Common Ground “I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York’s skyline.”
— The Fountainhead Now that the “Libeskind Master Plan” may be on its last legs and the “Master Development Agreement” between the Port Authority and Silverstein Properties appears to be structurally unsound, things are finally looking up at the World Trade Center. There are a host of factors that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the current plan doesn’t work and never will. But what is remarkable about the current situation is that there are virtually no objective reasons to conclude otherwise. The Belton-Gardner “Twin Towers II” plan is the logical successor to “Twin Towers I.” Efforts to stubbornly press on, lavishing public funds on something clearly inferior, is a crime. In December, 2009, the arbitration panel noted that the goal of the Port Authority and Silverstein Properties is to:
With that standard in mind, we encourage readers to ask themselves if that is really what we are doing and if there a better way to do it. If we can establish that the current project lacks integrity, then it is incurable, no matter how many contracts may be in effect or procurements may be “in the pipeline.” The conventional “wisdom” is that Mr. Silverstein was mortally wounded by the January 26th ruling, and that Mr. Ward was immeasurably strengthened. But how is a plan that asks Americans to lower their expectations and settle for a sadly diminished World Trade Center something to boast about or funnel public funds into? It is time for the media to lift the embargo on “Twin Towers II” – a plan that is much more in keeping with our national character and spirit – and show respect for the American people’s discernment and common sense. We will convincingly discredit efforts to suggest that the right course at Ground Zero is just a matter of opinion. News that steel has reached the 20th floor is actually very bad news for Port Authority Executive Director Christopher Ward, unless he can show that the current project has redeeming value, other than its imputed inevitability. After all, New York is demolishing its second stadium in two years to make way for something better. The people don’t just want a better World Trade Center – they want and deserve the best World Trade Center. If that steel and a few acres of concrete are all that is standing in the way of the 21st-century Twin Towers that the people of New York, America, and the world have asked for – particularly when the pragmatic course would be to stop servicing a lemon and start building a World Trade Center that hums – then Mr. Ward is in an unenviable position. He told us a year ago when we sat in his office that he was going to look into the practicality of changing course and then put the plan on steroids instead. Americans are not good candidates for hoodwinking and don’t want a World Trade Center with an asterisk after its name. We are doing all in our power to expose the facts before it becomes even more costly to correct. Unfortunately for Mr. Ward, the “Twin Towers II” design is so economically superior, so much more efficient to construct, that the savings it offers will pay for the transition. If the Executive Director of the Port Authority respects the public that pays his salary, he will address the substance of our claims. It is dishonest to pretend that there is no feasible alternative to the current badly distressed project, that the only choice is to move forward or go back. Moving forward implies that we are going where we want to go, not just where some bureaucrats want to take us (with our own money.) After years of striving to promote “What the People Want – What New York Needs – What America Deserves,” we at the Twin Towers Alliance have learned a lot about how this country works — as well as what hampers its working order. The controversy over the 9/11 trials demonstrated the public’s vital role in guiding our course. But vigilance is only possible when the full spectrum of information is broadcast and the media is willing to host the debate. Sadly, that was not the case when it came to rebuilding the World Trade Center. Instead, strong support for new Twin Towers was nullified, the facts were manipulated, the public’s right to know was abrogated, and we are all paying the price. The record speaks for itself, but there is no point now in questioning the motives of the media, officials, Mr. Silverstein, or others. We think that everyone, from Gov. Pataki on down, deserves the presumption that, contrary to appearances, they thought they were promoting the best course for our wounded nation. Mistakes were the result of our massive, collective concussion. What counts now is to realize that no one can justify support for the current plan, unless they are ready to demonstrate, at least to themselves, that it is a rational choice — because no real progress is likely at the WTC as long as the aim is to find creative new ways to try to jam a square peg into a round hole. Our common goal, now more than ever, must be to build something that will uplift and reward our country. We will only succeed by employing common sense — not by avoiding it. After years of disappointments and excuses, a unique dynamic is making the Twin Towers’ return to America’s Skyline a very real possibility. The arbitration panel charged with mediating the dispute between the Port Authority and Larry Silverstein — the public agency and the private developer responsible for revitalizing our World Trade Center — has given the parties 45 days to get on the same page, or the panel is authorized to dictate a new development plan. In other words, anything could happen. Anything. Something that is never mentioned but well worth noting is that there was no disagreement between these two parties immediately following the attacks. It is a reasonable guess that if they had been allowed to go with their gut reactions, that would have resulted in impressive new Twin Towers in record time. Mr. Silverstein called the head of Tishman Construction on September 12, 2001, and said, “John, we’re going to rebuild these things.” Certainly the rank-and-file Port Authority support for rebuilding was — and remains — strong. And the people hoped for new Twin Towers from the moment they went down. Unfortunately, that was all short-circuited by Governor Pataki, who had other ideas for the site. In the spurious 2002 “Listening to the City” process, there was ample evidence of singularly strong popular support for new Twin Towers, but it was never integrated into the official agenda, or made part of the competition, where it could have been widely debated and evaluated. Instead, all the public urging to quickly rebuild was swept under the rug and wasn’t even given an honorable mention in the string of “documentaries” and reports on 9/11. Now fast-forward past all the controversy and questionable assumptions to where we are today. It is inconceivable that a candidate would run a campaign, or a company would promote a product without getting the input of a focus group, because public opinion has value. So, particularly given the breakdown at the site, and taking both the public’s emotional and financial investment – past, present, and future – into consideration, it is not too much to ask that where we go from here be tested in the public square. After all, when Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck passionately agree on something, that’s some testimonial. This report is the culmination of years of observation and striving that has produced hundreds of thousands of written words in an attempt to shed light on “the rest of the story.” What we are in effect conducting here is a virtual focus group, in which each person who reads this will have the private chance to assess the relative strength of the two plans and decide whether they would certify the current direction if asked to put their names to it. It is not being written for those who form their opinions based on sound bites and talking points, but for those who really want to understand a complex and momentous matter and will recognize the missing pieces to a national quandary when they see them. We are escalating our efforts to get high-level attention. One initiative is a request to the Senate Finance Committee (and each of its members) to make the routine Liberty Zone reauthorization, part of the original Federal stimulus for Lower Manhattan, which will be voted on before much longer, subject to a cost/benefit analysis. Under the circumstances, that is a very proper request. A credible evaluation of the current project is overdue. So is the simple standard of asking decision makers to be accountable — not for their past positions, but for their current handling of the issue. To sell the World Trade Center short and diminish its potential would cheat everyone — including the Port Authority and Silverstein Properties. One factor that should be taken into consideration when judging what follows is that “Twin Towers II” doesn’t just win every popularity contest, but has the unqualified support of some unimpeachable authorities in the building profession, who have studied the plans and found the project superior to the official plan in every way. It is unthinkable that such eminent individuals would involve themselves in a political boondoggle, but we are confident that when they see that the matter is being taken seriously, they will step forward, leaving the cynics speechless. What makes the current opportunity so promising for a real solution, instead of the doh-si-doh of the last five years is the scope of the arbitration. In 2006, a Master Development Agreement was entered into by the Port Authority (PA) and Silverstein Properties (SPI) that accepted binding arbitration. The current issues make for a fascinating read for anyone who wants to wade through the actual ruling, which is appended below. The fundamental breakdown we now see is the result of the developer not having the funds to build the three towers for which he is responsible, and on which he must continue to pay rent, while the Port Authority is unwilling to rob Peter to pay Paul. There is also the sleeper issue of whether or not the Port Authority may lawfully underwrite any of the Silverstein properties. But the advantages of “Twin Towers II” dramatically resolve every drawback and deficiency in the current plan, which creates a unique situation for the arbitration panel. The arbitrators stated goal is to heed the central purpose of the MDA (not to support the MDA itself) which is “to provide for the redevelopment of the new World Trade Center [which] will result in a world class environment of the highest quality.” There is no way they can ignore “Twin Towers II” – a plan that can actually accomplish that goal in a way that is clearly the preference of the majority of the American people, and do it, even at this late date, for the money already budgeted, far in advance of the current Silverstein forecast of 2017 for the completion of Towers 2, 3, and 4. The seemingly “divine rule” that has operated for too long at the site is likely to come to an abrupt end, leaving Mr. Ward wishing the steel for the tower nobody wants had never reached 20 stories – but even that is hardly a major impediment in a city that is currently demolishing Yankee Stadium – its second stadium in two years – while New Jersey pulls down Giants’ Stadium. The concrete and steel at the site becomes negligible in that context. In their Supplemental Order, the arbitrators required that parties agree to modify the development plan “with a fair and realistic regard for the interests of both parties… all to be done in light of the public’s special interest in the completion and success of the Trade Center Redevelopment.” If that is the standard it cannot be applied capriciously. Furthermore, the panel retained the right “alternatively to prescribe for the parties a coordinated plan and development schedule for the completion of the project” – the project being, not the MDA, but the Trade Center Redevelopment. The three arbitrators have the authority and, more importantly, a mandate, to look into substituting a plan that does not work on any level with a plan that works on every level: With so many tough challenges facing our country, why does this matter now? Because it is the model for the kind of concerted action that was built into our national DNA and is our surest defense. United We Stand isn’t a bromide, it’s an elixir. New Twin Towers would be the very best cure for what ails us. Cooperating, when we do agree, will prepare us to much more constructively cooperate, when we do not. That was the founding principle of the World Trade Center. It is the animating spirit behind the World Trade Centers Association, an organization that has been nominated, along with its founder, Guy Tozzoli, for the Nobel Peace Prize numerous times. It is an ideal that has fostered more than 300 WTCs in over 90 countries. The Twin Towers were so much more than mere buildings — they flew the banner of peaceful coexistence and bridged cultural divides. They really stood for something and they should again. News that the Obama administration’s top intelligence experts testified before the Senate intelligence committee that al-Qaeda or its allies will attempt a large-scale operation in the next six months that would cause mass casualties, harm the U.S. economy or both, means that we’d better get our thoughts collected. Are we going to shrink whenever hit and lose a war of attrition, letting fiends gnaw away at our country — or will we respond the way the Israeli’s do and refuse to give them something to point at and gloat over? Allowing our enemies to redesign the World Trade Center is the first step to being terror-ized. An artifact of the 2002 “Listening to the City” events — one of hundreds of “public comment cards” — still speaks powerfully to the challenge of today: “Just as I want my wife back, people want their towers back. The main difference is the former is possible, the latter, not… Don’t let today’s fears, control tomorrow’s dreams.” Isn’t that just what we ended up doing — and all we got in the end was a consolation prize that has proved to be no consolation at all? But “the former is possible” still. We are not on a conveyor belt. We have a breathtaking opportunity to raise a World Trade Center that will be a credit to our nation for generations to come. So, it is time to decide — once and for all: Are we going to just “make the best of it” or will we make it the best? WTC Arbitration Decision, Interim Award and Supplemental Order The following integrity check invites all who have considered what’s been presented above to ask themselves how they would sign off, if given the opportunity to go on the record… Based on the foregoing, I, ______________________________________, certify that, if the facts are accurately presented, the only responsible course for the World Trade Center is to: _________ Continue with the current development full-steam ahead. _________ Immediately adopt the “Twin Towers II” plan and go full-steam ahead. _________ Conduct an expedited, independent, fully transparent analysis to determine the facts. Twin Towers II | World Trade Center Phoenix “World Trade Center Phoenix” was the imprint on all the original Belton-Gardner plans going back to 2003. “Twin Towers II” is the popular name of the project, perhaps first used in print by New York Times architecture critic Herbert Muschamp in 2004. The new site is still being finalized, and there are enhancements to the design that are not reflected in some of the images, but it is convincing proof that the rightful heir to “Twin Towers I” is “Twin Towers II.” WTC2011 is the Twin Towers Alliance look at the “Twin Towers II” project. As the timetable for the official plan disappears over the horizon, it will become clearer all the time that a galvanized effort could work miracles at the site. What really matters is that even if only the tridents were in view by 2011, it would still be the most visited destination on earth — the location, not of the tallest towers in the world, but without question, the most celebrated. The Worldwide Coalition to Rebuild the Twin Towers A new social networking site is being developed that draws a direct connection between new Twin Towers and a better world. It reminds us that the future WTC will be a monument either to people who lost control of their planet or who took control of their destiny. It also draws the parallel between the founding mission of the World Trade Center and that of the Olympic Games — to promote peace on earth — and contends that the best shrine we could ever build to that ideal would be new Twin Towers, standing as sentinels beside a stirring, uplifting, memorial. |
