Study by Eli Attia Discredits Wedge of Light

[chris]

So Christian is just your Avatar Alias.

[NyC MaNiAc]

haha Chris, agreed. But, he raises a good point.

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

[Kris]

It's my Pompous Full Name.

[TomAuch]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your present course is pointless.

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

[StevenRosenow]

Whatever happened to the desire, the resolve to rebuild what was the proud gleaming icon of New York's skyline?

Was it replaced by fear and political correctness?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr X]

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

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


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

[JMGarcia]

That's a very stirring speech and you may even be correct. I would have been happy to see 2 110 story towers built.

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

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

Was it replaced by fear and political correctness?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's cookin'?

[Kris]

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

Blah.

[Kris]

May 1, 2003
Shadows to Fall, Literally, Over 9/11 'Wedge of Light'
By EDWARD WYATT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[JMGarcia]

This should be interesting.

[Kris]

Or not.

[BrooklynRider]

I always viewed the wedge of light as a rather sappy ploy. *Certainly never viewed it as the "cornerstone" of Liebskind's proposal. *

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

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

[chris]

BrooklynRider:
> I always viewed the wedge of light as a rather sappy ploy.
> Certainly never viewed it as the "cornerstone" of
> Liebskind's proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

Quote: from chris on 1:30 pm on May 1, 2003

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

I always felt that the slurry wall was the cornerstone of his concept, maybe followed by the 1776 tower. Almost all of the pro and con Libeskind debate, on this forum and elsewhere, centered around the pit and the spire. No one seemed to care about the wedge of light until now.

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