Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 23:40:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Louis Epstein Subject: WTC Rebuilding #125:NEW Rally Plans,Other News Today I received in the mail a copy of the final report for Listening To The City II.It incorporates both the Javits Center meeting I attended and the online dialogues I was forbidden to participate in because I had attended the Javits Center meeting. While certain strong pro-Towers sentiments are acknowledged in this slick,full-color,24-page magazine-format publication, they have managed to omit the opening phrases of what the Javits Center meeting voted to be the single worst thing about the concept plans.So I will spell that out for everyone,as printed in the preliminary report that was distributed at the event. "Schemes are not ambitious enough--the buildings are too short" (Got that?...TOO SHORT!) The report generally spins things to make a demand for reduction in the amount of office space to appear to be the consensus. And as noted,at no time were we asked to declare our views on the merits of the six concept plans AS A WHOLE...when asked to evaluate them,we were asked how they were AS SETTINGS FOR THE MEMORIAL. With no other way to condemn them,people voted them down... so they were recorded as being considered bad settings for the memorial,which was spun to mean that they needed more emphasis on it.There was NO way to register a contrary opinion. Once more...if any of the six plans had put the 11 million square feet of office space in just two 130-story towers... there would never have been complaints of crowdedness! But what they gave us in July was a plan splitting the office space into 4-6 buildings with Greenwich Street running all the way down the middle, a second plan splitting the office space into 4-6 buildings with Greenwich Street running all the way down the middle, a third plan splitting the office space into 4-6 buildings with Greenwich Street running all the way down the middle, a fourth plan splitting the office space into 4-6 buildings with Greenwich Street running all the way down the middle, a fifth plan splitting the office space into 4-6 buildings with Greenwich Street running all the way down the middle, and a sixth plan splitting the office space into 4-6 buildings with Greenwich Street running all the way down the middle. And the policy of the "Leave Manhattan Destroyed Committee" against learning the lessons from the reduction of such plans is firm.They're willing to have less office space,but their new program requirements for the design teams include the following: "Reconnecting Greenwich Street through the WTC site is critical... Greenwich Street,between Vesey and Liberty,should have clearly defined street edges,with buildings,retail,and active public spaces on both sides to the greatest extent possible." Most of the WTC site is to the west of the path of Greenwich Street. Buildings squeezed to the east of it WILL LOOK CROWDED. The footprints of the old Twin Towers are just to the west of it (the North Tower farther west than the South). Greenwich Street,seen by its passionate advocates (note that EVERY comment on http://pps.org/downtownnyc/ about it says NOT to restore it) as needed to "connect" the neighborhoods of the area,would be a fierce barrier between the eastern and western parts of the WTC site.The western part would be demanded,has been demanded,by the mega-memorialists...the office space would be crammed into a narrow wedge to the east making the placement of buildings out of truck-bomb range from the streets impossible.And integrated design of the 16-acre site,tying the office and memorial structures together, would also be impossible. And note the demand of the architects above to build along both sides of it,with retail and traffic "to the greatest extent possible". I forwarded the text of this to Monica Iken...with this comment: "In short,even if you get all of both footprints for the memorial, they'd prefer it to be the back yard of a shopping strip." I asked if her organization shared my opposition to this plan, whatever our other differences. I was answered by a Christopher Reedman,now "Operations Director" of September's Mission,with "Yes we agree with you. We are against building towers on site and on the footprints but the new qualifications they brought up we are strongly against and are meeting with the LMDC on Thursday to discuss the issues with them and give them one last chance to take into consideration the families position paper." Naturally,the "families position paper" is not what we want the site development to be based on either...but opposition to the plans from BOTH mega-tower and mega-memorialist camps may give the Whitehead clique some well-deserved frustration. Our rally October 11th may have drawn only 15 in the pouring rain (others did show up after we had left),but it seems to have put us on the map for the anti-rebuilders.I mentioned my letter from Beverly Eckert in list email #123. Correspondence has since been sent to me and to Joe Wright from Marian Fontana,president of the 911 Widows & Victims' Families Association,cc'ed by her to a list of dozens of her friends. She declared that it was offensive that we were rallying to rebuild, that skyscrapers were deathtraps,and so forth.My response drew no answer from her,but one from Michael Cartier of Give Your Voice, who I had written to in March,and who said "I thought you would have faded away by now".I responded to him also. Like Mrs. Fontana,he had no answer to my arguments. When two of Fontana's cc'ed backers sent one-liners this morning cheering her letter to me (and likewise ignoring my answer),I sent a comment that her letter had not changed my mind at all,and Cartier then sent this list a statement that arguing with me was a waste of time,and my views were those of an irrelevant minority.Jack Lynch then chimed in to the same effect. Well,we are NOT an irrelevant minority,nor are we fading away. New rally plans are already in effect...we floated October 26 and November 2 (both Saturdays) as dates and the latter had more support.The date is available and we expect the permit to be granted Same place...Broadway sidewalk west of the southern part of City Hall Park. We will start an hour later (11 AM) and I hope continue all the way to 2 PM this time(Joe has said try for two hours,but in good weather we can certainly fill three,with busy on-site table work if not speakers!).A rain date is being looked into(availability not certain). The architectural competition concept is being looked into, I spoke to Eli Attia today about the needed parameters,and sent him the full requirements from which the Greenwich Street stuff above is excerpted...it can all be reached at the reconstructionreport.org site which is linked from our http://www.put.com/wtc/ site. Also new at that site are images of the press coverage the first rally DID get,from El Diario.(Clipping,sideways,and translation). To return to the topic of the architectural competition...it will be a hard sell to many architects,I expect,but we can put together a more flexible program and a greater respect for the architects' intellectual property rights into something I believe can draw inspiring tall-tower plans for the site. A jury needs to be found that will select three of these plans for a head-to-head public poll against the next three bureaucratic botches to be brought forth by Beyer Blinder Belle.We need to make this poll as publicized and as credible as possible,launched with a public announcement of the best designs shortly after the Phase II plans are announced. We must present the poll as a level playing field,the ballot website not doing any campaigning...just offering three plans with tall towers and three without to be ranked by all comers. I acknowledge the work of http://www.9-11peoplesplan.org/ as design work that listens to the input of site visitors,and that of http://www.wtc2002.com/start.lasso in taking votes for one particular bold plan against the official garbage...but the poll resulting from this competition will I think make the point better than either of these can...that in competition with plans WITH tall towers,plans without them will lose. I note that the "16 Acres" CNN special was rerun Sunday, I finally got a chance to see it...it seems to have been revised slightly toward the end.It definitely had anti-rebuilding spin.Silverstein was interviewed,saying how the overwhelming majority of letters were telling him to rebuild no shorter... and Aaron Brown,the interviewer,responded "But you can't do that,can you?" closely enough.And when Jonathan Hakala spoke of the need to build tall in a clip from the May 5 hearing, the voice-over was telling how the bureaucrats had the job of sorting out popular ideas from practical realities...quick cut to Tomson saying that there weren't people who would occupy 110-story buildings.(What about the one who offered to lease the top 5 floors from Silverstein?) There was a debate Sunday between all the candidates for Governor of New York...and questions included what to do with the WTC site.However,the only answer I have seen referred to in the press was the Libertarian's admission that he had no idea.What did Pataki and McCall say? Did ANYONE praise tall towers? See you on the 111th floor on 9-11-11! -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.