Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 23:40:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Louis Epstein Subject: WTC Rebuilding News & Notes Today's NY Post has news stories of note, as well as the weekly letter column on rebuilding (which will run until September 11th,write to rebuild@nypost.com). Today's letter column had a pro-rebuilding headline as well as a strong majority of pro-rebuilders,including a significant number of members of this email list...though the letters must have been edited,Joseph Nappi's as printed didn't mention the Towers! News stories: http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/20094.htm is the main one...more information than in the shorter AP-CNN version some of you may have seen.Deputy Mayor Doctoroff,the man Bloomberg has overseeing the rebuilding who is well known for saying there was "zero chance" of the Towers being rebuilt, is championing the idea of the City of New York trading the Port Authority outright ownership of LaGuardia and JFK Airports (for which it pays the city $3 million a year in rent) in return for the World Trade Center site(on which it collects over $120 million a year in rent).Robert Yaro,president of the Regional Plan Association,chairman of the Civic Alliance,and leader of those who see the September 11th attacks as a heaven-sent opportunity to remake Lower Manhattan into someplace the victims of those attacks wouldn't have recognized,calls this a "win-win situation". (In a similar vein,the New York Daily News recently stated as fact that putting the WTC back the way it was is something "no one wants"...while exact-down-to-the-last-screw-doorknob-and-toilet rebuilding is a minority sentiment even among pro-rebuilders,it is not unknown and they shouldn't say it is). Remember that Doctoroff is going to be online at the Gotham Gazette Java-chat room at NOON ON AUGUST 15TH...go to http://www.gothamgazette.com/rebuilding_nyc/chat/index.shtml and let's make sure his audience wants very tall buildings at that site!!! http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/20095.htm details Silverstein's struggle with the insurers. I have been keeping a close eye on the Online-Listening-To-The-City, which has lately added four more discussion groups...making 26 out of the 83 it would have taken to fill their anticipated capacity, the overflowing of which they implied was the only reason they would have rejected anyone.And the new groups include some people living rather far away,not having lived in Manhattan for some time,despite their concern for shutting out all non-locals.But the new groups also have pro-rebuilders among them. Richard Krasney's efforts continue to mature,he is looking for petition and literature campaigns similar to those mentioned on the list in the recent past.I have added a few of his collaborators to the email list,which is now closer to 840 than 800 good addresses. Volunteers for the Federal Hall petition/literature table are still being sought...it should start some time in the next week.Let me know if you want to join in and I'll put you in touch with the other volunteers. I'll see what ideas get presented in the various groups. I note that there have been several references to the Liberty Square plan from flmarchitects.com and the wtc2002.com plan by Derek Turner,but only tonight did someone mention Erik Sieb's plan at newwtcproject.com...it should get some more exposure. I am not sure what reaction this mailing list has to my own personal preferences,and I am determined to hold together the broad coalition it represents of those who strongly favor various solutions that are not one inch shorter than the old Towers. I assure you all that I respect your preferences and could live with their development better than with any shorter solution. But I'm going to toss out some ideas so that they can be aired, and of course some of these recapitulate past written comments of mine and prefigure what I'll be sending as my formal commentary on the site plan options.(DO NOT FORGET TO SEND YOUR OWN COMMENTS IN BEFORE THE DEADLINE NO MATTER WHERE YOU LIVE OR EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT!) I want twin towers.Like the Hudson Terminal Buildings at 30 and 50 Church Street built in 1908,and the World Trade Center Towers they were torn down to make room for in the 1960s,they should be the largest office high-rises in the world at the time of their construction; under no circumstances whatsoever should they be any shorter than 1368 feet tall to the roof,or with an occupied human space limit of less than 1355 feet.For them to have fewer than 110 stories would be inappropriate. Preferably they should be taller,ideally following the WTC Towers in being the world's tallest at the time of completion.That they may be dethroned as the originals were should not be a discouragement for aiming high. A few "signposts into the heavens" as possible goals: 1380 feet...structural tip of the Chin Mao Tower in Shanghai, which actually has only 88 stories but got itself listed ahead of the WTC in world rankings because of its spire. [Yes,you usually see it spelled "Jin Mao"]. 1430 feet...occupied human space limit of the Sears Tower. [the OHSL is the highest indoor level that someone can actually go up to]. 1437 feet...OHSL of the Taipei Financial Center now under construction. 1450-1454 feet...rooflines of the Sears Tower[tallest in USA] from the main and side entrances. 1465 feet...OHSL of the CN Tower in Toronto...its "Sky Pod" observatory is the world's tallest,on a clear day one can see Rochester across Lake Ontario. 1470 feet...roofline of the Taipei Financial Center. 1472 feet...former antenna top of the Empire State Building during the years its antenna was tallest. 1488 feet...structural tip of the Petronas Towers(tallest in world until the TFC is completed...but like Chin Mao, only 88 stories). [structural tip is the highest protrusion above the roof in a building that has them,being part of the building rather than an attachment like an antenna]. 1575 feet...roofline of MTR Tower/Union Square,now under construction in Hong Kong.[OHSL and observation deck levels not released yet]. 1667 feet...structural tip of the Taipei Financial Center(spire). 1725-1728 feet...different listed antenna heights for old World Trade Center,new tower with antenna must be no shorter by this measure. 1729 feet...reputed latest antenna height of the Sears Tower. 1776 feet...an obvious suggestion for USA-patriotic reasons of a height for the new WTC. 1792 feet...the New York Stock Exchange was founded in 1792 and Donald Trump once proposed a building of this height for them...it might be appropriate if the NYSE moved to the site,just as 1784 feet might be appropriate if the Bank of New York were anchor tenant. 1821 feet...structural tip AND antenna top of the CN Tower,presently the world's tallest self-supporting structure.(I'm not sure if the new WTC would take over that title if only its antenna rose higher). 2001 feet...suggested by some as symbolizing the year of the attacks. 2002 feet...suggested by others as symbolizing our moving beyond the year of the attacks. 2063 feet...the tallest structure now in existence,a broadcast antenna held in place by guy wires near Fargo,North Dakota. 2120 feet and some inches...the tallest structure ever built, a Polish broadcast antenna that collapsed in the 1980s. 3000 feet...noted by Guinness Book in the 1970s as unquestionably feasible from an engineering standpoint. 5280 feet...Frank Lloyd Wright's legendary "Mile High Tower" concept, which some say could be built now. If the builders only dare commit to ONE superskyscraper at the site, it is essential that it be well above the lower end of this range. And perhaps another will join it afterward. [I would appreciate a list of the world's tallest buildings UNDER CONSTRUCTION...proposals not needed...if anyone has one, with specifications]. Architecture of the new Towers should be strongly reminiscent of the old but not identical...one should be able to look at a photo of the skyline and tell the old Twin Towers from the new,just as one can date other pictures of the Twins by the surrounding buildings. The footprints of the new towers would preferably OVERLAP those of the old.I realize that there are increased costs associated with the new towers being built anywhere but directly on the old footprints because that's where the bedrock anchors are,but I would prefer that the new towers have somewhat larger footprints than the old for a number of mainly safety-related reasons,and some movement off the old footprints may be necessary to placate those who are frantic to see to it that Osama bin Laden's edict that those footprints be cleared remains binding on America for as long as possible. (More on each of these issues in turn). It may be "fighting the last war",but I'd prefer to have all walls of the new Towers be more than 211 feet,the wingspan of the 747-400,the largest aircraft now flying,and the old Towers were 208 feet square. The old towers were designed to take the impact of a 707,the largest aircraft then flying.I have done a rough sketch of towers with 220-foot- square floorplans,incorporating four hardened stairwell cores at a distance from the elevator core,which can provide an additional focus for structural bracing of the floors,would increase the number of escape stairs from three to eleven,and would be unlikely to all suffer from any disaster great enough to put the elevator core out of commission. There would also be scope for one of the stairwells in each core to be designated as an "up" stair for rescue personnel while the other was used for evacuation,if need be. On a 220-foot square,there would be more office space per floor,despite the addition of the stairwell cores and a slightly larger elevator core, than in the old towers...in towers of the same size there would of course be less. (Steve Cuozzo's recent New York Post column pointed out that even before the WTC was destroyed,a report had said that NYC needed to build the equivalent of six WTCs' worth of new office space to deal with forecast shortages.IF WE BUILD IT THEY WILL COME...the space in the new WTC would be the most modern and desirable in the area, and spur the conversion of competing buildings it rendered obsolete into the housing so desired by others.And remember that the top floors of any building will ALWAYS rent...there will always be people who want the highest floor they can get...what discourages developers from shooting for the skies is uncertainty of how many LOWER floors will find tenants). I know that many,including many readers of these emails,would prefer that the old footprints not be touched.(The Quinnipiac Poll's recent showing that only 42% of those asked felt that way,though,indicates that the self-appointed activists are not representative of the wider population).I can only ask that the symbolism of this be considered carefully.I repeat that I can LIVE WITH new towers completely off the old footprints,but this is NOT my preference. The emptying of those footprints was the goal of the murderers and the worst nightmare of their victims.The CONTINUED emptiness of the footprints represents a legacy of the killers,a trophy of their triumph,achieved all too literally over the dead bodies of the victims who had all their hopes and dreams of life with those footprints NOT empty ended in catastrophe. We honor them by reclaiming those dreams for future generations to carry on in their footsteps and make their own.We can preserve the memory of those who died while denying a legacy to their killers. Even one corner footing,anchored in bedrock where Osama bin Laden demanded there be no building and rising into the heavens,makes an indispensable statement in repudiation of his will. The portion of the old footprints not used by the new Towers should be delineated on the ground as part of the memorial area,perhaps sunken below the surrounding ground level,planted with seasonal flowers,framed by fragments of the old facade.They could serve as gateways to the memorial museum. The memorial museum I see as occupying all or part of the site of the old hotel.(The new hotel should not have to look out on a somber memorial).I see it as something similar to the Holocaust Museum in Washington,where people are issued cards about particular Jews who suffered under the Nazis,given developments in that person's life at various stages through the museum,and learn only at the end whether that person lived or died...except that only those who died in the World Trade Center would be its focus...there would be interactive features,audio-visuals etc,aimed at letting people know as much as the families would allow to be learned about each person who died. There would be some rooms and areas set apart for family members only for as long as immediate family members survive. The dead at the Pentagon and Shanksville should be remembered with monuments outside the museum...more particular focus on them being more appropriate to the sites of their respective deaths or lives. Memorialization should also be reflected in the new Towers... the lobbies should carry engraved lists of those rescue workers, visitors,and airline passengers died in the fall of the corresponding old tower,and each floor should have an elevator-lobby plaque listing the dead who worked on that floor,where appropriate.And rooftop memorial gardens,enclosed by glass,might provide a spot for reflection in the heavens,secure in the knowledge that the ground the fallen stood on had been fully reclaimed. Street grid restoration should be minimal...the superblock allows for more flexibility in siting buildings and other structures,and more security from attacks of the truck-bomb nature.The six plans hitherto offered ALL restore Greenwich Street COMPLETELY through the site,which constitutes the largest obstacle to sensible compromise on the footprints,forcing any buildings not right on them to be across a street from them if anywhere near them at all. My preferred embodiment leaves the superblock intact south of Fulton Street,restoring Greenwich Street only down to Fulton, and putting the cultural structures (opera house or whatever) on the new blocks north of Fulton.A streetcar line should be built to cross Manhattan on Fulton Street,from the World Financial Center to the Fish Market. Streetcars are well known to be more efficient than bus lines and much cheaper than subways.This line,the possible precursor of a larger system(one leg of the proposed "Liberty Loop" as well as possibly connecting with a line up Greenwich Street or others),would cross West Street on a wide bridge with pedestrian lanes,possibly skirting a remodelled Winter Garden to have a stop at the ferry terminal(the opposite ferry terminal in New Jersey already connects with a light rail line to Hoboken).It would connect with other transportation lines along its route,enhancing the transportation improvements below ground.A corresponding bridge across West Street for the Liberty Street leg of the "Loop" might be built at this time in case the other legs are completed,but I see little point in continuously decking over West Street between the bridges,and note the strenuous objections to tunnelling West Street raised in the Online LTTC by Battery Park City residents. Transportation improvements are certainly useful,and remembering that most area residents do not own cars and walk to work,they should be more mass-transit oriented than motor-vehicle oriented. The subterranean PATH connections can be improved,with "people movers" and other disabled-friendly amenities that as noted will make it more like an air terminal. The Tower Bonds I've suggested for a while seem to have found another mirror in Richard Krasney's suggestion of "Ground Zero Bonds" (a less pleasant name,I think)...but in a larger sense absolutely no avenue of raising money to make the towers very, very tall should remain unexplored before offering a claim that it can not be afforded.While Silverstein has the right to operate the new towers,I think it would be good for all supporters of the reclamation of the stolen heights of the skyline to have a way of investing in the realization of this dream.The more bonds sold, the taller the towers. The Civic Alliance website has a PDF version of their July 31st meeting and a resolution it passed...but no HTML version yet. A direct,lighting-a-tree-up-like-a-neon-sign-and-digging-ditches- in-the-ground lightning strike has severed the machine here that can read PDF files from my LAN...could someone summarize for me? (I work in a unix-text environment). August 13th will see a big daylong hearing on skyscraper safety codes at the US Custom House at Bowling Green...of course the new Towers would be the safest buildings ever,but anti-rebuilders may use this event to promote mischievous and ridiculous requirements... and complain loudly that Port Authority properties are not bound by the codes to obtain promises that this will be ignored in rebuilding. The safety design of the new Towers should speak for itself. As I noted,you are far safer on the 120th floor of a 120-story building that will fall in an hour and a half,than on the fourth floor of a 40-story building that will fall in a minute and a half. And a 767 flown into a 40-story building would indeed flatten it in a period in that timeframe.We need engineering marvels,not timid "blending into the cityscape". We can't repeat Eli Attia's maxim often enough, "any 100 story building is safer than any 50-story building"...and people should see his commentary at http://www.phoenixusa.org/ for more details. The specific 110-or-more story buildings we advocate would also be safer than any 85-or-less-story buildings that have been proposed! The resource link list remains at http://www.put.com/wtc/ for your perusal. -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.