Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 69

Thread: Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

  1. #46

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    NY Post...



    July 11, 2003 -- Development officials are considering slashing the amount of office space to be built at Ground Zero — reopening a potentially rancorous debate over one of the key issues at the World Trade Center site, sources told The Post.

    The Port Authority and the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. are weighing a 20 percent reduction — placing some 8 million square feet of office space at the trade center site instead of the 10 million square feet destroyed on 9/11.

    Sources said even some top officials at the PA who had fought against scaling back the office space now realize the site can't hold 10 million square feet.

    The office space issue has taken on a new urgency as planners get down to the nitty-gritty of figuring out exactly what will be built.

    The debate — which could ruffle WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein — is rooted in the physical constraints of the site, where large portions have been set aside for a memorial and restored city streets.

    The taller, wider buildings needed to provide 10 million square feet of office space would require bigger elevator cores, sources said.

    Bulky elevator banks would cut into the space at ground level and below that could be rented to high-paying retail tenants. *

    Silverstein, who has insisted on replacing all the destroyed office space, wants to solve the retail space problem by putting up five smaller office towers instead of the four envisioned in the Ground Zero plan by architect Daniel Libeskind.

    But sources said the five-building proposal has been all but rejected because it would interfere with plans for a grand WTC train station.

    The Libeskind plan approved in February contained two scenarios.

    One showed 10 million square feet of office space on the site — with tall, fat buildings. The other envisioned 8.3 million square feet on Ground Zero, plus a 1.7-million-square-foot tower off the site, allowing for thinner, shorter buildings.

    Attention has focused on the first scheme, but officials are reassessing.

    The square footage debate has seesawed for months, beginning a year ago when a first set of plans was panned by the public for being too dense.

    To accommodate Silverstein, officials are discussing ways of placing a building off-site.

    Silverstein "has the right and obligation to put 10 million square feet back on the site," said his spokesman, Howard Rubenstein.

    "The LMDC and Libeskind and Larry Silverstein are analyzing all the potentials, including possibly building off-site, but Larry has not had any discussion concerning less than 10 million square feet."

  2. #47

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    Daily News...

    Can't jam site


    The man who hopes to rebuild Ground Zero may have to dream a little smaller.

    The head of the Port Authority, which owns the site, has told developer Larry Silverstein that squeezing five buildings onto the site is almost impossible, sources told the Daily News.

    Silverstein held the lease on the twin towers and has been pushing to change the Ground Zero plan by architect Daniel Libeskind, which envisions four dense office towers.

    Silverstein wants five to make sure the full 10 million square feet of office space lost in the terror attacks is restored.

    But sources said PA Executive Director Joe Seymour, who is an urban planner, told Silverstein last week in a phone call, "I can't see how five buildings work" on the 16-acre site.

    Other sources said some PA officials are still discussing ways to help Silverstein, including buying the Deutsche Bank site at 130 Liberty St. for a fifth tower.

    That building is on city land, and sources said the city won't likely sell it unless the PA pays full taxes on it, which it does not for the World Trade Center site.

    A Deutsche Bank spokeswoman declined to comment. Spokesmen for for the PA and Silverstein said the sides were still discussing various options.

    Insiders said maximum square footage is particularly important to Silverstein, who is trying convince a judge he needs to double his insurance payout to rebuild the complex.

  3. #48

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    Silverstein held the lease on the twin towers and has been pushing to change the Ground Zero plan by architect Daniel Libeskind, which envisions four dense office towers.

    Silverstein wants five to make sure the full 10 million square feet of office space lost in the terror attacks is restored.
    Another 20 *or 30 floors of office space to the freedom tower could make up for some of that space...but Silverstein doesn't want that. *Maybe he will see the benefits of it if he can't get the extra tower he wants.

    (Edited by NYguy at 8:21 am on July 11, 2003)

  4. #49

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    Does his aversion to height have anything to do with the terrorist insurance premiums that would add an oppressive cost to super-tall development?

  5. #50

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    But sources said the five-building proposal has been all but rejected because it would interfere with plans for a grand WTC train station.

    I can understand that. A five-building proposal is not realistic.
    Here's my proposal : only 3 buildings of increasing height, say, 80, 100 and 120 stories of offices.
    And there's spare room for a lovely park.
    Larry, are you listening ?

  6. #51

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    I was hoping that the taller of Libeskind's alternatives would get more serious consideration. It also has the plus of not requiring larger elevator banks.

  7. #52

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    I see nothing wrong withhaving 8.3 million square feet on site, and another 1.3 milltion square feet across the street. *This way, the site won't be as overcrowded as it would be with the addition of a 5th builiding, and more importantly, the site at 130 Liberty Street will get developed.

  8. #53

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    The redevelopment of 130 Liberty St. is not a bonus. Who would have considered leaving it to decay ?

  9. #54
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Garden City, LI

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    A waterfall at the W.T.C.?

    By Josh Rogers

    The proposed waterfall designed by architect Daniel Libeskind, above and below.

    How about building a waterfall taller than Niagara Falls at the World Trade Center site?

    The idea perhaps sounds like just one of the thousands, if not millions, of ideas that have been proposed by architects and lay people and posted on Web sites, e-mailed to news organizations or discussed in barrooms all over the world since the 9/11 attack.

    But far from some quixotic idea, a 250-foot waterfall facing the W.T.C. memorial area is part of the approved site plan by architect Daniel Libeskind. It is without a doubt the largest, least-talked-about aspect of the Libeskind scheme.

    “It hasn’t come up in one conversation I’ve had with anybody,” Madelyn Wils said about the waterfall.

    Quite a statement.

    Wils is on the board of directors of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., which managed the site planning process. She has attended virtually every L.M.D.C. meeting and executive session in which the Libeskind plan was discussed and has had countless private conversations with the various W.T.C. decision makers. She is chairperson of Community Board 1 and has presided over numerous public meetings and forums to discuss the site.

    The W.T.C. waterfall would be roughly the height of a 24-story building and be more than 60 feet taller than Niagara’s American Falls, which is 184 feet tall, or the 176-foot Horseshoe Falls on the Canadian side. It would be about 200 feet wide on the Greenwich St. side of the memorial site, according to the L.M.D.C. guidelines sent to the thousands of aspiring memorial designers.

    The L.M.D.C. guidelines said that the waterfall was not part of the proposed memorial area, so presumably, the memorial ideas will all be compatible with a large waterfall.

    A spokesperson for Libeskind said the architect would not comment on his proposed waterfall. An L.M.D.C. spokesperson said the state-city agency would not comment either.

    Wils doubts if the costs of the waterfall have been considered yet and said the decision on whether or not to proceed with the waterfall plan will be dependent on the specific memorial design.

    “I don’t know if it’s a reality,” she said, adding that it would be a major component of the design. “On the southern end of the site, that would be the predominating feature.”

    Charles G. Wolf, whose wife was killed in the 9/11 attack, is on the L.M.D.C.’s family advisory committee. He had not realized there is a proposed waterfall opposite the memorial, but he is not concerned because he figures it won’t be built if it is not compatible with the selected design.

    “If there is a waterfall and it works, fine; if it doesn’t work, let’s pull it out then,” Wolf said. “Nothing is cast in stone right now…. Waterfalls can be very peaceful, but a 250-foot waterfall could be thunderous.”

    More than 13,000 people registered to submit a memorial design. The drawings were due June 30, and L.M.D.C. president Kevin Rampe said last week that he is certain more people submitted a design than the 1,400 who proposed a design for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., which had been the largest memorial competition in the world.

    The L.M.D.C. is not yet finished logging in every entry and the final number of entries is still unknown. The 13-member jury, which includes leaders in the world of art, architecture and academia, will select up to five by September and is expected to pick the final design in October.

    Rampe and some members of the jury, in public comments, have encouraged the designers to be willing to deviate from the competition guidelines, but the written parameters do not indicate the same amount of flexibility. Almost 4,600 of the people who at least registered to design the memorial are from New York and are more likely to be aware that the restrictions may not apply. Wolf said he is not concerned that some artists could be at a disadvantage.

    “New Yorkers know, ‘Don’t believe the signs,’ ” he said. “This is life. This is what you call street smarts. Does it set up different rules for different people? It probably does, but I don’t think it will box anybody out.”

    Sudhir Jain, a member of the L.M.D.C.’s resident advisory committee, however, said he thought that some designers could feel constricted. He also was unaware about the waterfall. “If it’s a required element of the design, it should have been discussed more thoroughly,” he said.

    Mark Ginsberg, one of the leaders of New York/New Visions, a group of architects and other professionals that advised the L.M.D.C. on the architectural selection process, said he had not given extensive thought to the waterfall, but he said he viewed it as a possible way to separate the memorial from street noise, similar to Libeskind’s idea to put the memorial 30 feet below street level.

    He said he heard Libeskind mention the waterfall at least once during a panel discussion, and Ginsberg didn’t have the sense that the waterfall was a crucial element of the plan.

    “Do I think the waterfall is critical,” Ginsberg asked. “No. Could it be nice? Yes.”
    He agreed that the waterfall decision should be put off until the memorial is picked. As for the memorial, Ginsberg thinks, “if it breaks some rules, it breaks some rules.”

    Ginsberg is part of a group that has opposed efforts to change the more well-known aspects of the Libeskind plan. He favors keeping the memorial below street level and leaving the 1,776-foot tower near Fulton and West Sts. and opposes adding a fifth office building to the site, which has been proposed by the site’s leaseholder, Larry Silverstein.

    Wils, for her part, said she finds waterfalls soothing, but she’ll wait to see what design the jury picks and see if they voice an opinion on the waterfall.

    “I think the jury’s completely independent,” she said. “They are looking at this truly as an open book.”

  10. #55

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    I don't see how a 250 foot waterfall would fit in the WTC site. *It just seems ridiculous to me.

  11. #56

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    Think of what would happen to the visitors in the memorial pit if a strong Southerly wind started blowing. *I bet there would be some brisk business in umbrellas.

  12. #57

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    I think some of you may have a misconception about the design of Libeskind's waterfall...

    It's not a continuous waterfall but a system of terraces. *The Greenwich Street site access ramp actually runs through the waterfall terraces feature. *The stated function of the waterfall is to shield the memorial pit from street noise.

    The LMDC's WTC Memorial Design Competition website has a nice picture showing rough details of Libeskind's waterfall terrace:

    Go to Download #9, it's a PDF file. *Rotate it 90 degrees counter-clockwise and blow-up the right central region of the image to see the waterfall's preliminary design.

  13. #58

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    Huh... I never looked that closely. *

    It looks crude.
    In my mind I've always imagined a reproduction of a the ribbed trade center wall structure minus the glass, perhaps the shroud. *Water would gurgle out of the broken top, and flow smoothly down the stainless steel structure. *Where the ribs pull together near the bottom storeys, the water would shed off and cause a semi-transparent cascade through which the memorial site would be viewed while descending the ramp.

    This is not part of my design submission, but will be should I make it to phase 2. *I am fearful of the windblown spray though, and doubt people will choose to get themselves wet.

    It would be pretty powerful to have a 'thunderous' waterfall that recalls the terrifying collapse, but this is probably even more impractical.

    The imagery of all the tears shed because of this event is an extremely poignant reminder. *I hope, if included it will have a delicate refinement in spite of the large scale.

  14. #59
    Moderator NYatKNIGHT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Manhattan - South Village

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    I don't think there would be a spray issue, it looks like it trickles down the side of a wall. There may be a winter freeze issue though, like other fountains the water may be turned off through the winter (leaving an ugly stained wall) - we'll see. It could be one of the best parts of the whole redevelopment if done right. Libeskind said at the CB1 meeting that it formed a barrier between the memorial area and the more lively retail and commercial zone along Greenwich St., and the glass enclosed gallaria leading to Church St.

    It doesn't look like too much thought has been put into the details yet. The backside of the waterfall shows up along Greenwich St. in this rendering :

    It shows up center right in blue:

  15. #60

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    Dug In at Ground Zero

    Daniel Libeskind Wants to Ensure His Lofty Design Goes Up, and Down, According to Plan

    By Lynne Duke
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Sunday, August 10, 2003; Page D01

    First of two parts


    His pronouncements soar and spiral, in a Polish-accented high pitch that paints pictures with words, hides meaning in metaphor, and yields bursts of spittle-flying laughter about some intellectual idea or other.

    The puckish 57-year-old Daniel Libeskind wears all black, too. There's the shiny black cowboy boots, the mod black-rimmed rectangular glasses and the black garb. It's his trademark. And it is not an affectation. He is the real thing, described in a recent book, "The New Paradigm in Architecture," as an architectural "prophet." In his days as a theorist rather than a practitioner, he even had a kind of cult following among architectural students captivated by his metaphorical discourse. He is recognized for building powerful symbolism and narrative into his works, as he did with the Jewish Museum in Berlin, which one recent visitor said is a building that evokes tears.

    Indeed, even the presentation that Libeskind made in his bid to design the stricken World Trade Center site provided a moving journey into his realm of symbolism. He described the site's "tragic vastness," of the surviving foundations that were "as eloquent as the Constitution itself" and which spoke of "life, victorious." His design, he said, would honor the dead but also reaffirm freedom. Framing the sunken depths of a Ground Zero memorial garden, Libeskind's odd-angled buildings would form a spiral whose apex would be a soaring "Freedom Tower" taller even than the fabled twins, with a spire that conjures Lady Liberty's raised torch out in New York Harbor.

    The city was moved. He won the competition. State officials believed his plan most doable, most appropriate. The public, which had sharply denounced an earlier series of trade center design concepts by other architects, embraced Libeskind's vision.

    But now, five months later, as Libeskind and redevelopment officials attempt to reconcile his symbolism-laden design with a host of construction, financial and political realities, he admits that his plan still remains vulnerable within the complex but delicate process that is reshaping Ground Zero's tortured spaces.

    The cherubic-looking architect faces the site's developer, Larry Silverstein -- he of deep pockets. And Libeskind faces the feds, the state, the city -- which of course means tricky politics. Not to mention the armies of engineers, architects, urban planners, environmentalists, downtown residents, families of the dead, even the memory of the dead.

    On any given day, so many variables are at play in this mammoth redevelopment project that what seems firm in the morning might have unraveled by dusk. Should the memorial district at Ground Zero really be located in the sunken pit where the twin towers once stood? Should the underground foundations, or the slurry wall, really remain exposed, as Libeskind envisions? Should his tower be as tall, 1,776 feet, as planned? Should it be designed exactly as he wants it? Should it be moved? And what about those hundreds of tour buses -- where should they park? Where should security checkpoints be installed? And on and on and on.

    The revisions. The redesigning. The new studies. The jockeying. Not just an architect, Libeskind has emerged as a tough defender of his vision, amid the high stakes tug of war that threatens to pick his design apart. Sometimes he wins. Sometimes he loses. And the battle is far from over.

    "When I walk on the street, people stop me," says Libeskind, eyes wide, as if still amazed. "They don't stop me for my autograph. They stop to wish me good luck. They say: Stick with it. Don't give up. Don't get stepped upon."

    He acknowledges that he is vulnerable, that he's in a tough game, facing constant challenge. It is as if there are forces at work trying to strip his design of its soaring essence. When he talks about the onslaught, he talks of the need to have "backbone," to stand on "integrity," to maintain the public trust he believes his design represents.

    Just who is trying to squeeze him? He breaks into gales of laughter. "I can't name names," he chirps.

    Very diplomatically, he will only describe himself as being vulnerable to "the forces that would take this site and treat it as business-as-usual and say, 'Okay, let's get down to business' as if nothing had happened. But something huge has happened, something kind of immortal, forever marking this site.

    "It's always difficult, a project of this magnitude," he says. "It would be very nice, in a dream world, that the public decided to build a project and it's going to happen. But we have to integrate all the aspirations and all the designs. There are many conflicts, and they have to be resolved and negotiated."

    The site's complexity is mind-boggling. Libeskind's master design encompasses the 16 acres where the twin towers once stood, and calls for commercial buildings, cultural facilities, the preservation of the sunken pit, and space for a memorial to be installed once a memorial design is selected from a competition now underway.

    Below ground, though, is where the plan really will take root. There the work has included repair of that massive slurry wall holding the Hudson River at bay, and the rebuilding of the commuter and subway train tunnels that coursed beneath the twin towers and were crushed in the attacks.

    The bureaucratic tangle is equally as daunting. The site is owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The redevelopment project is being organized by the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. And both Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. George Pataki have considerable influence in the process, with Pataki being the ultimate arbiter. Pivotal, also, is Silverstein, the commercial leaseholder of the fallen towers, as well as Westfield America, the retail leaseholder. With all these parties represented at the table, not to mention technical experts of all kinds, even a "small" meeting on the project means 50 people will attend, Libeskind says. And the degree to which the public is emotionally invested in the project is perhaps unprecedented. Thousands of ordinary people have given their thumbs up (or down) to various designs presented over the past year. The LMDC, which solicited the comments, says the Libeskind design appealed to New Yorkers because of his preservation of the pit. In a local poll, respondents chose Libeskind's design over that of the other finalist, Rafael Vinoly.

    Studio Daniel Libeskind, which has just finalized its move from Berlin into downtown New York offices near Ground Zero, has never tackled a project of this magnitude and complexity. In the past 14 years, he has been commissioned to design 10 buildings, most of them museums.

    Until 1989, Libeskind's architectural designs were theoretical, the subject of his lectures and writings as head of the architecture school at the Cranbrook Academy of Art in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., then as founder of the Architecture Intermundium in Milan, which gave him a platform for his avant-garde discourses. He has taught, as well, at Yale, Harvard, UCLA and the University of London. His style is complex and fractal, with sharp angles and odd planes, infinitely building on one another, as if reflected in a mirror.

    "The magic of architecture cannot be appropriated by any singular operation, because it is always already floating, progressing, rising, flying, breathing," he writes on his Web site.

    With his wife, Nina, who also is his strategist, Libeskind has bought a loft in TriBeCa. Their 14-year-old daughter, Rachel, still in Berlin, will join them soon. Their two grown sons live on their own.

    Libeskind's bio helps explain the fervor with which he is attacking this design project. Born in Poland, he lost numerous relatives to the Holocaust. Later, his parents moved the family to Israel. From there, when Libeskind was 13, they boarded a ship and sailed to the United States. They arrived in the morning light. Libeskind remembers the Statue of Liberty as his first welcome to America. They settled in the Bronx, and Libeskind became a U.S. citizen six years later.
    The Architect And the Developer

    It has become something of New York sport to pit Libeskind, the visionary architect, against Silverstein, the big-time developer. Both have large personalities; both are men with strong opinions and little hesitancy to express them.

    "What Libeskind has going for him is the power of his vision, which really did capture the imagination of New Yorkers, and the power of his personality," said Robert Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association.

    As for Silverstein, Yaro deadpanned the obvious punch line: "Well, he's got this lease, ya know?"

    It is Silverstein who holds the lease on the 10 million square feet of commercial space lost when the twin towers collapsed. It is Silverstein who has the money, from his 9/11 insurance claim, to redevelop the site. And it is Silverstein who has the legal right to rebuild what he lost.

    The two men have no choice but to work together, and perhaps no choice but to speak kindly of one another in public.

    "Personally, I like Larry," says Libeskind of the gravelly voiced developer known as a steely negotiator. "He's a real character, to say the least. A real character, a tough person, and I appreciate him very much."

    After a bout of bad publicity highlighting the tensions between them, Silverstein declined to be interviewed for this article. A source familiar with his position, and who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said that Silverstein has a good relationship with Libeskind and feels the design plan is very well done and appropriate. Contrary to portrayals in the press, this source claimed it was completely inaccurate to say that Libeskind was being elbowed aside by Silverstein.

    But from spring into summer, Silverstein and Libeskind traded jabs in the press over precisely who would design the 1,776-foot-tall Freedom Tower. The tower is to be the first building to go up on the site. With its spire, it would be the world's tallest building. Pataki wants the cornerstone laid by late next summer.

    Though Libeskind proposed the tower in his master plan, Silverstein recently suggested that a different architect would design it. Libeskind then protested that he needed, as the master designer, to be involved to "set the standard of quality and spirit on the site for the future."

    Not one to shrink from a challenge, Libeskind told a television interviewer, "I'm not about to just design the curbs of the streets."

    The dispute finally was resolved -- in part at Pataki's urging -- when the two sides agreed to meet. It took eight hours, lasting deep into the night. But finally a deal was reached. Libeskind agreed to collaborate with David Childs of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill -- Silverstein's architect, known by the acronym SOM.

    Libeskind always knew he'd have to collaborate. His Studio Daniel Libeskind is too small a firm, with too narrow a project history, to handle the huge World Trade Center project alone. Architects routinely collaborate on large projects. Nor is it uncommon for designs to be tweaked or refined as the project progresses.

    Still, Libeskind and SOM are an odd mix. SOM is known as an establishment architectural firm that builds solid, attractive modernist buildings but in no way occupies the cutting edge of creativity. It has hundreds of projects to its name, including the Sears Tower in Chicago.

    SOM submitted a design plan in the same competition that Libeskind won. Its plan called for a dense grid of high-rises that would be connected in the air to create new horizontal spaces high above the ground. Oddly, that plan was withdrawn before the competition reached finality. SOM also has designed Silverstein's 7 World Trade Center, which is under construction. (No. 7 is not part of the 16-acre parcel of land owned by the Port Authority.)

    Childs said Libeskind had not been pushed aside and that he has "enormous respect" for the visionary architect. But because of the powerful hand that SOM and Silverstein hold, their collaboration with Libeskind has led to suspicions among some civic leaders that Libeskind's master design will be significantly altered.

    The Civic Alliance to Rebuild New York, which includes more than 75 business, community and environmental groups, posted pictures on its Web site earlier this summer projecting how unattractive the site could become, with boxy buildings and shopping malls.

    And, as if to confirm the civic fears, the two sides were at odds yet again shortly after their collaboration was announced. Silverstein publicly said the Freedom Tower might have to be built in a different location than that planned by Libeskind.

    To resolve the tower dispute, Pataki, once again, intervened. There would have to be a "compelling reason" for moving the tower from the site where Libeskind has situated it, Pataki told the press. Libeskind is adamant that his tower be built as he designed it.

    "It's not going to be another tower," he said when interviewed. "It's not going to suddenly be the tower from the SOM proposal that they gave." Then, as if backing away from a strident-sounding statement, he added, "And I believe we are both very enthusiastic."

    Childs, his collaborator, confirmed that the tower's development will closely track Libeskind's design. It will be 1,776 feet tall, with an antenna, probably in the same location as Libeskind planned it, and with a "strong and meaningful relationship with the Statue of Liberty."

    Childs added a caveat, though:

    "But of course, everything is subject to the evolution of a design, of which Danny will be a part." And that evolution continued, most recently, when development officials appointed yet another big-ticket architect, Santiago Calatrava, to design the transportation terminal that is also a key feature of Libeskind's Ground Zero plan.

    Libeskind praised Calatrava as a "great architect," and said, "Our design guidelines and our master plan will certainly be part of whatever Mr. Calatrava as an architect will do on that site."
    'The Pearl'

    Libeskind sees architecture as a naturally optimistic endeavor, the act of creation. Whether he is simply rationalizing, time will tell. But for now, he is philosophical about the state of play. "Evolution," again, is the buzzword.

    The situation, he said, "is evolving and it's dynamic. Is it going to evolve and become a banal project? Or is it going to evolve and become better? It's the latter. If it's going to evolve into humanity-back-to-fish, you know, or [to] monkeys, it's devolution. But evolution means we can forge a consensus for everybody's benefit."

    Metaphors come easily. From fish to monkeys and, now, to pearls.

    He cups his hands like an open seashell. His eyes twinkle. He smiles puckishly.

    "It is like the development of a pearl. You have a shell. It's a very limited area, this shell. Then you've got the sand, the friction coming from all sides, polishing. At the end, you get the pearl."

    Lower Manhattan will be that pearl, he says, in remembrance of the dead, in celebration of life.

    © 2003 The Washington Post Company

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Rescuing the Buildings Beyond Ground Zero
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 8th, 2008, 12:33 AM
  2. Race to build at ground zero
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: August 16th, 2007, 02:12 PM
  3. Ground Zero Designs: Reality vs. Renaissance
    By JMGarcia in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 23rd, 2002, 11:31 AM
  4. New Ritz must go on — next to ground zero
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: October 19th, 2002, 09:24 AM
  5. Seven Achitects Offer their Visions for Ground Zero
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 13th, 2002, 07:20 PM

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software