Plans to rebuild the World Trade Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposal for Rebuilt Twin Towers, from Triroc.com/WTC

The Lower Manhattan Development Corp. (LMDC) was formed after the September 11 attacks to plan the redevelopment of Lower Manhattan and distribute nearly $10 billion in federal funds aimed at rescuing downtown Manhattan. Currently under construction at the site is the 1,776-foot (541 m) Freedom Tower and several smaller buildings for the site. Nevertheless, many make a distinction between constructing a new complex on the site of the former World Trade Center and "rebuilding" the World Trade Center, which was clearly sui generis and synonymous around the world with the Twin Towers.

1 Brief history of rebuilding plans
2 Popular opinion
3 Criticism of fortified tower base
4 Proposed litigation
5 External links
6 Others

[edit] Brief history of rebuilding plans

Rebuilding guidelines were formulated by the LMDC, without public input, that required the replacement of all commercial space and the pre-WTC street grid, greatly limiting the possible land-use designs. Accordingly, six plans were published in July 2002 and met with public scorn.

The popular favorite, rebuilding the Twin Towers, did not fit the criteria set by the LMDC officials, and was therefore never seriously considered. Silverstein representatives subscribed to the theory that new office buildings with more than 70 floors would create short- to medium-term vacancies while rebuilding the towers. There was also the call by a number of civic planners to restore the pre-WTC street grid. Chief Architect David Childs of Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill denounced the original plan publicly and described the towers and the "superblock" as out of place, not conducive to public-space activity and lacking in aesthetics. But, the merits of such a fundamental departure from the pre-9/11 site were never a matter of public debate.

Meanwhile, newspaper polls and letters to the editors, as well as the feedback in the LMDC "Listening to the People" initiative and on its website, suggested that there was a significant bloc of people who saw rebuilding the Twin Towers as a moral imperative and an indispensible act of counter-terrorism. But their concerns were not honored. After an initial competition was met with near-universal disdain, the LMDC was forced to restart the design process almost from scratch, but it left in place essentially the same guidelines that had been repudiated the first time - with predictable results. Seven new designs were published and winnowed to two candidates: one from Studio Daniel Libeskind and one from THINK Design which was championed by "The New York Times" architecture critic Herbert Muschamp and came the closest of the seven to evoking the fallen towers.

[edit] Popular opinion

When offered a choice between the Libeskind or THINK plans, the official LMDC poll showed that the public preferred "Neither". Nevertheless, Mayor Bloomberg and New York Governor Pataki preferred the The Daniel Libeskind Studio plan and its approach to the guidelines. On February 26, 2003 it was selected by the Governor and the LMDC even though the public favored THINK over the Libeskind plan.

The much-vaunted open and inclusive process never acknowledged or addressed the depth of public support for rebuilding the Twin Towers. One of the Public Comment Cards solicited by the LMDC reads: "Just as I want my wife back, people want their towers back. The main difference is the latter is possible, the former, not. Walk around Times Square or the Village and look at how many photos and postcards of the Twin Towers are there for sale. I've even seen an NYC 2003 calendar with the WTC pictured. That's what they want... don't let today's fears control tomorrow's dreams."

Since the destruction of the World Trade Center there have been many organizations representing the grassroots desire to rebuild the Twin Towers. In November 2005, the Twin Towers Alliance was formed to provide supporters of rebuilding with a forum and a political base. The Twin Towers Alliance is broad-based and does not sponsor any particular plan, but does promote the understanding that there are a number of proposals ready to go -- among them, the Belton-Gardner Twin Towers II design, which drew national attention when it was sponsored by real-estate developer Donald Trump in May 2005 and is favored by many 9/11 family-members.

[edit] Criticism of fortified tower base

The base of the tower (fortified because of security concerns) has also been a source of controversy. A number of critics (notably Derek Murdoch in the National Review) have suggested that it is alienating and dull, and reflects a sense of fear rather than freedom, leading them to dub the project "the Fear Tower."^[1]^[2] Nicolai Ouroussoff, the archictecture critic for the New York Times, calls the tower base decorations a "grotesque attempt to disguise its underlying paranoia."^[3]

[edit] Proposed litigation

The Twin Towers Alliance on October 26, 2006 called upon then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to conduct an inquiry into official misconduct on the part of Governor Pataki and the LMDC which would undercut the legitimacy of the master site plan, and appealed to the "People's Lawyer" to seek an injunction against developing the Freedom Tower, pending the findings of an investigation. In the spring of 2006, the Attorney General was quoted in the press as saying that the redevelopment was "an Enron-style debacle" and accused the LMDC of being "an abject failure" that "violated" its "duty to the public". Spitzer is now the Governor of New York and his decision on the Twin Towers Alliance appeal has not been announced, it is currently being studied, according to his office. Eliot Spitzer is well-known for his uncompromising stance towards the abuse of power. In February 2007, Governor Spitzer came out in support of the Freedom Tower.