Breakout Session
Urban Design: Lower Manhattan Takes Shape

Panelists:
Dr. Eugenie L. Birch, Chair and Professor, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania
Bruce Fowle, Principal, Fox and Fowle Architects
Ken Greenberg, Principal, Greenberg Associates Ltd., Toronto, Canada
Madelyn G. Wils, Chair, Community Board One; and Director, Lower Manhattan Development Corporation
Beverly Willis, Director, Architecture Research Institute and Rebuild Downtown Our Town (r.dot)
Todd Bressi, Editor-in-Chief, Places Magazine

Introductions by Rob Lane, Design Director for RPA.
    Lane pointed out that urban design encompasses everything. However, the specific issues to focus on for Lower Manhattan include:
•    The urban design principles listed in the RPA working paper, including: an appropriate memorial on the site, transit alternatives because of competition for space on the street; amenities for a diverse population; design excellence; security; flexible development; accommodations and sustainability.
•    The WTC site implication
•    Focus on the Public Realm

Todd Bressi was introduced as moderator. Mr. Bressi joked that he would mostly be the stopwatch, making sure each person could get through his or her presentation and remarks before the session ended.

The first speaker was Dr. Genie Birch, Chair of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Birch presented a PowerPoint show on the historical plans for Lower Manhattan. She emphasized that lower Manhattan has had different geographies and borders in the past 100 years and has had multiple planning agents. The area(s) has also been the focus of shifting paradigms but underlying those, also a certain continuity of ideas.
    Dr. Birch talked specifically about four planning processes. First, the 1929-31 RPA Plan. Downtown included 270 acres and was analyzed over a ten-year period, which included a mapping of all the buildings and their uses. The number one concern for the RPA was congestion. In a visionary section, they were also concerned with the impact of the new airports in Brooklyn and New Jersey.
    Second, Dr. Birch quickly discussed the 1966 plan by the NYC Department of City Planning and Governor Rockefeller.  The third plan was the 1993 plan by the Economic Development Corp. and NYC City Planning. The plan emphasized how Lower Manhattan was the global center for finance, but office vacancy rates were at 23%.
    Finally, Dr. Birch discussed New York New Visions, a group put together after September 11th's catastrophes to re-envision lower Manhattan. Along with an analysis of streets grids, transportation and development used, the plan emphasizes that the district of now a regional sub-center, not the dominant center that it was once considered. As such, it's role in the region and internationally needs to re evaluated for new future roles.

The second speaker was Ken Greenberg, who put together a master plan for the Lower East Side, between the Brooklyn Bridge and Pier A. Mr. Greenberg's PowerPoint presentation included first a historical note, pointing out the influence of past architectural icons as Mies Van de Rohe on the area. He emphasized that the industrial land on the river was served primarily by water transportation, transforming both sides of the East River. Mr. Greenberg's key to creating a master plan was the street connections between the two rivers across lower Manhattan. Currently, there are apertures along the east river, breaks in the building fabric, that are currently used for cars, but were originally part of the Pier system. That adds to the current weakness of scattered pedestrian connections in the area. Often the voids get filled with parking.
    Mr. Greenberg's talked about needing a very specific strategic plan for balance and diversity and getting back the fronts of the rivers. To that end, he presented four conceptual themes.
    1 - Completing the Smile. (Assembling more greenways, especially with the FDR expressway)
    2 - The Zipper. Knitting both sides of the East River together.
    3 - The Ladder. Knitting both rivers together through the streets.
    4 - The Heart. The power of the entire ensemble of ideas, not in the single gesture.

Bruce Fowle was the third speaker. He was one of the founders of New York New Visions, started the Monday after 9/11, and talked about the major Principles that the group began to put together. He presented different maps and designs that the group's sub committee's had been working on during the previous seven months.
    First, he showed the impact of the idea of tunneling West Street and the green space that could be developed along the west side of the island from the WTC site down to the tip and around the to the east side.
    Second, Mr. Fowle reviewed the various schemes for redeveloping the 16 acre WTC site. These images included models done by different architects (and some non-architects) with various amounts and mixtures of commercial, memorial and residential space, as well as configurations of height restrictions and visions of new skylines.
    Specifically, Mr. Fowle reviewed the matrix of principles created for evaluating the different footprint typologies. Each variation would be evaluated with a complex matrix of variables, a few of which he showed to the group.

After these three presentations Mr. Bressi introduced the three respondents. The first was Beverly Willis, Director of the Architecture Research Institute and Rebuild Downtown Our Town (r.dot). Ms. Willis' first point was a question - What is the impact of the lack of a Master Plan for New City? She noted that there is a proliferation of private plans, but a lack of government plans. Ms. Willis commented on the observation that the ideas may seem to be the same, but the people involved change, creating paradigm shifts. Her second observation was the need to the people-centric point of the view. She approved of the mapping of the uses of the area by different people and of the various jobs in the area, emphasizing that the area need to be great for people, not just for commerce.

The second respondent was Madelyn Wills of Community Board One, who also serves on the board of Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. First noting the changes that have taken place in the west side parks, she went on to discuss the challenges still facing the East River, with it's mixture of commerce, industry and it's historical fabric. She then pointed out a question she likes to ask people down by Wall Street - "How do I get to the East River?" and how it is actually a trick question. Almost no one knows because it is so difficult. Ms. Wills emphasized how connections through Lower Manhattan are critically important. Current security issues, she noted, have negatively impacted office workers ability to use the area.  The inability to move around barriers and parking restrictions impact circulation and the closure of atriums, and the distinct lack of open public spaces, leaves office workers with no place to eat lunch.
    Ms. Wills also noted that the comment made earlier (by Ed Blakely during the morning plenary) that amenities should be called necessities. As such, how many units of residential to put into lower Manhattan needs to consider units WITH appropriate necessities and open space taken into account.

John Rose was the final respondent. First, he talked about the emergence of citizen-based planning processes after 9/11 and how he hopes that it will be a legacy for the rest of the city. Defining principles first is important. Secondly, Mr. Rose talked about the need to think specifically on the implementation of the plan - bringing it to reality. Specifically, he addressed where Federal dollars should be spent. That money should be spent on infrastructure (including underground parking and public transit) and place-making initiatives, not building subsidies.
Mr. Rose also reiterated the idea that the process should be people oriented, not commerce oriented, with a balance of culture and commerce. He said he chose to rename 'economic development' to 'livelihood' because it was a more appropriate name for the focus of the process.

Todd Bressi then started the Q&A session.

First, Mr. Fowle pointed out that 10 million square feet of space with open space (what the site used to contain) is not a great space to be in. However, 75-80 stories allows for a new skyline, if that is what is wanted.
A participant stood up and asked that Disability (Universal) Design should be used as the standard for redevelopment. He noted that the Gehry Guggenheim design is barricaded by steps on all sides.

A participant named Kimberly Miller raised the issue of transit infrastructure and heavy rail and asked about plans. Ms. Wills responded by saying that either Metro North or LIRR could be brought into the area, but not both, due to funding restrictions. Mr. Greenberg noted that the quality of transportation spaces is a huge part of daily life, and should not be treated as utilitarian, but celebrated. Dr. Birch also pointed out that there is still a need for full disclosure of all the alternatives for transit in the area, which have not all been discussed there today.

Mr. Bressi then brought up the concern of security and asked for comments.

A participant, Jean Gardner brought up importance of evaluating the political issues at the root of security considerations, rather than the physical barricaded. Specifically, she pointed out the US's use and dependence on energy and our energy policies are part of the problem. A long-term solution needs to address out use of energy on the site, including a reduced dependence on oil and a celebration of solar energy. She pointed out that the Sun is people-centric. People respond to the sun and buildings should be oriented to take advantage of the sun.
A participant named Jeff pointed out that a civic center should be based on the memorial, not on government works. A datum line, like those seen in Europe, of memorial hierarchies should be created.

Finally, Mr. Greenberg pointed out that the design for preserving memories are not for the people who lived through the disaster but for future generations. The fabric of the area is currently invisible (the river edge migration, for instance) but this process should be visible. There should be pneumonic forms, not just physical forms.