It cannot look like people went gently into that good night."


Amid Embellishment and Message, a Voice of Simplicity Cries to Be Heard


http://graphics7.nytimes.com/packages/images/arts/20031120_wtc_MEMORIAL/met_MEMORIAL_promo_184.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/arts/20031120_wtc_MEMORIAL/index.html)

Keep it simple. Eliminate inessentials. Cut the rhetoric. These are the principles that should be adhered to when considering ground zero. But for better or worse, we are living in baroque if not byzantine times. Some of our most impressive contemporary architecture reflects this. All eight designs chosen as finalists for a memorial of the World Trade Center disaster bear strong traces of it, to a greater or lesser degree. Each of them suffers as a result.

Seen as a group, these finalists make the strongest possible case for simplicity as the most suitable aesthetic for ground zero. None of them deserve to be built in their present form. A few of them, however, have the makings of a good beginning. If one of these, titled "Reflecting Absence," enjoys an advantage over the others, that is because it has the greatest potential to be the least.

Designed by Michael Arad of New York, the project features two reflecting pools, situated within the footprints of the fallen towers. There's more — too much more, by far — but the design has the signal virtue of focusing the viewer's attention where we want it to be focused: on the symbolic pair of shapes that have come to represent the simultaneity of public and private loss.

The design has problems, too. There's a surfeit of hard paving in the plaza surrounding the pools. The pools are flanked by low buildings that appear visually irrelevant to the memorial task. They enclose steps that lead down into subterranean galleries for viewing cascades of water that flow from voids in the pools above.

It will not be possible to judge how these underground spaces would work until more is known about plans to install a shopping mall at ground zero. All of us have been to suburban malls with waterfalls. I wouldn't object to being remembered by one when I die, particularly because they do have a tendency to dry up after a few seasons. The question is whether we have the right to choose that fate for others. I'd be reluctant to.

I do appreciate the idea of descent into the earth, though, even if a mall awaits us there. For some people, shopping is heaven, for others hell. In that sense malls are universal. But the fact that we should have to ponder the eschatology of retail points up, yet again, the frustration of trying to appraise pieces of the ground zero plan in isolation from one another, and in illogical order.

I found myself thinking about the obstacles the jury must have faced while I was looking at another of the eight entries. "Suspending Memory," designed by Joseph Karadin with Hsin-Yi Wu, both of New York, reverses the concept of the Arad scheme. It envisions a garden within each of the footprints, surrounded by an immense pool of water.

But this plan, too, is overburdened with features: columns of concrete and glass; capsule biographies of the victims; a memorial bridge with references to the Pentagon attack and the crash of the hijacked plane in Pennsylvania. As these features pile up, the project comes to seem more and more like an artifact of the memorial industry, less like a heartfelt response.

More to point, the overembellishment would in all likelihood limit the range of emotions visitors would be allowed to feel. This is an old Olmsted principle, and it happens to be a sound one. It is precious to be alone with your thoughts in a public space. Anything that compromises this experience is as unwelcome as sale signs in a shop window.

As for the other designs, they all offer an excess of spectacle. There are no embarrassments, unless beauty is embarrassing, but perhaps, in this context, it is. Everything here is wonderfully polished. Each finalist could be the winner in a dozen memorial competitions. But that is not really a compliment, is it? Memories don't want to put on their party clothes so soon.

Some people get through mourning quickly. Others devote their lives to it. There's no wrong or right way. As in this city, it is a novel experience for us. We don't know what stage of mourning we're supposed to be at.

Yet it is a tribute to this competition that we begin to engage such issues seriously. From the start, there's been a Red Queen logic to the design process. First the architectural renderings! Then the master plan! Now it must be acknowledged that the memorial competition has been an exception to the Darwinian carnival that the public has been treated to thus far.

Anita Contini, director of the memorial competition, deserves credit for lifting the design process to a higher level of discussion. Amazingly, she has managed to create an island of credibility within the dubious political tempest that has been buffeting the site for more than two years.

Unlike the chaotic design study conducted last year by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, here the jury's decisions were cultural, not capriciously political.

To an extent, however, the overproduction exhibited by all of the finalists is a reflection of political will. It suggests that the experiences of 9/11 are far from digested. How could they be, in such a short period of time? And yet, you can't fault the designers or the jury for this. All of us, it seems, are merely passengers on this super-fast-track express that our public officials have devised for our mourning experience.

One might also suspect that the relative youth of the designers has been a disadvantage. Yet it need not have been, as we are reminded by the presence of Maya Lin on the competition jury. Ms. Lin was still a student at Yale when she designed the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington. None of the designs begins to approach the caliber of this youthful work. Collectively, however, they help to clarify the direction the design should take.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

November 20th, 2003, 08:46 AM
November 20, 2003

The Memorial Finalists

When coming generations try to make sense of what we felt on Sept. 11, 2001, they will turn to the documentary records: the newspapers, the videotapes, the interviews. But when they try to understand how we wanted that tragedy to be remembered — something very different — they will turn to the art that arose from it and to the memorial that will be created at ground zero. The memory of that morning is something we all keep within us. The memorial is a public expression of that private memory, a way of arranging space and light and imagination so something more than the past is evoked. The most powerful memorials we know do not merely consecrate an event. They dignify our presence, too.

Coming to terms with the eight memorial designs unveiled at the Winter Garden yesterday will take a little time. They inevitably make an overt appeal to our emotions, but they must also be judged by how well they will stand up many years from now. The winning design will belong to the cityscape as surely as the buildings that are eventually constructed around it. And yet, public as it is, for that memorial to succeed, it must also fill an unclaimed space in our emotional lives. We know how we have felt. We do not know how a memorial will make us feel. Finding the imagination — the visual empathy — needed to read ourselves into these eight designs in the hopes of choosing one is no small task.

Some of these proposals capture the very somberness of the event they memorialize, and some draw from it the possibility of renewal. Some allow visitors to discover for themselves just how they will remember the individuals who died on 9/11, while other designs try to shape that commemoration in more literal ways. Our preference is for a memorial that encompasses light and renewal. Being at ground zero will furnish all the sobriety needed. And we hope that the winning design will embrace a way of remembering the dead that does not become trapped in specificity. This should be a memorial for our collective loss and not exclusively the loss suffered by the families of those who died there. Above all, we hope, when the winning design is finally built, to understand something about 9/11 that had gone unexpressed until then.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

November 20th, 2003, 09:17 AM
A few of them, however, have the makings of a good beginning. If one of these, titled "Reflecting Absence," enjoys an advantage over the others, that is because it has the greatest potential to be the least.

I wouldn't expect anything less from Muschamp than selecting the absolute worst design of them all. My guess is that he's playing politics again.

November 20th, 2003, 09:51 AM
November 20, 2003


From Around the World, Artists and Architects Who Rose to a Challenge

Lower Waters

That water is an integral part of Bradley Campbell's design for the memorial does not surprise the people who know him. Mr. Campbell, an abstract painter and sculptor, grew up in Minnesota, and its lake-dappled terrain has long inspired his art.

"When we have done shows of his paintings, a lot of the time, the outdoors was really a heavy influence," said Rebecca Ibel, owner of the Rebecca Ibel Gallery in Ohio, where Mr. Campbell lived for much of the 1990's. "They have been described as emotional landscapes in that they trigger memories of places and times."

Mr. Campbell, 34, now lives in Brooklyn, though Ms. Ibel said he returned regularly to Minnesota for family fishing trips. He planned his entry, "Lower Waters," with another Brooklynite, Matthias Neumann, 34, an architect who is from Germany but seems to have developed a keen interest in the New York City landscape.

Mr. Neumann was part of a design team, called normaldesign, that was recently a finalist in a contest to develop urban place markers — ways of highlighting sometimes obscure New York City locales of significance, from the meatpacking district in Manhattan to the Empire Roller Skating Center in Brooklyn. The contest was sponsored by the Municipal Art Society and City Lore, a nonprofit group that runs cultural programs about the city.

Mr. Neumann's team proposed that at more than 400 sites around the city, sculpturelike vending machines be installed that would dispense postcards with information about the sites and city history. "Even though the design itself was very modern, it worked in an historic landscape as well," said Marci Reaven, managing director of City Lore. "He brings a thoughtfulness and a concern for the human dimension of the problem, not just the design or architectural dimension." CLIFFORD J. LEVY

Garden of Lights

A professor and two students — Pierre David, Sean Corriel and Jessica Kmetovic — came together in a program run by Columbia University called The Shape of Two Cities before creating Garden of Lights. The program's vision spans an ocean: undergraduates from various universities study architecture, planning and preservation in New York and Paris.

Garden of Lights includes a garden above an underground room where lights show through to altars below, a light and an altar for each victim.

"There was a last hour, a last minute, a last second that 2,982 stars went dark," their description of the project reads. "The instant there was this last light, there was a first light, 2,982 stars were born . . . Above there is the garden, below there is a new sky and 2,982 stars."

Mr. David has taught at the École Nationale Supérieure du Paysage in Versailles, as well as at Harvard and Columbia.

A student at Cornell, Mr. Corriel, 22, grew up in Huntington, on Long Island, and is studying landscape architecture, a passion of his since high school, said his father, Robert.

Ms. Kmetovic, 26, of Oakland, Calif., is a fifth-year architecture student at the California College of the Arts. She attended the Shape of Two Cities last fall and spring.

Patricia Alarcón, a lecturer in architecture at California College of the Arts, remembered a window Ms. Kmetovic had designed in her housing class.

"She finds the poetry in an idea and just goes with it," she said. "She's very interested in the outdoor shared public spaces, very interested in making community and how you bring a bunch of people from disparate backgrounds together in a place and help them form a community. So here she is making a garden." TINA KELLEY

The Memorial Cloud

The two German-born architects who designed Passages of Light: The Memorial Cloud have collaborated on a plan to remake at least one other well-known site in New York City: They won an award in 2001 for their proposal for a multilevel makeover of Queens Plaza. Among other things, they envisioned a greensward with beeches and oaks alongside the subway platforms.

Their collaborator on Passages of Light, Sawad Brooks, 39, is an artist and critic with experience in Internet-based art.

The two architects, Gisela Baurmann and Jonas Coersmeier, have had a long personal and professional relationship, said Kevin Kennon, the executive director of the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies in New York, who has known them for some time. He said that Ms. Baurmann, who is an adjunct assistant professor at Columbia University, is expecting their first child. "They represent a whole new generation's way of thinking about architecture and public space," Mr. Kennon said.

Their plan for Queens Plaza, developed with with Birgit Schoebrodt and Michael Biermer, won second prize and $5,000 in a competition sponsored by the nonprofit Van Alen Institute. Mr. Coersmeier's firm, Probehead, was selected in June to build a new Web site for the Battery Park City Authority, and the Web site that Probehead designed for the institute was honored in the 2003 Architecture Web Site Awards. Besides working as a designer for various architectural firms, Mr. Coersmeier has been a management consultant for McKinsey & Company.

Mr. Brooks, who was born in Bogotà, Colombia, collaborated with Beth Stryker on "DissemiNET," which was shown at the Whitney Museum of American Art. He and Warren Sack developed "Translation Map," an online exhibit that let viewers write and send e-mail messages to 250 countries. He was a visiting assistant professor in the Department of Modern Culture and Media at Brown University last year. JAMES BARRON

Suspending Memory

Like so many people in this city, Joseph Karadin, 33, and Hsin-Yi Wu, 29, came to New York from somewhere else. Ms. Wu was born in Taipei, Taiwan, and grew up in Jakarta, Indonesia. She arrived in the United States in 1992. Mr. Karadin, a native of Ohio, eventually moved east to study architecture at Cornell University, where Ms. Wu was a student.

They both graduated with degrees in architecture in 1997 and moved to New York City, where they live and work.

Jonathan Ochshorn, associate chairman of the Department of Architecture at Cornell, said architectural study could be roughly divided between those institutions that focus on the practical aspects of the subject and those that place a greater emphasis on the conceptual.

"I would say Cornell is on the conceptual side, and that may help explain why some of our students may have placed well in a competition like this that has an emphasis on the conceptual design," Mr. Ochshorn said.

The design submitted by Mr. Karadin and Ms. Wu is called Suspending Memory. In their statement explaining the memorial, they said that it would give the families a chance to tell the stories of the ones they have lost. This would be accomplished by having each victim represented by a single column supporting two island gardens. Below the gardens, the columns are solid stone. As they break through the garden soil they are transformed into illuminated glass beacons. On each column, details of an individual life are etched.

David J. Brown, senior curator at the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, said the design for the memorial had elements in common with a design that Mr. Karadin recently submitted as a part of the museum's HOME House Project, for which he won a prize. In the home design, there is an emphasis on the individual and not just the things that surround that individual. Likewise, in the memorial design, Mr. Brown said, Mr. Karadin and his partner deal with personal identity within the context of a larger community. MARC SANTORA

Inversion of Light

Toshio Sasaki, who designed Inversion of Light, is a sculptor who lives and works in Brooklyn. His work has been seen around New York City, from Manhattan to Staten Island to the boardwalk at Coney Island.

Born in Kyoto, Japan, Mr. Sasaki, 56, came to New York after receiving a Bachelor of Arts from Aichi University of Fine Arts. He studied from 1974 to 1976 at the Brooklyn Museum Art School, under a Beckmann Scholarship (named after the artist Max Beckmann). At the Brooklyn Museum, he studied sculpture with Toshio Odate and Barney Hodes.

Mr. Hodes remembers Mr. Sasaki as one of several Japanese artists in his class, "a fast track for people like Sasaki who were already quite proficient." Mr. Sasaki was more of a Surrealist than an abstract sculptor, Mr. Hodes said, someone who already "had a very strong idea of what he wanted to do." The program at the Brooklyn Museum has since ended, Mr. Hodes said, and "Sasaki was one of the happier fallouts — I'm very pleased for him." Mr. Sasaki also took a seminar on art in New York, visiting museums and studios.

Before Mr. Sasaki entered the memorial competition, his most notable contribution to the environment of New York City was "The First Symphony of the Sea," a monumental 322-foot-long wall relief at the Aquarium for Wildlife Conservation, known as the New York Aquarium, at Coney Island. Situated on the boardwalk outside the aquarium, it is constructed from four tons of concrete. Evoking the aquatic wildlife within the building, the relief is embedded with mosaic fish heads and terrazzo starfish. Mr. Sasaki has also exhibited his work at the South Beach Psychiatric Center on Staten Island, Central Park (an animal-inspired sculpture called "Moving Earth") — and in Washington, Philadelphia and Japan.

He has also received fellowships from both the New York State Council on the Arts and the National Endowment for the Arts. MEL GUSSOW

Dual Memory

The Chicago team behind Dual Memory are at the beginnings of their careers. The pair, Brian Strawn and Karla Sierralta, received their master's degrees in May from the University of Illinois. The pair come from varied backgrounds, but met at the university. Mr. Strawn is from rural southern Illinois, and Ms. Sierralta is from Venezuela and was studying on a Fulbright scholarship.

Mr. Strawn came late to architecture, after studying zoology as an undergraduate at Southern Illinois University. As a graduate student he took part in a study abroad program in Rome and is now on the staff of Vinci Hamp Architects in Chicago.

Ms. Sierralta studied at the University of Zulia in Venezuela and received a Fulbright scholarship in 2001. She also studied in Rome, and received an honorable mention in a student competition to design a performing arts center in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Ammar Eloueini, an assistant professor of architecture at the University of Illinois who taught both students, said their education stressed the rewards of competitions.

"It integrates in their mind the idea that in architecture you could be in a competition like the World Trade Center memorial, and you can win," Mr. Eloueini said. BEN SISARIO

Votives in Suspension

Michael Lewis and Norman Lee, finalists from Houston whose design is titled Votives in Suspension, became finalists by way of a failed physics class and a stint with Disney.

Mr. Lewis was the one who failed physics. He was a freshman at Presbyterian College in Clinton, South Carolina, when his poor showing in physics prompted him to leave the college's pre-engineering program for its theater arts department, where he thrived, said Lesley Preston, associate professor of theater at the college and his adviser for four years.

The physics class was "one of those wake-up calls that maybe engineering wasn't going to be as interesting as he thought," said Professor Preston, who described Mr. Lewis as "an incredible self-starter with a good designer's eye — a very thoughtful, articulate person." Mr. Lewis later passed physics, a requirement, and went on to graduate early in 2000.

It was in that year that Mr. Lee completed his schooling. Mr. Lee, born and raised in Houston, received a master's degree in museum education at the University of Texas in 2000. As an undergraduate, he studied psychology and art history. Mr. Lee, like Mr. Lewis, has a history of work in design. He developed attraction ideas for Disney's California Adventure theme park as an intern in 1997, and he currently works as a senior developer of museum exhibits in Houston.

Votives in Suspension features two memorial sanctuaries, each on one of the World Trade Center towers' footprints. According to the design plans, family members would light the votive candles — one candle per victim — in a ceremony. The candles would be suspended from the ceilings of the sanctuaries.

"We wanted to keep it simple," said Mr. Norman, speaking in a video broadcast on national television on Wednesday. "Seeing objects suspended gives an intrinsic sense of loss and sadness."

The Texas designers entered the competition as their "way of helping," said Scott Philo, a model maker at Coleman and Associates, the Houston company that constructed the designers' models. "I think between the two of them, their collaboration — it's a pretty strong image," Mr. Philo said. SABRINA TAVERNISE

Reflecting Absence

Michael Arad, an architect with the New York City Housing Authority, has created structures slightly less poetic than his memorial entry, Reflecting Absence. But the structures — a police station on the Lower East Side, for example — have been well received.

"It fits us fine," said Police Officer Anthony Flores, who works in the building, Police Service Area No. 4. "It's a very nice building. It's pretty, we enjoy it and the people in the area seem to like the way it looks."

Mr. Arad grew up in the United States, Mexico and Israel, where he served in the military until 1991. His father was the Israeli ambassador to the United States from 1987 to 1990 and to Mexico from 1983 to 1987.

He studied at Dartmouth College and received a master's degree from Georgia Tech College of Architecture. He worked at the architecture firm Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates for three years before joining the housing authority, where he has helped with the creation of two police stations.

Bogdan Pestka, the project architect Mr. Arad works with at the city, said Mr. Arad was very talented. "He's very thoughtful, and a very inspiring guy to work with," he said. "He's still very young — there's a long way to go for him — but certainly it looks like it's a good start," he said, referring to the memorial design.

Mr. Arad is now on a yearlong leave after the birth of his son, Nathaniel. TINA KELLEY

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

November 20th, 2003, 09:58 AM
In one sense, the focus of the memorials as the footprints area, I agree with Muschamp. My initial preference for Reflecting Absence changed when I viewed it in context.

I wonder why this designer chose to alter the site so radically. Just the issue of street-level retail is enough to derail it.

November 20th, 2003, 10:38 AM
trust me on this one, "Inversion of Light" is the winner.

November 20th, 2003, 10:56 AM

November 20th, 2003, 11:25 AM
trust me on this one, "Inversion of Light" is the winner.

I hope so too, it looks real intense and it is just light. love it!


November 20th, 2003, 11:37 AM
It's only been 24 hours and I've gone through both extremes of liking them all and hating them all. I'm seeing too much "nothing" from above, and they all draw people down underground - same as the old WTC plaza, except now instead of shopping people will be "contemplating". Someone help me, tell me why any of these are really good, I'm starting to hate them all again.

November 20th, 2003, 11:57 AM

http://www.queenstribune.com/guide2002/images02/greetings-pataki.gif +
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/photocopier-xerox.jpg =

November 20th, 2003, 12:13 PM
NYatKnight: It may help if you go to the Wintergarden and view the models.

Lupercalio: Whatever. Maybe Maya Lin beat up the other jurors. :roll:

November 20th, 2003, 01:21 PM
I've had wildly changing opinion of them all (except Reflecting Absence which I've consistently thought is the worst) but right now I'm leaning toward Inversion of Light or Votives in Suspension simply because they both leave space to eventually make a nice park.

Passages of Light: Memorial Cloud continues to appeal to that part of me that likes to see big things built but I just can't imagine walking across that glass expanse in the winter with the wind and patches of ice and snow. It would make the old WTC plaza look like a carribean beach.

I still fail to see the fetish many have with the bedrock. No one died down at bedrock but rather well above street level. Even the remains where generally not found at bedrock but somewhere in the pile of debris much higher up.

TLOZ Link5
November 20th, 2003, 01:43 PM
The families never really had the idea of a memorial down to bedrock until Libeskind came along.

November 20th, 2003, 01:51 PM
Preserve Sacred Ground

Over the past two years, the Coalition has presented our reasonable position to Governor Pataki and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to preserve the sacred ground where the towers stood and the majority of our loved ones died. Although Governor Pataki pledged in June, 2002 to preserve the tower footprints, development plans limit the memorial to 3 stories below the surface level, reserving the lower 3 stories for non memorial related development.
Many of our loved ones were found at the lobby level which was recovered 8 feet above bedrock. This sacred ground should be preserved for the memorial.

Our families, historians, religious leaders,
architects and Mayor Rudy Giuliani strongly
oppose commercial infringement on the
sacred ground where our loved ones died.

Each dot represents the location of body parts recovered. The above map illustrates the varying depths where our loved ones were recovered from ground level to the bedrock foundation of the towers within the slurry wall area. 19,938 remains were recovered of the 2,792 loved ones murdered on September 11, 2001. Each floor of the 110 story towers was compressed to approximately 12 inches. The interior of the slurry wall incorporates the sacred and hallowed area where the majority of our loved ones were recovered. This area must be preserved for the memorial.

The Memorial Complex should be encased in the slurry wall from bedrock to surface level and above ground where the greatest concentration of human remains were recovered. The slurry wall area encloses 9.5 acres from West Street to de mapped Greenwich (East) and Vesey (North) to Liberty (South).

Each mark on the above map represents within a 75 foot grid the location of remains recovered at the WTC site from October through May, 2002.
Multiple remains recovered on varying levels are not represented.
19,938 remains were recovered.

Components of the Memorial Complex within slurry wall area should be multifaceted. Memorial components should provide remembrance our loved ones, capture the enormity of 9/11, represent the historic significance for future generations and exemplify the unity of America and humanity in the aftermath. Components may include a museum, cultural center, place of reflection, etc.
The Memorial Complex should also include a repository for the unidentified and unclaimed remains. As the New York City Medical Examiner continues the identification process and as DNA technology advances, families will continue to be notified. The Coalition supports returning all unidentified and unclaimed remains to the site in a place of reverence and honor surrounded by a place of reflection.

Sorry, the graphics did not come out...go to www.memorial for 911.com for more details.

November 20th, 2003, 01:53 PM
By the way, the Coalition graded all finalists with an "F"


November 20th, 2003, 02:04 PM
I attended a lecture given by Anita Contini last night at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston.

She briefly recapped the process and presented the designs through a series of short video clips wherein the designers talk about and present their designs. This was followed by a short Q&A where I asked the role of David Rockefeller in the jury process. To paraphrase, she said he meets with the jury and serves in an 'inspirational' capacity but has no voting power.

The most interesting thing to me was the fact that the jury had no idea who the finalists were before they met them, last Thursday.

My new favorite is the Suspended Votives, it's so..........wholesome.

November 20th, 2003, 03:00 PM
Yeah, best of a mediocre lot; makes me want to shout, Play Ball!

...but who will be selected to throw out the first pitch?

November 20th, 2003, 03:50 PM
Judging from www.memorialfor911.com the vast majority of remains were found somewhere above bedrock. Therefore I submit that an area somewhat above bedrock should be the site of the memorial.

It continues to make no sense to me why something becomes "sacred" because someone was murdered on it. For arguments sake say that is correct. Then it seems to me that if that logic is followed through then the steel ruins are what are sacred and not the bedrock. Of course, it is a huge injustice to those whose remains were found in other areas.

I've come to the conclusion that I'll just never be able to understand that position and leave it as something I will always disagree with.

In any case, I had the chance to visit the models at lunch. First, there was a Daily News reporter running around asking people if they thought the finalists were "too busy" and "too complex" so expect something in the News about that soon. The models do make each plan so much clearer than the website. Especially because you can walk around them. I'll give my opinions on the models after I think awhile on them.

November 20th, 2003, 03:58 PM
My opinions of the different designs continues to sway. I love one plan one minute, and hate it the next. How the jury managed to get down to just 8 out of (5,000?) is beyond me. Even the worst of the plans has now grown on me a bit. The street level plaza around the footprints in REFLECTING ABSENCE is a little appealing, although it comes dangerously close to recreating the original WTC plaza...





November 20th, 2003, 04:12 PM
I'm still trying to reconcile between the memorials and their larger spaces.

I have a question: Did anyone expect anything completely different among the finalists, for example, more vertical?

I always envisioned the memorial as mostly below ground, but am surprised that all share this aspect.

November 20th, 2003, 04:13 PM
The interesting thing in REFLECTING ABSENCE is that the original submission did not have that horrible wall building on West St. It was added later and its the worst part of the plan. Of course, it would eliminate the need for a West St. tunnel. Perhaps if a building was actually built over West St.

I think I'm starting to see conspiracies everywhere. ;)

My opinion of it is that it makes for an attractive model when seen from above but would be horrible in real life.

I also think that the more strident of the families are about to eliminate themselves from the dialogue with their total rejection of the plans just as the reconstuctionists eliminated themselves from the dialogue with their total rejection of the 8 site/architectural plans from last December.

November 20th, 2003, 04:14 PM
I'm still trying to reconcile between the memorials and their larger spaces.

I have a question: Did anyone expect anything completely different among the finalists, for example, more vertical?

I always envisioned the memorial as mostly below ground, but am surprised that all share this aspect.

I think it just goes to show that the jury has decided that that aspect is what they want/think appropriate and so picked a number of variations on the theme.

November 20th, 2003, 04:32 PM
I don't know if the majority of the family members are against the plans. I've heard very positive things coming from family members. Its just that any family member who is against the plans will get more voice time.

NY Post poll...

And reader opinions...

November 20th, 2003, 05:32 PM
...And, I won't even dignify the other post. Well, maybe I will . I get the right to feel better, too.

...Perhaps you have been too busy picking on old ladies to see them

... Perhaps you missed the FEMA report that says the FDNY saved over than 50,000 people that day. Too busy for that, too. Must've been stealing candy from little babies that day.

I bet you're probably one of those stock brockers that steals money from old people, lives in a triplex and vacations 4 or 5 times a year.

I am glad there aren't many other people with you're point of view. The city would have burned down years ago. Good luck to you...you'll need it.


Jeff, I encourage you to reread my post. You'll notice that I never once launched a personal attack on you. I strongly disagreed with your proposal. I disagreed with a notion of "hero" that had at its core "a person wearing a uniform and a badge" and elevated everyone to a separate status based on that rather unprovable argument. Not that I don't think the majority of uniformed service at the Trade Center acted heroically, but A LOT of anonymous people in civilian clothes were equally heroic. You were the one who said that "...over 400 uniformed heroes...deserved a little more respect".

Nevertheless, your response, with its personal attacks and evidence of your inability to edit childish and immature comments from an otherwise adult forum, reveals more about your character than mine.

However, we're all human and, from my standpoint, you are forgiven.

November 20th, 2003, 08:12 PM
I'm still trying to reconcile between the memorials and their larger spaces.

I have a question: Did anyone expect anything completely different among the finalists, for example, more vertical?

I always envisioned the memorial as mostly below ground, but am surprised that all share this aspect.

Yes, I was hoping for something more "vertical" .

Without a single element visible off-site (e.g. across the street), these plans leave the Freedom Tower as the single off-site memorial. And since that building appears to be moving in the direction of a conventional office building, that leaves a rather disappointing off-site legacy.

I'm no archtecture critic, I'm sure the selection committee knew what it was doing, but I was also disappointed in the lack of emotional content in the proposals. While minimalism can have impact (e.g. the Vietnam Memorial and Eisenman's Holocaust Memorial), it is really becoming overdone. Call me old-fashioned, but I think the inclusion of the last-standing fragments of the towers would memorialize the event more viscerally than any of these proposals currently do. I was hoping for a memorial that somehow incorporated the remnants of the towers into a larger memorial that conveyed the city's hope and rebirth.

I worry that 100 years from now, when nobody remembers what the towers looked like in person, minimalist empty footprints won't really convey much of anything.

November 21st, 2003, 03:40 AM
Brooklyn Rider...

Please accept my humblest apologies. I guess I got my dander up, being a fireman and all.

I am truly sorry.


November 21st, 2003, 05:34 AM
November 21, 2003


The Eight Design Finalists Provide a Blueprint for Compromise


Visitors examined panels of the eight finalists in the World Trade Center memorial design competition at the World Financial Center yesterday.

At some point, there will be a winner.

But right now, the eight final designs announced in the World Trade Center memorial design competition on Wednesday are nothing less — and nothing more — than a row of painstakingly constructed models on public view at the World Financial Center.

As they currently appear, they have the power to bring tears to the eyes of some visitors, even as they are avidly dissected by the design dweebs who are standing next to them. But the labels that describe them merely hint at the promise of each design to satisfy the hopes of the nation for a touchstone of remembrance, and the yearning for a place of solace for the families of the lost.

The original master plan by the ground zero überarchitect Daniel Libeskind has substantially morphed since it was selected in February, and indeed, the continuing reconstruction is "an organic process," Mr. Libeskind has acknowledged.

So, too, the finalists' proposals for the memorial — which is the centerpiece of the future trade-center site — are hardly working blueprints. In the end, they may be more akin to conceptualizations.

But changes can continue even beyond the memorial-selection process itself, since "the memorial can't act independently from the master plan, and the master plan cannot be independent from the memorial," said Frederic Schwartz, a Manhattan architect who was a principal in a team of finalists in the master-plan competition. A final version of that plan is expected in December.

Mr. Schwartz added, "The memorial has to answer to the site, the neighborhood, the city, the region, the country, the world and all of the conflicting voices in this process."

Already, Mr. Libeskind has compromised on the keystone of his vision, an asymmetrical 1,776-foot-tall tower that was to offer a Statue-of-Liberty-ish profile to the world. David M. Childs, the architect for the commercial leaseholder of the site, Larry A. Silverstein, has prepared his own design. Gov. George E. Pataki has given them until mid-December to arrive at a collaborative solution.

Furthermore, Mr. Libeskind's plan for a large entrance ramp along Liberty Street leading to trade-center service areas has gone missing in several of the memorial finalists' plans. And his dictates about two proposed memorial museums have been ignored in two of the designs.

The below-ground damlike slurry wall that protected the trade center foundations from the Hudson River — a linchpin of Mr. Libeskind's original design — has been given short shrift by most of the finalists.

The development corporation acknowledges that the memorial plans "will have to evolve in one way or another," Matthew Higgins, the corporation's chief operating officer, said yesterday. "Not every issue has been addressed."

The competition finalists are unable to say how they greet the prospect of the death-by-a-thousand-cuts scenario, since they have been barred from speaking to the media. So far, they and the memorial selection have been shielded to protect the integrity of the process. Ultimately, though, participants may be unable to resist the demands of competing constituencies.

Many believe that Mr. Silverstein is likely to have strong views on their relationship to his grand design. And it would not be a surprise to some if Governor Pataki, who intervened in the selection of the master plan, also weighed in.

Beyond this, basic issues of construction, maintenance and simple practicability will inevitably arise. For example, victims' families say, the designs make little provision to accommodate the crowds of thousands that are likely to arrive for annual commemorative services.

Even the most seemingly mundane of details will have to be confronted. "As a curator, I know that people will inevitably leave things at the memorials," said Jan Seidler Ramirez, director of the museum division of the New-York Historical Society."But aside from some provision for those who bring roses, they haven't addressed that."

Several family groups are highly vocal about the preservation of the towers' footprints at bedrock, and promise not to go away. "We have gone to great lengths to be sensitive to the families' issues," Mr. Higgins said, but "it is unattainable to think that the memorial will make everyone happy."

So far, "we are extremely pleased with the process," Mr. Higgins added, "trying to strike the right balance between involving the public in a way that enables them to see the designs, while preserving the integrity of the jury process."

If all goes well, the jurors are expected to select a winner and two runners-up by Jan. 1. But "the quality of the memorial will drive the timeline," Mr. Higgins said, adding that jurists "are not required to choose a winner by the end of the year."

The development corporation has not made clear whether there will be further contact between the jury and the finalists. The memorial competition guidelines allow for negotiation on the plans, and that could even result in the selection of another finalist, "if someone is unwilling to move forward with their memorial," Mr. Higgins said.

In the end, Mr. Schwartz said, the task of creating a memorial "is made more difficult because it is bound by so many restraints." Looking out his Varick Street office window yesterday toward the nothingness that is ground zero, he added: "It's almost an impossible task to transcend this unimaginable event. It's not just about remembering, but about reimagining a place that has never been seen before. It's nearly impossible. But not impossible."

Multiple Goals of 9/11 Memorial Leave New Yorkers Divided


It is not a war memorial, exactly. Or maybe it is. It is a grave site, but it should not feel like a graveyard. It must honor the dead, but it should be for the living. It will list the names. But it must express far more.

Some memorials console, some teach. And the Sept. 11 memorial proposed for the World Trade Center site may eventually do both. But after the announcement on Wednesday of the eight final designs in the competition, New Yorkers remain deeply split over the memorial's most basic outlines: What is its purpose? Whom is it for? And when should it be done?

Many say they want something therapeutic, to help heal the wounds of survivors. Others want something educational, drawing lessons for the future. Some want a memorial that illuminates individual victims' lives; others say too many specifics will eclipse any sense of collective meaning. For some, the process is too long — or not long enough.

"I think this is the worst time in our history to have to come up with a memorial," said Art Spiegelman, the cartoonist and creator of "Maus," a novel of the Holocaust in comic book form, which won a Pulitzer Prize. "Because the meanings of the tragic events of Sept. 11 have been so hijacked themselves. Whatever we try to make of this event right now will be distorted by the deep fissure in our political life in America."

In interviews conducted in the two days since the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation named the finalists and put their designs on display at the World Financial Center in Lower Manhattan, several dozen New Yorkers talked in detail about what they believe the purpose of the memorial should be and what the experience of visiting it should be like.

They were divided over the degree to which the memorial should be cathartic or educational; over the extent to which it should be for the immediate survivors or "a history book in stone," as one put it; and over how much the 9/11 memorial should dwell on specific details of the day and of the dead — or on broader, even global themes.

Nicholas Christopher, a poet and novelist who lives in Greenwich Village, said several of the finalists' proposals reminded him of cemeteries. He would prefer a simple park and a wall of names, along with "buildings with living people working and carrying on what the people who died were doing, from drinking their coffee to daydreaming to doing their jobs."

Yury Komisar, a Russian immigrant who lives in Brighton Beach and manages a car service on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, insisted: "It's a cemetery. You don't build on a cemetery. You have to give respect to the people buried there." He said the memorial must be large enough to have emotional power: "It should go to your heart. So when you see it, you'll never forget."

Jose E. Rodriguez, a sculptor born in Puerto Rico and living in Manhattan, said he would prefer that the emphasis be "more about peace or understanding or learning to live with each other in this world." Focusing exclusively on the American end of the 9/11 experience, he said, "is almost an easy way out. It would be more difficult to talk about the world issues."

"And if it's going to be about the loss," he added, "maybe it would be good to make parallels with other tragedies that have happened around the world because of war and economics and similar things."

For much of American history, memorials celebrated heroes, not victims. They followed what historians describe as a didactic or pedagogic model. But in the second half of the 20th century, the focus shifted from heroes to victims. The stated purpose of many recent memorials became a kind of community or group therapy and healing.

Kirk Savage, an art historian at the University of Pittsburgh who has traced the evolution of what he and others call therapeutic monuments, said a turning point was the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington. Devoid of the traditional celebration of heroic sacrifice, the monument had as its express purpose encouraging the process of healing.

Professor Savage said the focus on victims intensified even further at the Oklahoma City National Memorial, where images of the 168 people killed in the 1995 bombing are on display. If the idea of the "therapeutic or traumatic memorial" is taken to its extreme, he said, there is a risk of losing the sense of a broader meaning.

"In the end, there has to be a collective meaning to this event that justifies their memorialization," he said of the victims. "That's why I think the therapeutic monument has to be didactic in some way, has to have a rationale, a meaning that justifies the collective focus on this event."

Some New Yorkers said they imagined the 9/11 memorial primarily as an expression of loss. Others wanted it to convey resilience, defiance or hope. Anthony D. Meyers, an advertising salesman from Morris Park in the Bronx, said he would like something educational, along the lines of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala., incorporating oral history.

Martin B. Duberman, a professor of history at the City University of New York, said he wished the memorial would present an alternative to "the model of human depravity" used to explain awful events. It might instead challenge the notion of "intrinsic depravity" by exploring recent findings that compassion and the need for affiliation are intrinsic to human nature.

"I would like to move it beyond a simple memorializing of those who were lost," Professor Duberman said. "If we want to prevent more victims in the future, we need to involve ourselves in some kind of thought about what human beings are like, and is this indeed inevitable and necessary, this kind of slaughter?"

Kenneth T. Jackson, editor of the Encyclopedia of New York City and president of the New-York Historical Society, said he leaned more in the direction of memorial as therapy. He said Sept. 11 would have meaning for almost everyone in the world; many watched it on television. "It's like D-Day," he said. "You don't need a lesson."

Some argued for waiting because the meaning of 9/11 will evolve.

"Right now, it's just so much a symbol of this war on an abstract entity called terrorism that it's hard to see past that to what this may actually mean for Western civilization," Mr. Spiegelman said. "At which point, if it's meaningful, the names of the individuals who died at Dunkirk or the twin towers are less urgent than they might seem close up."

Barbara Petak, a 60-year-old retiree who lives in Brooklyn Heights, said: "I don't think it needs to be done immediately. Maybe by doing something, it makes people think we're healing ourselves. But I think we need to heal ourselves and then do something. We're such an action-oriented society. We feel we must do, rather than reflect and pause."

Pauline Grant took the opposite view.

"Eventually you have to do it," said Ms. Grant, a baby-sitter from Brooklyn. "So let's get it over with."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

November 21st, 2003, 08:25 AM
The buildings that are already designed for the site by libeskind i like. The glass effects and the 'cut-up' facade is great and i like the building that goes over the site of tower one.

November 21st, 2003, 08:47 AM
I admit I was anxious and excited to see what the finalists of this competition would come up with. However, I am wondering if anyone feels that designing a memorial and interpreting an event whilst we are still feel the reverberations from it might be a little premature.

It was obviously colossal in its destruction and impact in NYC, the USA, and the World. But as I look at these proposals, I am torn by competing emotions and by the feeling that none of these, at first glance, are capturing the sense of pure destruction, helplessness, and disregard for humanity. It seems to me that the "what" of the event should be the most obvious and striking. The "who", with no disrespect toward any of the victims, is secondary, because, frankly, the "what" portion could have befallen nearly anyone depending on where fate had placed you at the moment.

November 21st, 2003, 10:31 AM
November 21, 2003
Nicholas Christopher, a poet and novelist who lives in Greenwich Village, said several of the finalists' proposals reminded him of cemeteries. He would prefer a simple park and a wall of names, along with "buildings with living people working and carrying on what the people who died were doing, from drinking their coffee to daydreaming to doing their jobs."

I couldn't have said it better myself. The plans are too overdone, they try too hard. Look at the Oklahoma City memorial the one with the chairs. That is the direction these plans take - and we will end up living with a space noone wants to go more than once.

November 21st, 2003, 10:50 AM
Yury Komisar, a Russian immigrant... said the memorial must be large enough to have emotional power: "It should go to your heart. So when you see it, you'll never forget."

Votives in Suspension is the simplest and most emotionally charged, - a never-ending candlelight vigil. The individual flames are a delicate reminder of the fleeting beauty of life. The somber contemplative experience will not be adversly effected by weather or time of day, and will remain in the mind as an understanding of the vastness of loss.

The tower footprints are made to appear as plinths, empty and wanting. There is no need for anything more.

November 21st, 2003, 11:21 AM
But changes can continue even beyond the memorial-selection process itself, since "the memorial can't act independently from the master plan, and the master plan cannot be independent from the memorial," said Frederic Schwartz, a Manhattan architect who was a principal in a team of finalists in the master-plan competition
I think this must apply to Reflecting Absence.

Beyond this, basic issues of construction, maintenance and simple practicability will inevitably arise. For example, victims' families say, the designs make little provision to accommodate the crowds of thousands that are likely to arrive for annual commemorative services.
Suspending Memory.

Professor Savage said the focus on victims intensified even further at the Oklahoma City National Memorial, where images of the 168 people killed in the 1995 bombing are on display. If the idea of the "therapeutic or traumatic memorial" is taken to its extreme, he said, there is a risk of losing the sense of a broader meaning.

"In the end, there has to be a collective meaning to this event that justifies their memorialization," he said of the victims. "That's why I think the therapeutic monument has to be didactic in some way, has to have a rationale, a meaning that justifies the collective focus on this event."

I couldn't agree more.

Barbara Petak, a 60-year-old retiree who lives in Brooklyn Heights, said: "I don't think it needs to be done immediately. Maybe by doing something, it makes people think we're healing ourselves. But I think we need to heal ourselves and then do something. We're such an action-oriented society. We feel we must do, rather than reflect and pause."
The problem is that the memorial is integral to the rebuilding.

November 21st, 2003, 12:26 PM
I admit I was anxious and excited to see what the finalists of this competition would come up with. However, I am wondering if anyone feels that designing a memorial and interpreting an event whilst we are still feel the reverberations from it might be a little premature.

I agree, this memorial is not just for now, or the anniversary but for a long time into the future.

It would be horrible to talk to a little kid in ten years, and say "the twin Towers were the symbols of americas wealth and power" and then the kid says "the what?" and you have to explain that there were towers and that the freedom tower wasnt just a spontanious project like most buildings but a symbol to remember 9/11. No we cant foget.

November 21st, 2003, 01:18 PM
Brooklyn Rider...

Please accept my humblest apologies. I guess I got my dander up, being a fireman and all.

I am truly sorry.


One thing that hasn't been pointed out, but I think should be: the point of memoralizing the uniformed people separately from other victims is also in part a gesture of respect to surviving cops and firefighters. A way for us as a society to say, "We recognize you've devoted your life to helping others. If you make the ultimate sacrifice, you will be remembered." As visitors pay respects to the fallen heros, so too may they reflect that there are still living heros among us (like JK).

That's in addition to recognizing the fallen, for their spirits and for their families. I don't see why it in anyway implies a diminishing respect for other victims.

November 21st, 2003, 02:48 PM
[... I was hoping for a memorial that somehow incorporated the remnants of the towers into a larger memorial that conveyed the city's hope and rebirth.

I worry that 100 years from now, when nobody remembers what the towers looked like in person, minimalist empty footprints won't really convey much of anything.

I strongly agree. One hundred years from now people with be hanging out or meeting at one of these "parks" instead of visiting the "memorial".

November 21st, 2003, 03:56 PM
I don't think so. Objects and events are not so easily obscured as the place they existed or occurred.

Many people are not aware of the purpose of Soldiers and Sailors Arch because no Civil War battle was fought there.

THe WTC memorial is more like Gettysburg, with a connection to the event. As long as the memorial stays intact, the site will retain its significance. One hundred years from now, it will be New York's most historical place.

November 21st, 2003, 06:23 PM
That's interesting Zippy, never thought of it that way. I disagree however. Why go to Hawaii? The beaches, volcanos, rainforest and culture, among others. To visit Pearl Harbor? Hardly, that's an afterthought to most people and its only been 60 years.

Surely people will find NYC just as amazing 100 years from now, and it will still have little if nothing to do with 9/11. They should build something everyone can use.

November 21st, 2003, 07:26 PM
the Daily news faulted the memorials for not including any articats from the wreakage (such as the sphere, the "cross" found in the wreakage, or rements of the wall.)

I'm inclined to agree. But I also am afraid if the memorial might be too somber or maudlin. I mean, the city does have to move on, and a big cememtary in the middle of downtown. Well, it would be kind of a bummer.

And it will be there forever. Do we want to saddle future generations with our grief?

November 21st, 2003, 10:04 PM
Following is a message I posted to another board earlier today. Since I am a participant in the competition, I am biased, but I have also been working on this for a year, and have something worth saying, so here is my critique of the finalists. Before you say 'sour grapes', remember that free exchange of information and constructive criticism (both of which were completely absent during the design phase of the competition) are essential to innovation....


What would an ideal memorial look like? Well let's start with the temporary memorial, Tribute in Light. Nearly everyone agrees it was an excellent memorial. It was simple, beautiful and did not beat you over the head with a programmed message. While TIL may not be appropriate as a permanent memorial, it sets a benchmark for the direction the designs should be going. Let's remember that we already had one compelling memorial, so we know from past experience, an extraordinary design is possible. So let's parse its characteristics and compare them to the finalists.

1) simple - TIL is a simple idea, twin square beams of light aimed into the night sky. No complicated shapes, no theme park like arrangement of features. Most of the finalist designs, by contrast, are muddled, with no central dominant feature, except the absence of a central feature that viewers will identify as "the memorial". All are best described as memorial complexes.

2) iconic - TIL became an instant icon, in the sense that if someone saw a photo with TIL, they instantly knew it was New York City. None of the finalist designs is iconic in this sense. If you had not known that they were 9/11 memorials, you would not have known what you were looking at.

3) uplifting - while the memorial should pay tribute to the dead, it should also be uplifting and point to a better future where this kind of senseless violence does not happen. Again, TIL is uplifting, it invites you to look to the sky. The finalist designs, by contrast, are subterranean. They invite you to look down at the ground, or to actually venture underground. The Liberty Tower is supposed to be the uplifting element, but what will it look like after the Libeskind/Childs mating process is consumated?

4) landmark - the twin towers were a world renowned landmark. Although TIL was not a physical object, it was a dominant presence in the NYC skyline, and thus a landmark. When they were turned on, they were a compass, like the old towers. When you come up from the subway, with one glance you had your north-south orientation. None of the finalist designs create a landmark. They are invisible. Some you could walk right by they are so low profile.

5) visible from a distance - see also #4. How do you grieve or remember a lost loved one? You might visit their grave occasionally, more often you glance at a picture. Most 9/11 families are burned out on ritualized grieving. TIL allowed people to look at the memorial from a great distance. So when you have a twinge of sadness about a lost friend, you look out the window and there it is. None of the finalists passes this test either, except for the one with the blue laser. Families will have to venture into a site thronged with camera toting tourists, except during the winter, when these will be cold forbidding places.

So there you have it. The finalists are good work, but when you compare them to the temporary memorial, they don't really measure up. It is hard to believe that out of the 5,193 rejects, not one of them struck the same balance of simplicity and elegance. If none did, maybe we should wait a while and try again. What we got were muddled designs that were playing a game of Twister to satisfy the program guidelines, and that is why so many people are scratching their heads at the outcome.

I am not criticizing the finalists here, but rather the program guidelines. The memorial program suffered from what we in the software business call "feature creep". They asked the designers to do too many things in a complicated space. If instead they had pared the guidelines down to a few essential objectives, and had allowed designers free reign within the slurry wall, you would have seen more simple and elegant designs, and fewer that seem to be trying to dot every "i" in the program checklist. Some would not hit every single item of importance to every constituency (the Tribute in Light didn't have a separate light for firefighters).

Example: instead of forcing designers to work around Libeskind's September 11th Plaza, they could have said "you must allocate X% of acreage for museum and cultural facilities, to be designed at a future date". Memorial first, museum and tschotze shops second.

So when viewing the finalists, compare them to other benchmarks such as Tribute in Light, the Vietnam Memorial and the Lincoln Memorial. Maybe I am being too harsh, and these will grow on me with time, but I was hoping to see the 'best of' widely differing approaches to the memorial, and hoped to see something that was an obvious work of genius like Tribute in Light.

What next? Well, it took several tries before they got many memorials right, and even the Oklahoma City memorial, which was built quickly, took five years to decide upon. I suggest that if there is not a clear consensus about a design that they simply turn the area within the slurry wall into a park, place a modest temporary memorial on the site so the families have a _place_ to go. Then wait, how long I don't know, but I worry that in the rush to build, we're going to end up with something that is obsolete before it is completed. A modest open park with trees surrounding the open footprints would say something, and when the right design comes at the right moment, they can build it there.

Until then, leave it a blank slate. Patience is a virtue.

November 21st, 2003, 10:47 PM
That's interesting Zippy, never thought of it that way. I disagree however. Why go to Hawaii? The beaches, volcanos, rainforest and culture, among others. To visit Pearl Harbor? Hardly, that's an afterthought to most people and its only been 60 years.

Surely people will find NYC just as amazing 100 years from now, and it will still have little if nothing to do with 9/11. They should build something everyone can use.
Why go to Hawaii? Why go to New York?

I hope most historical doesn’t become most popular, although tourism will dominate the site for decades. Sure, most visitors to Hawaii don’t go to the Arizona, but those that do know where they are.

In 100 years, just about everyone with any connection to the World Trade Center will be gone. So will the grief. I hope you’re right that New York will be an amazing place for other reasons. I hope the site will be a place of business, retail, transportation, and culture – with a reminder nearby to mark what happened.

November 21st, 2003, 11:41 PM
brianmsf, you make a number of points that I completely agree with. I also agree that the program being made up by comittee is leading to a memorial that looks like it was designed by comittee.

I always thought that leaving the slurry wall exposed, landscaping the floor of the pit with gardens that somehow delineated the footprints, list the names on a wall in the garden, and a central iconic structure/sculpture that would seem to spring out of the pit, preferably to a height so that it could be seen over the musuem and cultural spaces from the surrounding streets (not necessarily in the skyline) would be the best memorial.

I also think that the pit is going to be the memorial for the families while the Freedom Tower is going to be the memorial for most of the rest of NY, the country and the world. Hence, the vehement arguments about the tower while the memorial just leaves people somewhat disinterested.

November 21st, 2003, 11:51 PM
The fact that these memorials are overdone is because they have so many themes, because there are so many constituences to please. But don't many of these components that families want (like listing/recognizing names) makes more sense as being part of the museum? The whole reason why families of rescue workers and families of civilians are in this listing mess is because of this fetish with Vietnam Memorial-like walls. The main memorial doesn't have to list all of the names, all it does is honer victims in a general way, and make a statement about the event and it's impact. People seem to act as if a museum will never be built, and clamor to have their own group's niche carved out. And why can't unidentified remains be recognized in a museum? The memorial is not supposed to touch into these specific issues. But when the LMDC was confronted by family groups with these demands, they didn't simply tell them that these demands could be met with museum space.

November 22nd, 2003, 01:41 AM
November 22, 2003

Are Memorial Designs Too Complex to Last?


The Irish Hunger Memorial in Lower Manhattan in May, in need of repairs less than a year after it opened.

Apart from Daniel Libeskind standing in a swarm of camera lights, there were relatively few architects present on Wednesday when the eight finalist designs in the World Trade Center Site Memorial Competition officially went on view downtown at the Winter Garden.

But they were paying close attention elsewhere. They were logging onto a Lower Manhattan Development Corporation Web site ( www.wtcsitememorial.org ) from home and office, from airports and hotels around the world, and looking with practiced eyes at the plans. Shimmering pools of eternal reflected light, cathedral-size expanses underground: the details prompted both professional responses and emotional reactions among two-dozen American architects reached for comment. They discussed aesthetics and the relative youth of the finalists and wondered how the memorials would endure over time.

Margaret Helfand, the 2001 president of the American Institute of Architects, considered the designs too timid, saying they bore only a fragile connection to the rest of the site, the neighborhood and city. "This memorial cannot be cordoned off," she said in a telephone interview from Amsterdam, adding that she had expected to see more design features at street level rather than below ground. "This will be a piece of New York that has to be knitted into the fabric of the city, not just on a profound level but at the street level."

Wendy Evans Joseph, president of the Architectural League, who worked with James Ingo Freed on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and who recently designed a Holocaust garden in Salt Lake City, said the program requirement to recognize the two footprints of the original trade towers had led to overly complicated memorial concepts.

"Most of the designers used one footprint for one thing and the second for another and then joining the two becomes a third event," Ms. Joseph said. "Treating each as separate is hurting the designs."

No one was surprised, given the ages of the finalists, that minimalism was the universal vocabulary of the submissions. It is a post-Maya Lin generation, noted Michael Manfredi, whose firm Weiss/Manfredi designed the women's memorial at Arlington Cemetery and was a finalist for the World War II memorial competition in Washington.

"A reductive minimalist sensibility is very much what we see in memorials at this cultural moment," Mr. Manfredi said. Society today, he said, is too diverse as well as too inclusive to allow for a more figurative or symbolic language for memorials. "You just can't do the statues of 30 years ago, because who are you going to show?" The burden of conveying the weight of reality now falls on lists of names, which in its own way undermines the ability to create resonant simplicity, he said.

Too much depends on language, rather than the shaping of space, said Annabelle Selldorf, a Manhattan architect. "Everything is about language and conceptual thinking these days," she said. "Sculpture and architecture are physical. They provide an experience of space that should let you think as you may."

Many of the architects had practical questions: What happens to all those water features in case of drought? Can such vast spaces underground be free of columns? How many people can cross a narrow bridge at one time?

"I always worry about programs dependent on technology. L.M.D.C. can't exist forever, so who is going to maintain it all for all the ages?" said Hugh Hardy, the architect who oversaw the restoration of Radio City Music Hall. "When light bulbs don't work and the water gets scuzzy, what have you got?"

Mr. Hardy attended the Winter Garden opening and, that afternoon, convened with 25 architects, landscape designers, engineers and lawyers to review the plans for New York New Visions, a group that also prepared a 20-page document last spring analyzing the submissions for the master plan of the site. They intend to submit a similar analysis of the memorial plans to the development corporation by Tuesday.

There was no euphoria in the room where the design professionals met, Mr. Hardy said. "There was no sense of `You've done it!,' " he added. The reaction was more "even-tempered, like the nature of the designs themselves." A key issue that emerged was maintenance. Several designs rely on high-tech solutions. The fuel that would light "Votives in Suspension" drips down cords cut to lengths that vary according to the victims' ages. Keeping them all lighted could require constant vigilance. "Look at the poor Irish potato famine memorial," Mr. Hardy said. "It's so successful after one year, it started falling apart, and they already have had to put it back together."

The dependence on artificial light and large underground spaces will call for sophisticated climate control and the most advanced engineering. "It's all going to be phenomenally expensive," said Alex Gorlin, a Manhattan architect who is now designing a mausoleum for 2,000 in an Olmsted-designed cemetery in Oakland, Calif. "They are all loaded with a ton of intricate programmatic elements.

"All the designs treated 200-foot open spaces as if that's all in a day's work. Where are the support columns? Cathedrals of space under tilted planes of earth make a great image, but there doesn't seem to be an understanding of structural practicality and cost. Even water is expensive."

Complicated as the designs appear to be, the architects interviewed saw no reason to think that any were too difficult to build, although at a cost. They warned, however, that the seductive images of renewal and peace now on display in videos, models and renderings at the Winter Garden would be hard to translate into the reality of a heavily trafficked space. They asked how the memorial would hold up as a ruin.

"I yearn for something simple with no moving parts, like a Mayan pyramid," Ms. Helfand said. "What did they understand that somehow we don't?"

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

November 22nd, 2003, 01:48 AM
The listing of names does not impact the scope of the memorial, since either one of the footprints can easily accommodate it. You are right about the blurring of roles between the memorial and museum. This is especially true with the multimedia display in Dual Memory. However, I disagree that unidentified remains should be placed in the museum; they definitely belong in the memorial.

I’ve wondered why none of the chosen designs are vertical, and brianmsf may have provided an answer. The Tribute in Light was indeed an excellent memorial, but generally among downtown residents, only because it was temporary.
In an area where West St draws considerable debate, the memorial is little discussed, other than access through it.

No offense brian, but your design is more suited to visitors, who can admire it and go home. Thousands of us will have to look up at it every day.

JM got it – the Freedom Tower (if well designed) will be a positive symbol.

Maybe this jury knows what it is doing.

November 22nd, 2003, 11:26 AM
the Daily news faulted the memorials for not including any articats from the wreakage (such as the sphere, the "cross" found in the wreakage, or rements of the wall.)

I'm inclined to agree. But I also am afraid if the memorial might be too somber or maudlin. I mean, the city does have to move on, and a big cememtary in the middle of downtown. Well, it would be kind of a bummer.

And it will be there forever. Do we want to saddle future generations with our grief?

I agree, and I also remember reading that the parts of the tower frame following there collapse would be saved for a future memorial. I suppose however these remnants can be used in other memorials across the city. I think it would be plenty powerful to have these "WTC" memorials throughout the city, and I also think that these memorial entrants are appropriate for not dwelling on the destruction of the city fabric. Although a reminder would be appropriate off-site.

November 22nd, 2003, 01:59 PM
One thing that disappointed me about the finalists is that they did not represent the 'best of' different approaches to the memorial, which might have included parks, classical statues or monuments, vertical designs, or even a temporary memorial intended to be replaced in a few years.

The jury seems to have decided that minimalist, theme-park like memorial complexes are the way to go. I find it very hard to believe that out of 5,200 proposals, there were not some very interesting designs that employed completely open space, vertical designs, etc. I've seen a good number of also-rans and a lot of them would measure up to the finalists.

At this point, I would like to see them pause, pull out the better ideas from a wide range of approaches. Is this 50 designs, a 100, 200? I don't know, but I am sure there were a _lot_ of good ideas in the reject pile. Put these on display, allow six months for public discussion, weblogging, etc. Allow the designers to network and to borrow ideas from each other (with attribution), and to resubmit revised work in spring 2004, and try to come up with a winner by next fall. It took five years to get the Oklahoma City memorial, so there is every reason to pause, and no reason to rush this thing.

The thing that really bothered me about the finalists is that instead of being asked which basic approach works best, we are being asked to vote on which specific design from a narrow theme we can live with. I didn't see anything that really wowed me like the Tribute in Light, and that is the crucial test for me. The site calls for something extraordinary that will still be a world landmark 100 or 200 years from now. If they don't have something like that in the pile, they should just build a temporary memorial and wait.

November 22nd, 2003, 03:54 PM
I do agree there is a "sameness" to all the designs. Grassland, water, lights, yadda, yadda. Sort of reminds me of the original 6 designs for the World trade Center Site, how they were all just a bunch of boxes shuffled around.

It would have been nice to they'd tried to offer more variety in the 1/2 dozen choices.

November 22nd, 2003, 03:59 PM
Is it just me or is this whole world trade finalists thing and the choosing of designs starting to drag?

November 22nd, 2003, 08:40 PM
November 23, 2003

On World Trade Center Memorial, Criticism Outstrips Praise


It must be clear by now that New Yorkers do not lack for opinions. This was certainly the case yesterday at Pace University, where dozens of ordinary New Yorkers showed up to offer their views on the eight finalists for the World Trade Center memorial design competition.

The experts having already weighed in voluminously on the subject, the Municipal Art Society asked ordinary people to give their perspectives in a handful of small sessions that seemed to blend the give-and-take of a creative writing workshop with the raw emotions of a 12-step meeting.

Over all, the eight proposals flunked — miserably. If the 19 people in Room 402 of the Schimmel Center for the Arts were any measure, then the average New Yorker finds the proposals busy, dreary, stagnant, dehumanizing, overly funereal, depressingly similar, uninspiring, disconnected from the neighborhood and, frankly, boring.

Perhaps it is best to start with what the folks in Room 402 did like.

They seemed relieved that each of the eight designs incorporated the footprints of the fallen towers, and they showed a generosity of spirit by saying that creating a memorial for such a tragedy was a daunting task.

Some even had a few kind words for certain small details in certain designs.

Lynn Brunelli, an art teacher, liked how the names of the fallen rescue workers would be threaded like a ribbon through the longer list of victims in the proposal known as Passage of Light.

Deborah Holt, a history teacher, found the Suspended Memory design, with its groves of trees over pools of water, "very soothing, holistic and very unique."

New Yorkers, however, much like aristocrats and children, are apparently better at saying what they do not like than what they do like. If one word was used more frequently than any other during the two-hour session, that word was "disappointed."

Peter Humbert, who came to New York from Fort Washington, Pa., for the sessions, said he thought the designs lacked vibrancy. "I can't imagine that in 5, or 10, or 15 years from now, people are going to want to visit any of these spaces more than once," he said. "They'll drift away."

Anita Thacher, an artist who had submitted her own proposal to the competition, was disappointed by what she saw as a lack of inspiration in the finalists' designs. "I longed to be inspired by them" but was not, she said.

About a third of the 19 were residents of Lower Manhattan (two said they could see ground zero from their windows), and another third were professional artists or educators. Only six were men, suggesting either that women have a deeper sense of civic duty or simply that the Ohio State-Michigan game was on at noon. The comments were transcribed, and the Municipal Art Society will send them to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which is overseeing construction of the memorial.

Many of the comments were clearly thoughtful.

Mary Anne Ramer, for example, said the twin towers memorial would be different from the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington or the Holocaust memorial planned for Berlin because it "was trying to remember something on the very ground where it happened."

This inescapable specificity, she said, meaning that people died here, made the task of creating a memorial incredibly difficult, if not impossible.

Marti Cohen-Wolf seemed to say that the proposals were not broad enough.

"We're stuck," she said. "We were so overwhelmed by the enormity of this event that we aren't able to put it in the context of our community, our city, our country, the world."

Questions were also raised about how the memorial would affect the neighborhood, with local residents expressing some unease about wanting to use the space on a daily basis but not wanting to come off as selfish or self-absorbed.

In the end, everyone agreed that no matter what was built, it would draw the curious and the mournful.

"You could put one stick in there, people will come," Ms. Thacher said. "I think we wanted more, though, and that's the issue."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

November 23rd, 2003, 09:14 AM

Memorial designs are works in progress


The designs that have been chosen as finalists for the World Trade Center memorial are awe-inspiring.

I could not choose one if I had to. Each one reflects spirituality, reverence, peace and hope and clearly conveys that this is sacred ground. But there are still missing elements.

It is important to realize, however, that even when the winning designed is announced, nothing is set in stone.

As we have seen with the plans for rebuilding Ground Zero, designs have been thrown out, redrawn and thrown out again in response to factors ranging from public input to economical realities.

The memorial design process will clearly go through similar changes.

In the coming weeks, the eight finalists will have the opportunity to refine their proposals before the memorial jury selects the winning design.

For that reason, I urge the families of those lost on 9/11 and the public to go to the Winter Garden and view the displays for yourself.

Pictures alone don't do the designs justice.

Study the displays and view the videos at the Winter Garden or on the Web so that you can understand what each proposal means.

Then participate in the debates and discussions, whether in online comments such as on ImagineNewYork.org or discussions at home.

Our job is to inspire these teams.

The Lower Manhattan Development Corp. has said that features can be mixed and matched. For instance, some of the designs include the faces of the victims while others do not. For me, at least, remembering means never forgetting the faces of Sept. 11.

I think it's important - especially for those of us who have no remains - for the memorial to have the pictures. I want to be able to go and look at my husband, Michael, when I'm there.

The LMDC committed to the families that each design will somehow allow us to reach and touch the bedrock and that the footprints will be preserved. I don't think the entire acre of each footprint is necessary, but the memorial must provide access to the bedrock. It is my understanding that all of the designs do provide some access to bedrock.

I think it's absolutely necessary for the memorial to easily accommodate all those who wish to visit, without requiring them to wait in long lines or fight crowds when they are there. Some of the changes that will undoubtedly take place will be based on land-use needs such as the number of projected visitors.

For instance, the design called Suspending Memory features a large pool of water, which, if chosen as the memorial, might need to be adjusted based on the projected number of visitors. Once the final design is chosen, the LMDC has rightly committed to doing full three-dimensional studies of projected peak crowds to avoid overcrowding.

Another way the final design will evolve is with the inclusion of a museum. It is the museum - a part of the memorial not specifically laid out in the designs - that would tell the story of the day, the attacks, the collapse and the incredible rescue efforts.

These eight designs filled my heart with hope that our wounded hearts and the void at Ground Zero can heal.

We should offer our deepest thanks and appreciation to each of the more than 5,000 entrants who gave their all to honor those who gave their lives on Sept. 11.

Now that the field has been narrowed, let's not squander the opportunity by criticizing.

Before we judge them, let's challenge the jury and LMDC to not only meet but exceed expectations in what in every respect is a monumental task.

The world is watching.

Based on what I've seen, I believe that we're all up to the challenge.

Iken, whose husband, Michael, was a bond broker on the 84th floor of Tower 2, is founder of September's Mission http://www.septembersmission.org.

November 23rd, 2003, 09:36 AM
Monica Iken isn't yelling. That's progress. :D

November 23rd, 2003, 10:51 AM
By the way, September's mission is raising money for the maintenance of the Memorial through an endowment fund.


November 24th, 2003, 03:20 AM
November 24, 2003


Gentle Waters, Reflecting This City?


THEY have light, air, water and greenery. What the eight designs for the World Trade Center memorial do not have is a feeling of New York.

The city's sensibility eludes easy definitions. But it is unmistakable. Times Square is New York. So are Central Park, Union Square Park, the Chrysler Building, the Brooklyn Bridge — all different from one another, but all sharing, for want of a more elegant phrase, a certain New Yorkness.

That is part of it. New York is rarely elegant. It is dense, brash, exciting, loud, bold, irreverent.

The eight designs remember the dead with candles, waterfalls, sanctuaries and lights. They are hushed, funereal and so generic they could be anywhere. It is difficult to imagine any of them seeming to be not just in New York but of New York.

Most memorials do not relate to their surroundings; the Vietnam Veterans Memorial or the Holocaust Memorial Museum need not be in Washington, D.C.

This one is different. "They attacked it because it was in New York," said Kenneth T. Jackson, president of the New-York Historical Society. "It wasn't Kokomo. It was New York, and New York represents something about power, diversity, aspirations, skyscrapers. New York is a monument to disorder, to diversity and jumbleness and a mixed-up quality of life."

The designs — to be narrowed down soon to three finalists by a jury designated by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation — reflect formality and restraint, not urban chaos.

Visiting any one of them "will be like visiting the Pietà," said Bob Schneck, one of the visitors Saturday to the Winter Garden in Battery Park City, where the designs are on display. Mr. Schneck, who works for a brokerage firm nearby, recalled the trade center plaza. "I don't mean to disparage these tries. They are wonderful efforts. But I don't think any of them fit into the spirit of what was. I just remember all the stores in that spot. The Borders was there, the shoe store was there. We were able to sit around the fountain. I just cannot imagine filling all that space with trees."

A friend of his, Barry Greenhut, predicted that New York would change the memorial. "The spirit of the city will totally inhabit it," said Mr. Greenhut, who works with computers. "People will make it whatever they want."

But the plans are designed with such precision that although the winning design might be modified before construction, it is hard to envision even willful New Yorkers changing it afterward.

COULD a memorial both honor the dead and reflect the city in which they lived? Yes, says Mike Wallace, a co-author of "Gotham." "Remember Union Square Park after September 11?" he asked. "People were arguing, debating, there were signs — all kinds of things. It was a civic meeting place." There might be ways to modify the winning memorial design, he suggested, to add more places for people to sit and congregate.

Tony Hiss, who wrote "The Experience of Place," makes similar points. "You don't feel the city pressing up against these memorials," he said. "They don't relate to what is there, the underlying nature and ecosystems of the place. There's nothing that has to do with the pulling together of people, which is what New York all about."

But to many, the trade center site is hallowed ground. Michele H. Bogart, an art historian and until recently a member of the city's Art Commission, says New Yorkers are sensitive to plans for this and other Sept. 11 memorials. "There is this pressure to create cemetery-like memorials all over city," she said. "Do the families want to have people standing around, doing whatever they do, on the plaza of the Seagram Building?"

Probably not, but there might be more muted ways to evoke the city's character. One has to wonder if future generations visiting any of these memorials would realize that the victims of Sept. 11 died in a city that has always been a glorious idea as much as a place.

It is its people from everywhere who get along more than they do not. It is noisy, confrontational, ever-changing and always prevailing — even over terror.

"These designs do not evoke the sense of the staggering varieties of people who all had this horrible rendezvous together at this moment," Mr. Wallace said. People who mostly did not know one another but who worked every day together in the same place. "There is no sense of that, of daily life in this rough-hewn city."

Votive candles, reflecting pools and beams of light can soothe and restore. But perhaps this memorial, in this city in this time, could do more.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

November 24th, 2003, 11:53 AM
If I had to pick one today it would be Votives in Suspension for two reasons. One, it has a tasteful and moving memorial to the victims on the footprints, and two, it leaves the rest of the site as a blank slate for a future memorial.


The memorial is there for the victims, but not the event, which is okay since we haven't grasped the full meaning of the event yet. Gettysberg was made a National Cemetery during the war, but the memorials were built afterward. So I like the empty park, and perhaps in the future something monumental could be erected there and ceremonies can be centered around it. That, or several monuments/sculptures paying tribute to different groups. But for now at least there is a solemn place to memorialize those who were killed that day (and in '93).

Likewise, the white stone blocks used at ground level on the footprints are two huge expanses of nothingness. Though I find them unimaginative and completely inaccessible, it's okay for now. Perhaps in the future something can be engraved on the stone, or a garden planted, or even a summertime reflecting pool - whatever.

I'm not too keen on any of the other designs, even after going to the Wintergarden to view them.
Lower Waters - I don't at all like how it looks from above.
Suspending Memory - the water, the headstones, etc....
Reflecting absence - ugly and depressing at all levels.
Dual Memory - too gimicky and detailed.
Passages of Light - I like that cloud, but it's hard to do anything with that site in the future, if need be.
Garden Of Lights - I like this at the surface, but underground it's creepy.
Inversion of Light - my number 2 pick, but what does one do in the big underground room?

November 24th, 2003, 03:24 PM
The Lower Manhattan Development Corp. has said that features can be mixed and matched. For instance, some of the designs include the faces of the victims while others do not. For me, at least, remembering means never forgetting the faces of Sept. 11.

I think it's important - especially for those of us who have no remains - for the memorial to have the pictures. I want to be able to go and look at my husband, Michael, when I'm there.

:?: How is going to bedrock being able to see your husband? Although Iken isn't erupting into a bedlam like Lynch or Ielpi, she's still on their side. Like I've said before, the memorials are too complex because the family activists have asked for too many demands. Another problem I've realized is land use. While we may consider 4.5 acres sufficient for memorial space, for NYC standards, that's a lot of space to leave vacant, and having it usable for only 9/11 anniversaries will leave a barren sunken plaza, worse than Tobin Plaza. My idea would be to raise Votives up to street level, and configure it with the site plan of Reflective Absence, only I'd move that West St. building underground. This would create a simple memorial, and provide usable space for events like concerts, and to be used to regular park space.

November 24th, 2003, 05:01 PM
...and provide usable space for events like concerts, and to be used to regular park space.

I agree. I think there's a real divide, perhaps understandably, between those that want to see the Memorial as solemn retreat for reflection in the midst of the urban chaos and those who want to see it as a piece of the overall return to life and activity in an area that was once a vibrant hub of humanity. I don't think there will be a reconciliation between the factions for at least a generation.

November 24th, 2003, 05:33 PM
...and provide usable space for events like concerts, and to be used to regular park space.

I agree. I think there's a real divide, perhaps understandably, between those that want to see the Memorial as solemn retreat for reflection in the midst of the urban chaos and those who want to see it as a piece of the overall return to life and activity in an area that was once a vibrant hub of humanity. I don't think there will be a reconciliation between the factions for at least a generation.

While a solemn retreat area might be good for our generation, it's poor land use in the long run. Future generations won't feel the same impact of 9/11 as we have, and they'll come to regard the pit as some worthless forbidden space. If we have a street level memorial (likely by combining Votives with Reflections) then we have more usable land in the future. Think of it. The Washington Mall has plenty of land around it for non-memorial use, yet that doesn't impinge on the qualliy of the Lincoln Memorial. The best part about raising the Votives structures is that having the memorial exclusively inside already provides a buffer for the memorial.

November 24th, 2003, 06:01 PM
Having been involved in this process as a designer for over a year, I've come to the conclusion that it is too soon to be deciding on a permanent memorial. Whatever is built will need to be relevant 50, 100 years from now. While the finalists are fine work, none of them really comments on the historical context of 9/11, nor should they since so much is unknown.

A better solution, FWIW, would be to turn the area within the slurry wall into a park, and build a temporary memorial intended to be replaced in a few years. One of the more interesting schemes being discussed, I'll post a link if I see it, is to turn it into a simple park with two pavillions. One would house display cases for each victim, and their families could display whatever the wanted there. The other would house the 5,200 design proposals.

Not a bold architectural statement, but it would give people a lot to look at and think about. And when the right idea comes along at the right time, rip up the grass and build there. In the meantime, leaving the place open and filling it with memories like this might be the best thing to do.

And for the "build something now" camp, this kind of thing could be done very quickly. Any of the finalist designs would take a long time to complete.

November 24th, 2003, 07:08 PM
A better solution, FWIW, would be to turn the area within the slurry wall into a park, and build a temporary memorial intended to be replaced in a few years. One of the more interesting schemes being discussed, I'll post a link if I see it, is to turn it into a simple park with two pavillions. One would house display cases for each victim, and their families could display whatever the wanted there. The other would house the 5,200 design proposals.

This would be a great idea and I think that it would be wise to wait. Especially since not one of us can be objective yet.

However, we live in a world where both the master plan and the memorial are being pushed down our collective throats. Whatever is panned in the case of the memorial will probably be what wins.

The best that can be hoped for is that in 25 years, we will all awaken. They'll bulldoze the entire thing and put in a real park EVERYONE can enjoy.

November 24th, 2003, 08:56 PM
While a solemn retreat area might be good for our generation, it's poor land use in the long run. Future generations won't feel the same impact of 9/11 as we have, and they'll come to regard the pit as some worthless forbidden space. If we have a street level memorial (likely by combining Votives with Reflections) then we have more usable land in the future. Think of it. The Washington Mall has plenty of land around it for non-memorial use, yet that doesn't impinge on the qualliy of the Lincoln Memorial. The best part about raising the Votives structures is that having the memorial exclusively inside already provides a buffer for the memorial.

You have a strange infatuation with "usable space".....there were 10 million SF of office space and there will be again....your comparison of the Lincoln Memorial to the WTC Memorial is laughable

November 24th, 2003, 09:03 PM
Having been involved in this process as a designer for over a year, I've come to the conclusion that it is too soon to be deciding on a permanent memorial.

Your right about this.....But the designs were very vague and were more concerned with the layout rather than content....they all seemed very empty and that is the right approach as its too soon to decide how we need to remember the events and their impact