Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 22:59:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Louis Epstein
Subject: WTC Rebuilding #154:Nine Shades of Badness


Well,the nine designs by the seven official teams are out:

http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/default.asp
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/
http://www.gothamgazette.com/rebuilding_nyc/newplans/

If one is too busy,try others.

I attended the "unveiling" news conference today,
and have subsequently looked at some of the web stuff
and heard some news reports.

Gary Taustine and Joe Wright were there,with postcards addressed
to Governor Pataki demanding the Twins be rebuilt,listing Gary's
Gramercynews.com and the WTCRM as sponsors...I'm a little uneasy
about this leaving an inference that the WTCRM has a specifically
Yamasaki-holic agenda,rather than a general "Not One Inch Shorter"
policy...but I wouldn't have called this "Nine Shades of Badness"
if any of the plans had come anywhere close to Yamasaki's in
quality.

Before I give the blow by blow,some acknowledgements...
I met Don Dunphy and Rachel Snyder of Team Twin Towers...
Ron Devito could not make it...Jonathan Hakala was there
and has apparently been named their official spokesman.
He has certainly been a very visible advocate for the cause.
Don signed a WTCRM petition and joins this email list,as
does another signer today,Denzil Cameron...ANYONE CAN BE
PERMANENTLY REMOVED FROM THE LIST ON REQUEST...past mailings
(always except for the most recent) are at
http://www.put.com/wtc/archive.html for those who care.

Now,the events and plans.

John Whitehead spoke first...he certainly "talked the talk".
You'd think he was going to introduce buildings that carried
on in the footsteps (if not footprints) of the old Towers,
the way he sounded...of course,today's offerings fell well
short.

Lou Tomson was next...he rhapsodized about how they were listening
to what we wanted,and how both the skyline restoration and empty
footprints embodied in these plans were a response to public demand.
(Of course,the skyline restoration was something demanded against
their official bias,while empty footprints were something they got
out of their handpicked advisors,just like the street grid obsession,
but he didn't get into that.Nobody's refuted the Quinnipiac Poll that
showed the public evenly divided about the footprints,and when the
online LTTC reversed the Javits version's agreement that putting
back long-dead streets was important,they just decided to stop holding
LTTCs).

He also repeated that designs would be evaluated according to financial
and other considerations...the back-door way to downsize tall dreams
and say it's being "realistic".I say explore every avenue in funding
towers as tall as they MUST be!

I missed the next speaker's name,someone please fill me in if you
have it.

Roland Betts of the planning subcommittee (and the President's
roommate at Yale) came next to repeat his press quotes that the
designs were great.He said that they were the same in that they
"religiously adhered to the program" set by his committee
(demanding empty footprints,complete restoration of Greenwich
Street,and phased construction to cut down individual building
size) but were otherwise very different.

Garvin then stepped in to introduce the plans themselves,
after thanking New York New Visions for their help in selecting
the architects.SInce NYNV is very attached to the "rethinking"
movement,rather than seeing the need to reaffirm what we had
before,this can be seen as leading to some bias in the results.

Daniel Libeskind was introduced first,and went into a long
philosophical intro for his project,"Memory from Nations".
He envisions naked bedrock down in the footprints,a museum,
large public spaces("September 11 Place"),and an elevated
promenade around the memorial.His philosophical meanderings
seemed to emphasize ensuring the indelibility of the terrorists'
impact:"the whole place has been shaped by the event,the
traces of the event taken as guidance".

He did,of course,have a building that was 1776 feet to its
spire...Robert LeChevalier calls it a cut-down version of
Frank Lloyd Wright's "Mile High"/"Illinois" concept.But
that spire was quite extensive,and topped a 20-story greenhouse;
the limit of human-occupied space was clearly below that of the
old Towers.

Norman Foster,in whom tall-tower advocates had placed much hope,
came next.He began by saying how his plan was centered on two
voids,in a large park going to the water (a few designers saw
themselves as entitled to redo the World Financial Center and
Battery Park City as they saw fit) surrounded by cultural buildings...
West Street as covered.He said how the footprints were "sacred ground,
you can not walk on it"...only examined from below-ground areas where
'you never see life".The footprints would each be divided diagonally,
one half of each having only family members of victims allowed to look
at its sacred,lifeless emptiness.

Yes,he did have towers...I gather from other references that they are
to be 1765 feet tall,but they taper to points and I am not sure how
high the highest human-occupied floors are.They are twins,"two towers
that kiss each other and become one",as he put it.He said they would
be the "tallest,greenest,strongest,safest" but gave no specifications.
He apparently attributed the strength to triangular cross-sections,
the safety to various technologies and placement of stairs...he went
on about the ecological benefits,while hardly mentioning office space,
to the extent that Rachel Snyder said,"is he turning the Twin Towers
into a statement on global warming?"...and when he had a rendering of
the view from on top (reached by a glass elevator on the outside,
NOT the way to convey someone who'd rather not feel vertigo to that
destination),he concentrated on the ability to see those lifeless
voids below.

This is the plan leading in the CNN poll,and this is the plan that
Joseph Nappi emailed to urge me to support.At this stage,we should
NOT "support" any of these plans...only support certain core principles
and criticize the problems the plans have in executing them,while
emphasizing that other considerations treated as more important by
the officials (empty footprints,Greenwich Street,etc) are LESS
important and must not be allowed to stand in the way of the more
important ones.

Nest were Meier,Gwathmey,Eisenman,and Holl,who all spoke in turns
about their plan,called "Memorial Square".They rhapsodized about
how the empty footprints (which would be reflecting pools) would
cast "shadows" and spread "fingers" through seven memorial sites
and 12 acres of open space.The building portion is five thin,
glassy multipurpose buildings joined by skybridges,likened by some
to a "picket fence".I have learned (it wasn't mentioned there)
that these buildings would be 1111 feet tall,and Meier told a
reporter that he didn't think taller was better.(But in the presentation
they said the buildings would have "amazing views"...something for which
taller is certainly better!)

Next came the "THINK" team,represented by Rafael Vinoly.
This one team presented three plans...hence,seven teams but nine plans.

I had trouble figuring out just what structures were part
of the "Sky Park" plan,a plan for layers of gardens.It certainly
was not a skyline-centered idea,though it seemed focussed on
greenery at the levels of the roofs of surrounding buildings.

"Great Hall" was their second notion,a 30-story-high glass roof
over the site,connecting surrrounding 30-story buildings.On one
was a very tall antenna rising out of a cone,but this would not
be human-occupied space.

"World Cultural Center" was the third...and Vinoly managed to
mention no office buildings,so much for "religiously adhering
to the program"!(I saw a claim somewhere that there is a 1700
foot tower in this but Vinoly didn't talk about it).Its main
feature is a pair of empty-cagework towers surrounding but not
touching the footprints and rising to 2100 feet,scaled by stairs
on the outside(now THERE'S a way to drastically cut tourist
traffic!) with a few educational and such stops on the way and
finally windmills on top,"the tallest point on any man-made
structure in the world".

We need OCCUPIED towers that can be easily ascended...but I
have to say that it was interesting,given that this plan was
circles centered on the tower footprints,that I later heard
Monica Iken tell an interviewer that she would have to think
about this concept,rather than rejecting it out of hand.

After this came United Architects...a rather experimental
notion that while restoring all the old streets as view
corridors,and Greenwich Street to traffic,managed to have
five towers,of bundled-tube construction and some leaning,
that join at the 60th floor to form a five-story "city in
the sky" at that level.There would also be hotel and residential
space.

This is the plan that if I had to,I would be inclined to label
as least bad,because it ascends to 1620 feet in height and
appears to be occupied space all the way up...though most of
the towers do not go above the "city in the sky".However,I
note a reference online to their being prepared to cut their
112-story top down to 80 stories if less office space
(they overshot the official target and fit 10.4 million
square feet into it) were demanded.And we certainly can't
allow that.

Then came Peterson & Littenberg.They had seven buildings
lined up on pre-1960s blocks,surrounding gardens and the
footprints(they use the North Tower's footprint for an
amphitheater).The buildings were all 55 stories,except for
two that had a setback at that level and then rose to 90
stories,where they were topped by spires that rose to 1400
feet.(At this point,Jonathan Hakala came back to where I sat
and said,"is this Beyer Blinder Belle recycled?"...and he
was right...this looked just like one of the Phase I botches,
except that back in July the spires were 100 feet higher.

AND GET THIS QUOTE FROM MSNBC & NEWSWEEK!
http://www.msnbc.com/news/849339.asp
"This time,instead of presenting six designs,one more boring
than the next,the two agencies surrounded their handpicked
design--a dull-but-doable scheme created by the LMDC's
in-house consultants,the two-person architecture firm
Peterson/Littenberg--with some of the boldest,most innovative,
most theoretical and,of course,least practical designs they
could find."
(So could there be a fix in?)

Finally came the plans from Skidmore Owings & Merrill and a host
of others from artists to gardeners.They started talking about
the memorial park and train station,they said one of the first
things they would do was bring water back to the edge of
Greenwich Street (which was the river's shore 300 years ago).
Their buildings,not memorable,would have gardens on top.

Hakala's summation of the presentations:"Strike two".
(July's Phase I botches being strike one...but can we get an
umpire to send these whiffing batters back to the dugout instead
of letting them score?)

He gave quite a number of interviews afterward (I only managed one
brief one with an independent video guy).We lost track of each other
eventually about the time I did mine.

One thing he has focussed on is attacking the planners' determination
to break up the superblock,something others have advised a tactical
retreat on.(He of course differs with me in preferring the footprints
to be left untouched...but the rebuilding movement is a broad coalition!)
He has termed the site a "16-carat diamond" that should not be divided
into smaller parts.

A few smalltime self-promoting designers were there,and some indeed
left the superblock intact...something official designers were forbidden
to do,but WTCRM competition designers are quite free to do.One design
offered there was an "American Flag Building" showing Towers that looked
just like the Twins but were shortened to 90 stories serving as the
"pole" of a building shaped like a flag and crossing a street to where
the stripes were supported by another foundation.

However,more straightforward designs for few,very large,simple office
towers are clearly preferable to anything exhibited today.

I spoke to well-known critic Paul Goldberger,who thought that today's
designs showed a lot more promise than July's...but was delighted to
hear him say that he shared my belief that occupied height of towers
on the site should be no less than before,though he declined to sign
my petition.

I also spoke to Robert Yaro,head of the Civic Alliance...he was not
impressed by today's plans,though from what he has told reporters today
it's because he wants even less office space (hardly a surprise given
past stances).However,i gave him copies of my commentaries on the
Phase Is and the draft WTCRM architectural program,so he knows we're
out to get MORE commercial space there (in fewer buildings).He is
apparently trying to raise the money for a new Listening to the City
event despite the refusal of Whitehead et al to hold another one.
(Joe printed out copies of the CA's loaded ballot for evaluating the
designs...not very easy to use for someone whose priorities are not
theirs!...but we can give lowest-possible marks to the ones that fail
to have extremely tall occupied towers where applicable,and leave
the other issues blank).

The media spin on today will be very important.I heard the WCBS
radio reporter talk about how impressive these plans were,and if
the idea that they ARE great stuff gets widely spread,people will
think it's true...this could be very bad for the cause of getting
saner very tall designs.

WE MUST COMPLAIN ABOUT THESE PLANS,NOT ENCOURAGE THEM!
Be sure to sound firm but reasonable...don't complain about
the footprints being empty,but about BOTH footprints being
ENTIRELY empty...make the other side look unreasonable.And
whether or not you think running Greenwich Street all the
way through is a good idea...ask why ALL the plans had to do
it...surely if it were such a good idea,plans that did it would
be judged higher than plans that didn't in a fair competition.

WNBC television today only showed clips of people closely
tied to victims...Hakala,with his often-present picture of
close friend Michael Taylor on his jacket,was the only pro-
rebuilder allowed to react to the designs on camera,and his
opposition to the street grid was what they showed.Monica
Iken and Jack Lynch and other family types were the others
they interviewed.

The polls now up on CNN and USA Today commit the same blunder as
the ones held when the "six-pack of medocrity" were unveiled in
July...they ask which you like best,and don't offer a choice to
say you'd rather have something better than any of them.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/849103.asp however has the needed
no-thanks option!

This is short notice,but the Gotham Gazette Java-chat room
(linked from http://www.put.com/wtc/ as ever...look for the
mention of Doctoroff,who never did show up there) has a
session with Rick Bell of the American Institute of Architects
"who will answer questions about the designs"...TOMORROW [THURSDAY]
AT 10:30 AM EASTERN.

GG has had a bad record filtering our questions in the past,
but they have finally started allowing messages to post on
their board again...we'll see if tomorrow is any better!

Tomorrow evening,there's an invitational reception for guests
of the bureaucrats when the exhibit is set up...this starts
at 6 PM,and when it breaks up the general public first get to
see the models up close (though regular exhibit hours start
on Friday morning.

I'm intending,with some other pro-rebuilders,to be around at
the edges of the reception...I note there's a Chinese restaurant
that posts 1990s Zagat raves on its menu,nearby in the Winter
Garden's food area...entrees range from $7.50 for veggie dishes
to about twice that for most seafood.Would anyone want to meet
there before descending on the bureaucrats' party (and we hope
getting first looks at the models close up afterward) or does
anyone have a better idea?
(REPLY!)

Another acknowledgement...I got another cash donation from Alex
Butziger,in a homemade "Happy Holidays and Towerful New Year" card.

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.