Opportunity Lost

Originally written on Oct. 10, 2001 by the Indignant Citizen when he was ... um, the Pre-Indignant Citizen:

Lately there’s been a lot of discussion in architecture and planning circles about what to do with the site that used to be the World Trade Center. Personally, starting to look ahead has helped me put this tragedy in perspective and allowed me to move on emotionally. The towers were as much of a symbol of New York–perhaps more so–as the Statue of Liberty. You could see them from miles away and they helped orient you. Their loss as physical structures, while leaving a hole, doesn’t compare with the immense loss of life at the site.

For families or friends of those who died when the planes hit and the towers fell, memorial services can begin the healing process. But what about for the rest of us? It seems to me the best course of action is to start talking about the future.
Much has been said and written about what should be done with the site. To start, let’s boil the arguments down into two categories: rebuild the towers as they were, or do something else.

This seems to me to be an easy choice. Rebuilding the towers as they were would be a monumental mistake done for purely sentimental and patriotic reasons. Instead let’s be practical for a moment. The Twin Towers and their accompanying buildings supplied 20 million to 25 million square feet of office space and were considered at the time to be highly efficient uses of space. But their inefficiencies probably killed thousands. It takes more than an hour to evacuate a 110-story using stairwells. An hour after the first plane hit, the south tower had collapsed. The north tower followed a short time later.

Buildings that tall have proven to be unsafe, not just if planes fly into them and explode, but in the event of any kind of damage. They are too big to be practical. And consider for a moment that at the time the World Trade Center complex was destroyed, New York City had a glut of approximately 25 million square feet of vacant office space. Much of that has now been taken, as well as hundreds of thousands of additional square feet across the Hudson in New Jersey, in the northern suburbs and on Long Island.

We don’t need to replace every square foot of space lost at the World Trade Center site. Let’s rebuild much of it, but allow other neighborhoods to absorb– and benefit from–smaller businesses that were displaced. That will help neighborhoods that were in decline or that never cashed in on the prosperity of the 1990s.

Another argument against rebuilding the World Trade Center as it was is that in fact the complex used space inefficiently. Its elevated, windswept plaza was an underutilized, impersonal waste of space. The complex was closed off from the surrounding street grid, making it an island on an island. Its monumental scale discouraged pedestrian traffic unless you had business there. The nature of the business that went on in the Trade Center discouraged mixed-income housing in lower Manhattan. Sure, some of the professional people who worked in the Trade Center lived in nearby Battery Park City, but most of them had above-average incomes or two professionals in the home.

Rebuilding the same inefficient complex would present the same problems and waste an opportunity to weave the site back into the urban fabric of a part of New York that, prior to Sept. 11, was taking small steps toward becoming a vibrant, 24-hour community. It would also ensure that lower Manhattan would remain an area where only the wealthy could afford to live.

If we eliminate rebuilding the WTC as it was, we’re left with only one question: What should we build there instead?

To this question there are many answers. I’m not an architect, so I won’t attempt to sketch out any rough drawings of what may eventually rise from the World Trade Center’s ashes and twisted metal skeleton. But planners and architects who eventually work on the project should keep several things in mind:

Whatever is eventually built there should have a human scale. The World Trade Center was in some respects too big to comprehend. Standing at the base of one of the towers and looking up, there was no sense of where the top of the tower was. The hulking black office buildings that were 4, 5 and 6 World Trade Center, although they were much shorter, did little to help the overwhelming impact of the plaza. Everything about the complex was giant. Even the in the center of the plaza fountain was huge.

Obviously, some space needs to be reserved for a memorial. If we extend the street grid into the site, perhaps two or four of the central blocks could be turned into a park with a memorial at its center. The park needs to have grassy areas, plenty of trees, benches, curving paths. Perhaps a fountain at its center that incorporates part of the steel skeleton of the Trade Center. The memorial needs to inspire hope for the future while at the same time serving as a reminder of that day. But the park should not only be a memorial. It should bring the surrounding community together, serve as a focal point for gatherings like concerts and rallies. It should draw the area’s residents and serve as a tranquil place in the midst of the city for lunches, sun bathing, reading. Picture something on the scale of a Union Square. Perhaps it could incorporate an ice skating rink on a plaza and/or some kind of outdoor amphitheater for summer plays and concerts. Around the park would rise new office buildings, many with ground-floor retail. It would be Rockefeller Center on a grander, greener scale. We might also incorporate a new museum, one celebrating lower Manhattan’s history. This is an opportunity to continue introducing cultural institutions into the area, thereby broadening the mix of visitors.

Any new construction should encourage a mix of uses. The World Trade Center had its underground mall, but it catered almost exclusively to office workers and commuters wandering through its corridors between trains or on their way from train to office. It did not draw pedestrians from above. Of course, there is a need to replace lost office space. However as I mentioned there is no need to replace the entire 25 million square feet. One proposal to build four buildings varying in height from 50-60 stories is a step in the right direction. But these should not be clustered on plaza as was the previous design. Instead, build these buildings on the blocks formed by the street grid. Return car and–more importantly–pedestrian traffic to the area. On the ground floors of these new office buildings should be retail stores, restaurants and bars. Perhaps one building could be modeled on the Chicago Place mall, with eight or nine stories of stores topped by an office building or hotel. In the basement of this building could be a supermarket that stays open late to draw residents from nearby areas. Somewhere there needs to be a movie theater or some other kind of business that draws crowds after the office workers have gone home.

At present, many Battery Park City residents are frustrated by the lack of information coming from the city and federal agencies in charge of the cleanup around the Trade Center site. Their frustration is understandable, as is the authorities’ need to keep some information under wraps. This is, after all, still a crime scene. The real risk here is that these frustrated residents will pack up and move away once they’re allowed back in. To be sure, some of the remaining apartments may be uninhabitable. Either the landlords and developers are going to have to pay to clean these places up, or the city or federal government will have to provide some kind of subsidy. These apartments must be restored and they must be filled with residents as soon as possible. This was an area on the verge of becoming a viable, 24-hour neighborhood. Ironically, the destruction of the World Trade Center may help further this development–if the area is cleaned up and the right mix of development occurs.

The World Trade Center was a vital transportation hub, as we’re all learning now that the subway service on the 1,9, N, R and PATH trains has been disrupted for what may turn out to be years. It must be a hub again. However we should take this opportunity to expand service there. Along with improved connections between the PATH and other city subways, the Long Island Railroad should build a station underneath lower Manhattan. I envision an expansive underground network of passageways and subway stations, with retail stores that cater to commuters similar to what used to be under the World Trade Center, but less mall-like and easier to navigate.

When we talk of extending the street grid, we must keep in mind that this should be a pedestrian-oriented area, not a car-oriented area. The sidewalks should be wide, the streets should be narrow, in keeping with the feel east of Broadway. Unlike the area east of Broadway, sidewalks in the new development should have trees to serve as a buffer between pedestrians and the street.

July 6, 2005: That’s as far as I got. Needless to day, none of that came to pass and what has been proposed instead seeks to replace all of the lost office space, build a “monument building” on the site and completely ignores the fabric of the surrounding neighborhood. This assumes anything at all gets built. The foot-dragging and appeasement that occurred early on, with squabbles among the families of office victims’ families and firefighters’ families, only set the table for the delays to come.

We’re approaching the four-year anniversary, and what have we got? We have a proposal for a poorly-designed, inartistic, over-large office tower sitting on a defensive pedestal with no relationship to the street. Replacing the Twin Towers with this boondoggle will send a clear message to the terrorists for sure. It says: “You win.”

On the Web: Lower Manhattan Development Coorporation