WTC'S 'WATERGATE'

NY Post ^ | 12/12/03 | WILLIAM NEUMAN

[finnman69]

December 12, 2003 -- Developer Larry Silverstein's Freedom Tower design team was so upset over an alleged raid on their offices by staffers of Ground Zero planner Daniel Libeskind that they brought in former Police Commissioner Howard Safir to investigate, sources said yesterday.

[finnman69]

The saga continues. I predict Libeskind is fired or resigns shortly.

[finnman69]

WTC rebuilding dsoap opera PING!


The WTC clash of the egos is possibly going criminal.

[steve8714]

Architects are the most corrupt form of construction life...except for their attorneys.

[LizardQueen]

I'd fire all of them unless they can get a grip and work with each other. It's shameful that a memorial to such an awful thing is being tainted by egos run amok.

LQ

[finnman69]

Architects are the most corrupt form of construction life...except for their attorneys.

As an architect I must disagree with the part about architects. Libeskind is an exceptional prick. I have NEVER heard of an architect engaging in such back handed crap, using lawyers, making threats, and engaging in negative political PR to undercut competitors. As a whole, architecture is a 'gentleman's' profession.

I'm shocked that Libeskind has gone the route of the slimey used car salesman or the ambulance chaser. I expected him to be eaten alive by the red tape and power involved in NYC real estate. As it turns out, Libeskind was the real shark.

[mr.pink]

Thanks for the ping.

Here's hoping Danny-boy is chased out of town.

[Arkinsaw]

We'll end up with something bland or ugly with a big politically correct fan on the top of it to justify it.

[KellyAdmirer]

It sounds like the WTC people chose a name ("Freedom Tower" indeed) and a concept (1776 feet, right) rather than an actual design.

Kick these guys out and start from scratch.

[Pietro]

design by committee is a bad, bad idea.

[finnman69]

An interesting article from a very good architect who was one of the finalists:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/opinion/12VINO.html

December 12, 2003
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Master Planner or Master Builder?
By RAFAEL VIÑOLY

As Gov. George E. Pataki prepares to unveil the latest design of the "Freedom Tower" at ground zero, the long-simmering dispute between Daniel Libeskind, the master planner for the site, and David M. Childs, the architect chosen by Larry Silverstein, the commercial leaseholder at the site, to design the tower has come to a boil. Although this is unfortunate and unprofessional, it will probably pale in comparison to the struggle for symbolic control of the rebuilding after the designer of the World Trade Center memorial is chosen next week. That is the way things will go if certain crucial points are not clarified now.

As a member of the team that was the runner-up to Daniel Libeskind as master planner of the World Trade Center site, I am familiar with the trajectory of the process. As a New Yorker, I care deeply about the future of Lower Manhattan, and how the rebuilding will honor the memory of those lost on 9/11 and shape our future as a dynamic metropolis.

Much of the confusion that reigns today centers on the public's — and apparently Governor Pataki's — misunderstanding of what constitutes a "master plan." Master planning, although usually done by architects, is not the same as architectural design. The planner decides where buildings go, how big they are, the kind of urban form they create and the purposes they serve. A planner marks out roads and figures out how the underground infrastructure relates to the surface infrastructure. What a master planner does not do is design the buildings themselves.

None of this is to say that a master plan should not have an enormous impact on a site's development. (After all, I too wanted the job.) A master plan is an important tool in a city's overall evolution, even if it does not mandate specific designs. Paris and Washington were shaped by master plans; on a smaller scale, so was Battery Park City. The outlines were set by a planner and then the details were filled in, to varying degrees of success, by individual architects.

The trouble at ground zero began with the governor's decision to support Mr. Libeskind's "vision" (what his rendering looked like) rather than the master planning ideas behind it. Unfortunately a vision is not a master plan, it is simply a version of what one particular architect would do within that plan.

Mr. Libeskind's master plan is a spiral of rising towers around the site where the twin towers were. This is a powerful urban form that can and should be respected. However, the detailed design that Mr. Libeskind incorporated into his rendering has too often been treated by the governor and others as a design guideline, which it is not.

This problem is particularly apparent when it comes to the memorial. In his rendering, Mr. Libeskind essentially designed the memorial itself. After all, the exposed slurry wall, the waterfall and the names of the public spaces he specified all had a commemorative function. What's wrong with this? Well, the task of creating a memorial was intentionally removed from the master-plan competition because it was supposed to be the subject of the memorial design competition. I think that the weaknesses in the finalist designs for the memorial are a consequence of having to design a memorial within a memorial.

In my view, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation has consistently failed to educate the public — and perhaps even the governor — as to what to expect (and not to expect) from a master plan.

How so? First the corporation asked Beyer Blinder Bell and other firms to put together six master plans. These weren't building designs. Rather, they were geometric shapes meant to give people the sense of what Lower Manhattan's cityscape might look like. These plans encountered public opposition not just because they were not very inspirational in themselves, but primarily because they were mistaken for architectural designs.

The corporation reacted to the public outrage by creating the Innovative Design Study, a sort of "noncompetition" that was supposed to identify one or more consultants to help the agency further develop the master plan for the site. This process resulted in the most exciting architectural event in years. It was from this competition that Mr. Libeskind's rendering was chosen. But instead of portraying the exercise as one step along a more deliberative path, the corporation created the impression that this was the final result.

No matter. There is still time to clarify the process and allow it to move forward in a fair, constructive and logical manner. For this to happen, though, the governor, the development corporation, Mr. Libeskind, Mr. Silverstein and the other parties need to agree to the following basic points, which any first-year architecture student would be able to derive from a textbook on master planning.

• Define the basic idea of the master plan as a spiral of structures around the footprints of the towers. This is Mr. Libeskind's vision — and it should be accepted.

• Assure the developers that the design of the buildings is the responsibility of their chosen architects.

• Prompt Mr. Libeskind to see to it that there is a set of precise design guidelines — guidelines that can preserve his urban form without restricting the architectural design of those buildings.

• Give control of the memorializing functions of the plan to the winner of the memorial design competition.

• Specify where cultural facilities will be placed and outline where the money for them will come from (and make sure that money is not diverted to other uses).

• Build more time into the project. To coordinate the laying of the Freedom Tower cornerstone with the Republican National Convention in New York next summer is an unrealistic goal that will compromise the success of all our efforts. Would it not be better to disappoint a few conventioneers than to let down all New Yorkers and the 9/11 families?


Rafael Viñoly is an architect.

[Pietro]

Thanks, that is an interesting, and informative article. However, I stick to my sound byte; design by committee is a bad idea.

Here w/ have the "planner" who if I understand correctly, is responsible for the site development, ie roadways, parks, infrastructure at apparent loggerheads w/ the "designer" who is doing the actual architectural design of the structures which will occupy the space. Clearly there is ample room for conflict between these theoritcally destinct disciplines.

It sounds like a two-headed beast to me. I think it would be preferable (speaking as a Project Manager) if either the Planner or the Designer were identified as the "Lead".

But that's just MHO.

[jimt]

Could the problem be that many architects are better described as artists, and tempermental ones at that?

Being the all-knowing arbiter of the universe myself, "good" building designs are the ones I like, and "bad" ones are the ones I don't. And being an engineer, I'm completely objective of course.

It's all very simple. I can settle their squabble in a heartbeat.

</sarcasm>

[Cicero]

Pataki is a jerk. Take one look at the "art" that the government imposes on all new projects around New York City and you will quickly agree that government sponsored art in the modern age is virtually always a horrible mistake.

Larry Silverstein is a great real estate developer and a highly intelligent man. Hopefully he will prevail and something sensible will be built.

[finnman69]

It's pretty normal to have a master plan on a project of this magnitude. The problem comese since Libeskind is also trying to be the architect when David Childs is clearly the architect. Since the lines have been blurred and Pataki has mucked things up also, it's a total disaster now.

[NYC GOP Chick]

I predict Libeskind is fired or resigns shortly.

I hope and pray that you are right! Frankly, ever since you came around to my way of thinking < g > and agreed that we need to rebuild there, I've always thought you should be in charge. You have the smarts and the skills, as well as the right mindset.

I'm just appalled and heartsick that 27 months later, all we have there is a 16-acre hole in the ground and a makeshift PATH station.

[finnman69]

I would say Libeskind is more of an artist than an architect, and Childs is the opposite.

[steve8714]

Architects control the project but the engineers and subs end up with all liability. In addition the standard AIA contract institutionalizes the financial intransigence of the GC, the second most corrupt form of construction life.
Not in their design, but in their designs.

[finnman69]

I just sent a scathing letter to the NY Post and the NY Times about Libeskind.

[NYC GOP Chick]

You ROCK! :) If you want to FReepmail it to me, I'd LOVE to read it!

[finnman69]

A standard AIA contract protects the architect very well. but if an architect designs something that leads to a problem it's still his ass. Liability insurance premiums have gone up through the roof lately.