by Petra Todorovich, Senior Planner, RPA
The recent demise of the International Freedom Center, brought down by controversy and confusion over its mission and role at the World Trade Center site, has sent shockwaves through the entire rebuilding effort. The hasty way in which the Governor stepped in and killed the project, undermining the public agency in charge of rebuilding - the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. (LMDC) - and preempting two planned public meetings, reflects a disregard for the public planning process of the past four years. But more importantly, the death of this institution casts a pall over the concept of a "living memorial" that would integrate the World Trade Center site back into the fabric of Lower Manhattan. Unless strong leadership is shown and quick progress made, the rebuilt site is doomed to forever dwell in the past rather than point the way towards a better future.
Going back to early civic discussions of the rebuilding process at forums like the 2002 "Listening to the City," the goal of creating a respectful and powerful memorial while reintegrating the WTC site into the life and vitality of Lower Manhattan was oft-repeated. Many ideas were proposed for civic and cultural uses, from an international university, to space for non-profit organizations, to more traditional "arts and cultural" activities, like museums. The design concept submitted by Daniel Libeskind in 2002, which led to his selection as master planner, included a prominent cultural building, cantilevered over the vast, excavated pit he staked out for the memorial. The other finalist design, submitted by the Viñoly-Schwartz collaboration, THINK, was defined by an enormous "World Cultural Center," consisting of two latticework towers in which various cultural activities would hover at different levels.
These finalist designers placed an emphasis on civic and cultural uses (in addition to the memorial) for good reason. They recognized the need to help restore vitality to Lower Manhattan in the near term - and the need to do it with activities in addition to office space and the memorial that could attract residents and repeat visitors to patronize cultural attractions. Libeskind, in his placement of a cultural use at the southwest corner of Greenwich and Fulton streets provided a building that could serve as a gateway or transition between the commercial space east of Fulton Street and the sacred memorial. And both recognized the need to provide balance against the sheer mass of planned commercial space, with outlets for culture, civic engagement and human expression.
The IFC, and its potential for political commentary, was targeted before it ever got a good chance to figure out its mission and explain it to the public. This confusion and suspicion over its precise nature led to its demise. But the elimination of the IFC raises questions about the viability of a handful of other activities that are meant to enliven the WTC site, and the Governor's commitment to them. The greatest fear is that opponents of the IFC, emboldened by their victory, will aim to eradicate other important revitalizing uses of the master plan, from the performing arts complex, to street-level retail, to the PATH station. Furthermore, security questions about car and truck bombs cast doubt on previous plans to allow Greenwich and Fulton Street to remain open through the site to regular street traffic. The legacy of such a fear-driven and controversy-averse planning framework for Ground Zero would be dismal indeed: a vast memorial surrounded by fortified office buildings on a sixteen-acre super block. This is not what the hopeful citizen-led planning process envisioned for the rebuilt site back in 2001- 2002.
If the controversy over the IFC demonstrated anything, it is that the events of 9/11 are still an open wound that has yet to heal over, and that attempts at putting 9/11 in a political or historical context may be premature. The way in which the IFC controversy was handled was a failure in every respect, but there are ways to rescue the process.
The Governor should recognize that the Snøhetta building plays an important function at the Southwest corner of Greenwich and Fulton Streets, providing a threshold to the sacred memorial site, a place to house a visitors center and orienting exhibits, and on a more practical level, a cloak for ventilation stacks for the PATH station beneath. He needs to step forward immediately to assert that he is committed to the WTC master plan, and to articulate a process for reaching a decision regarding the use of this building. Leaving the fate of this building open to speculation and counter proposals, as David Dunlap explored in a recent "Blocks" column in The New York Times, leaves the public to doubt the official commitment to the master plan, and leaves it vulnerable to further attacks.
A logical solution for its programming is to include some of the exhibitions planned for the WTC Memorial Museum (an underground space at the Western portion of the site), but also to leave some of the building flexible for future programming uses. Maybe in a decade, maybe in two, America will be ready for an exhibition that provides some context to the events of 9/11 beyond a strict recounting of the events of the day and their aftermath, as is planned for the Memorial Museum. Until that time comes, the physical elements of the World Trade Center master plan that seek to integrate the site with the larger physical fabric of Lower Manhattan - public transit, city streets, street-level retail, and arts and cultural activities - should be strongly supported because of their potential to restore Lower Manhattan's vitality as we look towards the future.
The recent demise of the International Freedom Center, brought down by controversy and confusion over its mission and role at the World Trade Center site, has sent shockwaves through the entire rebuilding effort. The hasty way in which the Governor stepped in and killed the project, undermining the public agency in charge of rebuilding - the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. (LMDC) - and preempting two planned public meetings, reflects a disregard for the public planning process of the past four years. But more importantly, the death of this institution casts a pall over the concept of a "living memorial" that would integrate the World Trade Center site back into the fabric of Lower Manhattan. Unless strong leadership is shown and quick progress made, the rebuilt site is doomed to forever dwell in the past rather than point the way towards a better future.
Going back to early civic discussions of the rebuilding process at forums like the 2002 "Listening to the City," the goal of creating a respectful and powerful memorial while reintegrating the WTC site into the life and vitality of Lower Manhattan was oft-repeated. Many ideas were proposed for civic and cultural uses, from an international university, to space for non-profit organizations, to more traditional "arts and cultural" activities, like museums. The design concept submitted by Daniel Libeskind in 2002, which led to his selection as master planner, included a prominent cultural building, cantilevered over the vast, excavated pit he staked out for the memorial. The other finalist design, submitted by the Viñoly-Schwartz collaboration, THINK, was defined by an enormous "World Cultural Center," consisting of two latticework towers in which various cultural activities would hover at different levels.
These finalist designers placed an emphasis on civic and cultural uses (in addition to the memorial) for good reason. They recognized the need to help restore vitality to Lower Manhattan in the near term - and the need to do it with activities in addition to office space and the memorial that could attract residents and repeat visitors to patronize cultural attractions. Libeskind, in his placement of a cultural use at the southwest corner of Greenwich and Fulton streets provided a building that could serve as a gateway or transition between the commercial space east of Fulton Street and the sacred memorial. And both recognized the need to provide balance against the sheer mass of planned commercial space, with outlets for culture, civic engagement and human expression.
The IFC, and its potential for political commentary, was targeted before it ever got a good chance to figure out its mission and explain it to the public. This confusion and suspicion over its precise nature led to its demise. But the elimination of the IFC raises questions about the viability of a handful of other activities that are meant to enliven the WTC site, and the Governor's commitment to them. The greatest fear is that opponents of the IFC, emboldened by their victory, will aim to eradicate other important revitalizing uses of the master plan, from the performing arts complex, to street-level retail, to the PATH station. Furthermore, security questions about car and truck bombs cast doubt on previous plans to allow Greenwich and Fulton Street to remain open through the site to regular street traffic. The legacy of such a fear-driven and controversy-averse planning framework for Ground Zero would be dismal indeed: a vast memorial surrounded by fortified office buildings on a sixteen-acre super block. This is not what the hopeful citizen-led planning process envisioned for the rebuilt site back in 2001- 2002.
If the controversy over the IFC demonstrated anything, it is that the events of 9/11 are still an open wound that has yet to heal over, and that attempts at putting 9/11 in a political or historical context may be premature. The way in which the IFC controversy was handled was a failure in every respect, but there are ways to rescue the process.
The Governor should recognize that the Snøhetta building plays an important function at the Southwest corner of Greenwich and Fulton Streets, providing a threshold to the sacred memorial site, a place to house a visitors center and orienting exhibits, and on a more practical level, a cloak for ventilation stacks for the PATH station beneath. He needs to step forward immediately to assert that he is committed to the WTC master plan, and to articulate a process for reaching a decision regarding the use of this building. Leaving the fate of this building open to speculation and counter proposals, as David Dunlap explored in a recent "Blocks" column in The New York Times, leaves the public to doubt the official commitment to the master plan, and leaves it vulnerable to further attacks.
A logical solution for its programming is to include some of the exhibitions planned for the WTC Memorial Museum (an underground space at the Western portion of the site), but also to leave some of the building flexible for future programming uses. Maybe in a decade, maybe in two, America will be ready for an exhibition that provides some context to the events of 9/11 beyond a strict recounting of the events of the day and their aftermath, as is planned for the Memorial Museum. Until that time comes, the physical elements of the World Trade Center master plan that seek to integrate the site with the larger physical fabric of Lower Manhattan - public transit, city streets, street-level retail, and arts and cultural activities - should be strongly supported because of their potential to restore Lower Manhattan's vitality as we look towards the future.
@RegionalPlan