WTC Visitors Center - Snohetta

[Nelly Nel]

Great design by one of the best young architectural firms in the world. NYC should feel blessed that this is their first project in the Western hemisphere.

Great use of glass and wood, ramps and a very innovative way of lifting the building of the ground to provide unobstructive access to the memorial.

I have been to their Alexandria library in Egypt, which they won in a design competion beating out about 600 other firms from all over the world, and it is an amazing building which incorporates all aspects of Egyptian culture

Can't wait for this building to rise up and be completed.

http://www.renewnyc.com/

http://www.snoarc.no/

[BigMac]

New York Times
May 19, 2005

Plans for World Trade Center Cultural Center Are Unveiled

Associated Press

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/05/18/arts/19wtc_slide1.jpg
A rendering the newly unveiled design for the cultural center at ground zero, which will house the International Freedom Center and the Drawing Center.

NEW YORK -- America's only visual arts organization devoted to the discipline of drawing will be part of a new cultural center built on the site of the collapsed World Trade Center.

"This cultural center will be a fitting celebration of the humanity which triumphed in the face of evil on September 11," Gov. George Pataki said in a statement Thursday, prior to a news conference to unveil details of the World Trade Center Cultural Center.

The Norwegian firm Snohetta was chosen from a pool of 34 applicants to design the complex, which will include The Drawing Center, a visitor's center and the International Freedom Center, devoted to the global struggle for freedom.

The Drawing Center, currently located in the SoHo district, will offer drawing exhibitions and opportunities for emerging and under-recognized artists at its new home -- a five-story building with double height floors and a landscaped rooftop space overlooking the World Trade Center Memorial Plaza.

The Cultural Center will have up to 250,000 square feet of space on Fulton and Greenwich streets, across from the planned Performing Arts Center, which is to house the Joyce International Dance Center and the Signature Theatre.

The design for the Cultural Center is slated to be completed by the end of the year, with groundbreaking in 2007 and completion in 2009.

The Cultural Center and the Performing Arts Center "will frame and protect the sacred memorial setting, while providing for the celebration of life as we remember those we lost," Lower Manhattan Development Corp. Chairman John Whitehead said in a statement.

Snohetta is an Oslo-based architecture, landscape architecture and interior design company. It is known for its completion of the Alexandria Library in Egypt, the Norwegian Embassy in Berlin, and the soon-to-be-completed New National Opera in Oslo.

At its monthly board meeting earlier Thursday, LMDC officials said the new Performing Arts Center, to be designed by architect Frank Gehry, was still being discussed because costs were rising beyond the budgeted $200 million. They pledged to have a final plan by the end of the year.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[BigMac]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/05/18/arts/19wtc_slide2.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/05/18/arts/19wtc_slide3.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/05/18/arts/19wtc_slide4.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/05/18/arts/19wtc_slide5.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/05/18/arts/19wtc_slide6.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/05/18/arts/19wtc_slide7.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/05/18/arts/19wtc_slide8.jpg

[Kolbster]

I like this. I think the color scheme of the skin is interesting.

[czsz]

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

A Temple of Contemplation and Conflict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PHLguy]

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

[JMGarcia]

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

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

[Jasonik]

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

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

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

[RedFerrari360f1]

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

[czsz]

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

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

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

[PHLguy]

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


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


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

[JMGarcia]

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

[PHLguy]

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


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

[Stern]

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


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

Jesus Christ! They haven't been designed yet.

[PHLguy]

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

[Stern]

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

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

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

[Derek2k3]

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

[Kolbster]

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


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

[NYguy]

These really are nice renderings of the center...


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


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

[Kolbster]

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

[antinimby]

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

[BronxBoy]

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

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

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

[czsz]

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

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

You can thank Liebeskind for that.

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

[Fabrizio]

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

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

[czsz]

Too late and too many sensitive egos at stake.

[Fabrizio]

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

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

[czsz]

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

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

One Zero Project Hitting Jackpot: Freedom Center

by Matthew Schuerman (mschuerman@observer.com)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


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

[Jasonik]

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

NY POST

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

By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent



July 1, 2005 -- WASHINGTON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[lofter1]

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

Too bad because it's a great design.

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

[BPC]

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

Too bad because it's a great design.

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

[MidnightRambler]

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

[Johnnyboy]

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

[ablarc]

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

[Citytect]

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

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

[pianoman11686]

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

[BrooklynRider]

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

Or a big chainlink fence around the whole thing.

[NYatKNIGHT]

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

[DougGold]

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

[Stern]

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

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

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

[BrooklynRider]

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

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

[lofter1]

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

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

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

[fioco]

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

[Jake]

O...K...

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

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

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

[pianoman11686]

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

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

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

[BrooklynRider]

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

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

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

[lofter1]

Here we go. More downsizing:

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

Officials To Scale Back International Freedom Center At WTC Site

NY1

July 07, 2005

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

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

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

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

[BPC]

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

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


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

[Jasonik]

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

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

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

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

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

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

[BrooklynRider]

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

[lofter1]

From the LMDC website:

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


Officials Announce Plans to Change Freedom Center Focus, Design

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

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

[americasroof]

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

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

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

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

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

[americasroof]

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

[Johnnyboy]

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

[BrooklynRider]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[billyblancoNYC]

Typical left-wing shit.

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

[BrooklynRider]

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

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



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

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

I think the Times was right on target.

[czsz]

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

[americasroof]

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

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

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

[BPC]

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

[lofter1]

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

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

[ASchwarz]

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

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

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

[americasroof]

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


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

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

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

[americasroof]

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

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

[americasroof]

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, July 12, 2005


WORLD TRADE CENTER MEMORIAL FOUNDATION HOLDS
BOARD MEETING

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

Contact: 212-312-8814

[lofter1]

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

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

[americasroof]

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

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

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

[NewYorkYankee]

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

[americasroof]

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

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

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

[BrooklynRider]

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

[americasroof]

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

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

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

[Stern]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[lofter1]

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

How about using the Fitterman Hall site?

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

[NYatKNIGHT]

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






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

[JMGarcia]

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

[NYatKNIGHT]

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

[JMGarcia]

^Good idea.

[Jake]

This just occured to me:

Everything on this site is pointless,

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

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

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

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

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

[billyblancoNYC]

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

[lofter1]

and then there were none...

Drawing Center may quit WTC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just pull out

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delays ahead

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

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

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

©2005 Crain Communications Inc.

[BrooklynRider]

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

[pianoman11686]

Drawing Center May Drop Plan to Move to Ground Zero

By DAVID W. DUNLAP

Published: July 23, 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[Jonathan_Hakala]

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps.

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

Good riddance to both of them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To repeat: They must go. Period.

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

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

[ablarc]

The hallowed ground that they would have desecrated
Bombastic.

.

[BPC]

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

[ablarc]

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

[lofter1]

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

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

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

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

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

[Citytect]

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

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

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

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

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

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

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

[lofter1]

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

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

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

[lofter1]

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

Dissent Is No Crime, Inquiry Is Not Treason

By Niall Stanage
NY Observer

Plans and passions are clashing at Ground Zero.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

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

[ablarc]

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

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

[fioco]

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

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

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

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

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

[BrooklynRider]

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

[lofter1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BrooklynRider]

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

[Jasonik]

Its presence between the PATH terminal and the memorial would discourage commuters from using the memorial plaza as a shortcut to and from their offices.
A contrived and calculated sentiment aimed directly at the 9/11 families (foes of the Freedom Center).
...Mr. Dykers said, "It creates a transition between urban life and the memorial itself."
It thought that is what the trees and descent under the fountains was supposed to accomplish.
[Michael Arad] envisioned the site functioning "both as a sacred memorial ground for those who descend to the memorial pools and as a large urban plaza."
The plaza is not the memorial its a plaza, and as such I think it would be wonderful to come out of the path station and be on the edge of it.

[BPC]

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

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

[Jonathan_Hakala]

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

By DENNIS SMITH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published on August 2, 2005

All contents © 2005 Daily News, L.P.

[Jonathan_Hakala]

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

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

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

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

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

Ever.

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

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

Rather, the question is whether it's appropriate to use land in