Summary of discussion regarding
the 5 options and computer models can be found at:
http://www.ibiblio.org/istudio/ny/
Contact: Alfredo Andia, Ph.D
Phone:
305 479 7644
School
of Architecture, VH 236
Florida
International University, Miami, FL 33199
PRESS RELEASE:
July 10th, 2002. There are only 5 planning options for
the future of Ground Zero according to a major workshop of architects,
academicians, and students who worked on solutions for the site as part of the
“Internet Studio” program. The
“Internet Studio” is an international academic-consortium in which a large
number of architects, professors, citizens, government officials, and students
meet via the Internet and videoconference technology to discuss and design
strategies for controversial urban issues around the world. In the past month the “Internet Studio”
Network congregated to develop planning ideas for what goes above ground at the
former site of the WTC complex.
The workshop organized by members
at the Schools of Architecture at Florida International University in Miami,
Center for Design Visualization at U.C. Berkeley and Universidad Uniacc in
Santiago de Chile.
Professor Alfredo Andia, Ph.D. an
architecture professor from Florida International University directed this
workshop. According to Dr. Andia,
“there have been numerous efforts in the design community to put architectural
images forward for the future of Ground Zero, however, little emphasis has been
placed on defining the planning choices of the site. In this workshop, we have attempted to see what are the real
choices for the site. This is important
because Ground Zero is one of the most sensitive urban sites in the world
today. The solutions require an open
participation of all those interested and a good understanding of all the
available options.
The Lower Manhattan Development
Corporation, who is in charge of the site development, has a very difficult
task. If images and/or planning
solutions are announced without a clear public understanding of the reasoning
behind the process then the solution may seem suspicious.” Dr. Andia, the workshop organizer, adds “to
clarify the public process we found it extremely important to investigate and
try to exhaust all the possibilities that the site has before trying to attempt
any architectural move. We chose to
concentrate on what goes above ground on the site because that is the most
controversial part of the project; it should define the amount of
infrastructure and transportation that goes underneath.”
According to the workshop, the
solutions of what goes above Ground Zero fell into 5 planning solution categories:
Option 1. 16-acre memorial super-block: The first
planning alternative considers the conservation of the 16-acre super-block and
uses it entirely for a memorial and related cultural activities.
Option 2. 16-acre memorial using
the old Manhattan Grid: The second development option reintroduces the old
Manhattan grid into the site but leaves the entire 16 acres for memorial and
related cultural activities.
Option 3. Mix memorial and office towers rebuilding
the old Manhattan grid: The third planning choice reintroduces the Manhattan
grid and mixes a program of a memorial with office and retail space. It leaves between 4 to 7 acres for a
memorial and the reminder for office and retail development.
Option 4. Mix memorial and office towers using the
super-block: The fourth option maintains the super-block structure and
allows for the development of an expressive architecture that combine high-rise
towers and a memorial.
Option 5. Rebuild the WTC complex: The fifth option is the reconstruction of
high-rise towers similar to the WTC center.
The idea had significant popular support right after September 11th
but has been since then notably dismissed.
Articles about other “Internet
Studio” workshops can be found at:
DISCOVERY CHANNEL, “Vida@Línea”:
http://istudio01.tripod.com/realdicover/discov28k.rm
BBC WORLD SERVICE, “Web
connects design students”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1544000/1544378.stm
BBC MUNDO, “Arquitectura
en red para A. Latina”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/science/newsid_1514000/1514682.stm
DIARIO EL CLARIN, Argentina, “La
Entrega en Internet”:
http://istudio01.tripod.com/clarin.pdf
DIARIO LA HORA, Chile,
“Estudiantes se Comunican Virtualmente”: http://istudio01.tripod.com/lahora.jpg
GOVERNMENT VIDEO
MAGAZINE, “Distance learning goes the last mile”:
NHK
TV, Japan:http://istudio01.tripod.com/clip6.rm
ARCHINGEO MAGAZINE, March 2002,
“Internet Studios”
One of the major concerns for
those involved in the planning process of the Ground Zero site is the position
of the victims’ families. Today the
families are congregated into approximately 6 different groups. Although they do not have a unique vision
for the site there is a consensus among these groups that there should be a
memorial in the former grounds of the WTC complex.
Among the most sensitive issues
that have emerged in the past 9 months, since September 11, are the footprints
of the WTC center towers 1 and 2 where most of the victims died. The issues to be discussed in the following
pages are not simple and are particularly difficult to the victims’
families. The planning task is not
easy. It is estimated that around
80,000 to 120,000 people are directly related to somebody who died in the
towers and many more citizens of New York are directly affected due to the
events of September 11.
The primary conclusion of the
workshop was that in spite of the different views and interests people have
regarding the future of Ground Zero the planning strategies are very limited
and can fall into 5 different alternatives.
The discussion that follows attempts to clarify the arguments and
criticisms of these planning strategies.
This planning option refers to the
possibility of maintaining the 16-acre super-block and dedicating it entirely for
a memorial and related cultural activities.
Many who support this view believe that not only a memorial and a museum
should be included on the site but also a cemetery. This is a sensitive issue for many of the September 11 victims’
families who never were able to recover the bodies of their relatives. According to those who hold this view to
locate a cemetery-memorial site were their relatives died will not only be
appropriate but also it will aid in the healing process.
Similar to the first option, this
second alternative maintains the 16-acre site for memorial and remembrance
programs. While the first maintains the
super-block, the second family of planning options reestablishes a number of streets
that were eradicated when the WTC complex was built in the 1970s. The images above show several versions of
how the old Manhattan grid could be recuperated.
Those interested in the rebuilding
of the Manhattan grid often believe that it may be difficult to recuperate all
the old streets since the blocks on the lower west side of the site are where
the footprints of the world trade center were located. One could say that most proposals interested
in the renewal of the Manhattan grid would like to extend Greenwich St onto the
site. Historically, Greenwich St. was
the street that marked the border of the Manhattan Island with the Hudson
River. Every thing to the west of
Greenwich St. is artificial land. A
projection of Greenwich Street over the 16-acre site marks exactly where the
“bath tub” foundation of the WTC complex was constructed.
Options 1 and 2 represent for some
of the victims’ family members and many Americans, the most sensible approach
to the site, for approximately the next 5 to 10 years. However, the wishes to preserve the 16-acre
as a memorial have encountered criticism from more pragmatic views of what
should occur on the site.
The criticism to these options is
two folds. The first set of arguments
refers to the need to recuperate the office and retail space lost on September
11. Around 14 million sq. ft. Class “A”
office space was lost and 50,000 jobs was removed from lower Manhattan. 330,000 sq. ft. of retail was destroyed and
270,000 sq. ft. was damaged. Many
believe that it is imperative for the economic and urban vitality of Lower
Manhattan to recuperate the amount of space lost due to the terrorist attacks. They argue that Lower Manhattan could
rapidly lose importance as a primary world destination for office and retail
space if there is not a quick effort to rebuild. Moreover they argue that the effects of not rebuilding will only
strengthen the previous decade’s trend of Lower Manhattan losing office and
retail space to Mid-Town Manhattan and other parts of the New York and New
Jersey. Similar arguments consider that
leaving the 16-acre empty in the middle of Lower Manhattan will separate
Battery Park City and quickly destroy the vitality of the neighborhood that
relied on the 50,000 jobs of the former WTC complex.
The second level of criticisms to
options 1 and 2 refers to the practical reality of site ownership. The site’s ownership is complex, the NY and
NJ Port Authority holds the lease for what goes underneath Ground Zero,
Silverstein Properties for what goes above ground, and an Australian retail
company holds the retail rights. If the
Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC), who was charge on developing a
plan for rebuilding by Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg, decides to take the
route of option 1 or 2 it potentially will receive law suits form the current
leaseholders which may cost billions of dollars. These legal problems may stop development on the site for a
while. This could be very damaging for
the future of the neighborhood and costly for any losing party.
Although many believe options 1
and 2 are impractical some think that it can be achieved if there is political
will. The single most important person
for the future of Ground Zero is Governor Pataki. Governor Pataki controls the LMDC, and the NY and NJ Port
Authority. A more creative option for
the Governor would be to negotiate a land swap with the leaseholders. For example, giving development rights for
creating 16-acre of land refill and a transportation hub on the borders of the
Lower Manhattan shore. Similar to how
the Battery Park City complex was created in the 1970s. The Governor goes for reelection this
November, and if there is political will this issue may become one of the most
sensitive for the reelection campaign in the state of New York.
This option seems to be the
compromise option, and the one that seems to be favored at this time by many
planners who are working with interested parties and the LMDC. This option leaves approximately 7 acres for
a memorial area exactly where the footprints of the WTC 1 and 2 were located in
the southwest portion of the site. In
the remaining 9 acres reintroduces the old Manhattan city blocks with 50-60
story buildings that contain approximately the same amount of square feet as
the previous WTC complex. The
50-60-story limit (approximately 700 – 800 feet tall building) is similar to
the height of the Battery Park World Financial Center towers designed by
architect Cesar Pelli. Arguments in
favor of this proposal are that this alternative reduces the memorial to a
reasonable scale. It reintroduces the
grid and provides opportunities for a design, which connects architecturally
with Battery Park.
There are three major arguments
against this option. One of the most
apparent is that building anything on the site may attract repeated attacks,
and the perception of insecurity may eventually be a bad real estate
business. The business ability to fill
9 to 13 million sq. ft. of office space in today’s economic environment is also
for many improbable. According to a
recent survey, there are at least 37 million sq. ft. of space available in
Manhattan, and after the boom of 2000 the vacancy rate in lower Manhattan has
climbed to 13.7%, higher than any other place in town.
A second level of arguments is
regarding the level of metropolitan life the site should have. Returning 9 million sq. ft. of office space
to the site will undoubtedly affect the memorial which is expected to receive
10 million or more tourists every year.
Many fear the possible shopping infrastructures and the commercialization
of the site.
The third level of arguments
refers to the dry and plain flavor of the proposal. It conceals the possibility for New York to make a bold statement
that responds to the changes the tragedy of September 11 brought to New York
and the world. The hope is that with
time the architecture of this proposal may incorporate a language of hope,
remembrance and renewal we all desire.
The fourth alternative maintains
the super-block structure and allows for the development of an expressive
architecture that combines office retail and a memorial. Good examples of this group of solutions can
be found in the several of the entries of the Max Protetch gallery. Arguments in favor usually portray this solution to be
potentially more expressive than option 3.
This options is much less restricted than the previous one. Buildings can take any shape and be
positioned at will on the site. There
is a potential for less height restriction and can call for an international
competition for the complete site.
The arguments against option 4 are
very similar to option 3. The main
differences are the potential for architectural expressiveness and the scale of
the site. Many view the reintroduction
of the Manhattan gird as a positive step to rebuild the sense of scale lost
with the construction of the WTC complex.
Critics of the super-block idea believe that proposals, which follow the
planning strategies of option 4, will be damaging for the Lower Manhattan
scale. In particular it will not
improve the pedestrian and transportation linkages from East to West, between
Lower Manhattan and Battery Park City, and North to South via Greenwich St.
This planning option responds to
the reaction many had soon after the terrorist attacks on September 11. Many, including a former NYC mayor publicly
supported rebuilding the WTC complex as it was. The enthusiasm to rebuild the towers seems to have emerged from
the emotions of the moment to retaliate with a larger statement, and as a
popular reaction against the almost unbearable void the towers left on the NYC
skyline. Not surprisingly many of the
designs, which were produced, close to September 11th by architects,
artists, and designers had the urgency to reconstruct large towers. Since then the enthusiasm for such
structures seems to have diminished.
And today the option to rebuild the tall towers or any similar complex
appears to have very low popular support.
Different variations have emerged
with the possibilities of rebuilding the Ground Zero site with towers similar
to the former ones. However as time has
passed the idea of rebuilding the towers have lost adepts. The proportions of the tragedy which
occurred on this site have moved away from the destruction of the buildings and
has focused on the lost of lives, families, friends, neighborhood, policemen,
and firemen. American consciousness has
also moved away from making major ego statements to comprehending the new
levels of security and urbanity in which we wish to live. The construction of major high-rises on the
site seems to pose an unbearable safety and psychological burden to many. The towers demonstrated to be very weak to a
terrorist attack and rebuilding a similar structure would ignore the safety
tolerance levels an urban place should now provide.
The workshop did not attempt to
provide an architectural solution for the site. Instead it attempted to uncover the group of planning strategies
of what could occur above-ground at Ground Zero. We believe this could be a major contribution to the undergoing
discussions regarding the site. The
conclusions of the workshop are that there are only 5 types of planning
strategies. Finding a reasonable
agreement on that level will help define the design solution of what goes above
the site and the infrastructure below.