WTC Memorial - by Michael Arad (Architect) and Peter Walker (Landscape)

Well said. I personally feel that the Memorialists still want all 16 acres, and that they will try and get them piece by piece, or at least I have this underlying feeling of them doing this. Anyway, as I've said, I do agree that scaling back the underground components would do a lot for the site. Also, the green space for the memorial quadrant should be treated like any other park for use as a public space. If people want to use WI-FI laptops while sitting down on their beach-towel on the memorial quadrant's grass, let them do it. If people want to play music or throw frisbees, that should also be permitted. If not, then the space becomes a pseudo-private area where nothing other than 9/11 can even be contemplated. We will end up with a huge site where nothing other than walking by or sitting on benches is permitted, and closed on certain days to the public. I don't think that many of the people who died that day would have wanted this to turn out like it has.

Just curious, what type of reaction, in general, have you receive from 9/11 Families? Has it been mostly "you should be ashamed of yourself! You care more about yourself and residents than you do about us!" Or has it been more moderated, meaning you have had some families tell you that they agree, and not uite as much disagreement. I've read a few letters of the editor on the Downtown Express archives in reaction to one of your columns relating to International Freedom Center, and I could see that there are certainly some families out there who disagree with your message. But agree or disagree, you are saying what needs to be said; what neither Pataki, nor Spitzer, or Bloomberg are willing to say, or any politician of either political party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davestanke

Problem 4: Pataki picking Libeskind, which left the bathtub empty, because Pataki knew it would eliminate family member opposition by leaving the footprint area empty. This enshrined the concept of no building on sacred ground.

---

We would have arrived at the same place no matter what plan was chosen. Forget THINK - with the present fiscal realities, there is little chance that public money would finance those cultural towers.

If you add Arad's lid to Libeskind, you essentially have the same layout as Foster, United Artists, Eisenman, etc. Pataki was free to make his statement with any of these plans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPC

That is the only real solution here. How can we make this happen?

---

Spitzer?

Nothing can change until Pataki leaves the arena. Spitzer will most likely be governor, and therefore, co-head of the PA. And his nastiness may be just what is needed. But it's a long shot. The memorial doesn't have momentum, but plenty of inertia to resist significant change.

Just days after beginning construction on the World Trade Center Freedom Tower, Developer Larry Silverstein announced today that architects Richard Rogers and Fumihiko Maki will each design high-rise office towers at the World Trade Center site.

The architects will join an impressive list of architectural stars working at the complex. They include site master planner Daniel Libeskind, FAIA; David Childs, FAIA of SOM, who is designing the Freedom Tower, and Santiago Calatrava, FAIA, the architect for the transit station. They are joined by Frank Gehry, FAIA who has taken on the design of the Performing Arts Center; the Norwegian firm Snøhetta, which is designing the visitors' center; and Michael Arad, who with Peter Walker, is in charge of the World Trade Center Memorial and Museum. Norman Foster is the designer of Tower 2, on the northeast corner of the site. Many have wondered how all these architects' designs will interact, since Libeskind's commercial design guidelines for the site have still not been officially released.

Libeskind's master plan calls for five office towers. Taken together, these would replace the 10 million square feet of office space lost when the Twin Towers were destroyed. Silverstein had expressed an intention to hire Foster and Maki back in 2003, but Rogers is a new addition to the group. Silverstein's spokesman, Bud Perrone, says that the 2003 announcement was "less official" than the current one.

"Beginning with 7 World Trade Center, I made a commitment to hire the best architectural talent in the world and apply the highest standards of design to build these office towers," says Mr. Silverstein, who also said that the Freedom Tower would be completed by 2012.

Rogers will design Tower 3 on the eastern side of the site, which will contain 2 million square feet of office space. In New York, Rogers is also designing an addition to the Javits Center, an East River waterfront park in Manhattan, and new towers for Silvercup Studios in Queens. Next door, 1993 Pritzker Prize winner Maki will design Tower 4 for the site's southeast corner. It will contain 1.8 million square feet of office space.

French Architect Jean Nouvel was originally hired by Silverstein to design Tower 5, to the south of the site. But a recently-settled contract dispute between Silverstein and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey gave the PA control over who the tower's designer will be.

The astonishing amount of star power at Ground Zero has prompted many to call for the release of Libeskind's design guidelines for the site, which they say could help the architects' disparate styles fit together. The guidelines, which have been distributed in draft form, have yet to be officially released, and the delay has angered many local designers, planners, and activists.

"To have come up with a master plan selection and not go through with it seems like a real undermining of public trust," says Frank Sanchis, senior vice president at the Municipal Art Society, a nonprofit group that advocates innovative urban design in New York. "There needs to be a common thread there," says Sanchis. "If it just winds up being a collection of random towers that will be a shame."

Perrone says that Silverstein's architects will follow the draft guidelines, and that Libeskind's original concept, an ascending spiral of buildings, will remain intact.

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate...aign_id=search

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrooklynRider

Someone needs to learn to say, "No." "No." is a complete sentence and it is one that has not been used at all. These politicians and panderers will have a tough time getting their puckered lips around this one, being so used to having their mouths wrapped around other things to get what they want.

---

Pub(l)ic opinion polls?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp

We would have arrived at the same place no matter what plan was chosen. Forget THINK - with the present fiscal realities, there is little chance that public money would finance those cultural towers.

If you add Arad's lid to Libeskind, you essentially have the same layout as Foster, United Artists, Eisenman, etc. Pataki was free to make his statement with any of these plans.

---

My main criticism of Libeskind is not the building layout. It is the pit. The pit is a concept that created a lot of dogma about what can and can't be done in the bathtub and on the footprints. It also glamorized the bathtub wall itself, a nondescript piece of infrastructure. There are other smaller issues with it, the dogma could have been created by a junior high school art class.

The pit was new, dramatic, and it changed the dialogue. The design was chosen for the political safe haven granted by the pit. Every decision on culture, memorial, and the memorial museum has been altered by the pit. Some of the other designs for the site also had serious flaws (OK, they sucked). The first round of site plans gave a fine set of alternatives, but they weren't sugar coated enough to buy off the public.

I like the way the commercial is going now, with a range of talented architects hopefully contributing to a more organic feel. But all of the controversey about the memorial today has some foundations resting on Libeskind and his Pit of absence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomAuch

Just curious, what type of reaction, in general, have you receive from 9/11 Families?

---

Most of the negative stuff I get from families you see in the press. Positive stuff I get off line. I know only a couple of family members personally, and they conceptually agree that revitalization is important and that the memorial doesn't need to be expansive. Some don't really care that much about the details at debate at all, which is probably a healthy approach.

In terms of numbers, it's hard to judge the families as a group. Even among the active, if you study their issues carefully, they want quite different things. Some want an above ground iconic piece of the WTC. Others want the footprints at bedrock. Some are more focused on "remains". They support each other, because of the obvious implications if they were to fracture.

If financial constraints are imposed, family members will either turn on each other to battle for their respective visions or they will accept cost saving compromises which would greatly benefit everything on the site, memorial included.

I think most family members will be very happy when a peaceful memorial is built, surrounded by a beautiful park and they have a place to go to pay their respects. I don't think that commerical development bothers most of them, as long as the memorial piece is there.

The family "leaders" have done a great disservice to the bereaved by focusing their attention on material things that aren't really important in a spiritual sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davestanke

My main criticism of Libeskind is not the building layout. It is the pit. The pit is a concept that created a lot of dogma about what can and can't be done in the bathtub and on the footprints.

---

Look at the Foster plan. You have an above ground park similar to what we have today. Instead of pools of water, the footprints are defined by walls. The memorial is underground.

Once you declare the footprints off limits, the area between them becomes unavailable, and it becomes difficult to engineer infrastructure that doesn't impinge on that area. I think the turning point was the presentation of the underground infrastructure plan by the PA at CB1. It was the last memorial related CB meeting I attended. It was noted that the preferred location of truck/bus access to the complex at Vesey St would require a ramp that impinged on one of the footprints.

The families howled. Some time later, the PA announced that the garage would be located somewhere off-site.

Regardless of the plan, the situation today would be the same. There would be nothing but memorial in the bathtub, because nothing else fits without compromising the footprints. The families would still be upset about the PATH tracks and would file a lawsuit to stop construction.

Pataki...Pataki...Pataki.

Zippy,
I never said other plans didn't have problems too.
The Port Authority decision to vacate the bathtub was key.
But Libeskind plan took the footprint arguements to a new level. The selection of "Reflecting ABSENCE" could be seen as a logical extension of the Pit.

I think we agree more than we disagree, except for how much of an impact Danny had.

Incidentally, officially speaking, the Freedom tower, retail, and pedestrian connections are in the bathtub. All kinds of infrastructure is in the bathtub, North of Fulton.The Path trains are in the Bathtub to the east of the footprints. It might be useful to look above the path station for further opportunities for infrastructure, replacing Reflecting Absence with an above ground, simpler memorial.

At the WTC, every foot is important. The planners need to look for ways to bring down costs across the board. The search for savings begins in the bathtub. If the Port today proposes a transportation plan that uses the bathtub and saves $200 Million, who would oppose it? Anyone who would, would immediately discredit themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davestanke

The search for savings begins in the bathtub. If the Port today proposes a transportation plan that uses the bathtub and saves $200 Million, who would oppose it? Anyone who would, would immediately discredit themselves.

---

Unless of course they could personally donate the $200M.

I'm in complete agreement that the memorial needs to be re-thought and scaled back.

Even if the now-projected $1B cost for the Memorial could be raised in full, the amount is so far off the deep end that it raises basic moral questions regarding what we as a society / community can and will do to better serve ourselves and to provide for those to come.

***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp

I think the turning point was the presentation of the underground infrastructure plan by the PA at CB1. It was the last memorial related CB meeting I attended. It was noted that the preferred location of truck/bus access to the complex at Vesey St would require a ramp that impinged on one of the footprints. The families howled. Some time later, the PA announced that the garage would be located somewhere off-site.

---

I believe (or at least I hope) that the new billion-dollar price tag on the Arad memorial (wich actually under-reports the true cost) will provide the needed push to reconsider that foolish decision.

WTC memorial fundraising suspended

AMY WESTFELDT

Associated Press

NEW YORK - A nonprofit foundation has stopped trying to raise money to build the World Trade Center memorial until it can be sure how much it will cost and what it will look like, officials said Monday.

The World Trade Center Memorial Foundation suspended fundraising several weeks ago after discussing the soaring price of the memorial - now estimated at close to $1 billion - and an order that the cost be halved.

"The decision was made to not actively pursue new fundraising efforts until complete clarity can be achieved with respect to the design and costs of the project," foundation board member Tom Johnson said Monday. "It's only fair to donors to be able to expressly say how their money will be used and how much the project will cost."

Foundation spokeswoman Lynn Rasic said the board decided several weeks ago not to pursue major gifts until it received a contractor's cost estimate, which came in last week at $972 million. The mayor and the governors of New York and New Jersey, who control the agency that owns the site, want the cost capped at $500 million.

Officials now are considering changing the design of the memorial to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, two months after preliminary construction began.

The memorial, called "Reflecting Absence," would create two pools in the shape of the twin towers and surrounded by oak trees. The pools would extend 30 feet underground, where visitors could read names of the nearly 3,000 people killed, pay respects to unidentified victims' remains and see the remnants of the towers' foundations. Officials leading the rebuilding efforts have said they want to open the memorial by 2009.

The nonprofit foundation has raised $130 million from private donors in a year. Another $300 million has been committed by government agencies. Officials have blamed the slow progress in part on controversies over the memorial's design.

Opponents have said the memorial would be difficult to safely evacuate and said it is disrespectful to send family members underground to mourn their dead. Foundation members recently met with some victims' family members to hear their concerns about the design and said they were considering changes including moving parts of the design above ground.

The foundation will soon present suggestions to change the design and cut costs, while staying true to the original design of architects Michael Arad and Peter Walker, said Johnson, who leads the foundation's executive committee. Before construction can continue, he said, all the agencies involved "must all be on the same page."

State and city leaders urged the foundation to resume fundraising.

"The mayor and the governors are already on the same page," said Joanna Rose, New York Gov. George Pataki's spokeswoman. "The memorial foundation should focus on their most important task - fundraising."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPC / AP

Opponents have said the memorial ... is disrespectful to send family members underground to mourn their dead.

---

Disrespectful?

Seems to work fine for Catholics ...

http://www.nacds.com/photodir/Italy0...erIMG_3169.jpg

WTC Memorial Foundation Suspends Fundraising Efforts
May 08, 2006

The uncertainty surrounding the World Trade Center memorial has put fundraising for the project on hold.

The foundation responsible for raising money said Monday it won't ask donors to contribute until officials clear up the confusion over the cost and design of the project.

The project was thrown into question last week when Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Governor George Pataki imposed a $50 -million spending limit, while an estimate on the cost came in at $1 billion.

The chairman of the WTC Memorial Foundation's executive committee said in a statement: "It's only fair to donors to be able to expressly say how their money will be used and how much the project will cost. We look forward to resuming our fundraising when there is clarity, confidence, and consensus among the public and private parties involved in this important project."

The statement also says the foundation fully supports Gretchen Dykstra as its president.

Bloomberg also criticized the slow pace of fundraising last week. The foundation has raised $130 million so far.

MIKE'S BIG CHILL FOR WTC SHRINE CHIEF

http://www.nypost.com/photos/news050906002.jpg

By TOM TOPOUSIS
NY POST

May 9, 2006 -- Under fire for her management of the Ground Zero memorial, Gretchen Dykstra yesterday failed to win a vote of confidence from her old boss, Mayor Bloomberg, who has been stewing over rising costs and slow fund-raising.

"You've got to ask the [memorial] foundation what kind of a job she's doing. I don't have any knowledge whatsoever," Bloomberg said when asked if Dykstra, his former consumer affairs commissioner, should be fired as foundation president.

Bloomberg's lack of support came just hours before Dykstra won a vote of confidence from the foundation's board during a conference call held to discuss the project's staggering new $1 billion price.

"I don't know what's going on," Bloomberg said about Dykstra's position at the foundation, where she leads the effort to raise $500 million in private donations for the memorial and museum.

"You know, there's an awful lot of competition for philanthropic dollars out there. It's hard to do. But that's what the foundation was originally designed to do and what she was hired for," Bloomberg said.

Thomas Johnson, chairman of the executive board, said he introduced a resolution of support for Dykstra "because of the speculation."

"I decided to have a resolution. It was seconded and passed unanimously," Johnson said.

Board member Lee Ielpi also backed Dykstra.

"In lieu of everything that has gone on, Gretchen Dykstra has done a yeoman's job," said Ielpi, whose firefighter son died in the World Trade Center. "There's no doubt in my mind that she should stay on and lead the fund-raising."

But Johnson said he has postponed new fund-raising for the memorial because of the controversy over the latest cost estimates and recent calls to review the project's design.

Last week, Bloomberg suggested putting the museum in the Freedom Tower lobby.

"We're not going to do it until we have everybody on the same page. That's the state, the city, the Port Authority, the [Lower Manhattan Development Corp.] and us," Johnson said.

The decision to postpone fund-raising comes as sources familiar with the foundation's finances say the organization is spending $450,000 a month.

Since Dykstra has joined the foundation, the group has announced it has raised $130 million. But the bulk - $102 million - was collected almost a year ago, with the flow of new dollars slowing to a trickle as costs skyrocket.

Several board members told The Post last month that they believe Dykstra has failed to launch the type of national fund-raising campaign needed to pay for a memorial and museum.

Copyright 2006 NYP Holdings, Inc.

How can you suspend something that isn't happening?