Because the idea of coalescing ten pages of notes is daunting, and the press of time and relevance, and the fact that Felix has done hell of a job providing a succinct and thorough recap (posting before I even got off the subway) of the New York New Visions panel Wednesday morning on the state of the WTC site, I’m only going to add some sporadic comments. Make sure to read his piece if you are interested in what the big picture looks like — or doesn’t given the seeming indeterminacy of many major points.
A. First, this panel was advertised as ‘off-the-record’, I don’t think it is unfair to reiterate points I have already made, most of which were not clarified by yesterday’s session. And no one will be attirbuted (even though the AIA taped the event).
1. Who is in charge? Well, that would seem obvious — the PANYNJ and, through them, Silverstein, but this still is not something people want to state directly. I suspect financing is the rub here (if Silverstein expects a big handout, shouldn’t the public have a say?). Much was said about discussion and committees and whatnot, but each time a presenter testified to the ongoing dialog, it stuck me as vacuous, since there is, after all, a major peice of construction underway. Speaking about ill-defined program discussions that may eventually drive a physical plan is an interesting abstraction, but shouldn’t they be working against projected Freedom Tower workplan and how it will enforce a level of decision-making? The takeaway here is that someone (if one comment is illustrative, the blame would be laid squarely at the feet of our coat-carrying governor) has mandated a schedule for the Freedom Tower that does not jibe with program development for the rest of the site, even at the literal expense of having to retrofit the Freedom Tower into the final master site plan.
2. Who will be doing this was even more unclear. Libeskind apparently still has some sort of relationship that is intended to vet the progress of new structures (one thing that was cleared up was that design guidelines for the cultural facilities are currently being written and are expected to be released in RFQ or RFP form in the coming months), and he clearly has his head and heart in the right place about that, but who (in the form of the ‘client’) will then enforce his recommendations was not explicated. It’s crucial, since there was a lot of very austute dicussion about footprint versus diagram and how that would affect traffic, particularly in how people would circulate to and from the PATH station (both tourists and commuters). The below grade plan reveals both the complexity of the programming decisions and its awkwardeness. Just orienting the concourse for the PATH station and the new buildings would be a challenge. When you add to that the mostly below-grade memorial, and the 50% below-grade retail you start to realize how dramatic some of the juxtapositions will be. Can people enter the memorial from the PATH platform? A memorial that is dogmatic in its circulation fails more often than not, so it would seem impossible to mandate exiting the concourse to get to the Memorial. The other option, marching past Au Bon Pain and the Gap, is even less attractive.
3. The introduction of Calatrava was possibly a craven desire to get a high impact concept model in front of a public that was angry at the tepid proposals (which may or may not be a fair characterization; it may have been a poor articulation of them actually doing a fair job) from Beyer Blinder Belle. The only evidence I have for this conclusion is that there were conflicting comments about what is going on now — it is either being ‘scaled-down’ or it is being adjusted becuase his initial schematics were based on inadequate information. Additionally, beyond the dramatic image of the entry hall, there doesn’t seem to be much resolution about anything: circulation, entry condition (one or two significant entry points), distribution of services and what will consitute the ‘great hall’ (either the at-grade entry or subterrenean concourse). I tend to be highly critical of the work of Gehry and Calatrava because I suspect their primary interest is egocentric form manipulation that they then assign others to plug program into. What I heard yesterday does not contradict this assumption.
4. The general hestitation and equivocation about decisions reflects poorly on one person: Pataki. We need to blame someone, and I’ll start here. The people in that room had a real good idea about the fluidity of the puzzle the are trying to assemble, and they are working with major portions still in great flux. The tool they really need is time. And they have very little, which will result in cost overruns, causing the site to be trapped in partial or constant construction for perhaps as much as a two decades, and attenuating even further the already minimal design quality that exist in many areas. The best example of how this plays out is the two big ‘holes’ (conceptual and physical) that represent Towers 4 and 5. Only in the past four weeks has the state of their financing been resolved (there is none), but a plan was already in place that was trying to accomodate their infrastructure needs and integrate them into already very crowded support services planning. But now, no one knows when or how they can be built, so what is the alternate? Build temporary retail or public buildings at grade so 30% of the site isn’t enveloped in construction fencing while the city waits (and let’s be honest, the original WTC was a steal for the first twenty years it was in business; only in the late 90’s did it even start to become competitive in the downtown market, and it’s not likely we will see those conditions again anytime soon) hopelessly for a market that won’t come? Not building the infrastructure would be short-sighted (even more so than the perhaps foolish belief that the space is needed at all), but if it takes 20 years to fill that hole, then it isn’t. All these decisions need to be rendered because Pataki wants ‘steel in the sky’ by 2006 because he has political aspirations, not because there is anything else to be gained by accelerating the project (as opposed to the addition of a committed tenant). This isn’t a radically new way for politicians to operate, but rarely has the evidence of such egocentric and thoughtless mandates been so clearly evident.
5. The focus on trying to fit the puzzle together has clearly prevented the people at that table from addressing the planning issues the site creates. That, or there needs to be another panel that reviews the macro planning issues that are going on independent of this gruop. Budget issues and the reality that they are working within a very dense and mostly immutable urban district, along with a lack of wherewithal for good planning practice (not much steel in the sky from a traffic calming plan), means that most of the traffic problems the site will create are not being addressed. Some of them are very typical and only the idealist — me and the RPA — really expect them to be resolved (every time a new large building is constructed, taxi and car service access becomes a problem). Others, such the routing a much larger number of buses into the downtown core than have ever been historically evident, and the loss of several access points for trucks, along with the attendant issue of increased security review, are likewise being addressed in only the most cursory way (at the regional planning level; the problems created by the buses are very evident in the streets bounding the site, but if you are waiting until you get to that point to plan, it’s too late). And, overall, it seems to be an accepted and unchangable assumption that the return of the street grid was barely considered to be an opportunity to create pedestrian malls. Instead, it’s cars, cars, and more cars.
I agree with Felix’s observation that the panel was representative of some very capable people. And these issues will be resolved, but my experience with designing in the context of large committees means that the force of time and circumstance will dictate many decisions, and that is typically indicative of a lack of a center (either a good leader or a well-constructed committee). The most quietly troubling thing I heard was one observation that in the end, not all these decisions can be made by consensus. I understand, and even agree with that sentiment at times, but there is a marked difference between tempering a decision thoughtfully because all the interested parties have worked to compromise their disparate interests and letting the powerless yammer until you get tired and then move forward with a decision that was rendered in absence of their valid input.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
We do what we can.
Because the idea of coalescing ten pages of notes is daunting, and the press of time and relevance, and the fact that Felix has done hell of a job providing a succinct and thorough recap (posting before I even got off the subway) of the New York New Visions panel Wednesday morning on the state of the WTC site, I’m only going to add some sporadic comments. Make sure to read his piece if you are interested in what the big picture looks like — or doesn’t given the seeming indeterminacy of many major points.
A. First, this panel was advertised as ‘off-the-record’, I don’t think it is unfair to reiterate points I have already made, most of which were not clarified by yesterday’s session. And no one will be attirbuted (even though the AIA taped the event).
1. Who is in charge? Well, that would seem obvious — the PANYNJ and, through them, Silverstein, but this still is not something people want to state directly. I suspect financing is the rub here (if Silverstein expects a big handout, shouldn’t the public have a say?). Much was said about discussion and committees and whatnot, but each time a presenter testified to the ongoing dialog, it stuck me as vacuous, since there is, after all, a major peice of construction underway. Speaking about ill-defined program discussions that may eventually drive a physical plan is an interesting abstraction, but shouldn’t they be working against projected Freedom Tower workplan and how it will enforce a level of decision-making? The takeaway here is that someone (if one comment is illustrative, the blame would be laid squarely at the feet of our coat-carrying governor) has mandated a schedule for the Freedom Tower that does not jibe with program development for the rest of the site, even at the literal expense of having to retrofit the Freedom Tower into the final master site plan.
2. Who will be doing this was even more unclear. Libeskind apparently still has some sort of relationship that is intended to vet the progress of new structures (one thing that was cleared up was that design guidelines for the cultural facilities are currently being written and are expected to be released in RFQ or RFP form in the coming months), and he clearly has his head and heart in the right place about that, but who (in the form of the ‘client’) will then enforce his recommendations was not explicated. It’s crucial, since there was a lot of very austute dicussion about footprint versus diagram and how that would affect traffic, particularly in how people would circulate to and from the PATH station (both tourists and commuters). The below grade plan reveals both the complexity of the programming decisions and its awkwardeness. Just orienting the concourse for the PATH station and the new buildings would be a challenge. When you add to that the mostly below-grade memorial, and the 50% below-grade retail you start to realize how dramatic some of the juxtapositions will be. Can people enter the memorial from the PATH platform? A memorial that is dogmatic in its circulation fails more often than not, so it would seem impossible to mandate exiting the concourse to get to the Memorial. The other option, marching past Au Bon Pain and the Gap, is even less attractive.
3. The introduction of Calatrava was possibly a craven desire to get a high impact concept model in front of a public that was angry at the tepid proposals (which may or may not be a fair characterization; it may have been a poor articulation of them actually doing a fair job) from Beyer Blinder Belle. The only evidence I have for this conclusion is that there were conflicting comments about what is going on now — it is either being ‘scaled-down’ or it is being adjusted becuase his initial schematics were based on inadequate information. Additionally, beyond the dramatic image of the entry hall, there doesn’t seem to be much resolution about anything: circulation, entry condition (one or two significant entry points), distribution of services and what will consitute the ‘great hall’ (either the at-grade entry or subterrenean concourse). I tend to be highly critical of the work of Gehry and Calatrava because I suspect their primary interest is egocentric form manipulation that they then assign others to plug program into. What I heard yesterday does not contradict this assumption.
4. The general hestitation and equivocation about decisions reflects poorly on one person: Pataki. We need to blame someone, and I’ll start here. The people in that room had a real good idea about the fluidity of the puzzle the are trying to assemble, and they are working with major portions still in great flux. The tool they really need is time. And they have very little, which will result in cost overruns, causing the site to be trapped in partial or constant construction for perhaps as much as a two decades, and attenuating even further the already minimal design quality that exist in many areas. The best example of how this plays out is the two big ‘holes’ (conceptual and physical) that represent Towers 4 and 5. Only in the past four weeks has the state of their financing been resolved (there is none), but a plan was already in place that was trying to accomodate their infrastructure needs and integrate them into already very crowded support services planning. But now, no one knows when or how they can be built, so what is the alternate? Build temporary retail or public buildings at grade so 30% of the site isn’t enveloped in construction fencing while the city waits (and let’s be honest, the original WTC was a steal for the first twenty years it was in business; only in the late 90’s did it even start to become competitive in the downtown market, and it’s not likely we will see those conditions again anytime soon) hopelessly for a market that won’t come? Not building the infrastructure would be short-sighted (even more so than the perhaps foolish belief that the space is needed at all), but if it takes 20 years to fill that hole, then it isn’t. All these decisions need to be rendered because Pataki wants ‘steel in the sky’ by 2006 because he has political aspirations, not because there is anything else to be gained by accelerating the project (as opposed to the addition of a committed tenant). This isn’t a radically new way for politicians to operate, but rarely has the evidence of such egocentric and thoughtless mandates been so clearly evident.
5. The focus on trying to fit the puzzle together has clearly prevented the people at that table from addressing the planning issues the site creates. That, or there needs to be another panel that reviews the macro planning issues that are going on independent of this gruop. Budget issues and the reality that they are working within a very dense and mostly immutable urban district, along with a lack of wherewithal for good planning practice (not much steel in the sky from a traffic calming plan), means that most of the traffic problems the site will create are not being addressed. Some of them are very typical and only the idealist — me and the RPA — really expect them to be resolved (every time a new large building is constructed, taxi and car service access becomes a problem). Others, such the routing a much larger number of buses into the downtown core than have ever been historically evident, and the loss of several access points for trucks, along with the attendant issue of increased security review, are likewise being addressed in only the most cursory way (at the regional planning level; the problems created by the buses are very evident in the streets bounding the site, but if you are waiting until you get to that point to plan, it’s too late). And, overall, it seems to be an accepted and unchangable assumption that the return of the street grid was barely considered to be an opportunity to create pedestrian malls. Instead, it’s cars, cars, and more cars.
I agree with Felix’s observation that the panel was representative of some very capable people. And these issues will be resolved, but my experience with designing in the context of large committees means that the force of time and circumstance will dictate many decisions, and that is typically indicative of a lack of a center (either a good leader or a well-constructed committee). The most quietly troubling thing I heard was one observation that in the end, not all these decisions can be made by consensus. I understand, and even agree with that sentiment at times, but there is a marked difference between tempering a decision thoughtfully because all the interested parties have worked to compromise their disparate interests and letting the powerless yammer until you get tired and then move forward with a decision that was rendered in absence of their valid input.