WTC as a case study in urban development 9

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   katief Posted 5:34 pm
   29 Jun 2005

   Less Scrubbing for Turbine-Blade CleanersIt's too bad about the wind turbines. But at least that spares all the birdies who would certainly have flown into them!

   Permalink

2. 

   Emily Gertz Posted 10:21 pm
   29 Jun 2005

   Quite a lot of work......has already gone in to the designs for rebuilding on ground zero.  
   First, a clarification: The LMDC has always been in charge of managing the process. The LMDC was created in late 2001 specifically to try and redevelop lower Manhattan after the 9/11 attacks.  Its board is comprised of politicos, businessmen, developers, and one person who is more or less a community activist.  
   While the LMDC's site says that half the board was chosen by the Governor, George Pataki, and half by the Mayor (then Rudy Giuliani), Pataki is generally perceived to be the more powerful player in the fate of the site.  It's seen as important to him in establishing a "legacy" for any future political career plans.
   If you go to this page on LowerManhattan.info, you'll see that planning for the site stretches back to 2002, when the LMDC put several possibilities for redevelopment of ground zero before the public for comment.  
   If I'm remembering correctly, those options met with such near-universal dismay for their conventionality and lack of vision that the LMDC was forced to reopen the process.  This in turn led to Daniel Libeskind being selected as the master design architect for the WTC site in 2003.  But he and David Childs, the architect preferred by the primary leaseholder to the WTC, Larry Silverstein (not on the LMDC but a dominant stakeholder in the process), have not gotten along well, by many accounts.
   In 2002, there was also an open call for land use redevelopment proposals at the WTC site.  And in 2003 the competition was opened to designs for a memorial at the site.

   Permalink

3. 

   Emily Gertz Posted 10:30 pm
   29 Jun 2005

   This latest redesign......is directly in response to objections from the NY Police Department last month, when the redesign was supposedly about to be finalized, that the Freedom Tower would be too vulnerable to attacks from motor vehicles on the street.  

   Permalink

4. 

   Ana Unruh Cohen Posted 6:56 am
   30 Jun 2005

   but not for window cleanersThe building itself will probably remain a bird-killer though, just like the original towers.
   
   "The book of nature is always open." - Louis Agassiz

   Permalink

5. 

   Michael Boydston Posted 1:12 pm
   30 Jun 2005

   the first 200 feetUnfortunate side effect of efforts to make the building more secure:
   
   The modifications suggested include making the tower slimmer, straighter and setting it farther away from the street on a 61 metre metal-concrete pedestal that is capable of repelling explosions.(As reported here, for instance.)  What's the big deal? Well, a 200-foot-high blank wall might help deflect bomb blasts, but it's hardly conducive to street life. New York might end up with a breathtaking building that's blank, cold, and empty where it meets the street.
   Not to downplay security concerns.  But if the only way to build a tower is to make it an ugly blot on the urban landscape, one with a "startling lack of transparency at ground level," then maybe NY should build something a little less grandiose.
   Want a sensible look at what to do with the site?  Read Kurt Anderson's column.
   
   

   Permalink

6. 

   jdhlax Posted 5:03 pm
   30 Jun 2005

   I'm OverjoyedI can't wait until they finish the new WTC or whatever they're going to call it, so that greedy capitalists can continue to plunder the planet.  And this is supposed to be an environmental blog?

   Permalink

7. 

   Michael Boydston Posted 11:55 pm
   30 Jun 2005

   more than one way to be environmentalJdhlax, as I understand it your vision of the ideal world doesn't include cities.  Kind of takes you out of discussions of urban planning, doesn't it?  I mean, by all means tell us about biocentrism.  But an environmental discussion can also legitimately include questions of green design, even of large office buildings.  Personally, I think a huge edifice on the site would be a mistake.  Smaller works geared toward respecting the site and making New York a liveable city would be better.  But even if the city decides on a gigantic building, there are bad ways and well, less bad ways to go about it.

   Permalink

8. 

   amazingdrx Posted 1:52 am
   02 Jul 2005

   Great job!Nice to see that bird killing talking point against wind power as the first reply!
   Good job, you get a free pass to stay in the Lincoln bedroom!
   The wind power on freedom tower represented freedom from dependence on monopoly controlled oil, and the dictators that fund terrorism to maintain their hold on those nations with oil under them, Saudi Arabia for instance.
   We all knew the wind turbines would be the first thing to go, didn't we?
   Anyway, who is going to live or work, voluntarilly on an upper floor of this new high rise?  Only employees who have no choice.  
   Will any emergency procedures be instituted based on experience to prevent the tragic loss of life that ocurred in the 911 disaster?  I sincerely doubt it.

   Permalink

9. 

   jdhlax Posted 3:34 pm
   02 Jul 2005

   I'm All For Urban Planning, But ...the WTC was the site of some of the most egregious ecological and environmental (not to mention cultural and social) damage done to the planet in order to make money.  I think our time and effort would be exponentially better spent on other things, including other buildings.
   BTW, I fully agree with Ward Churchill's assesment of the WTC and 911.  Read it here:  http://www.darknightpress.org/index.php?i=print&article=9

   Permalink