Summary of discussion regarding the 5 options and computer models can be found at:

http://gzero2002.tripod.com

http://www.ibiblio.org/istudio/ny/

 

 

Contact: Alfredo Andia, Ph.D

                andia@post.harvard.edu

                Phone: 305 479 7644

                School of Architecture, VH 236

                Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199

 

 

PRESS RELEASE:

 

WHAT GOES ABOVE GROUND ZERO HAS ONLY 5 PLANNING OPTIONS

 

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”

 

Summary Of Discussion Regarding The 5 Options

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. 

 

Option 1.  16 Acres Memorial Super-Block

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.

 

Option 2. 16-Acre Memorial Using The Old Manhattan Grid

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. 

 

Discussion and Criticism of Options 1 and 2

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.

 

Option 3.  Mix Memorial And Office Towers Using The Old Manhattan Grid

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.    

 

Critical Discussion Of Option 3

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.   

 

Option 4.  Mix Memorial And Office Towers Using The Super-Block

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.

 

Critical Discussion Of Option 4

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. 

 

Option 5.  Rebuild The WTC Complex

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.

 

Critical Discussion Of Option 5

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.

 

Final Conclusion

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.