This evening the New York, New Visions group is holding a — well, I’m not sure what they are calling it this go around. It’s not a listening session (cause that would take way too long), and apparently the last effort to make it seem like privileged information was being disseminated (it was ‘off-the-record’) has been abandoned, since they have figured out how to effectively eliminate the input of anyone not named Burlingame from the process. So tonight, at the Center for Architecture, there will be a ‘discussion of the planning and projects currently underway at the World Trade Center site’ (NB: this info via Polis). Oddly, they have scheduled two hours — that’s plenty of time to look at barren worksite. Trying to dig up information from the last session (eighteen months ago), I find numerous markers for all manner of failing: Pataki saying he wanted to see steel in the air by 2006, Rampe demanding we build 10MM square feet of spec office space or risk dishonoring the dead. Rememeber not even knowing who Debra Burlingame was?
The New York New Visions site itself doesn’t seem to have been updated in two years. Not that I’m in a big hurry — it only seems that the push that excused such poor planning and decision making was justified because haste was framed as the proper response to events. Since that haste is clearly not in evidence, perhaps we can jettison the work to date? Fiscal prudence, logic, good design; none of these were in any evidence over the past four-plus years, so pressing forward doesn’t seem to be a reasonable reward for ineptitude.
Anyway, I plan to trudge on over there, suffer more meaningless platitudes about how things really aren’t a keystone cops affair behind the curtain. There is a Q&A, and I have my question ready (I want to ask the new LMDC head if they have stated position on commercial space development — that is, with Rampe gone and Silverstein broke, do they see the 10MM as a mandate, or have they developed a more nuanced position on demand and development, and is there any interim strategy to deal with the site?). If you can’t make it, and have a better one, send it along. Most likely I’ll just stand there and fume, but either way, a surly recap is forthcoming.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
Tattered York, Tattered Visions.
This evening the New York, New Visions group is holding a — well, I’m not sure what they are calling it this go around. It’s not a listening session (cause that would take way too long), and apparently the last effort to make it seem like privileged information was being disseminated (it was ‘off-the-record’) has been abandoned, since they have figured out how to effectively eliminate the input of anyone not named Burlingame from the process. So tonight, at the Center for Architecture, there will be a ‘discussion of the planning and projects currently underway at the World Trade Center site’ (NB: this info via Polis). Oddly, they have scheduled two hours — that’s plenty of time to look at barren worksite. Trying to dig up information from the last session (eighteen months ago), I find numerous markers for all manner of failing: Pataki saying he wanted to see steel in the air by 2006, Rampe demanding we build 10MM square feet of spec office space or risk dishonoring the dead. Rememeber not even knowing who Debra Burlingame was?
The New York New Visions site itself doesn’t seem to have been updated in two years. Not that I’m in a big hurry — it only seems that the push that excused such poor planning and decision making was justified because haste was framed as the proper response to events. Since that haste is clearly not in evidence, perhaps we can jettison the work to date? Fiscal prudence, logic, good design; none of these were in any evidence over the past four-plus years, so pressing forward doesn’t seem to be a reasonable reward for ineptitude. Anyway, I plan to trudge on over there, suffer more meaningless platitudes about how things really aren’t a keystone cops affair behind the curtain. There is a Q&A, and I have my question ready (I want to ask the new LMDC head if they have stated position on commercial space development — that is, with Rampe gone and Silverstein broke, do they see the 10MM as a mandate, or have they developed a more nuanced position on demand and development, and is there any interim strategy to deal with the site?). If you can’t make it, and have a better one, send it along. Most likely I’ll just stand there and fume, but either way, a surly recap is forthcoming.