Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:42:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Louis Epstein Subject: WTC:Media Spin,Hard Bargains,Federal Hall At LTTC II we produced the votes to show that the buildings being too short and not monumental enough was the single worst element in the presented plans...yet the media spin,even in the New York Post,has rather uniformly been that the message sent was to reduce the size of the office space. We need to spread the word that cutting the office space on which the PA gets rentals will hit everyone who crosses the Hudson,takes an airplane to or from a Port Authority airport, or uses goods shipped through New York Harbor...PA officials seem prepared to yield to downsizing pressure,and I don't know how easily Silverstein might swallow this. Today's 200-person LTTC overflow event appears to have gone a bit worse for us than the main event...the AP reports that almost half of those there voted "to integrate the structures in a unified whole that evokes the sense that the whole thing is a memorial". The office buildings set the context for the memorial,of course; unless they are at least as tall as the Twins they tell the world that the killers of those the memorialized were the triumphant ones; but I don't think that's how the people today were seeing it. Garvin was on television today pledging that the three Phase II plans would look thoroughly different from the Phase I plans. But if the voices of those demanding very tall,monumental buildings fall below the din of whining for a vast valley of death amid the concrete canyons they won't be different in the right way. Do NOT forget to write your comments on the site proposals, to the addresses I've posted in recent emails...this is our chance to have a higher proportion of the voices raised be on our side than was the case at LTTC II,which was coordinated and aggressively recruited for by the Civic Alliance groups with their agenda of an altered city without heroic skyscrapers. Joseph Nappi suggests that those of us in New York and New Jersey write our elected representatives to raise the issue of PA lost revenue from any downsizing of the revenue-producing space hitting commuters and passengers and others in the wallet.The potential IS there for the general public to suffer "compassion fatigue" when it comes to the outspoken self-appointed representatives of the victims' families,though we are not at that point yet.The first anniversary of the attacks will mark a crescendo of attention,but the first anniversary of the disaster is always more observed than any later one.This issue of their wanting something that will cost people every day will seem worth it to some,but not to everybody. The NY Post poll and message board stopped linking from their main page today,if you go to http://nypost.com/poll/nyp1.htm you'll find a poll on another issue but still plenty of WTC related comments,the majority pro-rebuilding,on the "Sound off on our message board" link.Letters there today were also mostly pro-rebuilding. We hope this represents the REAL majority view but the Whitehead clique will ignore it given the slightest chance,we must speak loudly and often enough to deny that chance. I wasn't able to listen to Andy Martin's broadcast today, but Argus Sventon emailed me that his proposal got mentioned. Erik Sieb has sent even more email addresses yet to be filtered for inclusion on the list. In times ahead we may be offered some proposals that we will have to think hard about.I don't think...I know some differ... that it's wise to come to the table making concessions up front that we can make later on a basis that we are owed something in exchange for them.If we have to be pushed off the old footprints we're likelier not to have to settle for sites across a street from them,I think...though the archmemorialists may well be our allies in the uphill battle to keep Greenwich Street from going south of Fulton. But what do we do with a proposed building that has a higher roof than the old Towers but a smaller number of floors? As I noted a while back,with a fifteen-foot height-to-floor ratio a 1380-foot building would have only 92 stories,while with the Twin Towers' HFR it would have 111.I think the "modern" design is wasteful,and the stairs would have to be further vertically AND horizontally between each floor.We should press for more, but how much can we get? What do we do with a proposed building that is as tall or taller than the old Twins but has a smaller footprint and less gross square footage,even if it has the same or a greater number of floors? When one building at least 1368 feet tall is proposed,how hard do we hold out for more? What do we do regarding a proposal of a mixed-use building? This would involve integrating the hotel space or housing into a tower otherwise used for offices.It's perfectly fine,I think, if they're constructed within the same footprint,but the preferred size for hotel/residential floors is significantly smaller than for office floors...this would translate into a setback at some high level below which there would be offices and above which other uses,and this has a number of drawbacks: *No bearing-wall construction,since bearing-wall buildings can not have setbacks. *No large column-free expanses in the offices, since without bearing-wall construction there have to be interior columns that form the basis of the outer walls of the building above the setback. *No really prominent signature office space, since the high floors would be designed to the residential size and floor plans. *Observation deck and highest-floor restaurant space limited to the size of the hotel/residential floors.(And if the tower is not a twin,the restaurant and obs deck have to be even smaller,or on separate floors). *The gross square footage of such a building would represent a significant retreat from the old Twins unless it was MUCH taller. Offering residences on an office-sized floor might be hard because of the relative lack of exterior windows,which people who live there--and especially tourists who might stay there particularly for the view--want to have more than people who work there. In attempting to make a residential or hotel layout of my concept tower floor of 220 x 220 feet with a 140 x 80 elevator core and four stairwell cores surrounding it there would be severe constraints. Even assuming the elevator core shrank above the office floors the stairwell cores would have to have hallway access to both stairs in each of them,rather than having the stairs be interior to any apartment.This would force apartments reaching the building corners to be comparatively narrow there. I'm not sure what the mose effective means of parcelling out the scarce window frontage would be.If it took "affordable housing" concessions to make the building get approved to a sufficient height,the cheap apartments might be in interior locations linked by a community lounge/recreation area on an outside wall.When the low-rent concession period ended this space could be renovated into other uses. On the other hand,an argument for the large floors being retained throughout would be safety...wider floors are more stable floors, and would..."fighting the last war" or not...take much larger airplanes hitting them to cause catastrophic damage to the building above. (Jason Fane suggested the mixed-use concept,I'm just bringing up the considerations it would involve). On Wednesday the exhibit of the models of the Phase I proposals opens at Federal Hall...a bit anti-climactic now that they have all received high-profile trashings. It seems to me that this might present a good opportunity for us to seek support,at least for the "soft petition" available at http://www.put.com/wtc/petition.html for printout and circulation. Pro-rebuilders should go there (I hope to make it before the August public hearing) and try to talk to others there,maybe bring along photos of the Twins for shaming comparison to the models,if none are present. I don't know how regulated the exhibit will be in terms of keeping people from talking to each other or asking for petition signatures, either inside the exhibit or right outside the building,but it seems there's a chance that people on their own time can be approached and ideas offered. So,if you have free time...students on summer vacation,people between jobs,etc...and can get there easily enough,this could be fertile ground for swelling the ranks of those who want buildings at least as tall as the Twins considered...and getting that voice heard in the corridors of power.Since there's a comment opportunity AT the exhibit,we should of course take every advantage of that as well! See you on the 111th floor on 9-11-11! -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.