PDA

View Full Version : Study by Eli Attia Discredits Wedge of Light



TomAuch
April 19th, 2003, 12:55 AM
http://www.phoenixproject.info/designframes.html

A study done by the architect Eli Attia shows that *the "Wedge of Light" doesn't work, because of the posistioning of the buildings across Church St.

The study is under "The nine lies of Daniel Libeskind."

(Edited by TomAuch at 11:57 pm on April 18, 2003)

JMGarcia
April 19th, 2003, 02:23 AM
I always thought that the "Wedge of Light" is there specifically so that shadow won't fall on the "Park of Heroes" there being no building in the "Wedge of Light". The wedge provides the open space necessary for the sun to shine continually on the Park of Heroes. I never thought that the Wedge wa supposed to be where the sun never shone.

At least that's what I remember from watching the original presentation. I can't believe how stupid Libeskind has been if Attia's correct.

Other than that I'd say Attia's design looks too much like broken shards. ;)

It does have its good points, as all the designs did, but I personally think Foster did virtually the same concept much, much better than Attia has.

Parts of it also remind me of this proposal....
http://www.point-of-departure.net/
Click on "Works" and then the numbers after it loads.

This one is quite something too. Reminds me of the UA proposal.

http://www.sydmead.com/features/wtc/

Click on the graphic and be patient with the flash which takes forever for the "next" icons to show up.

This one is pretty cool too.

http://www.seventhproposal.com

chris
April 19th, 2003, 02:39 AM
I'd been curious whether anyone was going to do an analysis of the wedge of light. I figured it would come from the lighting design department of an architecture school.

The Hilton tower beside the site that will cast the shadow is his, so it is likely he would have questioned the concept knowing where his own building's shadow would fall.

TomAuch
April 19th, 2003, 03:49 AM
If, in fact, Attia's correct, this could lead to Libeskind's downfall, and would be a major victory for Libeskind's opponents, (ie. Pro-Rebuilders).

StevenRosenow
April 19th, 2003, 06:07 AM
I'd been curious whether anyone was going to do an analysis of the wedge of light. I figured it would come from the lighting design department of an architecture school.

Not only that, but you have meterology to deal with. As one who's done a great deal of study involving weather, it can be very hard to predict when it'll be sunny, and when it won't be.

Libeskind's design and "Wedge of Light" idea automatically takes on a full assumption that every September 11th will be a gorgeous sunny day. The all-in-all likelihood of that happening can be as varied as as a 5-day weather forecast for Seattle.

Good idea in thought, but when dealing with the reality of long shadows cast by other buildings in the area, and of unpredictable weather, it makes the idea illogical.

Kris
April 19th, 2003, 06:15 AM
Quote: from TomAuch on 2:49 am on April 19, 2003
If, in fact, Attia's correct, this could lead to Libeskind's downfall, and would be a major victory for Libeskind's opponents, (ie. Pro-Rebuilders).

Yeah?

tugrul
April 19th, 2003, 11:38 AM
Heh, the weather. Thats desparate.

I'm somewhat disappointed with Attia's design. It does share some of the thoughtful details of his other projects I've read about, but its skyline presence is lacking. It doesn't exude majesty, and it looks weak amongst the boxes of downtown.

I expected more from Attia.

JMGarcia
April 19th, 2003, 11:53 AM
If, in fact, Attia's correct, this could lead to Libeskind's downfall, and would be a major victory for Libeskind's opponents, (ie. Pro-Rebuilders).

Are you guys still under the illusion that the architect gets to pick the height of the buildings?

In any case, did you ever hear the phrase "be careful what you wish for"?

If it were even possible for public advocacy group to get rid of Libeskind at this point, which I doubt, what would probably happen is that the PA and Silverstein would start calling the shots (they are the ones paying for it after all) and we'd end up with buildings certainly no taller that what Libeskind has proposed, probably without any sort of expensive skyline element, and the whole thing would be delayed for so long as the interest groups tied it up for decades like Times Sq. or Columbus Circle that it could put downtown into a permanent recession. Ever been to Detroit?

I still say that it will be far more productive to pressure Silverstein and the PA (Libeskind will do what is asked of him) to raise the height of some of the towers and/or beef up the Garden Tower than it is wasting time discrediting Libeskind which will ultimately get you nowhere.

What don't you spend your considerable energy lobbying for adding residential, more hotel, or other cultural uses on the site that would require an increase in tower height?

(Edited by JMGarcia at 11:13 am on April 19, 2003)

Kris
April 19th, 2003, 02:02 PM
If they followed your advice, Silverstein might use their lobbying as an excuse to dismiss height concerns as fanatical. The only sensible thing to do is to tell them to get lost.

TomAuch
April 19th, 2003, 02:19 PM
If it were even possible for public advocacy group to get rid of Libeskind at this point, which I doubt, what would probably happen is that the PA and Silverstein would start calling the shots (they are the ones paying for it after all) and we'd end up with buildings certainly no taller that what Libeskind has proposed, probably without any sort of expensive skyline element, and the whole thing would be delayed for so long as the interest groups tied it up for decades like Times Sq. or Columbus Circle that it could put downtown into a permanent recession. Ever been to Detroit?
(Edited by JMGarcia at 11:13 am on April 19, 2003)


Scrapping Libeskind's plan does not translate into a mandate for Silvertsin to assume power. Because Wedge of Light doesn't work, it cold be argued that the plan is a fraud, and that the public was tricked into accepting it. I don't think the LMDC will accept the Libeskind plan if the public becomes disillusioned with it, and not even the civic groups, who are so concerned about public input would allow this scandel to happen. Anyway, I don't think Silverstein and the PA would take control, since what would happen is that we'll just go through the same public process as before until we get another design. The worst case scenario would be a design with buildings the same height as Libeskind's (including the Garden Tower, because at countless public hearings and polls, and the majority of the public want to repair the skyline, and Silverstein is EXTREMELY unlikely to give us 800 ft boxes for fear of a public backlash.)

JMGarcia
April 19th, 2003, 03:09 PM
The public has generally lost interest beyond getting something built as soon as possible, therefore I doubt a shadow on the wedge of light would prompt such public anger that the pols would get rid of Libeskind. You have to realize how transparent TTT is currently being in trying to discredit Libeskind and how many people realize it. It smacks of being poor losers and they are too close to becoming just another buzzing NIMBY noise on the fringes along with the mega-memorialists, the safety firsters, and the low income housing advocates. It smacks of being petty because you didn't get, big square, offset, twin towers so you are going to try to bring the whole process down, everyone else be damned.

In any case, there's is no way in hell that the pols are going to derail the memorial process at this point to start all over with another competition for the site plan so every wacko special interest group can get a public forum to tell them how bad they are. There is no way in hell the victim's families are going to agree to further delays in the memorial. There is no way in hell that you can go around saying, in effect, "I hate you now do what I say" and get anyone to listen.

Even if you did succeed in throwing the whole thing into chaos, you know what you'd have 3 years later? A hole in the ground with a temporary PATH station, a downtown with no transportation improvements and probably beyond recovery as a major financial center and a proposal with towers that are in no way any closer to being replicas of the twins or any taller than the current versions. The best you could hope for was different facade treatments and possibly arranged differently.

Instead, why don't you write Marriott and suggest they add 20-30 floors to one of the towers for a hotel, or write The City Opera and suggest they put their new facilities on top of the commercial space, or write the big residential developers in the city and suggest they approach Silverstein to put condos on top of the commercial space, or write Libeskind and suggest he increase the width of the spire to accomodate additional functions.

If Libeskind was holding building height down, I would be the first one calling for his removal, but he's not. Silverstein and the PA are and the only thing that'll convince them to go higher is a firm financial reward for doing so.

Kris
April 19th, 2003, 03:26 PM
There is no way in hell that you can go around saying, in effect, "I hate you now do what I say" and get anyone to listen.
At least someone is.

TAFisher123
April 19th, 2003, 03:30 PM
This design by Attia is no picnic either....maybe he's mad he was ignored although he could be right about the light wedge, who knows? *I for one wont be going to ground zero at 8:48 every Sept 11th to watch the sun shining on the site, will you?

http://www.phoenixproject.info/attiadesign/images/new4.jpg

Kris
April 19th, 2003, 03:37 PM
Look! Below the trees!

http://members.verizon.net/~vze26pnp/WOL1.jpg
What a sham!

JMGarcia
April 19th, 2003, 03:43 PM
LOL Chris.

JMGarcia
April 19th, 2003, 03:46 PM
Quote: from Kris on 2:26 pm on April 19, 2003

There is no way in hell that you can go around saying, in effect, "I hate you now do what I say" and get anyone to listen.At least someone is.
I should have said.. and get that person to listen

;)

ZippyTheChimp
April 19th, 2003, 05:49 PM
Quote: from TomAuch on 2:49 am on April 19, 2003
If, in fact, Attia's correct, this could lead to Libeskind's downfall, and would be a major victory for Libeskind's opponents, (ie. Pro-Rebuilders).

To what end?

Is the Attia design so compelling, so much better than Libeskind, that you would be willing to take this process back to square one?

I refer you to this thread:
http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/topic.cgi?forum=4&topic=583
In it there is a letter by three downtown CEOs warning about
delays in the rebuilding process.

Is the downfall of Libeskind in the best interest of New York City, or the best interest of TTT?

TomAuch
April 19th, 2003, 08:17 PM
To what end?

Is the Attia design so compelling, so much better than Libeskind, that you would be willing to take this process back to square one?

I refer you to this thread:
http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/topic.cgi?forum=4&topic=583
In it there is a letter by three downtown CEOs warning about
delays in the rebuilding process.

Is the downfall of Libeskind in the best interest of New York City, or the best interest of TTT?


I never said I supported Attia's design. In fact, I'm not too crazy about it. Also, even if Libeskind gets fired, that won't neccessarily mean there will be another LTTC or anything like that. It will probably mean the LMDC will hold another "competition" as they did back in September/October and look for another plan with similar guidelines as they had before. The "new" design probably wouldn't be that much differant from Libeskind's, with the exception of open space, since there wouldn't be a wedge of light.

JMGarcia
April 20th, 2003, 01:08 AM
Libeskind has Pataki, Bloomberg, the PA, Silverstein, the victims families, Community Board 1, New York New Visions, RDot, almost all of the architectural critics, and a majority of downtown NY business leaders and residents and more on board.

There are only 3 groups with no buy in.

1. The mega-memorialists
2. The low income housing advocates
3. The twin tower replicationists

They are all too small to matter economically or electorally.

No one is going to make a scandal out of this and if it does somehow happen in an alternate reality it'll end up being finessed. Its been way to hard to get to this point for anyone to even remotely think of starting again.

(Edited by JMGarcia at 12:10 am on April 20, 2003)

ZippyTheChimp
April 20th, 2003, 11:28 AM
Quote: from TomAuch on 7:17 pm on April 19, 2003

I never said I supported Attia's design. In fact, I'm not too crazy about it. Also, even if Libeskind gets fired, that won't neccessarily mean there will be another LTTC or anything like that. It will probably mean the LMDC will hold another "competition" as they did back in September/October and look for another plan with similar guidelines as they had before. The "new" design probably wouldn't be that much differant from Libeskind's, with the exception of open space, since there wouldn't be a wedge of light.

My mistake. I thought your posting of the link was an endorsement. However, if you envision a plan similar to Libeskind, then my question becomes more relevant. Would not the logical course be to have Libeskind modify his design?

Your group(s) made political mistakes from the start of the rebuilding process. What is probably true anywhere, but especially in NYC with its diverse viewpoints, is for a movement to succeed you need:

An overwhelming public mandate. You don't have enough of it to make politicians worry. Or...

Political cover. This would be a strong political figure to advance your cause. As an example, Speaker of the NYS Assembly Sheldon Silver is a powerful Democrat and an opponent of Pataki. His district includes all of lower Manhattan. Your movement has no one.

Lacking the above, you needed to form a coalition. The logical choice would have been Community Board 1, but that bridge has been burned. Your initial insistence on preserving the superblock conflicted with CB1's primary concern - restoring some of the grid to integrate the site with the rest of the area. Many members regard your group with the same distain they view the mega-memorialists, as interlopers with no regard for the needs of the community.

In my opinion, the only logical choice you have for a coalition is Libeskind. Your organization should forget about the architecture, the street plan, the pit, the wedge of light, etc; and concentrate on its number one goal - tall buildings.

Your present course is pointless.

JMGarcia
April 20th, 2003, 12:47 PM
Well said Zippy. I've been trying to tell them that for a while now but you said it so much more succinctly and directly.

As I have said before, Libeskind is the only person among the powers that be that really understands the skyline. He has done everything possible to get the buildings as tall as possible without Silverstein and the PA vetoeing his plan. He's been very politically astute about it. TTT has, for some unfathomable reasons, chosen to single him out for their wrath and thereby allow the decision makers responsible to hide behind him. By so doing, they are alienating their last chance for a voice in the process.

They have also way overestimated what happened with the original 6 plans. LTTC was used by members of the LMDC, notably Garvin, to gain control of the process over the PA and Silverstein. That particular lightening is only going to stike once.

Finally, they misunderstood the LMDC's statement that they would "take public input" in their decision. TTT chose to interpret that as them saying they would base their decision on a public popularity contest, ignoring the other stake holders. In reality the public's input was taken into consideration but was not the sole deciding factor. Silverstein, Pataki, Bloomberg, the families and the PA had voices equal to the public.

If you review the LMDC's decision process on the second 9 proposals it is clear. They took the 3 most popular designs with the public, Libeskind, WCC, and Foster, and floated them as finalists as reported in the media.

Silverstein vetoed Foster because of the height.

Libeskind was slightly more popular with the public than WCC was. Add to that the PA's concerns over the feasibility of WCC and the resultant downgrading of the design, the families preference for Libeskind, and the fact that it would be much cheaper to build than WCC. Pataki and Bloomberg's choice was clear.

TTT should start by changing their web page that adds no constructive ideas but instead chooses to slam Libeskind at every turn about every inconsequential *point imaginable rather than focus on improving the skyline and calling Silverstein on the carpet for the lack of height.

They should be lobbying Marriott to locate its hotel atop one of the towers. It is a common choice for a hotel. They should be lobbying Silverstein to show that renting very high floors is worth the financial risk. I only continue to bother posting my opinion in the hopes that someone in TTT will think about it and push to change their tactics.

tugrul
April 20th, 2003, 01:14 PM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 11:47 am on April 20, 2003

They should be lobbying Marriott to locate its hotel atop one of the towers. It is a common choice for a hotel.
Hmm, thats a damn good idea. I wonder why it never crossed my mind.

Maybe we can get one of these in the city:

http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/570/1108112487-008-embed.jpg
Looking up in the atrium of the 5-Star Grand Hyatt of the Jin Mao Tower (http://www.skyscrapers.com/re/en/wm/bu/103803/), Shanghai.

http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/627jinmao.jpg
And looking back down :)

One can only dream.

NYguy
April 20th, 2003, 01:16 PM
Quote: from Kris on 2:37 pm on April 19, 2003
Look! Below the trees!

http://members.verizon.net/%7Evze26pnp/WOL1.jpg
What a sham!
What are you saying? *That the sun won't shine on the WTC? *What is there on the other side of the transit center to block the sun?

The discussion about Libeskind's wedge of light is a ridculous one anyway. *Does anyone really expect that the sun will shine every Sept. 11th?

(Edited by NYguy at 12:16 pm on April 20, 2003)

JMGarcia
April 20th, 2003, 01:28 PM
I think Chris was being his usual sarcastic self and commenting that the trees where casting shadows on the wedge of light.

At least that's my preferred interpretation. ;)

ZippyTheChimp
April 20th, 2003, 02:42 PM
Yes, always be aware of Kris's razor sharp sarcastic edge. ;).

JM, just echoing what you have been patiently posting for so long.
I agree completely about the Marriott. Best chance for an increase in height is mixed-use, similar to Bloomberg.

Any housing on the site will be very upscale. The best place
for affordable housing nearby is the city-owned site 270 Greenwich. Civic groups should concentrate their efforts there.

You're right about the wedge of light NYGuy. Actually, I was never aware that the sunlight was supposed to shine on the entire plaza continually between the two times on Sept 11, or I would have said long ago that it won't work. The sun will definitely pass behind the Millenium. I always thought that when the sun crossed the plane of the base of tower 2, sunlight would penetrate through Greenwich into the Park of Heros for the first time. The reverse would occur when the sun crossed the plane of the trans center. Rain checks to be issued on cloudy days.

Challening the wedge of light could have unintended consequences. Buildings that block the sun could be condemned in the public interest, and wedge of light protective zoning enacted. ;)

chris
April 20th, 2003, 02:44 PM
JMGarcia wrote:
I think Chris was being his usual sarcastic self...

You mean Christian.

Dr X
April 20th, 2003, 02:59 PM
JMGarcia, you summed up the problems with the TTT and other pro-twin towers groups very well. *I admit that I would like them to be rebuilt, but I realize that this ceased to be a realistic option quite a while ago. *The sooner these groups understand this, the better. *Their agenda should be to increase the occupiable height of the current Libeskind plan. *However, many of the pro-twin towers people seemed to have burned all the bridges connecting them to Libeskind, the LMDC and most other relevant groups or individuals. *It remains to be seen if these groups will decide to cut their losses and focus on something that is acheiveable at this point.

chris
April 20th, 2003, 03:06 PM
Well put... um, Dr X...

I'm sorry, I have a hard time calling you Dr X. I cannot help but imagine you sitting at your computer wearing a spandex jumpsuit with a facemask and a cape... maybe that is your intention... and maybe you are... your own business.

Kris
April 20th, 2003, 03:12 PM
Quote: from chris on 1:44 pm on April 20, 2003
JMGarcia wrote:
I think Chris was being his usual sarcastic self...

You mean Christian.

Chris with a capital C.

TomAuch
April 20th, 2003, 03:17 PM
Quote: from Dr X on 1:59 pm on April 20, 2003
JMGarcia, you summed up the problems with the TTT and other pro-twin towers groups very well. *I admit that I would like them to be rebuilt, but I realize that this ceased to be a realistic option quite a while ago. *The sooner these groups understand this, the better. *Their agenda should be to increase the occupiable height of the current Libeskind plan. *However, many of the pro-twin towers people seemed to have burned all the bridges connecting them to Libeskind, the LMDC and most other relevant groups or individuals. *It remains to be seen if these groups will decide to cut their losses and focus on something that is acheiveable at this point.


Dr. X, even though there are calls to rebuild the towers as they were, Pro-Rebuilding groups are still working within the system (well, at least WTCRM, since they haven't endorsed a specific design, just as long as it's on a similar scale as the towers) One Rebuilder has a proposal called the "Libeskind Compromise" that raises the heights of two of the convential towers to the same height as the spire. *So people are working within the system as well as outside the system.

chris
April 20th, 2003, 03:18 PM
So Christian is just your Avatar Alias.

NyC MaNiAc
April 20th, 2003, 03:20 PM
haha Chris, agreed. But, he raises a good point.

So, Dr.X...you're cool with me. ;)

Kris
April 20th, 2003, 03:21 PM
It's my Pompous Full Name.

TomAuch
April 20th, 2003, 03:21 PM
My mistake. I thought your posting of the link was an endorsement. However, if you envision a plan similar to Libeskind, then my question becomes more relevant. Would not the logical course be to have Libeskind modify his design?

Your group(s) made political mistakes from the start of the rebuilding process. What is probably true anywhere, but especially in NYC with its diverse viewpoints, is for a movement to succeed you need:

An overwhelming public mandate. You don't have enough of it to make politicians worry. Or...

Political cover. This would be a strong political figure to advance your cause. As an example, Speaker of the NYS Assembly Sheldon Silver is a powerful Democrat and an opponent of Pataki. His district includes all of lower Manhattan. Your movement has no one.

Lacking the above, you needed to form a coalition. The logical choice would have been Community Board 1, but that bridge has been burned. Your initial insistence on preserving the superblock conflicted with CB1's primary concern - restoring some of the grid to integrate the site with the rest of the area. Many members regard your group with the same distain they view the mega-memorialists, as interlopers with no regard for the needs of the community.

In my opinion, the only logical choice you have for a coalition is Libeskind. Your organization should forget about the architecture, the street plan, the pit, the wedge of light, etc; and concentrate on its number one goal - tall buildings.

Your present course is pointless.


Although I have supported compromises, like pedestrian-only streets, I'm only on Lou Epstein's mailing list, so I'm not in a posistion to dictate WTCRM's policies, although is disagree with some of them. WTCRM proper is small group of about ten people that plan Rebuilding events, so you should probably talk to them about changing policies.

StevenRosenow
April 20th, 2003, 06:10 PM
Whatever happened to the desire, the resolve to rebuild what was the proud gleaming icon of New York's skyline?

Was it replaced by fear and political correctness?

Perhaps one reason we have burned a few bridges is because some of us rebuilders have a disdian for the politically correct, new-urbanism agendas that got in the way of rebuilding the World Trade Center.

I don't care. If I were the Governor of New York, or even the Mayor, I would've made that my #1 goal. The site was intended for commerce and as a transportation hub. You don't put housing or cultural centers on a site in the middle of a financial district. *Does Seattle's financial district have housing or theaters, or museums? No, it does not. And it does just fine.

When a landmark falls, you rebuild it. You just don't replace it with something else.

These people were bought out by groups such as "September's Mission," etc who've proclaimed that any supertall skyscraper is unsafe. They've been bought by the idea that 9/11 will happen again. They've managed to persuade Silverstein to think that "anything above the 70th" is unsafe, when repeatedly that fact has been proven a lie. *They've been bought out by the fact that the original World Trade Center's design was unsafe, when in fact even the Federal Government praised their design for lasting as long as they did (and adding that any other skyscraper would've probably collapsed upon the moment of impact with any jet aircraft). *I highly doubt the Libeskind design will last as long as the Twin Towers did, providing that the proverbial "lightning strikes twice."

New York lost a cultural icon on September 11th, and that icon should've reclaimed its proud spot, instead of letting it be replaced by something lesser. *All of the people I have talked to, even former New Yorkers themselves, have said that New York should rebuild the World Trade Center as it was. One lady who used to live a short distance away from the World Trade Center even told me "New York City isn't New York City without the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center."

New York's biggest mistake in the end would be the failure to rebuild its Twin Towers.

Like I've said before. *When a landmark and cultural icon falls, you rebuild it. You don't just replace it with something else. *

Dr X
April 20th, 2003, 07:07 PM
[quote]Quote: from chris on 2:06 pm on April 20, 2003
Well put... um, Dr X...

I'm sorry, I have a hard time calling you Dr X. I cannot help but imagine you sitting at your computer wearing a spandex jumpsuit with a facemask and a cape... maybe that is your intention... and maybe you are... your own business.


LOL. *Don't worry, I'm just a regular guy. *I don't wear a cape or anything. *I just wanted to come up with a username that wasn't simply my real name (Jeff). *Dr. X was a nickname I received when I played high school football.

JMGarcia
April 20th, 2003, 07:13 PM
That's a very stirring speech and you may even be correct. I would have been happy to see 2 110 story towers built.

But it has nothing to do with reality at this point and has nothing to do with making the best out of the necessary compromise. Continued adherence to what has become a fantasy not only makes the position irrelevant, it actually harms any constructive dialog on *how best to restore the skyline within Silverstein's economic reality.

ZippyTheChimp
April 20th, 2003, 07:31 PM
Quote: from StevenRosenow on 5:10 pm on April 20, 2003
Whatever happened to the desire, the resolve to rebuild what was the proud gleaming icon of New York's skyline?

Was it replaced by fear and political correctness?

Perhaps one reason we have burned a few bridges is because some of us rebuilders have a disdian for the politically correct, new-urbanism agendas that got in the way of rebuilding the World Trade Center.

I don't care. If I were the Governor of New York, or even the Mayor, I would've made that my #1 goal. The site was intended for commerce and as a transportation hub. You don't put housing or cultural centers on a site in the middle of a financial district. *Does Seattle's financial district have housing or theaters, or museums? No, it does not. And it does just fine.

When a landmark falls, you rebuild it. You just don't replace it with something else.

These people were bought out by groups such as "September's Mission," etc who've proclaimed that any supertall skyscraper is unsafe. They've been bought by the idea that 9/11 will happen again. They've managed to persuade Silverstein to think that "anything above the 70th" is unsafe, when repeatedly that fact has been proven a lie. *They've been bought out by the fact that the original World Trade Center's design was unsafe, when in fact even the Federal Government praised their design for lasting as long as they did (and adding that any other skyscraper would've probably collapsed upon the moment of impact with any jet aircraft). *I highly doubt the Libeskind design will last as long as the Twin Towers did, providing that the proverbial "lightning strikes twice."

New York lost a cultural icon on September 11th, and that icon should've reclaimed its proud spot, instead of letting it be replaced by something lesser. *All of the people I have talked to, even former New Yorkers themselves, have said that New York should rebuild the World Trade Center as it was. One lady who used to live a short distance away from the World Trade Center even told me "New York City isn't New York City without the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center."

New York's biggest mistake in the end would be the failure to rebuild its Twin Towers.

Like I've said before. *When a landmark and cultural icon falls, you rebuild it. You don't just replace it with something else.*



http://www.goodmans.net/images/item_full/RI-3140FO.jpg

What's cookin'?

Kris
April 20th, 2003, 07:43 PM
Like I've said before. *When a landmark and cultural icon falls, you rebuild it. You don't just replace it with something else.
Blah.

Kris
May 1st, 2003, 08:29 AM
May 1, 2003
Shadows to Fall, Literally, Over 9/11 'Wedge of Light'
By EDWARD WYATT

When the architect Daniel Libeskind described his design for ground zero to New Yorkers late last year, he said one prominent feature would be an open plaza upon which "the sun will shine without shadow" each year on the morning of Sept. 11.

But yesterday, under fire from a critic, Mr. Libeskind said that shadows would extend across the plaza — which he had called the Wedge of Light — for much of the time that he had said it would be illuminated as a tribute to the victims of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

His comments came after Eli Attia, an architect who has been a frequent critic of the rebuilding process, published a study showing that 40 percent to 99 percent of the Wedge of Light would be in shadow cast by the Millenium Hilton Hotel during the times when Mr. Libeskind had said it would be free of shadows.

Mr. Libeskind said he had never intended to convey anything different. Rather, he said, the Wedge of Light is created by "the effect of the facades of the building reflecting the light back into the plaza." The effect is not linear, he said, but "a three-dimensional phenomenon" that is "about the ambience of light and the reflections of light between the buildings."

The revelation by Mr. Libeskind raises a multitude of questions about his design, which has attracted criticism from the beginning. In recent weeks, alterations to the plan have made clear that it is not likely to emerge as many people have envisioned.

For example, rebuilding officials released plans this week showing that the foundation walls, whose exposure was at the center of Mr. Libeskind's plan for the memorial site, would be encased in a "glazed screen" to protect them from the elements.

The disclosure about the Wedge of Light could also raise questions about Mr. Libeskind's further role. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the site, and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation are negotiating contracts with Mr. Libeskind for additional work on the site, including detailed drawings of the train station, the cultural buildings and the 1,776-foot tower that are planned.

Mr. Libeskind won the enthusiastic support of both Gov. George E. Pataki and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg with his design, and Mr. Pataki ensured Mr. Libeskind's selection for the ground zero commission when he overruled a committee of directors of the development corporation, which had recommended the selection of the other finalist, a group of architects known as Think.

Last week, in a major address about the development of the site, Mr. Pataki again hailed Mr. Libeskind's design and specifically cited the "spectacular entranceway to the site, the Wedge of Light — where the sun will shine without shadow the morning of every Sept. 11."

Mr. Attia, who has designed several office buildings, including, coincidentally, the Millenium Hilton, said yesterday that the claim is "a lie."

His analysis, through a common architectural tool known as a "shadow study," found that the wedge would largely be covered in shadow each Sept. 11 between 8:46 a.m. and 10:28 a.m., the period that Mr. Libeskind had said would be without shadow.

The first time specified is when the first plane hit the north tower of the trade center; the second is when the north tower, the second of the towers to fall, collapsed.

In a statement published on the Internet site www.phoenixproject.info/design (http://www.phoenixproject.info/design) with his study, Mr. Attia said: "Whether by ignorance, neglect or deceit, Daniel Libeskind and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation have thus sought to sell the citizens of New York, America and the world — including the families who have trusted Libeskind for inspiration — a figment and a sham memorial in which the defining image and metaphor is shadows conquering the light."

As early as November 2001, Mr. Attia publicly called for an international design competition to decide the future of the trade center site. In July, he set up the Internet site, which refers to The Phoenix Project as "a grass-roots organization" headed by himself; his wife, Noa; and two other individuals who have participated in a variety of public rebuilding forums, Jonathan Hakala and John Lumea.

In an interview yesterday, Mr. Attia said he has continued his crusade even after Mr. Libeskind's selection because he believes the plan is "a national embarrassment."

Mr. Libeskind said that he does not understand the fuss, and he added that he stuck by his characterization of the "sun shining without shadow" on the Wedge of Light.

"I'm a little perplexed by the simple-mindedness" of Mr. Attia's study, he said. "If you think of the sun being a ball of fire, only at Stonehenge could you get the straight lines of light" that the study assumes.

"But this is about radiating light, reflecting light, the atmosphere of light," he said. "It's not about tricks of light but about how light behaves when you look at the sun in three-dimensional form."


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

JMGarcia
May 1st, 2003, 10:09 AM
This should be interesting. :)

Kris
May 1st, 2003, 10:17 AM
Or not.

BrooklynRider
May 1st, 2003, 10:25 AM
I always viewed the wedge of light as a rather sappy ploy. *Certainly never viewed it as the "cornerstone" of Liebskind's proposal. *

How much "research" was actually needed to determine if this thing would be in the shade? We all know east and west and, given the heights of the buildings to the east of the site, the hours of "wedge" would almost be assured to be in the shade. *But I'm glad we have a professional pointing out when and where the sun rises and the fact that we have a city of skyscrapers that will likely comproise the design effect. *

Attia's design looks like Madonna's Bra (circa 1985) in the sky. *It's no solution. *If this is considered a "bombshell", I'd liken it to the unarmed bombshells of Iraq.

chris
May 1st, 2003, 02:30 PM
BrooklynRider:
> I always viewed the wedge of light as a rather sappy ploy.
> Certainly never viewed it as the "cornerstone" of
> Liebskind's proposal.

Give me a break. He sold it as the cornerstone of his concept from the beginning. This ambiant light thing, reflections off the buildings, etc.... that's desperation. He's scrambling.

BrooklynRider:
> Attia's design looks like...

So what. That's a straw man arguement. Just because you don't support Liebskind's design doesn't mean you automatically support Attia's proposal as the only alternative.

Liebskind replied, "Only at Stonehenge could you get the straight lines of light." Yet the stonehenge comparisons were made all over the media when his proposal came out and he made no attempt to 'correct' their interpretation.

I'm so glad the NYT chose to cover this. I'll have to grab a copy. I want to see what page it ran on.

ZippyTheChimp
May 1st, 2003, 03:22 PM
Quote: from chris on 1:30 pm on May 1, 2003

Give me a break. He sold it as the cornerstone of his concept from the beginning. This ambiant light thing, reflections off the buildings, etc.... that's desperation. He's scrambling.
I always felt that the slurry wall was the cornerstone of his concept, maybe followed by the 1776 tower. Almost all of the pro and con Libeskind debate, on this forum and elsewhere, centered around the pit and the spire. No one seemed to care about the wedge of light until now.

Brooklyn Rider: Madonna's bra?? I'll have to rethink My impression - Lord of the Rings. Frodo for mayor?

JMGarcia
May 1st, 2003, 04:02 PM
I have yet to figure out why anyone thinks that discrediting and replacing Libeskind will get them taller buildings.


Brooklyn Rider: Madonna's bra?? I'll have to rethink My impression - Lord of the Rings. Frodo for mayor?

LOL. But who would be Gollum then? ;)

chris
May 1st, 2003, 04:15 PM
I don't recall anyone claiming (cetainly not me) that replacing Libeskind will get anyone taller buildings. I happen to think that Attia's observations go far to discredit the legitimacy of Libeskind's design. What does that have to do with taller buildings? Sounds like you're confusing other people's concerns with your own agenda.


(Edited by chris at 3:16 pm on May 1, 2003)

JMGarcia
May 1st, 2003, 04:55 PM
I wasn't accusing you chris. :) It was just a general question.

Attia is being supported by and is working with Jonathan Hakala and John Lumea of TTT. I believe they are working for taller buildings. This is why I consider their attempts to question the legitimacy of Libeskind's design as a way to get another plan with taller buildings.

My own agenda, btw, is also to get taller buildings. :)

I just think that the block to achieving that is not Libeskind but rather Silverstein and the PA. There's no way anyone is going to convince me that Pataki and Bloomberg (and hence the LMDC) would not allow taller buildings if the PA and Silverstein wanted to build taller. Conversely, I do not think that any alternate plan with taller buildings will be accepted by Pataki and Bloomberg as long as Silverstein and the PA want to restrict occupied height.

All in all, I can't see anything coming of this. If Libeskind was discredited and removed, his site plan would probably stay anyway. They can hardly stop the memorial competition at this point because of a possible change in site plan and the location/size of the memorial. I doubt if business leaders downtown will put up with another competition that probably wouldn't even be able to begin for months and then take many more to complete.

Even if it were to all happen, the same power brokers would be ultimately putting the same restrictions on the site and we would end up with a different design but with all the same features - a large memorial space, buildings with restricted height, a transport center, a new Greenwich and Fulton Sts. and some open spaces.

So, let me rephrase my question...

I have yet to figure out why anyone thinks that discrediting and replacing Libeskind will get them anything better.

TAFisher123
May 1st, 2003, 05:12 PM
All in all, I can't see anything coming of this. If Libeskind was discredited and removed, his site plan would probably stay anyway. They can hardly stop the memorial competition at this point because of a possible change in site plan and the location/size of the memorial. I doubt if business leaders downtown will put up with another competition that probably wouldn't even be able to begin for months and then take many more to complete.

Plus the fact that the govenor announed a timeline for construction including 'the 1776 foot Freedom Tower'.

dbhstockton
May 1st, 2003, 05:13 PM
so, was Libeskind lying, or was he engaging in the kind of hyperbole that has got a lot of other avant-garde architects in trouble in the past? *I seriously doubt that he was intentionally misleading anyone. *I think he made an ass of himself by not clearly thinking through what he saying, but I don't think he did anything that would bring his integrity or the legitimacy of his design into question.

I still think the Wedge of Light is a great idea. *It's the lynchpin of his plan and it should stay. *Yes, he should have called it something else or described it differently, but it's still an ingenious starting point for meaningful redevelopment of the WTC site. *

Kris
May 1st, 2003, 05:20 PM
Looks like a wet firecracker.


Libeskind's `Wedge of Light' criticized
By KAREN MATTHEWS
Associated Press Writer

May 1, 2003, 4:58 PM EDT

NEW YORK -- Like a Mayan temple, architect Daniel Libeskind's design for the World Trade Center site is supposed to be aligned with the sun.

"Each year on Sept. 11 between the hours of 8:46 a.m., when the first airplane hit, and 10:28 a.m., when the second tower collapsed, the sun will shine without shadow," he said in presenting his plan to the public last December.

Now another architect _ a critic of the rebuilding process who has circulated his own design _ is questioning Libeskind's math.

"By 10:28 every Sept. 11, the so-called Wedge of Light will in fact be a Wedge of Darkness and Shame, covered by about 99 percent shadow," Eli Attia said in a report released this week and posted on his Web site.

Attia contends that the Millennium Hilton Hotel _ which, as it happens, he designed _ will cast a shadow over the plaza where the Wedge of Light is supposed to commemorate the anniversary of the terrorist attack.

The controversy was aired Thursday in The New York Times, which reported that "the disclosure about the Wedge of Light could also raise questions about Mr. Libeskind's further role."

But Matthew Higgins, a spokesman for the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., which together with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has hired Libeskind, said that "Daniel has produced a compelling vision for the site. ... It's a complex and nuanced vision that requires a lot of explanation to fully appreciate."

In an interview Thursday, Libeskind said that even with the shadows of existing buildings, visitors to the site would experience the Wedge of Light effect.

"At 8:46 they'll see the buildings suddenly illuminated with light, casting no shadow, and at 10:28 they'll see a bright line of light," he said.

Attia disagreed.

"Light is light and shadow is shadow," he said. "He promised the world that within that time it will be flooded with light, and this is simply a lie."

According to the Web site of Attia's group, the Phoenix Project, it's one of nine "lies of Daniel Libeskind."

Attia contends that the process by which Libeskind was chosen was flawed and that the plan itself is "an absolute embarrassment on every level."

But Libeskind, whose plan includes a 1,776-foot tower and the preservation of part of the original trade center's foundation walls, has supporters in the architectural community.

"I fundamentally think the Libeskind plan is, if not perfect, very close, because of how it engages the historical imperatives of what happened on the site in a way that isn't simplistic, that isn't just adding a brass strip on the pavement," said Ric Bell, executive director of the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects.

Beverly Willis, founder of a community group called Rebuild Downtown Our Town and president of the Architecture Research Institute, said Attia appears to be motivated by "sour grapes."

"Obviously Attia feels that he can do a better design job than Libeskind, and I would think 50 percent of the architects in New York think they can do a better job," Willis said. "But Libeskind was selected in a fair competition."

chris
May 1st, 2003, 05:26 PM
Sorry to be so short JMG (pardon the pun).

I have little problem with Libeskind's site plan, per se. I think his design has also been compromised down to the point that it is only marginally his original vision anyway. That said, abandoning the idea of a big dirt/clay hole in the ground, in favor of a grassy sloped park was a huge improvement and removed most of my objection to his design, so in that instance, the compromise to his vision was a tremendous improvement. In order to make them more practical and buildable, the simplification of his towers into basic rectilinear extrusions, confining the prismatic angular-ness to the building tops to appease Silverstein compromised away most of Libeskind's vision for the towers (ironically, to my eye, making them quite reminiscent of the Pennzoil towers in Houston that Attia designed under Johnson). His green tree tower was abandon, but kept in shape/form as an office tower...

Hence, the "wedge of light" was one of his few original design elements that was to have remained essentially unaltered. This was also the element of the design that was used to sell the concept in to the victim's families. The New York Times bringing high profile coverage to the issue may truly damage its fate, not to mention Libeskind's reputation.

As for taller buildings, I am also very in favor of taller buildings. Absolutely. My position has been that rebuilding towers should be postponed until the market is ready. Do the site plan, build the infrastructure... and build a stunning memorial that people all over the world will come to see. Build the memorial tall, so it can "repair the skyline" without waiting for the real estate market. Then taller buildings are more likely to be built if they are driven by market demand in a revitalized lower Manhattan. Not just building tall buildings because psychologically we feel like we need them. That is what it really comes down to, and to a real-estate developer, that is just not a compelling argument.

dbhstockton
May 1st, 2003, 05:35 PM
I'm with Chris here. *You also expressed something that I've felt ever since Libeskind's first revisions came out:
...the simplification of his towers into basic rectilinear extrusions, confining the prismatic angular-ness to the building tops to appease Silverstein compromised away most of Libeskind's vision for the towers...
I wasn't thrilled with the new renderings either, but we'll have to wait and see what the final version is going to look like.

I don't see where the problem is with the wedge of light. *Sundial-wise, everything lines up as it should. *The only way you're going to get close to no shadows is at high noon. *

From Attias site:
http://www.phoenixproject.info/images/wedgesmall1.jpg
http://www.phoenixproject.info/images/wedgesmall6.jpg

Incedentally, Libeskind's original plan to leave the footprints open down to the bedrock didn't work out exactly as he had planned either, but no one questioned the legitimacy of his design then. *Sour Grapes is right.

(Edited by dbhstockton at 4:38 pm on May 1, 2003)

chris
May 1st, 2003, 05:44 PM
> Beverly Willis, founder of a community group called
> Rebuild Downtown Our Town and president of the
> Architecture Research Institute, said Attia appears
> to be motivated by "sour grapes."

I attended many of the R-Dot meetings. Beverly Willis has her own agendas as well and I assure you they are not in tune with this forum, but her point is well taken. I have tremedous respect for Attia, but I think he made a big mistake, bringing out a criticism of Libeskind's design on a site where he promotes his own concept. He has, probably at his own peril, spoken out loudly about true flaws in this process, long before he put forward his own design. By suddenly introducing his design in the context of his criticism of Libeskind, it comes across as having some self serving agenda, and I think that is really too bad. If he had previously put forward his design, or held off with his design and simply brought these facts to light, and later put out his proposal, it would have made the arguement less easy for someone to attack on those grounds.

JMGarcia
May 1st, 2003, 05:57 PM
My position has been that rebuilding towers should be postponed until the market is ready. Do the site plan, build the infrastructure... and build a stunning memorial that people all over the world will come to see. Build the memorial tall, so it can "repair the skyline" without waiting for the real estate market. Then taller buildings are more likely to be built if they are driven by market demand in a revitalized lower Manhattan. Not just building tall buildings because psychologically we feel like we need them. That is what it really comes down to, and to a real-estate developer, that is just not a compelling argument.

That's seems to be pretty much what is happening based on Pataki's speech. The only difference being that the "Freedom Tower" (which, let's face it, is part of the memorial) is being built with an attached office building.

In any case, the Wedge of Light is unlikely to go anywhere because of some shadows. The design is based on triangular forms and it remains part of the essence of the design regardless.

In any case, it doesn't seem that the Hilton will throw quite the huge shadow shown by Attia. Judging by the angle of the shadow it looks to be about the right time of day. Of course, it might not be Sept. 11. The shadow barely reaches across Church St.

http://www.nodo50.org/csca/agenda2001/ny_11-09-01/wtc_antes.jpg

TLOZ Link5
May 1st, 2003, 07:03 PM
I'd certainly sympathize with Libeskind a lot less if Attia's announcement had not been dripping with venom.

Attia sounds like he's ticked off that he wasn't selected for the design competition that he had proposed. *It seems to me that he's moreover being spiteful than critical. *You can almost picture him gloating.

JMGarcia
May 1st, 2003, 08:17 PM
Libeskind Defends His Design

By Katia Hetter
Staff Writer
Newsday

May 1, 2003, 6:08 PM EDT

Facing charges that his "Wedge of Light" plaza will be cast in shadows, World Trade Center architect Daniel Libeskind defended the feasability of his proposal as workable, calling his latest critic "one of the sore losers."

The Wedge of Light would create an open plaza, where sunlight would shine "without shadow" each Sept. 11, between 8:46 a.m.,when the first plane struck, and 10:28 a.m., when the second building collapsed, Libeskind said.

Brooklyn architect Eli Attia, a constant critic of the design process, said his study showed that shadows could be cast over the Wedge of Light plaza by the Millennium Hilton Hotel and other buildings beyond the 16-acre site.

"This is only a small part of the deficiencies that are going on," said Attia, who has his own design for the trade center site.

He has called for an open design competition since November 2001. "The entire process has to be scrapped and start a new one, guaranteeing that the best that America has to offer would be built," he said.

"What I proposed is true and stays exactly as it is," said Libeskind, who won the trade center design competition in February. "We're working to make it very precise. The Wedge of Light is determined by two angles, the angle when first plane stuck at 8:46 a.m., when the second building fell at 10:28 a.m."

The proposal of a sunlit plaza captured the imagination of many, making its way into Gov. George Pataki's April 24 speech on his priorities for Lower Manhattan. Several of Libeskind's supporters defended the design yesterday after the New York Time's story of Attia's charges.

"I don't know that the wedge of light was necessarily the be-all and end-all," Bloomberg said yesterday. "The governor and I thought this was the right plan. These plans have to evolve as they work on them."

The Wedge of Light defines the space "in a way that is so elegant and simple, saying something happened here, at a particular time and history, like a Mayan ruin or Aztec pyramid," said Ric Bell, executive director of the American Institute of Architects New York chapter.

Nikki Stern, a family member who lost her husband, Jim Potorti, on Sept. 11, said she saw no purpose in "carping over specific details of a plan that is meant to be interpretive."

Libeskind is producing an animation to more clearly demonstrate how the Wedge of Light works, said Matt Higgins, a spokesman for the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., which oversaw the design competition.

"It's inevitable that more explanation will be necessary to show how certain elements of the plan are realized and Daniel will elaborate as we move forward," Higgins said. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey also issued a statement supportive of Libeskind's plans and the need to work together to build it.

Other sources familiar with Libeskind's plan say the light created by the placement of buildings at Ground Zero will overpower any shadows from the Millennium Hilton Hotel and other nearby buildings.

Former LMDC lead architect Alexander Garvin, who oversaw the design competition and asked Libeskind to enter it, dismissed Attia's criticism, claiming that the sunlight effect on Sept. 11 is not its most important contribution to the site.

"The Wedge of Light, in my judgment, is completely brilliant, not because of the presence or absence of shadows, but because it gives Lower Manhattan a new main square with a transit station," said Garvin, who said he did not conduct a shadow study of the site.

Attia's criticisms sound like "sour grapes," said another critic, who didn't want to be identified.

Attia responded "That's absolute nonsense. I was asked to participate (in the LMDC design study) and I refused. I'll be happy to participate in an open competition, and I hope I will win, but only through a competition."

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

LOL

You gotta love a tempest in a teapot. At least it looks like we'll get another rendering out of it. :)

JMGarcia
May 1st, 2003, 08:19 PM
Critic No Stranger to Controversy

By Katia Hetter
Staff Writer
Newsday

May 1, 2003


Brooklyn architect Eli Attia, who is calling for the World Trade Center design competition to be tossed out, has found himself in the midst of controversy before.

In 1995, Attia unsuccessfully sued New York Presbyterian Hospital and its hired architecture firms, Obata + Kassabaum and Taylor Clark Architects, charging they used his design for the hospital's 11-story extension on the East River between 68th and 70th Streets.

Although the design that was used was essentially what Attia had proposed, he lost the case. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in 1999 that ideas cannot be copyrighted. In his fight with New York Presbyterian, he gathered the support of noted architects Frank O. Gehry, Richard Meier and Robert A.M. Stern.

Attia designed the Millenium Hilton Hotel near the trade center site and 101 Park Avenue, between 40th and 41st Streets.

More recently, he and his wife, architect and sculptor Noa Attia, created the Phoenix Project to lobby for an open architectural design competition for Ground Zero. Former trade center tenant Jonathan Hakala, part of a group lobbying to rebuild the Twin Towers, is part of the Phoenix Project steering committee.

When Attia called for an open competition for the trade center site, he initially found support in Ric Bell, executive director of the American Institute of Architects New York chapter. The chapter did not endorse the Phoenix proposal, Bell said, because it was national, not international, in scope.

Attia said he switched from national to an international competition six months ago. But the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. had already set its international competition, attracting some of the world's best known architects to compete for the right to redesign the trade center site. From seven finalists, Libeskind's design was chosen in February.

TLOZ Link5
May 1st, 2003, 08:29 PM
If Attia rendered his proposal in bright orange, then you'd have the world's tallest traffic pylons.

Kris
May 1st, 2003, 08:46 PM
Madonna's bra is also the first image that came to my mind. Then three giant wizard hats dancing in a circle. One can deride Attia's design without the intention of discrediting his criticism.

He originally called for a national competition and his language is one of populistic patriotism.

JMGarcia
May 1st, 2003, 08:49 PM
Actually, it reminds me of the Watts Towers in South Central LA.

http://www.phoenixproject.info/design/presentation/images/image17.jpg

http://www.culturela.org/community_art/wttzstd.gif

Actually, the design has some good points. Mostly the same as the Foster design though and Foster was far superior IMO.

The venomous tone taken on the website is unfortunately not going to convince people of anything other than Attia is spouting sour grapes. Incidentally, I don't think he is but he's made a major PR mistake by seeming so mean spirited about it.



(Edited by JMGarcia at 7:51 pm on May 1, 2003)

ZippyTheChimp
May 1st, 2003, 08:54 PM
I'm certain that there will be a large number of astronomers in lower Manhattan this Sept 11.

JM Garcia: Gollum = Silverstein

TonyO
May 1st, 2003, 08:56 PM
Attia's design is only better because it has more definition to the skyline. *Otherwise it is not much of a step up than Libeskind's. *A single spire and the top wedge of the building is not bold. *Whether the governor of the state says it is or not.

Garcia, you mentioned that Hakala is supporting Attia. *Where did you find this out?

TLOZ Link5
May 1st, 2003, 09:51 PM
Steven Rosenow posts:

Like I've said before. *When a landmark and cultural icon falls, you rebuild it. You don't just replace it with something else. *

The Colossus of Rhodes, the Pharos of Alexandria, the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, and Old Saint Paul's all say otherwise.

JMGarcia
May 1st, 2003, 09:52 PM
Garcia, you mentioned that Hakala is supporting Attia. *Where did you find this out?

Its pretty apparent from the website. Its also in the Newsday article posted above that he's a member of the steering commitee.



(Edited by JMGarcia at 8:54 pm on May 1, 2003)

Kris
May 1st, 2003, 10:17 PM
The recreation of the damaged Basilique de Saint-Denis initiated Gothic. Venice recently decided to rebuild one of its theaters identically after it burned, which confirmed its status of a museum city, belonging to history and tourism.

Kris
May 1st, 2003, 10:28 PM
Just for the record, I read an interview of Libeskind after he was selected in which he declared that the wedge would be free of the shadows of the buildings framing it during the critical period of time.

Kris
May 1st, 2003, 10:34 PM
I don't think Attia's tone is coincidental at all. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

JMGarcia
May 1st, 2003, 10:41 PM
Oh, I think Attia's quite angry, but not over not being picked for the competition. He in fact was personally invited by Whitehead and declined. I just don't think its sour grapes over not being chosen. But you're right, its not coincidental either.


(Edited by JMGarcia at 11:58 pm on May 1, 2003)

NyC MaNiAc
May 2nd, 2003, 12:28 AM
How many of you would pick Attia's design over Libeskind.

While not a big fan of either, I would have to side with Libeskind.

StevenRosenow
May 2nd, 2003, 05:53 AM
Quote: from TLOZ Link5 on 8:51 pm on May 1, 2003
Steven Rosenow posts:

Like I've said before. *When a landmark and cultural icon falls, you rebuild it. You don't just replace it with something else. *

The Colossus of Rhodes, the Pharos of Alexandria, the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, and Old Saint Paul's all say otherwise.


Well, that may be, but this is the 21st Century we're talking about. Back then, money, and economy was virtually nonexistant in our vocabulary. Or their's per se. Moreso, the technology wasn't available to them to replace what they had. It's a totally different scenario now. We have the techology. We have the resources. We have the ability to rebuild them again. Like I said (more like asked)before, whatever happened to the desire among Americans to build the "World's Tallest Building"? Was it replaced by political correctness? I'm hedging my bets on it. And like the phrase I heard awhile back, "Political Correctness = Death."

A lot of people looked forward to seeing the World Trade Center's Twin Towers get rebuilt. And I find it quite intriguing no less that in all of the polls regarding the issue, all of the polls seemed to "disregard" them, or go as far as not even including them in the list of options. Why was this so? There's one heck of a silent majority out there that would rather see the WTC rebuilt as it was than would rather see something else built. *I've talked to quite a few people on the issue, some from NY themselves. They all believe one thing: That NYC should've been rebuilding them as soon as the site was cleared.

Silverstein's height restriction is a shame. And so is his idea that anything above the 70th floor is unfeasable and/or unsafe. *Market conditions back when the WTC was built was almost the same as it it now. They may have been nearly half vacant for their first seven years in existance, but by 1981, after their first profit posting, the World Trade Center's Twin Towers continued to rake in the profits. So much that by the time of their collapse, they were bringing a reported $300 Million a year.

It wasn't just their immense amounts of floor space that allowed this. It was also due to the fact that the World Trade Center was an attractive place to hold an office. *Working at One or Two World Trade Center carried a lot of prestige that I highly doubt will ever exist in the Libeskind plan. It signified that one has reached their peak.

The "Wedge of Light" argument is a valid one. *And saying that using the weather and astronomy as part of that argument as being "desperate" really doesn't hold water. *First off, there's no way that the sun will shine on EVERY September 11th. *

As for picking between Libeskind's and Attia's plan? I wouldn't pick either one. *For they lack one thing. The highest occupied floor should be the same in square footage as its lowest floor.

(Edited by StevenRosenow at 4:55 am on May 2, 2003)

AJphx
May 2nd, 2003, 06:33 AM
Venice recently decided to rebuild one of its theaters identically after it burned, which confirmed its status of a museum city, belonging to history and tourism.
I don't see how rebuilding a theater with a modern design would have changed that. * Not that its main historic core shouldn't remain a museum city. That's what is great about it. It can do all the modern development and forward-looking stuff in its outlying mainland districts.

(Edited by AJphx at 5:35 am on May 2, 2003)

Kris
May 2nd, 2003, 08:40 AM
Perfect - this way you, as a tourist, can have your predictable historic theme park. Steve, apparently you can't help your stupidity. So I'm going to ask you to shut up.


May 2, 2003
Spotlight Is on Wedge of Light, Symbol or Not
By EDWARD WYATT

Few people who have heard Daniel Libeskind describe his ideas to rebuild the World Trade Center would dispute that his plan is largely about symbolism — his description of his arrival as an immigrant in New York Harbor, the design of a spiral of buildings to frame ground zero and mimic the upward spiral of the Statue of Liberty, and most apparently, the 1,776-foot tower.

It perhaps is not surprising, therefore, that a number of fellow architects said they never thought Mr. Libeskind was being anything but symbolic with his description of the Wedge of Light in his design as a plaza where "the sun will shine without shadow" each Sept. 11 morning.

That idea came under fire this week when Eli Attia, an architect who has been critical of the rebuilding effort downtown and who has promoted his own design for ground zero, published a study showing that the Wedge of Light would in fact be covered by shadows from a building across the street for much of the time Mr. Libeskind said it would be illuminated.

Mr. Libeskind had plenty of defenders yesterday. "I can't imagine literally believing such an idea, especially one that is so obviously involved with the subject of a memorial," said Hugh Hardy, a founding partner at Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates, a firm known for its historical restorations of Manhattan landmarks, including Radio City Music Hall and the Central Synagogue.

Other architects and people who have played a part in the rebuilding process say the opposite, however — for some of the same reasons.

"I think I would have taken him literally because the idea does work so well as architecture," said Bernard Tschumi, dean of the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation at Columbia. In both architecture and religious discourse, he said, "there is a long tradition of the interplay of light and shadows."

But as the discussion progressed about the meaning of 9/11, about a memorial to victims of the World Trade Center attack and even about the definition of a hero, "everything just went totally irrational," Mr. Tschumi said. "This is another episode of that."

Mr. Libeskind issued a statement yesterday that differed in one significant respect from his previous comments. Previously, Mr. Libeskind said: "Each year on Sept. 11 between the hours of 8:46 a.m., when the first airplane hit, and 10:28 a.m., when the second tower collapsed, the sun will shine without shadow" on the Wedge of Light.

Yesterday, however, Mr. Libeskind said, "At these two moments, the buildings on the Wedge of Light plaza will cast no shadows."

His statement continued: "At 8:46 a.m. the facades of the buildings which form the Wedge of Light will throw the sunlight back into the plaza, illuminating the three-dimensional space of the plaza. The public will see clearly, in the fullness of sunlight, that the buildings on the north side cast no shadow onto the plaza. At 10:28 a.m., even where distant buildings beyond our site and control cast diffuse shadows, the public will see a dramatic and sharp ray of light defining the southern elevation of the Wedge of Light plaza."

To some people who have followed the rebuilding process closely, it is a distinction without a difference. Nikki Stern, whose husband, James E. Potorti, was killed on 9/11 and who works as the public relations director for Swanke Hayden Connell Architects, said it was "ridiculous to focus on whether certain details are going to work in a very literal sense."

But Richard Meier, the eminent architect who participated in the ground zero design competition — and who therefore lost to Mr. Libeskind — disagreed. "How could you not take it literally?" he asked. "He didn't say that the sun would be reflected off buildings and that illumination would somehow create a wedge of light."

Terence Riley, the chief curator for the department of architecture and design at the Museum of Modern Art, took a historical view. "Given the long history of solar orientation in architectural design, I don't suppose it is unreasonable for people to have assumed that the Wedge of Light would be illuminated by direct sunlight on Sept. 11," he said.

"Understanding now that this is not the case,' he added, "people have to think through the issue rather than trade insults."


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

chris
May 2nd, 2003, 01:41 PM
StevenRosenow wrote:
> A lot of people looked forward to seeing the World Trade
> Center's Twin Towers get rebuilt.

I was going to write a reply requesting that we not turn this thread into yet another debate over rebuilding the twin towers.

Kris wrote:
> Steve, apparently you can't help your stupidity.
> So I'm going to ask you to shut up.

With all the professionalism and diplomacy that we expect out of a moderator, I see Christian has already addressed the issue.

TonyO
May 2nd, 2003, 02:05 PM
Quote: from chris on 12:41 pm on May 2, 2003
With all the professionalism and diplomacy that we expect out of a moderator, I see Christian has already addressed the issue.


This is a good way to get yourself 1) lambasted 2) called names 3) censored 4) ignored (not necessarily in that order). *Moderation does not come in "moderation" on this board.

Steve should just take his interest elsewhere. *Anything other than pro-Libeskind comments here are hastily shunned. *It makes you wonder if there is an employee of Studio Libeskind running this group.

Whether the plan has a working "wedge of light" is the issue though. *Interpreting tones is one thing, but Attia is respected and designed a close neighbor to the WTC site (Millenium hotel). *Seems that his comments should at least be given some consideration.

dbhstockton
May 2nd, 2003, 02:15 PM
Seems that his comments should at least be given some consideration.

I would say that two straight days of coverage in the New York Times is more consideration than most people could ever hope for.

JMGarcia
May 2nd, 2003, 02:30 PM
Steve should just take his interest elsewhere. *Anything other than pro-Libeskind comments here are hastily shunned. *It makes you wonder if there is an employee of Studio Libeskind running this group.

I think this comes from two things. The first is the nastiness that is part of most anti-Libeskind posts. The second is the repetitive nature of the posts for replication of the original WTC.

The pro-rebuilders have managed to alienate their natural support base not only here, but on the other skyscraper pages as well.

dbhstockton
May 2nd, 2003, 02:37 PM
And, if you're paying attention, you'll notice a lot of luke-warm attitudes towards Libeskind.

chris
May 2nd, 2003, 03:13 PM
> Anything other than pro-Libeskind comments here are
> hastily shunned. It makes you wonder if there is an
> employee of Studio Libeskind running this group.

I think most people on this board want to see something, anything, begin to rise. They want to see the building begin.

There were a few die-hard supporters of Libeskind here, and with all the shameless plants Libeskind put in the public forums, I'd be shocked if he didn't have one or two people peddling his interests on the forum sites, but he is certainly not running this forum. Libeskind has plenty of detractors here.

On that note, I don't think his design was the worst, nor do I think it was the best. I most preferred Foster's design, but even his I didn't consider his best work. Mostly I was disappointed by the process.

A lot of people here were disappointed with the process. Attia was at times really championed here for his efforts to focus attention on the flaws in the process. I will say I am surprised, on this thread, to see how little defense Attia is getting, and how much support Libeskind is getting. But I think a lot of people, as I said before, just want to see the process get moving. I think that a lot of people on this forum aren't so much defending Libeskind as much as they just don't want to see anything stall the momentum.

Kris
May 2nd, 2003, 03:25 PM
Steve's moronic first paragraph, followed by more of the same old drivel, was what prompted my remark. Next time I'll be even less diplomatic and simply delete the post.

I reopened this thread to post the Times article. How can you say Attia's comments are not given consideration? But I will not allow them to be used as a pretext to bash Libeskind or to promote the rebuilding of the twin towers again.

dbhstockton
May 2nd, 2003, 03:55 PM
Wow. *I just reread that paragraph. *Stunning. *I'd just sort of glossed over it the first time.

chris
May 2nd, 2003, 03:59 PM
> Steve's moronic first paragraph...

Yeah, I was only backing you up (You know, in my heart of hearts I consider you, like a brother to me, Christian).

Anyway...

I'm as fed up with the "twin tower rebuilding camp" as anyone.

I am concerned... Well, you state:
"...I will not allow them to be used as a pretext to bash Libeskind..."

If they bring up legitimate issues with Libeskind's design, are you saying that negative comments about Libeskind's design are not allowed on this board? I don't think that is what you mean to say, but your wording does seem to insinuate that the board, or at least you (you say "I" not "we") have a policy to defend Libeskind.

Does WiredNewYork officially endorse Libeskind?

I'm not attempting to be sarcastic.
It is really a question.



(Edited by chris at 3:06 pm on May 2, 2003)

JMGarcia
May 2nd, 2003, 04:02 PM
I signed Attia's original position. I would have supported Foster's entry in the "design study" if I had thought that it had a chance in hell of winning. With Silverstein continuing to press for no occupied space above 60-70 floors I figured it didn't. Initially I supported THINK's Great Room and Libeskind's plan. Great Room had the tallest tower but the upper portions were occupied as hotel space or for broadcasting equipment. I liked just about everything about Libeskind's design except I thought the skyline needed to be beefed up. Well, Great Room generated very little interest and even THINK wasn't pushing for it.

When it came down to the finals between THINK and Libeskind, I could have accepted either. That is until I saw the modifications made to THINK which brought the towers down 260 feet, emptied them further, and changed the aesthetics to something much uglier.

I'll continue to push for Libeskind's design to have the skyline beefed up. I have often argued at various points along the line that Libeskind was the most likely to be chosen for a number of reasons. After he was, I argued that anyone wanting greater height must work within Libeskind's design for political reasons.

This has been interpreted my many replicationists as being pro-Libeskind propoganda. Indeed anyone who prefers something other than replica towers is demonized by this group as a blashphemer and heretic.

I consider it realistic thinking, not propaganda at all. At this point, I am very happy with the main points of Libeskind's design and, all the various conflicting interest groups considered, consider it a good compromise.

I continue to be disappointed in the height of the office towers and the width of the Freedom Tower. Its height is fine IMO. I have spent an in-ordinate amount of time trying to convince the replicationists that the stubborn nastiness directed at Libeskind, the endless drum beating for rebuilt twins, and the focus on meaningless specifics of floor plate sizes, number of floors, offset angle of twin towers etc., would be counter productive to achieving greater height at the site which is my ultimate goal. I bothered only for selfish reasons I guess.

At this point, I think Attia is getting little support for a number of reasons. Number 1 is that the Phoenix project web site is very insulting and nasty. This reduces the chances of it being taken seriously. Secondly, his design is not a compelling alternative and is presented poorly. The renderings are extremely unprofessional. They put him into the category of just another "amatuer" proposal out on the web. Finally, Pataki's speech and full support from Bloomberg, the start of the memorial contest, general buy in to Libeskind from almost every group, and downtown business leaders plea for speed in rebuilding makes Attia's suggestion to restart the process from the beginning a virtual non-starter.

All in all, its too little too late to be taken seriously. If he had come out with his complaints along with a stunning design, professionally presented within weeks of the initial design study start it might have been a different story.

TomAuch
May 2nd, 2003, 04:03 PM
Wired New York is so Pro-Libeskind it isn't funny, but then again NYCS so Pro-rebuilding, so there's a balance. Now, where does Skyscraper Page stand?

chris
May 2nd, 2003, 04:05 PM
dbhstockton wrote:
Wow. *I just reread that paragraph.

Yeah, it's a real... well, I'll just let this one sentence speak for itself:

StevenRosenow wrote:
Back then, money, and economy was virtually nonexistant in our vocabulary. Or their's per se.

--------

Forget architecture for a moment, and just ponder that.

JMGarcia
May 2nd, 2003, 04:12 PM
Wired New York is so Pro-Libeskind it isn't funny

You should not equate being against incessant posting about the totally unrealistic goal of replicating the towers with being pro-Libeskind.

Again, if the pro-rebuilding groups had handled themselves better politically and presented realistic alternatives you could most likely count on high-levels of support from the skyscraper boards.

If you feel that Wired New York is indeed pro-Libeskind then how did it get this way. Maybe you should re-visit your arguments and manner of making them rather than chalk it up to some sort of unknown and irrational factor.

chris
May 2nd, 2003, 04:18 PM
Let's not make this a twin-towers vs. Libeskind, as the only alternatives. To say you're not in love with Libeskind's design, does not mean by default that you must want to see the twin-towers rebuilt. I'll add to that, that every person who believes Attia's arguements have merit does not necessarily mean they endorse Attia's proposal either.

TonyO
May 2nd, 2003, 04:34 PM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 3:02 pm on May 2, 2003

All in all, its too little too late to be taken seriously. If he had come out with his complaints along with a stunning design, professionally presented within weeks of the initial design study start it might have been a different story.


Why would he come out with this now then? *If you are correct that he has an angle then what's with the timing?

StevenRosenow
May 2nd, 2003, 04:48 PM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 3:12 pm on May 2, 2003

Wired New York is so Pro-Libeskind it isn't funny

You should not equate being against incessant posting about the totally unrealistic goal of replicating the towers with being pro-Libeskind.

Again, if the pro-rebuilding groups had handled themselves better politically and presented realistic alternatives you could most likely count on high-levels of support from the skyscraper boards.

If you feel that Wired New York is indeed pro-Libeskind then how did it get this way. Maybe you should re-visit your arguments and manner of making them rather than chalk it up to some sort of unknown and irrational factor.


Again, if the pro-rebuilding groups had handled themselves better politically and presented realistic alternatives you could most likely count on high-levels of support from the skyscraper boards.

What kind of "realistic alternatives" are you talking about? In all seriousness, I would really like to know.

TLOZ Link5
May 2nd, 2003, 04:52 PM
Quote: from Kris on 9:17 pm on May 1, 2003
The recreation of the damaged Basilique de Saint-Denis initiated Gothic. Venice recently decided to rebuild one of its theaters identically after it burned, which confirmed its status of a museum city, belonging to history and tourism.
Venice is historic, Christian. *All of the buildings on the Lagoon are hundreds of years old. *The Twin Towers didn't even stand for thirty years.

JMGarcia
May 2nd, 2003, 04:54 PM
Why would he come out with this now then? *If you are correct that he has an angle then what's with the timing?

Beats me. I never said he had an angle in any case. I was answering chris's comment about why Attia isn't getting more support. Its because of the timing IMO.

ZippyTheChimp
May 2nd, 2003, 05:11 PM
The problem here is not any anti-twin tower bias. The problem is Steve. It's the same mantra over and over. Search his posts, you will find...

When a landmark falls, you rebuild it. You just don't replace it with something else.

What research, Steve, led to to that conclusion. That is exactly what New York has never done, so maybe we are just
being true to our nature. That may be some genetic flaw, but it got us to where we are today. Not too shabby.

I guess that's what they do in Sheldon, but I ain't never hoid of it!

By the way, Steve thinks we are all misguided. From the
NYC Skyline board:

That's one of the very reasons I don't post much at Wired New York's Forum anymore. They're so stubborn and thick headed that they cannot see the iconic status that two 1360 foot towers had on a city skyline. They seem to view them as architectural mistakes that should never have been built. And for that, they're terribly misguided.

StevenRosenow
May 2nd, 2003, 05:21 PM
Well, it does seem that way. Everytime the words "Twin Towers" are brought up, even if not used in the context of "rebuilding," it seems as though you guys all throw fits.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy coming here. I make this place one of the top 5 websites I frequent most. The photos that exist here of the WTC prior to 9/11 have helped me tremendously on the model I will start building of the WTC complex. And I would truly like to try and develop some friendships off this site.

I dunno. Maybe I'm just too stuck on the belief that the WTC should've been rebuilt in its former glory. It saddens me deeply that nobody will ever get the chance to see such large towers as the WTC ever again, and never get the chance to gaze in awe from what was the "World's Highest Outdoor Observation Platform" atop Two WTC, then looking toward the neighboring tower and greeted to an optical illusion that the tower appears to be "floating" in midair.




(Edited by StevenRosenow at 4:24 pm on May 2, 2003)

Eugenius
May 2nd, 2003, 05:22 PM
Quote: from chris on 2:13 pm on May 2, 2003
> Anything other than pro-Libeskind comments here are
> hastily shunned. It makes you wonder if there is an
> employee of Studio Libeskind running this group.

I think most people on this board want to see something, anything, begin to rise. They want to see the building begin.

There were a few die-hard supporters of Libeskind here, and with all the shameless plants Libeskind put in the public forums, I'd be shocked if he didn't have one or two people peddling his interests on the forum sites, but he is certainly not running this forum. Libeskind has plenty of detractors here.

On that note, I don't think his design was the worst, nor do I think it was the best. I most preferred Foster's design, but even his I didn't consider his best work. Mostly I was disappointed by the process.

A lot of people here were disappointed with the process. Attia was at times really championed here for his efforts to focus attention on the flaws in the process. I will say I am surprised, on this thread, to see how little defense Attia is getting, and how much support Libeskind is getting. But I think a lot of people, as I said before, just want to see the process get moving. I think that a lot of people on this forum aren't so much defending Libeskind as much as they just don't want to see anything stall the momentum.

I tend to agree with what Chris said. *While I myself would have preferred to see Foster's design get built, I am glad that some sort of final decision has been made, and some sorts of gubernatorial commitment has been stated to get things moving. *The last thing I'd like to see now is another year of hand-wringing, politicizing, and special-interest-spouting in a new competition.

ZippyTheChimp
May 2nd, 2003, 05:46 PM
The only aspect of the rebuilding process that I found really annoying was the insistence that nothing be built on the footprints. Not that there shouldn't be 4.5 (or whatever) acres devoted to a memorial, but that those acres couldn't be anywhere on the site. It put a big constraint on the designs.

I didn't like the Libeskind design at first, except for the slurry wall. Seeing that for the first time when I went home really affected me. I was down there restoring power after the 93 bombing.

Zoe
May 2nd, 2003, 06:02 PM
I totally agree with Eugenius and Chris (and I too loved Fosters Design).
BTW, I see this "Wedge of Light" issue in a positive way. *I have been concerned ever since this proposal won that it would have a negative impact on anything tall proposed for downtown in the future. *Meaning that every new proposal would have to be evaluated to make sure it does not interfere with the Wedge of Light (it would give NIMBY’s yet another argument to interfere with a building proposal). *Now that the Wedge concept is a bust, it should not produce the same problems going forward.

(Edited by Zoe at 5:04 pm on May 2, 2003)

JMGarcia
May 2nd, 2003, 06:05 PM
Agreed, Zippy. I thought the footprints have been the stupidest single issue in the whole process and ultimately one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Its just such a farce, especially now with the path train going over them.

chris
May 2nd, 2003, 06:24 PM
Symbolically, I've never had a problem with the whole footprint issue. Every project has some constraint and the architects had largely a blank slate. More so at least than 99% of the projects most architects face in real world situations... so they couldn't build on the footprints, big deal. If, however, a brilliant design had come forward than required building on the footprints, I would have supported it.

It was the closed method of what they passed off as a competition that troubled me. I also feel, against the common position of most of this board I'll grant you, that the memorial should have been done first, then the commercial development. In my observations I also have found that among most people, this board not withstanding, that has been the popular sentiment.

chris
May 2nd, 2003, 06:31 PM
Zoe wrote:
I have been concerned ever since this proposal won that it would have a negative impact on anything tall proposed for downtown in the future.

THANK YOU for bringing that up!

One of the concerns I'd had about the wedge of light was: Is this going to create all kinds of zoning issues downtown where any new building built cannot obstruct this light path. Even with this bru-haha over discrediting the wedge of light, if (more likely when) Libeskind's design gets built, it will become an issue everytime someone tries to build tall in lower Manhattan. Every NIMBY, even those who opposed Libeskind's design, will use it as ammunition to keep buildings in lower Manhattan short. Just wait and see.

TomAuch
May 2nd, 2003, 06:38 PM
Quote: from chris on 3:18 pm on May 2, 2003
Let's not make this a twin-towers vs. Libeskind, as the only alternatives. To say you're not in love with Libeskind's design, does not mean by default that you must want to see the twin-towers rebuilt. I'll add to that, that every person who believes Attia's arguements have merit does not necessarily mean they endorse Attia's proposal either.


I never said I'm Pro-New Twin Towers, I just don't like the Libeskind plan, because it's building is punny, and it's death-oriented. Personally, I don't want the same towers built, not because I'm some urban wacko, but because it would bring back too many memories. But I still want something on the same scale built to repair our skyline.

TonyO
May 2nd, 2003, 06:49 PM
To me, most everything that has been suggested in a broad symbolic way has amazed me. *

The footprints, the slurry wall both memorialize the people who died in the event in a physical way that recalls the buildings. *I think it is backwards to memorialize the buildings in this way.

Then the "freedom" tower. *That name is beyond cheese in my opinion. *Again, another Pataki-ism. *While it is tall, which I am happy with. *It is not a real building. *On CNN they had a poll that went something like "do you think they should build the world's tallest building on the WTC site?" *It's not a real building. Its basically the CN Tower without the bulb-like formation at the top.

The wedge of light is probably the part of it that I hate the least. *Of all the overdone imagery, this seems the most simple and tasteful. *Light on the same morning. *Dare I say, good idea.

ZippyTheChimp
May 2nd, 2003, 07:16 PM
Quote: from tonyo on 5:49 pm on May 2, 2003

The footprints, the slurry wall both memorialize the people who died in the event in a physical way that recalls the buildings. *I think it is backwards to memorialize the buildings in this way.
Could you expand on this? I'm not sure what you are saying.
Are the buildings to be memorialized, or the people?

It seems to me, the event should be memorialized, and it's connection with the people involved...and the buildings.
How else would you do it?

The physical sunken Arizona is a fitting memorial to the attack on Pearl Harbor as a historic event and to the people who died.

TonyO
May 2nd, 2003, 08:52 PM
That's the thing. *We are memorializing the people who died and yet they come up with these big ideas that are really about the buildings. *Footprints, slurry walls, pits are all remembering people through the building's physical properties.

The Vietnam Veterans' could have been layed out in the shape of Vietnam on the ground, or have something for each person like the Oklahoma City memorial. *But the V-Vet's memorial has more power in its simplicity I think.

That's why I like the wedge of light. *Its underdone and simple (well, in theory). *I think the buildings should be remembered in a more forward thinking way by building tall.

ZippyTheChimp
May 2nd, 2003, 09:53 PM
OK, now I understand what you're saying.

I agree that powerful ideas are best expressed simply. If the wedge of light was the memorial, I would want it to operate correctly, but for me it's a good public space, combined with hero's park. It's the sort of streetscape that invites "finding out what's around the corner."

Same for the freedom tower. To me the 1776 means we will hopefully get a tall building.

The real memorial space is in the pit. I'm sure you've followed this from the beginning, so you must realize no matter what plan would have been selected, the memorial would not be simple.

Interesting comparison to the Vietnam memorial. The design was derided by the public as too simple, not heroic
enough. But until people experienced it, they were not aware
of two powerful symbols: open earth as a scar, and the act of descending below ground.

These two symbols are represented by the slurry wall and the pit. How simply they are transferred to a memorial will depend on the submissions and the expertise of the panel.
Ironically, Maya Lin is on that panel.

I'm more worried about the memorial design than with building heights. A bombastic design could ruin the entire site.

JMGarcia
May 2nd, 2003, 11:15 PM
A bombastic memorial has been one of my greatest fears. My biggest fear about it is that it will end up memorializing the pain of the victim's families and not the victims or the event itself. To me both the Oklahoma City and Pentagon memorials focus too much on the sense of loss experienced by the victim's families. Those memorials say very little to me about the victims themselves.

NyC MaNiAc
May 2nd, 2003, 11:21 PM
Yes...but then again, putting hundreds of chairs (I'm noting the Oklahoma city memorial for those that don't know) lined up against each other would RUIN Lower Manhattan...you don't do such things in big cities...they we're not meant for huge sites of death!

JMGarcia
May 2nd, 2003, 11:39 PM
That's exactly the sort of thing I'd hate to see happen too - empty chairs, empty benches whatever. That's just the sort of thing the memorializes the loss, not the life of the victims.

chris
May 3rd, 2003, 12:37 AM
I think the memorial should be something uplifting. If it is something that is depressing, it will kill lower Manhattan. If it is something... dare I even say... triumphal, it will be a place where people continually gravitate.

ZippyTheChimp
May 3rd, 2003, 01:09 AM
The chairs at Okla City were a mistake. I was disturbed that
they were going to be used at the Pentagon. On the website, they refer to them as memorial units, benches set in light pools. They have them arranged on the landscape by the age of the victims. Just too depressing. Maybe this works at the Pentagon, since it's like a company compound. I'm hoping the large number would preclude this at the WTC.

Unless the sense of shared experience is emphasized, people not directly connected to it are going to feel like intruders. More personal experience should be in the museum.

dbhstockton
May 3rd, 2003, 01:19 AM
Yes, the goal should be to not turn the site into a graveyard. *

I agree that the individual memorials should be in the museum (The Holocaust museum in DC has an interactive database), unless they are incorporated in some ingenious way that won't detract from a single image or device that sends a message of universal humanity.

NyC MaNiAc
May 3rd, 2003, 02:27 AM
Memorial Units? Sounds generic and frightening. I wouldn't call the chairs in Okla a mistake, but it's something that could not be done in a city such as New York.

It would be a horrible mistake for the memorial to be even remotely similiar to the one in Oklahoma City.

Kris
May 4th, 2003, 11:48 AM
From the interview I mentioned:

KA:
Tell me what that is, the Wedge of Light.

DL:
It's a plaza which is shaped in a certain form. And the buildings are aligned in a specific way which allow every September 11, the light between 8:46 am when the first plane struck and 10:28 am when the second tower collapsed, that these buildings will cast no shadows on that ground. So it's about light. And light, space and materials are what create the public spaces that building and cities have.

http://www.wnyc.org/studio360/transcript030803.html

Lightning Homer
May 4th, 2003, 02:58 PM
I like the buildings, I dislike the memorial, for reasons I have already mentionned in this forum.
BUT !
I also think it's too easy to gossip without giving any proof. So, I'm waiting for more information, then we can discuss about it.

For I'm one of those people who think that "liar" is the worst insult you can get ever.

dbhstockton
May 5th, 2003, 03:20 PM
From the New York Times, letters to the editor that they decided to publish:

The Power of Light at Ground Zero

Re "Shadows to Fall, Literally, Over 9/11 `Wedge of Light' " (news article, May 1):

It's time for New Yorkers to unite and cease the bickering and mudslinging at the architectural design by Daniel Libeskind that was selected for the World Trade Center site.
The comments by an architect, Eli Attia, that criticize and undermine a component of Mr. Libeskind's design, if accurate, are disturbing. But we must move forward.
Certain conceptual elements in huge building projects can end up being logistically unworkable or unachievable. And if Mr. Libeskind needs to go back to the drawing board to rework an idea, that's O.K.! It's all part of the creative process.
Let's accept the overall magnificence of Mr. Libeskind's bold design and give him the breathing room to work.
STEVEN P. COHEN
New York, May 1, 2003

To the Editor:

Re "Shadows to Fall, Literally, Over 9/11 `Wedge of Light' " (news article, May 1):

The architect Eli Attia has missed the point in his analysis of Daniel Libeskind's design for the Wedge of Light at ground zero. The symbolism of this open-space design expanding toward the direction of the sun at the first moment of impact is the essential power of the idea.

I live now and worked, until the destruction of our office on 9/11, a few blocks away from ground zero. Shadows in the canyons of Lower Manhattan are an accepted condition. An open space that has temporary relief with sunlight is critical. The gesture to let a little light into the heart of the proposed complex contrasted greatly with several of the other designs that created a wall of buildings to the east.

Mr. Libeskind has a monumental task to achieve his vision, and the architectural community should find a way to help.
JORDAN L. GRUZEN
New York, May 1, 2003
The writer is an architect.

JMGarcia
May 5th, 2003, 03:42 PM
Well, if that's the response the Times is getting and/or it has chosen to print then I guess that whatever the Phoenix Projects plans were they seem to be amounting to no more than a tempest in a teapot.

I wish they would focus on raising the tower heights within the design rather than seeking the throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That just about filled my cliche quota for the week. ;)

Kris
May 6th, 2003, 10:37 PM
Quote: from TLOZ Link5 on 3:52 pm on May 2, 2003

Quote: from Kris on 9:17 pm on May 1, 2003
The recreation of the damaged Basilique de Saint-Denis initiated Gothic. Venice recently decided to rebuild one of its theaters identically after it burned, which confirmed its status of a museum city, belonging to history and tourism.
Venice is historic, Christian. *All of the buildings on the Lagoon are hundreds of years old. *The Twin Towers didn't even stand for thirty years.
Is this an objection? Venice is to a large extent history, not due to its age but to the fact it has ceased to evolve as a prime city (instead relying on its heritage, which it must preserve). NY is still vital and should act accordingly.

NyC MaNiAc
May 7th, 2003, 12:51 AM
I actually have to agree with Christian. But then again, just about all European Cities (From an american point of view, at least) are for history, and old, and not thriving. While not the case, Venice is a really historical place (Not to say NYC is not,mind you) But...while Venice lives off the fact that they have things from several centuries ago, NYC looks to new things, and to it's future.

Yes, they did not last long (The Twins), but does that mean they are any less important then any of Venice's oldest buildings?

It's like judging a life, IMO...
Is it okay for a 100 year old women to get killed, but not okay for a 8 month baby, because the old women was going to die anyway, but the baby had a whole life in front of it? It dosn't work like that.
And it is the same with a building.


(Edited by NyC MaNiAc at 7:46 am on May 7, 2003)

ZippyTheChimp
May 7th, 2003, 01:33 AM
Whoa!

...and that last analogy is backwards.

dbhstockton
May 7th, 2003, 03:28 AM
Have you ever been to Europe, Maniac?

NyC MaNiAc
May 7th, 2003, 08:45 AM
LoL Zippy. And dbh I have been to France, Switzerland, Italy, and London. I hope to travel back to Europe soon, it is a wonderful place.

TLOZ Link5
May 7th, 2003, 08:12 PM
Kris posts:

Is this an objection? Venice is to a large extent history, not due to its age but to the fact it has ceased to evolve as a prime city (instead relying on its heritage, which it must preserve). NY is still vital and should act accordingly. I'm not objecting, really. *I was going to add that an argument like that could be used by pro-replicators, and there's not really a parallel between Venice and New York because of the relative lack of history in the latter in comparison to the former. *Since you're not a pro-replicator, then in a sense I was bolstering your argument, if not indirectly.