Ahh I see, so they are lucky to get what they get.Quote:
Originally Posted by BPC
And there is certainly human remains, be it the smallest spec of DNA or not in Fresh Kills and elsewhere, or did you not notice how quickly the steel etc.... was carted off for scrap? Or is the judge just wasting his time in court because there is no validity to the family's claims?
But they are there, and adding additional ones is an easy process. I imagine space for a food kiosk/cafe will also be able to appear quite easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
http://www.renewnyc.com/images_WMS/m...c_mem_7_lg.jpg
There is probably some victim DNA still in my apartment, despite my efforts to cart iit off. If someone is willing to fork over several million dollars, they can turn it into a memorial.
The remains of my grandmother are decomposing underground in VT at the moment. Although parts of my grandmother were removed in the hospital in MA and discarded before her interment. I'm sure more was left at the embalmers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrightfan
This fixation of gathering every last shred of DNA is extremely unhealthy and shouldn't be encouraged. These people need an intervention a lot more than they need to be heeded in their fanciful demands.
Judges agree to hear claims from crazies all the time. There is a very low threshold of evidence for a hearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrightfan
Again, the individuals making all the noise and nonsense (anti-Freedom Center wackos, people who complain a billion-dollar memorial is too small, etc.) do NOT represent the vast majority of families.
I agree that the plaza will naturally transform into a park, but there will be resistance and sporadic arguments. Right now, no one is talking much about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMGarcia
While Pataki is governor and with an election coming it is too frought with unpredictability and thus danger politically for anyone to really talk about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
That is a bitter response. Noone is saying that. You are not basing your statements on what is being argued, but rather trying to validate or invalidate them on selected emotional context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrightfan
I was on site. It was not quickly carted off. It took months to get everything dug out. You expect a bunch of steel to just sit there for a year, or two, because there might be "the smallest speck of DNA" in there?Quote:
And there is certainly human remains, be it the smallest spec of DNA or not in Fresh Kills and elsewhere, or did you not notice how quickly the steel etc.... was carted off for scrap?
You are stretching it, diefying even protein remains as if any of that was incarnate of the spirit that is once carried.
Not a very valid line of reasoning.
The judge is wasting his time, and it is costing us all. The voice of the few is enough to make the many suffer.Quote:
Or is the judge just wasting his time in court because there is no validity to the family's claims?
The thing that irritates me the most is that the few speak as if they WERE the many, and should be, as was previously stated, Obeyed as well as listened to.
Why I picked on Jim
Since the selections by the WTC memorial jury, I've heard the same story from two different architects regarding the competition for the Sydney, Au opera house. The point being that who serves on a jury is more important for the outcome than the materials presented (something every trial lawyer is keenly aware of).
In the Opera House competition, Eero Saarinen showed up late, didn't like how things were turning out and flipped back through the also-rans. The result being the iconic building on Sydney harbor.
Who selected the WTC Memorial competition jury? Not many of them have had much to say, but the professor piped up recently about that empty box in the basement.
That opens the door ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cityslob
The Memorial Mission Statement is where it all went wrong. Making a program while everyone was in a state of shock, fear, and morning lead to extreme expectations. The program was a compilation of everything anyone wanted to try and make the memorial do things that memorials just can't do. The statement was so detailed and so wide ranging that it secured the area as a preservation of Osama's work with a list of items to be situated within it. Osama killed these people, and now their memorial is placed within the "sacred" area created by a terrorist attack. The symbolism of this is precisely why I find the whole program so offensive: symbolically the deceased still lie within the handiwork of their murderer.
The site should have been re-utilized, purging it of any sign of the terrorists work. Then a place of peace, honor, and inspiration could have been built that context. It would not have required the space it consumes and it would not have been a blight on the world around it.
Evidence of the mistake of the memorial mission statement was a comment by some family representative that the memorial would hold up for 1,000 years as testimatent to the importance of 9/11. I would ask all of you to think of the most important historical event of 1,000 years ago (give or take a couple of hundred). If it was a disaster or war, I would expect that the number of dead was over 50,000. I would think that if anything of the event was preserved, it was probably because it was abandoned and buried for centuries before being rediscovered. If any names are remembered, it is because they were major leaders in the societies of the world at that time. No one remembers the names of the masses, and know one cares after 1000 years.
But delusions of grandeur have been allowed to perpetuate because no one has been willing to state the obvious: the expense being considered for strictly symbolic gestures is obsurd. The people demanding them could never produce or raise this money through any open process, so they try to hijack reconstruction to squeeze the money out of politicians. This process has exposed a great weakness in the American political system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cityslob
Dave, From what I gather it is all "water under the bridge" yuk, at this point. I have to say that after a close viewing of the memorial on a one of the new websites - http://www.projectrebirth.org/galler...l/wtc_mem_8_lg - that the "reflecting absence" seems to me an excellent design concept. There are many reasons why I like it: most of all is simply that it is a done deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by davestanke
I look forward to seeing it being constructed and visiting it when completed.
I just hope they have planned for the maintenance of this creation. For example, trees in urban environments are notoriously prone to dying. The compaction of the roots by the limited ground space and the pressure of thousands of footfalls is very stressful. How many times have you seen new trees put out on the sidewalk tree boxes outside a new building only to watch them die a slow miserable death? And how about the filtration of the water features? There will be gazillions of leaves not to mention the errant sandwich wrapper, water bottle, etc. I guess Arad's team has the experts, though, and they will figure this out.
I believe things are normally paid for before you call them a done deal. There are still engineering issues at stake. It's irresponsible to throw energy away heating exposed water in the middle of winter, especially when, as you say, the design is so excellent. There are still decisions getting made about the memorial and surrounding areas that are a long way from done deals. At one point the Sonetta building was a done deal. But now it's effectively gone. The performance center is a done deal, but some people are opposing it. There are a lot of decisions to be made and money to be raised.
Of course, if you are involved in the process, I'm sure you're aware of all that.
Families are still in front of judges trying to get material out of Fresh Kills, which may or may not affect the WTC.
I do agree that all of the work on the Memorial Center has been done quite well given the assumptions they started with. But family members are still compaining about the Memorial/Memorial Center arrangement, and I can't honestly say I have a clear picture of an agreed upon set of issues.
It'll be done when I can look out my window and see it. Until then, this is a very political process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by infoshare
Yes, I agree - it is still in process. However, I think in the end we will have pretty much the Arad design as seen in the architectural renderings: the engineering details will be worked out.Quote:
Originally Posted by davestanke
But please.........enough "process" - the public needs "results" at this point. A saying I picked up somewhere - "Perfect is the enemy of good". The Arad design is not perfect - but what is.
Suicide?Quote:
Originally Posted by lofter1
It would be fair and accurate to say that people who are opposed to the behavior, actions and politics of the "TakeBackTheMemorial" group would not tolerate a memorial that did not honor those killed on September 11th. However, it is equally fair and accurate to say that the "TakeBackTheMemorial" group will not tolerate a memorial that honors the living and survivors of the day's events in the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by infoshare
This memorial is a memorial to the EVENTS in New York as a result of those attacks. It is not a giant tombstone for the dead. In addition to the people killed, the events memorialized would be the immediate reaction, response and support of New York City residents and their unity to deal with the recovery effort. It would include the donation, collection and delivery of medical and recovery items for teams at the WTC site. It would include the volunteers who serviced the recovery volunteers with bodywork, food and shelter, It would iunclude those who sprung into action to find immediate housing for those displaced by the attack. It would include those who sought out children and pets of the missing. It would include the scenes outside of hospitals and the interaction between those missing relatives and those comforting them. It would include the incredible non-stop news coverage by local stations. It would include the toxic cloud that the EPA purposely misrepresented as "safe" for resident to breathe. It would include the smoke trail that ran in the sky from the WTC site over Brooklyn for weeks. It would include the people (residents, workers, tourists) who were first locked down on the island and then ushered over bridges into neighborhoods that were unfamiliar, where they were greeted and assisted by local residents to find a way home. It would include the story of how the president sat on a kindergarten chair and continued reading a children's story after being told of the attacks. It would include the facts that the president failed to show up in this city for DAYS and how a mayor, much reviled at the time and without a majority of public support, found a unified public cooperating and responding to his leadership in the vacuum created by the failure of state and federal leaders to this national attack.
I'm not going to challenge your right to your opinion, but I think you have a pretty warped memory of what happened on that day and in the days following. This memorial is to this city - NOT to the dead. The families have proven they can not get the memorial on track, because at every turn the precise people who can get this thing built are walking away from it. The outspoken family members purporting to represent "all the families" are an alienated lot of self-absorbed, moribund egotists who chose an "us or them" approach to this civic project. They are in their current position of influence for one reason alone: George Pataki. He has mindlessly and moronically affected this project for the worse at every turn, starting with his override of the competition process when in actuality the THINK team won over Daniel Liebskind.
I don't deny that those people represent a very real chapter in the events of 9/11, but they are NOT the truth holders for the events of that day. There are volumes of interesting, historical, factual, and contrary stories that deserve as much if not more space in the memorial than the stories of the 3000+/- who were killed. The 8 million residents of the city who survived and put this city back to work should be honored alongside the dead who are memorialized. The names of the dead, as callous as it might sound, are a footnote in the long-term history of what happened. In the big picture, it was the number of dead not the names of them that matter. I'm not saying it isn't fair.
We all remember December 7th, 1941. Yet, you can't name one person who died that day - because in the big picture it's a tiny footnote. We can't build a bloated 6-acre memorial to an historical footnote - as harsh as that may sound.
I am all talked out on this subject BR: but, have read your comments. In closing all I can say is I hope "everone" concerned will pleased with the memorial design titled "reflecting absence". For many more reasons than I care to go into - I think the design concept is great!Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRider
http://www.projectrebirth.org/galler...l/wtc_mem_8_lg
Why does everyone treat "engineering issues" as if they were nothing.
You know, people would be just fine, and live to 1000 years old if it werent for all those pesky "biological issues".
There's still the lawsuit over the extra PATH track.
No problem. I was on vacation for a week and I'm catching up on posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by infoshare
Good to have you back, BR ;)
Dave,
I agree with your comment on misplaced symbolism in RA. For me it says quite literally, "Here lies towers 1 & 2, felled by Jihad in 01", and it sure won't last a 1000 years.
Those guidelines could have been trimmed to one line for the competition:
"Create an original and powerful statement of universal symbolism"
Many entries were trying so hard to meet those complex guidelines that the essence became garbled.
I think the influential on jury had a preconceived notion going in. If you look through the entries, the most prevalent theme is footprint-sized reflecting pools, making that concept the least original and certainly not one of universal symbolism.
Thanks Nordica,
The other overwhelming symbolism is "Cost is no Object." Waste of space, waste of existing infrastructure, waste of energy; none of it matters because everything is too small to express our sympathy.
The waste of energy in heating the pools is especially symbolic of precisely why we are in the current political situation.
Actually, that is more hot air than water.Quote:
Originally Posted by davestanke
Cost effectiveness is a part of good design work, but in politics, $$$$$=jobs+theopportunity to pass out favors=votes.
Feasibility is ignored when the mindset is to pour enough cash into the deal until it works, the more the better.
There are those pesky laws of physics though, oh well, the engineers will fix that problem. Right Ninja.
Who cares today if it gets paved over fifty years from now, we'll all be gone, but will have passed along the same opportunity to our desendants.
Since the memorial deisgnates the footprints of the original towers, (rather than rebuilding, my first choice) I would prefer to see the lobbys of the original Towers replicated internally and externally as they were moments before the planes hit, with perhaps several more floors above each containing memorials to the vicitims in each of the respective towers. You could cap each with a glass pyramid ceiling to look up to the sky. Something tasteful and simple.
I know I am late andthe design is final, but I would just love to be able to ability to truly see where the original twins were in relation to the rebuilding without something unrelated such as pools of water, etc. What I am suggesting is maybe something 5-7 stories each. I really think it would be moving to walk into the lobby of each building as it was, and then to ascend a floor or so in each to the memorials/museums etc. One building could memorialize the victims; the other the building of the original twins and how daily life was in each as well as rebuilding.
I notice this thread has had 700+ views in the past week and only one reply, Tallguy's late entry to the competition.
Actually one idea I had for the project is to simply create a glass panel with the view of the trade center on it. That way people could look through the glass and see what the towers looked like. Let's just say it, pretty much nobody visiting GZ these days even knows what they looked like.
I have to say that even with my memory of thousands of times of looking at the WTC, my memories of it are fading. The landscape around GZ had been transformed beyond any level of recognizability of the familiar and beautiful old area.
Films and pictures show them but as Phillippe Petit said the trade center was alive, and you can't really see that in visual media. I think we've made a mistake by not rebuilding them, perhaps (hopefully) I'm proven wrong once all the components of the plan come toghether. The new towers, hub everything might be prettier, better laid out, and more economical but we've lost perhaps the most significant NY landmark (at least to me) that we've grown up with. I'm too young to remember a New York without the trade center, that's why every day that something isn't built there is to me depressing and unnatural.
A film in current release (I won't name it so as not to spoil the effect) includes a shot of the towers to make a significant point. The odd thing is that in an earlier shot in the same scene the towers aren't there.
Given the film maker it had to be a choice not to include the towers in the earlier shot, but as to why has got me a bit stumped.
Oh Jeez, now I'm going to be wondering what film all day. Lofter is being extremely politie. Anyone want to venture a guess?
Well, I'm not gonna be the SOB.
There's at least one mistake in that scene.
That is pretty much the exact same way I think about it (other then only seeing them hundreds of times rather then thousands). When I am in the city or around ground zero my memories have faded of what the buildings looked like close up or from midtown, Liberty Island, etc. The only real memories I seem to be able to recall are seeing them from miles away dominating downtown or from being inside them, the lobby and observation deck. I almost feel guilty now for taking them for granted and not appreciating how truely great they were. I am excited about the Freedom Tower but a part of me feels like there will always be a void from where they once stood and wishes there was some way to bring them back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake
I recently saw this movie, which seems to have WTC footage and 9/11 footage that I haven't seen. The pictures of the WTC at peace, with a rock steady camera, were surrealistic. So much 9/11 footage was with people on the run, hand held, and generally unstable, that I've grown the think of the towers as part of a poorly filmed movie.
Seeing them in place and not burning didn't seem real. Everything is so different now. Aside from expense and various practical issues, I'd rather have them back as they were. But seeing them there and looking out over the sight, there was no connection between the scenes. Incidentally, when there was a connection, it was painful. Perhaps that is a human defence mechanism, or just a way of coming to terms with reality.
As for better . . . I don't believe much of anything is actually turning out better. Linkage from transportation to surrounding areas will be worse, retail configuration will be worse (not contiguous on one level), plaza will be nicer looking, but less usable (constraints on activities in memorial quadrant. There will be better access on foot above ground, but worse access below ground. The buildings will be compacted together because they aren't as tall (FT excepted) and they are squeezed together. Vehicular streets through the area is a detriment to its pedestrian usability.
I had once hoped for a better place, but now I believe it will simply be the same stuff in a worse configuration.
And other stuff aside, "The Man . . ." reminded me that I miss the towers. If this were really a democratically determined issue, they'd be working on the 20th floor of the first tower by now.
I agree Nordica , yur statements do address IMO some of the "root causes" of not only the WTC memorial but much of what is problematic with the entire World trade rebuilding effort....and mybe NYC development projects in general too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nordica
That said,,,I would like to see the RA project built, or this may go on for decades.
You don't really mean that Info.
You and Dave should spend some time flipping through the online exhibition of the memorial competition. It's a poor venue but better than nothing. It would have been a small concession if they had showed the cuts leading up to the finalists, but that would have revealed too much to the public.
It's still interesting to analyze. A full third of the entries were from NY, even RA, though it was done by an Israeli. I think some European entries may have been done by Americans. So origin loses some meaning, but there's much more.
I've flipped through many, but probably less than half and only looked closely at a few. To read them all would be like reading "War and Peace" over and over. Make sure and read the NY entry from Kellogg Wong, it's my favorite read. So far I have several that I like much better than RA.
I'm an industrial designer and modest about it, but good at what I do. I have expertise about what makes good design. RA isn't.
Just saw this newsletter posted on BuildTheMemorial.org... (Not that they are telling us anything new) :rolleyes:
http://www.buildthememorial.org/site....pdf?docID=961
Sorry if I'm kicking a dead horse but the people who put out the "WINTER 2006" brochure ^^^ are idiots.
The rendering shown on page two of the "WTC Site Plan" shows the new smaller Snohetta cultural building site, but continues to show the F****** Tower as a parallelogram pushing out towards West St. rather than the more recent square-based site as redesigned more than 6 months ago.
Just another indication that there is no leadership or driving force coordinating the site.
It's clearly a F****** mess behind the scenes.
this woman has her work cut out for her ...
A Leader Is Chosen for the 9/11 Museum
By ROBIN POGREBIN
NY Times
Feb. 9, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/ar...pagewanted=all
Seeking a leader to guide a much-disputed 9/11 museum into existence at ground zero, officials announced yesterday that they had settled on Alice M. Greenwald, an associate director for museum programs at the Holocaust Museum in Washington.
In Ms. Greenwald, the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation sought someone seasoned in addressing a highly charged chapter of history to plan the museum.
The museum's future has been uncertain for months. Part of Daniel Libeskind's original master plan for ground zero, the building was originally to be shared by the International Freedom Center, a nascent organization dedicated to human rights, and the Drawing Center, a SoHo-based exhibition spaced devoted to works on paper.
Both organizations were forced off the site under pressure from relatives of 9/11 victims who questioned whether their programming would be sufficiently patriotic.
In a telephone interview yesterday from Washington, Ms. Greenwald, 54, said she was not daunted by the potent influence of the family members but welcomed their input in conceiving the museum.
"They have to have a privileged voice in the process," Ms. Greenwald said. "By the same token, you have to create a narrative that allows your visitor to come in and understand what happened. It's a partnership."
At the Holocaust Museum, "we deeply value the authentic voice of the survivor," Ms. Greenwald added. "The way you integrate those voices is part of the challenge."
Because the two cultural institutions originally chosen for the museum were eliminated, many of those involved in the downtown rebuilding effort have expected that the institution would become primarily a visitor center with some 9/11-specific exhibits.
Ms. Greenwald dismissed that idea. "If it is, I'm the wrong person for the job," she said. "I don't think of museums as places that just hold artifacts."
Ms. Greenwald began working at the Holocaust Museum as a consultant in 1986, serving as a member of the original design team for the museum's permanent exhibition.
"I don't think I would have considered leaving had I not had the fundamental belief that this museum has the potential to have the same level of moral significance," she said of what is to be called the World Trade Center Memorial Museum.
"We need to say, what's our goal, who's our audience, what's the big message we want people to take away, what do they need to know?" Ms. Greenwald said. She added that she hoped to build a "programmatic consensus" although there would inevitably be some "creative tension."
"We're going to focus on memorialization, we're going to focus on loss," she added. "I don't know what the meaning is going to be."
Initial reaction seemed positive. Monica Iken, founder of September's Mission, whose husband, Michael, died in the south tower of the World Trade Center, said yesterday that Ms. Greenwald "has done an exemplary job at the Holocaust Museum."
"She has told a very painful story and memorialized those millions who were killed in a horrific way," she said. "We hope that she tells the difficult story of Sept. 11 just as well."
Gretchen Dykstra, the president and chief executive of the memorial foundation, said that Ms. Greenwald seemed ideally suited to the post, for which Ms. Dykstra said some 35 people applied and 8 were interviewed.
"She is a woman of real depth and thoughtfulness," Ms. Dykstra said. "It's a challenging set of circumstances because people died here."
Ms. Dykstra defined the museum's purview as "anything that has to do with the telling of the story and the interpretation of 9/11."
Both she and Ms. Greenwald said it was too soon to specify an operating budget or to discuss the specific content of the museum, which will devote 65,000 square feet to exhibition space, compared with the Holocaust Museum's 36,000 square feet.
Ms. Greenwald will be paid $300,000 a year, officials said.
Of the $500 million budget for the memorial and museum, $100 million has been raised so far, Ms. Dykstra said, and another $200 million is to be transferred to the foundation from the development corporation.
The foundation is not yet raising money for a planned performing arts center at ground zero that is being designed by Frank Gehry, Ms. Dykstra said. Still, the development corporation is interviewing candidates for a director's position for the institution, said Stefan Pryor, president of the corporation.
The building is to be shared by the Joyce Theater, which presents dance, and the Signature Theater Company, an Off Broadway Theater Company.
Asked about the fate of the Freedom Center, which did not survive at ground zero, Ms. Greenwald said, "My gut reaction is that it may have been an incredibly creative idea that was woefully premature."
Might the 9/11 museum then also qualify as premature? "This is a museum of memory," Ms. Greenwald said. "And when you're talking about memory, it is never too soon."
Glenn Collins contributed reporting for this article.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
"But yet the families have had to fight tooth and nail every step of the way."
To be obeyed that is.
The memorial should not be built for the families of the deceased victims. It should be built for the general public. What gives the families the right to dictate what is to be built at the WTC? Some will say, these people's lose gives them the right. I think not. The long term benefit of the city and all the people who live here, all the people who visit, and all the people who were impacted by the tragedy of 9/11 should be top priority. The memorial isn't a therapy session for some of the families. They need to get a clue.
Well, if you've visited the National Holocaust Museum, you have a mental image of what this horrendous thing will be like. A total immersion and recreation of the collapse for the enjoyment of visitors. Ghastly.
"We're going to focus on loss" she added.
Hey, that's a good idea. Jump into that bottle of emotional misery and get really bummed. We wanna see tears!
It takes a hero to get on with life. Nothing's going to bring them back.
Aren't there a few too many Holocaust experts running this show?
Can't we get some Buddists involved, they seem to have something going and they've been persecuted. Remember the Pol Pot regime, you could get murdered for knowing how to read.
mausoleum / cemetery / sarcophogous / coffinQuote:
"We're going to focus on loss" she added.
good way to spend $500,000,000 :mad:
This whole thing has gone out of control.
Just bring back Koenig's "The Sphere" from the original WTC Plaza, outline the footprints within the surface of the new plaza, add a small remembrance plaque and let that tell the story ...
Sounds OK to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by lofter1
gets my vote.
OK lofter, certainly better than the overpriced boondoggle that's planned.
Take it a step further backward, just grass (maybe one or two trees), pave over the footprints. A couple of strategically placed walkways. Allow dogs and frisbee games, skateboards, roller skates, whatever, just so it's lively and uncontrolled. If it has to have a name, call it Freedom Park.
Fire Gretchen and Alice, and whatever's left over from the $100 million, give it to "Save the Children" or some other worthwhile organization that's lean on the management cut.
This memorial is a now win situation IMO. There are 3 very conflicting visions of it.
1. Those who want it as big as possible and focus it on their personal deep loss and sorrow they feel for friends and family.
2. Those who want it to memorialize the buildings and what they stood. There seems to be a number of people that feels the loss of the buildings as symbol just as deeply as the families feel about the loss of the people they knew.
3. Those who want to minimize the memorial. I think there is a strong undercurrent where people want to put the whole thing behind them along with all the uncomfortable feelings and realities 9/11 forced upon them. There's also a strong undercurrent that site should be dealt as just another public amenity to provide shopping, jobs and parkland.
Its no wonder everybody hates it because one thing for sure is these 3 concepts are never going to co-exist.
my vote tooQuote:
Originally Posted by lofter1