Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 23:39:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Louis Epstein Subject: More Regarding WTC Rebuilding I append at the base of this email correspondence that I just exchanged with Dr. Matthew Hardy,following my reading of the web page http://www.intbau.org/NewYork.htm . If you have a graphical browser,like most people...I don't normally use one,but did borrow a computer with one as I periodically do to check this site's graphics...it starts with a BEAUTIFUL picture of a sailboat in Upper New York Bay with the Twin Towers rising behind it over the lower Manhattan skyline. Unfortunately,it's all downhill from there...his letter,below, claims INTBAU "does not support any particular position with regard to the reconstruction of lower Manhattan",but the references to the plaza at the WTC site as "miserable" and "unloved" and the other indications of preference in the text make clear that they are rather cheerful about the prospect of a Twinless future. I regret offending him with an analogy I think more apt than he wants to admit...haters of what the Twins represented in architecture and urban design rushing in when the Twins have been toppled by a terrible crime are as vulture-like as haters of monarchy rushing in if his patron the Prince of Wales were assassinated. If you care to look at his web page and comment on it in a sincere,non-vulgar way,go ahead and write to him. As I indicated,I like the looks of older skyscrapers; I could live with a pair of Beaux-Arts towers of at least 110 stories and at least 1368 feet in height rising on the old superblock, a pair of Art Deco towers of at least 110 stories and at least 1368 feet in height rising on the old superblock, a pair of Gothic Revival towers of at least 110 stories and at least 1368 feet in height rising on the old superblock, or a pair of towers of just about any style of at least 110 stories and at least 1368 feet in height rising on the old superblock, though I think people trying to prove their design was more effective than Yamasaki's at doing what was needed would have a steep challenge. Reconciling the rebuilding of the body and the spirit of the WTC is a LOT easier than it is for those who want a new Titanic...the Titanic was forty-odd thousand gross tons and under nine hundred feet long, there were thousand-foot ships of eighty thousand gross tons built in the mid-1930s and today's supership under construction is 150,000 tons and over 1100 feet long. By comparison,the Towers would only need to be extended to 119 stories to have a higher roofline than the Taipei Financial Center,the tallest building under construction (roofline 1470 feet,spire 1667).(Even 118 stories and poking the elevator shaftheads above the flat roof would do it). The revision of the Principles and Preliminary Blueprint the Whitehead group's timeline promised for today has not appeared on their website (nor has their summary of the public comments and how they are being dealt with).I will of course keep an eye out for this and post news to the list. Meanwhile,their vice president for planning,Alex Garvin(who I gave a printed copy of my comments to just after the May 23 hearing),will be in a live Java web chat for an hour from NOON,TUESDAY,JUNE 11TH at the http://www.gothamgazette.com/rebuilding_nyc/ website. Questions will be moderated,whether asked during the chat or sent in advance to rebuilding@gothamgazette.com...duplicative questions will be winnowed out in favor of the best phrased versions,and probably they will want many issues dealt with,but we should try to make the interest in restored Towers obivous to moderator and listeners alike. I learned of the above from a NYCS board post by Simone, one of the people whose AOL address *does not work*. I appreciate her heads-up but can't get in touch with her. Argus Sventon has suggested that we have an interactive meeting of our own...the quickest venue for that might be a talker I have running on a server here,generally completely deserted since it has a code bug so crippling I don't advertise it.(It's themed on L. Frank Baum's Oz books,but I'm sure Ozma won't mind if we hold pro-Towers meetings in her palace). If there's interest in this among those with telnet clients, email me for the port address and we can schedule a meeting. Mitra Samadani has pointed out that registering for the July 20th event through the www.listeningtothecity.org website DOES produce the confirmation email that only one other of you has mentioned receiving,and I have not received...I emailed Tara Colton about this today,no response.So this might be a better way than the live-person contact of calling 800-862-3154. List policies...absent configuring the mailman software I can move the address list to the BCC field,but that means that anyone who DOES try a reply-to-all will use an older version of the list (from a previous email) and thus send to people who have asked to be removed, or miss newly added people. We need to be the squeaky wheels to get our word out better than the anti-Tower crowd...but not obnoxious...and ever mindful that "the best can be the enemy of the good".The common enemy is the construction of only buildings shorter than the old Towers, and whatever our preferences of detail we have to stay united against that. Now here's the message I got from Hardy,and my email he responded to. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:29:02 +0100 From: Matthew Hardy To: 'Louis Epstein' Subject: RE: New York's Needs Dear Mr Epstein, Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted. INTBAU does not support any particular position with regard to the reconstruction of Lower Manhattan, though in general we support the creation of walkable urbanism based on a connected grid of streets at ground level. We are however interested in the contributions by various groups to the planning process which appears to have led to the present situation, as we believe that the introduction of democracy into planning processes is an important goal. Our web site reports the comments and views of the speakers and writers who have participated in the debate about the rebuilding of the site. If, as part of that debate, the size or other details of the replacement buildings turns out to be different to the WTC towers, then we will report that. As the original towers were designed some 30 years ago, I would expect that a new design would be different, if only to accommodate the changes which communications technology have brought to office design. I expect too that structural safety and means of egress for the inhabitants might become increasingly importance in all new designs for super-tall buildings, given the high death toll from the attack, and the undoubted liability issues which will follow for architects and engineers. Similarly, we understand that it has become difficult to let space in many of the taller towers in New York and other US cities. This is likely to become a commercial consideration in future buildings. Finally, while I understand that you found our New York webpage is not to your liking, I find your comparison with the assassination of The Prince of Wales an offensive one which does your cause no service. Yours faithfully, Matthew Hardy Dr Matthew Hardy International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture & Urbanism c/- The Prince's Foundation, 19-22 Charlotte Road, London EC2A 3SG, UK +44 20 7613 8520, fax: +44 20 7613 8599, mhardy@princes-foundation.org http://www.intbau.org/ "one world, many traditions" > ---------- > From: Louis Epstein > Sent: Monday, June 3, 2002 3:56 am > To: mhardy@princes-foundation.org > Subject: New York's Needs > Message Flag: Follow up > Flag Status: Flagged > > > I have recently examined the INTBAU "New York page", > headed as it is by a beautiful picture of the Lower > Manhattan skyline,dominated by the beloved Twin Towers > of the World Trade Center. > > I regret your apparent bias in favor of those who > would replace the Towers with radically different and > lesser buildings,restoring the cramped street grid in > place of the spacious plaza. > > I am not,unlike some of my colleagues in the movement > to ensure the Twin Towers are rebuilt to their full height, > particularly wedded to "International Style" architecture, > which I gather INTBAU exists in part to vilify...but the > naivete shown by those wilfully blind to the symbolic > impact of immense icons being replaced,once destroyed, > by far lesser buildings is disturbing. > > Whatever one thought of the design of the Towers, > their replacement by shorter structures is a concession > to the murderers of thousands of good people,and taking > advantage of the catastrophe to urge drastic alteration > of the architecture of the area is aligning oneself with > the authors of the tragedy. > > As your organization is under the patronage of HRH the > Prince of Wales,perhaps this analogy would be of interest: > if His Royal Highness were assassinated,would you praise > those who took the occasion of his funeral to urge the > establishment of a republic? > > I would think not...and so also those who dislike what > the Twin Towers stood for are not well-advised to take > advantage of their destruction.The destruction of the > Towers must not stand. > > Argue,if you like,for other designs for buildings of no > less than 110 stories and no less than 1,368 feet to stand > on the site.But to argue for a smaller scale is to argue > that it was a proper thing for the terrorists to "cut us > down to size". > > New planning for Lower Manhattan can be a good thing; > plans that do not include gigantic landmark twin towers > dominating the skyline can not. > > Louis Epstein > > -=-=- > The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, > at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.