Hidden agendas on the new WTC

[NYguy]

I suspected it had a hidden agenda all along, but now the Regional Plan makes it known...

Robert Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association, said that is still too much commercial space at the trade center site.

"It's not a disagreement about architecture at this point," Yaro said. "The question is, what's inside the buildings? And is this the best thing for Lower Manhattan?"

The designs will be on public display through Feb. 2 at the Winter Garden in the World Financial Center. They will be posted on the development corporation's Web site, and will be discussed at a Jan. 13 public meeting at Pace University.

Although I was glad to participate in the "Listening to the City forum" last July which the RPA helped set up, *its becoming increasingly clear what some people's agenda's are and why any new plans are likely to be greeted with more criticism from so called "public" groups...

[tugrul]

Heh, and I was wondering whether to be happy about the following email. On one hand its nice to have another chance to voice our hopes, but they did generate lots of malleable stats.

Dear Listening to the City participant:

While the public agencies have ignored our call for a thorough public process for rebuilding Lower Manhattan, you can still make your voice heard. The Civic Alliance has prepared a worksheet for evaluating the seven LMDC plans for the WTC site to be released this week. I encourage you to visit the Civic Alliance website (www.civic-alliance.org), print the form
(www.civic-alliance.org/pdf/scorecard.pdf) and refer to it when you view the designs. You can then return to the website and enter your scores, which we will tabulate and publicize.

This is far from an ideal public process, but we must start somewhere. I hope you will continue to call and write to the public agencies to urge them to hold the public process that we deserve.

Robert D. Yaro
President, Regional Plan Association

[NYguy]

I got that same email. *Here are some questions from the form. *Judge for yourself...

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

1 - Does the design memorialize the victims of 9/11 and provide the sacred space and flexibility to accommodate the memorial(s) that will be chosen?

2 - Does the design help create a Lower Manhattan where you would want to live, accommodating schools, supermarkets, nightlife, open space and community facilities?

3 - Does the design help create a Lower Manhattan where you would want to work, accessible from the region, easy to get around and pleasant to work in?

4 - Does the design provide a compelling point of arrival in Lower Manhattan while improving connections to existing and future transportation systems?

5 - Does the design help create a Lower Manhattan where you would want to breathe the air, utilizing the highest environmental standards for “green building” and sustainability?

6 - Does the design re-connect the site to the rest of Lower Manhattan through its architecture and improved pedestrian and transit connections? *Does the commercial and retail development reinforce or overwhelm the surrounding areas of Downtown?

7 - Does the design support creation of a diverse community of residents and workers with jobs and housing for people of all income levels?

8 - Does the design provide the dynamic new mix of activities, accessibility and housing called for in the Mayor’s Vision for Lower Manhattan to respond to the critical issues facing Lower Manhattan?
............................................

Questions 2, 7, and 8 are what bug me most. *I don't like the way the questions are staged. *Its almost like push polling....

[Eugenius]

You are right. *The questions seem spooky to me. *You think you know people...

[chris]

Yes, loaded questions with an agenda.

[dbhstockton]

You know, I'm just not with you guys. *I don't see anything so insidious about all this. *It's just how urban planners talk. *No hidden agenda, just typical modern liberal urban planner speak.

[Agglomeration]

Mr Yaro's talking about Lower Manhattan as a whole, not Ground Zero in particular. As long as the Twin Towers are rebuilt to their haight and capacity, I can tolerate his ideas.

[NYguy]

Quote: from dbhstockton on 8:41 pm on Dec. 18, 2002
You know, I'm just not with you guys. *I don't see anything so insidious about all this. *It's just how urban planners talk. *No hidden agenda, just typical modern liberal urban planner speak.

Maybe so, but I'll post again:

Does the design help create a Lower Manhattan where you would want to live, accommodating schools, supermarkets, nightlife, open space and community facilities?

What does this have to do with the World Trade Center? *And why are they leading people to expect such?

[dbhstockton]

Does the design help create a Lower Manhattan where you would want to live, accommodating schools, supermarkets, nightlife, open space and community facilities?

This has plenty to do with the world trade center. *He's saying that because that is what he wants for the site. *He's not misleading anybody. *He's not trying to exclude tall commercial buildings, if that's what you're driving at. * Again, this is how urban planners talk. *He wants all the possible impacts of the various uses of the site to be carefully considered within a broad urban and regional conext.

These people have been talking for, what, four or five decades about making lower Manhattan a more vibrant 24-hour community. *That's what Battery Park City is all about. *I still don't see anything insidious. *He's just throwing in his two cents from his perspective, which is that of a professional planner.

[NYatKNIGHT]

I completely agree - no hidden agenda. That's just planner talk.

[chris]

I disagree.

I have experience working with planners in advertising where I've helped write these sort of polls for Fortune 500 companies. Some where clients wanted to be objective, others where they frankly hoped the numbers fell in their favor. It's all in the way you phrase the question and in which questions you even choose to ask. For example:

When was the last time you beat your wife?

Is a loaded question that pre assumes the user is a wife beater, however:

Have you ever been convicted of a follony?

Is a fair question.

This one however:

Does the design help create a Lower Manhattan where you would want to live, accommodating schools, supermarkets, nightlife, open space and community facilities?

Is a loaded question. It allows the questioner to frame the question in such a way that the user must be inclined to give answers that support the questions slant, regardless of how they answer. It is also a compound question which is an absolute no-no (unless you're intentionally trying to skew your result in favor of your agenda, then it is a favorite technique).

The proper question would be broken down something like:

Does the design help create a Lower Manhattan where you would want to live?

If you answered yes to the above, which of the following would be important to you (feel free to check as many as you like):
__ accommodating schools
__ supermarkets
__ nightlife
__ open space
__ community facilities
__ other (please explain)______________________

[Eugenius]

As a former telephone interviewer (frequently assigned to do "push polls") while reading these questions I feel like I am back at work feeling guilty for slandering some random politician.
Chris has hit the nail on the head.

[dbhstockton]

I have never been convited of a follony.

Seriously, though. *This is not an independent poll. *It's progaganda. *Of course it's slanted. *Nobody expects it not to be slanted. *And the agenda of the Regional Planning Association is no secret to anyone:

http://nynv.aiga.org/members.shtml
http://www.nyplanning.org
http://www.nyplanning.org

[dbhstockton]

http://www.rpa.org

Oops. *Sorry about the APA urls. *You get the idea.

[chris]

Saying that their agenda is public and all is propaganda is quite a different position than:

It's just how urban planners talk. *No hidden agenda...