Multiple Interests and Agendas Compete for Attention in Lower Manhattan

appeared in slightly altered form, Architectural Record, May 2002

Cleanup at the lower Manhattan site of September 11th’s terror disaster is now largely complete, far ahead of the schedule once envisioned. With removal of ruins and human remains winding down, the 16-acre pit now acts as a tragic daily reminder to the thousands of workers and residents who have returned to the surrounding buildings. And it is a reminder that a strategy for rebuilding on the site remains far from complete. This puts Alexander Garvin on the hot seat. Appointed by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) as vice president for planning, design, and development, it is his job to unite a mind-boggling array of interests and agendas.

The city’s looming multi-billion-dollar budget deficit is pressuring Garvin to move fast. “New York cannot afford the continuing flight of business nor permit the fear to grow that the city is out of control,” explains Raymond Gastil, who has stayed close to the reconstruction process as executive director of the Van Alen Institute, which focuses on design of the public realm. “The city needs an expression of confidence in its future.”

But other advocates are urging Garvin to take the time needed “to reconcile reconstruction with the most awful way a building site has ever been created,” as Ada Louise Huxtable wrote in the Wall Street Journal. Garvin says he is determined not to rush things unduly (see interview, below) while moving rapidly on vital and low-glamour issues like infrastructure restoration. To replace a giant underground power substation destroyed when 7 World Trade Center collapsed, for example, the building owner, its attorneys, the government agency that owned the land, the telephone company, the power company, and the city planning department all had to agree on a procedure. “Do we own the property?” asked Garvin rhetorically. “No, but we’re helpful in quickly bringing together people who are not used to working in a coordinated fashion.”

But he may be giving in to relentless pressure from the press and politicians to show more rapid progress on more visible rebuilding. Larry Silverstein, whose Silverstein Properties built 7 World Trade Center, wants to break ground on its replacement next month. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) is completing a design for Silverstein that will thread columns, lobbies, and elevator towers among the transformers. But LMDC agreed to slice off a third of the site so that a vista closed by the original tower along Greenwich Street could be restored, as designers and activists had recommended. SOM has feverishly tailored Silverstein’s tower to meet these new constraints, but it has all happened out of the public view–which is the way it needs to be, says Garvin. “We don’t have a choice. Decisions have to be nailed down so that the transformers can be put in and detailed design can commence.”

Or does it? Manhattan’s office market is now slack enough that rushing Silverstein’s tower is only a necessity for Silverstein. It won’t be easy for SOM to come up with the kind of affirmative civic and reconciling statement the city deserves in a design driven by a perceived need for speed, on a heavily encumbered site and in the absence of a larger vision for the rest of Ground Zero.

On the rest of the WTC site, Garvin presides over an urban game board in which the pieces comprise interests and possibilities. Might the New York City Opera build a new home downtown? Can long-dreamed-of rail transportation improvements to the outer boroughs and suburbs be at last implemented? These questions, and numerous others, turned up on a “blueprint” Garvin presented to the LMDC board early in April.

The dozens of items under consideration include improving open space and pedestrian linkages, encouraging more residential development in what has long been a nine-to-five precinct, bolstering existing cultural facilities while perhaps adding such new ones as a museum dedicated to freedom and tolerance, and building environmentally sustainable new buildings while preserving and adapting the district’s numerous historic structures.

Most of the blueprint items had previously been proposed by the numerous ad hoc coalitions that sprang up after the disaster, especially New York New Visions, a pro-bono coalition of 22 organizations representing architects (including AIA), engineers, planners, and other designers. It issued its recommended principles in February.

LMDC has also relied on several advisory councils that the New York Observer succinctly described as “sprawling yet opaque.” While LMDC will continue to solicit ideas from the committees and from the public, it will pare down alternatives through in-house deliberations.

Some of the stakeholders fear the fix is already in. “Decisions have been made without the participation of the victim families,” says Monica Iken, founder of September’s Mission, one of nine major groups that have formed to press the interests of widows and families of those killed in the disaster. Her organization is particularly concerned with the nature of a memorial and regards the Trade Center site as hallowed ground. When asked whether any of it could be built upon, Iken said in an interview, “It’s not about quantity. But the memorial has to be planned before anything else is discussed.” Nikki Stern, a long-time marketing consultant to architects (she’s with Swanke Haydn Connell Associates now), sees the inspiring potential of new development that is innovative and ecologically sustainable. But she, too, lost her husband in the tragedy, and understands the reluctance to permit any building on the site. “I’m well aware of the need to own what happened. It provides a point of control. I have never experienced something so beyond my control.”

Another question hanging heavily over Lower Manhattan is what kind of future it can forge as a business center. The New York Stock Exchange’s role as the linchpin of downtown’s financial district has become merely symbolic, say a growing chorus of experts, as more trading functions migrate to electronic realms.

Lower Manhattan had lost its luster long before the September disaster and its slide won’t easily be reversed. (The World Trade Center itself was one of decades’ worth of largely unsuccessful revitalization strategies.) City officials have hailed the return of several financial firms to cleaned-up space in lower Manhattan, but the city’s future is clouded if the zeitgeist of real-estate “dispersal” retains its hold. Look to thriving London, says Frank Duffy, chairman of DEGW, a strategic planning and design firm with offices in both cities. It has put in place a high-security regime after terror attacks of its own (which, however, never approached the scale of those in New York). Firms partake in the emerging high-technology, high-interaction economy through innovative architecture in which offices are transparent and daylighted, trading environments are wrapped in information technology, and buildings are well-supplied with casual meeting places in the form of atriums, courtyards, and plazas. He cites projects like Lloyds Registry (Record, February, page tkk) and the London headquarters of Swiss Re (Foster & Partners, in construction). Architectural innovation is not in the lower Manhattan mix yet, however. The current strategy is an old one: throw money at businesses in the form of tax breaks and incentives as an inducement to stay. But architecture may get a stronger voice with the April appointment of Billie Tsien, of Tod Williams Billie Tsien Architects, to LMDC’s board, which is otherwise heavily weighted to real-estate interests.

Home Hot Topic Articles Books Consulting About JSR
	Multiple Interests and Agendas Compete for Attention in Lower Manhattan appeared in slightly altered form, Architectural Record, May 2002 Cleanup at the lower Manhattan site of September 11th’s terror disaster is now largely complete, far ahead of the schedule once envisioned. With removal of ruins and human remains winding down, the 16-acre pit now acts as a tragic daily reminder to the thousands of workers and residents who have returned to the surrounding buildings. And it is a reminder that a strategy for rebuilding on the site remains far from complete. This puts Alexander Garvin on the hot seat. Appointed by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) as vice president for planning, design, and development, it is his job to unite a mind-boggling array of interests and agendas. The city’s looming multi-billion-dollar budget deficit is pressuring Garvin to move fast. “New York cannot afford the continuing flight of business nor permit the fear to grow that the city is out of control,” explains Raymond Gastil, who has stayed close to the reconstruction process as executive director of the Van Alen Institute, which focuses on design of the public realm. “The city needs an expression of confidence in its future.” But other advocates are urging Garvin to take the time needed “to reconcile reconstruction with the most awful way a building site has ever been created,” as Ada Louise Huxtable wrote in the Wall Street Journal. Garvin says he is determined not to rush things unduly (see interview, below) while moving rapidly on vital and low-glamour issues like infrastructure restoration. To replace a giant underground power substation destroyed when 7 World Trade Center collapsed, for example, the building owner, its attorneys, the government agency that owned the land, the telephone company, the power company, and the city planning department all had to agree on a procedure. “Do we own the property?” asked Garvin rhetorically. “No, but we’re helpful in quickly bringing together people who are not used to working in a coordinated fashion.” But he may be giving in to relentless pressure from the press and politicians to show more rapid progress on more visible rebuilding. Larry Silverstein, whose Silverstein Properties built 7 World Trade Center, wants to break ground on its replacement next month. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) is completing a design for Silverstein that will thread columns, lobbies, and elevator towers among the transformers. But LMDC agreed to slice off a third of the site so that a vista closed by the original tower along Greenwich Street could be restored, as designers and activists had recommended. SOM has feverishly tailored Silverstein’s tower to meet these new constraints, but it has all happened out of the public view–which is the way it needs to be, says Garvin. “We don’t have a choice. Decisions have to be nailed down so that the transformers can be put in and detailed design can commence.” Or does it? Manhattan’s office market is now slack enough that rushing Silverstein’s tower is only a necessity for Silverstein. It won’t be easy for SOM to come up with the kind of affirmative civic and reconciling statement the city deserves in a design driven by a perceived need for speed, on a heavily encumbered site and in the absence of a larger vision for the rest of Ground Zero. On the rest of the WTC site, Garvin presides over an urban game board in which the pieces comprise interests and possibilities. Might the New York City Opera build a new home downtown? Can long-dreamed-of rail transportation improvements to the outer boroughs and suburbs be at last implemented? These questions, and numerous others, turned up on a “blueprint” Garvin presented to the LMDC board early in April. The dozens of items under consideration include improving open space and pedestrian linkages, encouraging more residential development in what has long been a nine-to-five precinct, bolstering existing cultural facilities while perhaps adding such new ones as a museum dedicated to freedom and tolerance, and building environmentally sustainable new buildings while preserving and adapting the district’s numerous historic structures. Most of the blueprint items had previously been proposed by the numerous ad hoc coalitions that sprang up after the disaster, especially New York New Visions, a pro-bono coalition of 22 organizations representing architects (including AIA), engineers, planners, and other designers. It issued its recommended principles in February. LMDC has also relied on several advisory councils that the New York Observer succinctly described as “sprawling yet opaque.” While LMDC will continue to solicit ideas from the committees and from the public, it will pare down alternatives through in-house deliberations. Some of the stakeholders fear the fix is already in. “Decisions have been made without the participation of the victim families,” says Monica Iken, founder of September’s Mission, one of nine major groups that have formed to press the interests of widows and families of those killed in the disaster. Her organization is particularly concerned with the nature of a memorial and regards the Trade Center site as hallowed ground. When asked whether any of it could be built upon, Iken said in an interview, “It’s not about quantity. But the memorial has to be planned before anything else is discussed.” Nikki Stern, a long-time marketing consultant to architects (she’s with Swanke Haydn Connell Associates now), sees the inspiring potential of new development that is innovative and ecologically sustainable. But she, too, lost her husband in the tragedy, and understands the reluctance to permit any building on the site. “I’m well aware of the need to own what happened. It provides a point of control. I have never experienced something so beyond my control.” Another question hanging heavily over Lower Manhattan is what kind of future it can forge as a business center. The New York Stock Exchange’s role as the linchpin of downtown’s financial district has become merely symbolic, say a growing chorus of experts, as more trading functions migrate to electronic realms. Lower Manhattan had lost its luster long before the September disaster and its slide won’t easily be reversed. (The World Trade Center itself was one of decades’ worth of largely unsuccessful revitalization strategies.) City officials have hailed the return of several financial firms to cleaned-up space in lower Manhattan, but the city’s future is clouded if the zeitgeist of real-estate “dispersal” retains its hold. Look to thriving London, says Frank Duffy, chairman of DEGW, a strategic planning and design firm with offices in both cities. It has put in place a high-security regime after terror attacks of its own (which, however, never approached the scale of those in New York). Firms partake in the emerging high-technology, high-interaction economy through innovative architecture in which offices are transparent and daylighted, trading environments are wrapped in information technology, and buildings are well-supplied with casual meeting places in the form of atriums, courtyards, and plazas. He cites projects like Lloyds Registry (Record, February, page tkk) and the London headquarters of Swiss Re (Foster & Partners, in construction). Architectural innovation is not in the lower Manhattan mix yet, however. The current strategy is an old one: throw money at businesses in the form of tax breaks and incentives as an inducement to stay. But architecture may get a stronger voice with the April appointment of Billie Tsien, of Tod Williams Billie Tsien Architects, to LMDC’s board, which is otherwise heavily weighted to real-estate interests.
© copyright 2006 James S. Russell \| terms