Friday, August 22, 2008

Dear Eliot, . . . . . Please be a true reformer

This is the second in a series of posts I am running. Each post will share one of a number of letters I have written to politicians representing us calling for them to take responsibilty on Atlantic Yards.

I invite others to borrow freely from them in structuring their own letters.

The first in this series was my letter to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to which, as you will see if you refer to my first post, I received a response.

I also received a response to this letter I sent to Eliot Spitzer when he was still governor. More on that later because that is an interesting story in itself.

This letter back in May of 2007 was CCed to the Brooklyn Heights Association. The Brooklyn Heights Association is part of Brooklyn Speaks. Brooklyn Speaks and the Brooklyn Heights Association are quite appreciative of how flawed a (mega!)project Atlantic Yards is. They are not powerless. I have called upon them to take effective action “Effective Action Needed From Brooklyn Speaks, BHA, etc.” (Picked up and posted by No Land Grab, March 19, 2008.)

This May 2007 letter also refers to City Councilman Bill de Blasio. Since the letter goes back a ways it would be fair to say that Mr. de Blasio’s position on Atlantic Yards has been shifting since that time. (Atlantic Yards Report, Wednesday, April 16, 2008 De Blasio's (late) AY conversion and the need for oversight and Brownstoner, April 15, 2008 De Blasio Blasts Ratner on AY Obfuscation) It would also be fair to say that de Blasio’s position needs to shift more and that he is one the politicians from whom we will need more effective action in order to make sure the stake is driven through the heart of Atlantic Yards. Our respect needs to be earned on this.

(Need we comment that, in retrospect, Eliot did not earn our respect or convince us of his legitimate credentials as an honest reformer.)


May 29, 2007

Hon. Eliot Spitzer
State of New York
State Capitol
Albany, New York, 12224

Re: Please Support Reform in Brooklyn- Conduct and Governance of Public Authorities

Dear Governor Spitzer:

We live in Brooklyn Heights and together with many of our colleagues in this neighborhood of skilled and informed professionals we count ourselves as amongst your most effective, aware and first supporters. We naturally contributed heavily, including contribution of our time, to ensure that Democrats won across the board in the last elections. Since Brooklyn Heights is a home community for many Wall-Streeters, we acknowledge that Brooklyn Heights is also replete with a complement of professionals many of whom are hostile to, or have reservations about, certain of the reforms you have pursued (more on this later)- but we must emphasize that we are among those who have strongly supported you because of your reform agenda.

This letter is to urge you to be reform-minded as set forth herein and to urge you to understand that for us reform in Albany begins in Brooklyn.

Last week we received a political polling call asking whether we were within a few blocks of Downtown Brooklyn: Absolutely, we are within fewer blocks than they asked. We were asked about which local politicians we supported, (de Blasio- Thumbs down,- Montgomery- Thumbs up, red-faced Markowitz- thumbs down). Lastly, we were asked whether there were any major issues we thought were affecting our community. To this we were very emphatic that our community and the rest of Brooklyn is very significantly threatened by unfolding events in which you, your administration and the authorities you oversee have a very significant role to play. That is what this letter is about.

We cannot think of anything that has ever threatened Brooklyn so profoundly as the politically embarrassing Atlantic Yards project. As currently proposed it has all of the following things egregiously wrong with it:

1. Excessive Density. The project is absurdly and offensively dense. As what will be the densest area of the entire USA, (seven times the overall density of Manhattan) it will be a significant multiple of what would be an appropriate density which might, instead, be the much lower density of Battery Park City.

2. Indefensible Condemnation. The peculiar “Boymelgreen wrench” shape of the project will be as famous to future urbanists, government and political scholars (not to mention all the rest of the public) as the salamander shape that gave rise to the verb “gerrymander.” The wrench shape that has been thrown into the inexcusably odd history of this project will be a perpetual high-relief reminder etched on the Borough’s skin and skyline of two indefensible aspects of the project’s progress through the system. The peculiar wrench shape comes about for two reasons:

a. The unnecessary, unjustified, inappropriate and overreaching condemnation of the Wards Bakery Building block. This block with quality buildings that should be put to adaptive reuse is obviously being condemned because it is not actually over the rail yards. Since expensive platforms will not have to be built and since the zoning override of normal density restrictions will give the developer value far in excess of the condemnation price he will pay, this overreaching is purely for the purpose of creating a windfall gift to the developer.

b. The donut-hole of the Shaya Boymelgreen-developed block of property which is in no appropriate way distinct from the surrounding property. The relationships and special treatment of Boymelgreen in this transaction do not bear examination. Possessed of the knowledge that I have as a former public official (and which I believe is readily available to you and the people who work for you), I feel particularly well qualified to reach a conclusion on this subject.

3. Improper Bid Process. Everyone knows that the process by which the single developer for the project was selected was improper. The public knows the developer was not the high bidder for the property. People are aware of the exclusion of other developers from the bid process. People know that the criteria for the bid and the public benefit were improperly derived from the to-be-selected-bidder and not, as should have been the case, by public officials doing their job. When people consider the matter, they appreciate quite clearly that the site should have been bid out in multiple parcels to multiple developers (which would result in faster development). No one ever says it isn’t so when people aptly attribute the choice of the developer to that developer’s close personal ties with the former Governor. People know that all of this was done with an appalling lack of transparency and that there are no producible documents that can adequately justify or document the making of the choice.

4. Very Poor Design Quality. The project’s design is far below the lowest baseline that ought to be acceptable. The worst part of the project’s design is the residential and public space portions, but the rest of is also inexcusably below standard, the Gehry name being just eyewash. As his “dirty iceburg” building that recently appeared on West Street attests, the name Gehry does not provide any guarantee of good design. Frankly, this is a very big task that is monumentally beyond him. I don’t ask you to accept my comments based on the fact that I have a degree in urban planning but I do ask you to consider the lucid comments from others such as the Municipal Arts Society. Among other things, there should be no wholesale closure of public streets. The poor design is particularly regrettable because in this instance there should be a very high degree of obligation for good design for the following reasons:

a. The Empire State Development Corporation is exercising a zoning override. Zoning overrides are not, per se, always necessary but when they are exercised for the purpose of superseding the minimum design standards of the zoning code there is an opportunity to achieve better, more suitable site designs. In such cases design standards should not be overridden unless better, not worse, standards will be achieved.

b. Extra-high density creates substantial extra sets of problems that can only be coped with, as
in the case of Battery Park City, with good design.

c. Low-quality design should never be accepted from a developer if, as in this case, public officials have abdicated their normally applicable responsibility to themselves specify and impose suitably high design standards that will apply.

5. Public Benefit Mirage. The project has been promoted on the basis that it will deliver public benefit. Should it ever be done, it should only be done on the basis that public benefit will be delivered. But the idea actual that public benefit will be delivered is an uncertain, receding and distant mirage. Brooklyn is split on the subject of whether there should be an arena. We ourselves don’t favor an arena at the project location but we accept the point of view of others and acknowledge that, on this, reasonable minds could differ. However, the arena is being so heavily subsidized with millions of public dollars that it cannot properly be said that the developer is delivering this public benefit. The basic problem with any prospect of public benefit in this project is that the developer, rather than responsible public officials, has been the one coming up with his own meandering assertions of a.) what will theoretically benefit the public, b.) how he “commits” to it, and c.) when it might possibly be delivered. Partly because this project was not bid out in multiple parcels to multiple developers, the more important benefits of delivering the residential and ostensible “public space” portions of the project have been thrust out years further into the future than makes any kind of sense. The practical result is that immediately and for the foreseeable future there is a project that delivers extraordinarily disproportionate private benefit to the developer while the public lives with a perhaps ever-receding mirage of vague promise. The chance that the developer will ever deliver is inadequate and probably totally undermined by the developer’s tack to soak up public housing subsidies that would simply have delivered the same benefit more effectively and sooner elsewhere. That the developer is failing to deliver real and timely public benefit and has no hard commitment to do so is rooted in the fact that there was never a fair bidding process where developers competed to earn the right to develop Vanderbilt Yards/AtlanticYards. Net, net: The project delivers burden not benefit to the public.

6. Improper Review and Conduct of Environmental Impact. The improper handling of the Environmental Impact Statement for the project is another part of the project’s processing and consideration which should have been handled properly and wasn’t. The EIS was rushed through in an attempt at perfunctory dispensation of a legal requirement before the last governor left office. The essence of the EIS requirement is that there should be due and proper substantive consideration of the environmental issues which was quite palpably not the goal, nor was it what was done by those charged with this further responsibility to the public.

We know that, in the end, you and your team need to evaluate all of the above. The public might perhaps excuse bad process if it brings about a good project. Or the public might overlook a project of normal density that is of somewhat below-average or mediocre design. A project delivering real public benefit on a timely basis, notwithstanding a peculiar set of condemnation procedures, might evoke only a normal level of public regret. But a project that rises 1.) with crushingly oppressive and unprecedented density, 2.) awful and insensitive design, 3.) a peculiar footprint that announces the project’s errant DNA and genesis, and 4.) whose public benefit is a mere distant mirage, achieves a trifecta-plus-one that ensures permanent public opprobrium. This will be an irritatingly monumented public opprobrium that appears on every city map, subway map and picture of the Brooklyn skyline.

We think that everyone understands that even though your administration was not involved initially, that the Atlantic Yards project will not now happen as proposed without your administration’s active support, which makes you one of the officials most responsible for the project going forward.

We noted at this letter’s outset that our community is comprised partly of those in the financial community with reservations and doubts about your reform agenda. When you took on Wall Street you stood up and did things that people disagreed with in the name of reform and we believed earnestly in what you were doing. Atlantic Yards cries out for the kind of reform you have said you believe in. It is one thing, a good thing, to stand up against the crowd and the powerful for what is right.- It is an entirely different matter to go against the community and its interests to escort to completion a project which is poisoned by corrupt process and unconscionable inequity and windfall. (With simple and straightforward wisdom, the local Community Board 6, in September, voted 35-4 to disapprove of the project as proposed in the July 18, 2006 General Project Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement "because it will cause irreparable damage to the quality of life in the borough of Brooklyn.") This is a defining moment for your administration which will inform, in retrospect, how people view your goals and values.

We need to report to you that people in the community are saying that you are not willing to listen to opposition to the project. People who are saying this also ascribe certain meanings to their assertion, usually mentioning that you have family involved in the real estate business. We are able to argue against some of the most cynical assertions, pointing out that now and in the future contributions from Forest City Ratner and kin will forever be off-limits to you. Arguments notwithstanding, in the end everyone is expecting to make their ultimate judgements based upon your actions.

Everyone knows you have excellent people working for you. Everyone knows that there are plenty of people working for you who are fully sensitive to everything that is wrong with the project as proposed. If you listen and let the wisdom and concerns percolate up from the people you hired to do their jobs, they will tell you that the project desperately needs to be fixed and it cannot be fixed without some serious back-to-the-drawing-board activity. (Going back to the drawing board there is opportunity to create a fabulous project.) You just need to tell them that you want to hear the truth and that they should think in those terms.

Many people are dealing with the proposed Atlantic Yards making the assumption that it won’t happen as planned or with some other mixture of denial. Some say the conventional wisdom in Albany is that the entire project will never be consummated as currently planned. Some say that decision-making politicians such as you are simply inadequately informed and some say that much of the public likewise doesn’t yet truly know what to expect. Rest assured though that it will not be until the project is physically manifesting itself that public alarm and scorn will climax. Until then, let our voice be the “canary in the coal mine” for you.- At the Brooklyn Heights Association we hung on your words, fascinated to hear once again what you had to say when you addressed us. We thought then we were ahead of the pack in picking the right man. We hope that we were right then and hope that you prove us so by realizing that we are right about this now.

I am writing this letter jointly with my wife who is cosigning it below reflecting our shared and common viewpoint. Sincerely, this matter is critically important.


Michael D. D. White

(& my wife)

CC: Brooklyn Heights Association

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Dear Mr. Bloomberg, . . . . . the Harm and the Foul

I have written a number of letters to the politicians who represent us, calling for them to take responsible action on Atlantic Yards.

One of these letters was already shared via an Atlantic Yards Report post about the letter I wrote and the ill-thought-out response I got from the Mayor: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 “Last month, Bloomy was offering a boilerplate defense of AY”.

I have done my best to tailor the letters to the political representatives to whom I sent them.

In a series of posts I will share the letters I sent and I invite others to borrow freely from them in structuring their own letters.

In addition to the letter I got back from Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, I got a response from Eliot Spitzer when he was still governor. More on that later.

I begin this series with the already public letter to Bloomberg, and I refer you to the aforementioned Atlantic Yards Report post for the response I received on his behalf and an excellent analysis of it.

The letter, which is CCed to Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff, addresses the surmise that Bloomberg and others do not “truly understand how bad the proposed Atlantic Yards project is.” Indications since that time are quite clear that Bloomberg and Doctoroff at least eventually understood the project to be bad: See: Atlantic Yards As Political Hot Potato (my MDDW comment).

May 10, 2007

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg
City Hall
New York, NY 10007

Re: The harm and the foul.

Dear Mayor Bloomberg:

As a lawyer who has recently exited more than a quarter century of public service, I fully appreciate your reported impatience with adhering to proper public process and your desire to find developmental shortcuts. Also, as the expression goes when process is sidestepped or technically avoided, “Where there is no harm, there is no foul.” But Atlantic Yards is not in this category: It is a stark example of where the sidestepping of process is the instrument being used to deliver the foul.

When I was in government, we had a standard we looked at as a condition to using the powers of the Urban Development Corporation (aka the Empire State Development Corporation). Though the statutory powers of the Corporation might be virtually unfettered, the standard we considered was that we would never use the powers of the Corporation if using them would result in the legislature subsequently taking those powers away. Ergo, the powers should be used only to do what is clearly good and about which there can be a fair degree of reasonable public consensus.

As a real estate development and public finance professional, I can find no shortage of colleagues who seriously question what you are doing with Atlantic Yards. Few believe you or various other elected officials truly understand how bad the proposed Atlantic Yards project is or the terrifically negative legacy it will represent. The consensus approaches unanimity. Nevertheless, there is a desperate shortage of professionals who are willing to express their extreme concerns directly to you.

To be a good project, the Atlantic Yard project should be high density, but needs to be reduced to an appropriate high density. In other words, it needs to be a much lower density than you propose. It needs to be properly and much more carefully designed. That includes properly oriented green space and avoiding most, if not all of the proposed street closings. (Probably, in addition, additional streets should be opened.) It means that the project should be broken up into many smaller parcels that can be properly and fairly bid upon by developers who feel they are actually free to make such bids. Doing so will almost certainly, and appropriately, mean that the overall development will have multiple builders. Plans for unnecessary and destructive condemnations such as that of the Ward Bakery building should be abandoned. In most respects your model for what should be done here in terms of process and quality of design should be Battery Park City.

My wife and I support you for having been the “business mayor” and there are many things we would like get behind you on like congestion pricing, (about which we have heard Deputy Mayor Doctoroff speak eloquently), sustainability and, in general, building for a bigger and better future city. Nevertheless, in assessing your record, a former boss of mine had an expression: “100 `at-a-boys’ are wiped out by only one `Oh sh*t’.” I am afraid that is the territory we are in.

If the Atlantic Yards project is ever built in any version approximate to what you have been promoting, not only will everyone experience its blight in ways they might not now all fully anticipate, but in the future people are likely to say: “After Mayor Bloomberg’s Atlantic Yards was completed, the State Legislature stripped ESDC of its condemnation powers and the city Charter was amended to prevent City investment in huge capital projects that have not been ULURPed.”


Michael D. D. White

CC: Daniel L. Doctoroff

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Not THAT Michael White

Yes, my name is Michael White and yes, I am a lawyer and urban planner.

I am not the Michael E. White who is a lawyer and urban planner who litigated on behalf of the residents of Concord Village who challenged the construction of the new federal courthouse on Cadman Plaza East and Tillary Street (one side is on Adams Street) concerned that the building was overly tall.

Personally, I am an admirer of the new federal courthouse. I think the building, designed by Cesar Pelli & Associates and H L W International, contributes beautifully to the design of urban fabric around it and is fabulous to look at. I don’t think it is too tall and I would be happy if it were taller.

It was supposed to be taller. Lawyer and urban planner Michael White, the other one who is not me, prevented that.

I’ve met the other Michael White and he is a nice, intelligent fellow. I don’t mind sharing a name with him or either of our professions. When I met him, I was with the government and we were interviewing the firm to which he belonged at the time, Jaspan Schlesinger Hoffman LLP, considering it for a panel of firms to work for our state agencies. Mr. White afterwards moved on to become the Executive Director of the Long Island Regional Planning Board.

When I met Mr. White I mentioned the lawsuit that had resulted in a shorter courthouse and asked how well the firm’s cases were doing with the federal judges in the Eastern District. That was sort of a lawyer’s joke.

Plans for a taller courthouse were scaled back in 1998 when delays were followed by escalations in constructions costs. That caused the building to be scaled back to 14 stories from the 18 originally planned. (See the New York Times story “U.S. Courthouse Plan in Brooklyn Is Cut Back” By Joseph P. Fried, December 29, 1998.) This brought the height down to 250 feet high, rather than the 300 feet.

Delays were occasioned when the representatives of Concord Village, the apartment complex across the street, challenged the federaal General Services Administration's environmental-impact report for the $371 million courthouse project, asserting that it was flawed. The representatives of the 2,000 residents of Concord Village said the project would drastically worsen traffic and air pollution in downtown Brooklyn and called for the report to be redone. They lost, but, as Michael White (not me) explained, the delays probably had the effect intended.

Concord Village provides homes but it is low on my list when it comes to urban design. I like the courthouse design a lot better and I don’t detect any detriment to the residents of Concord Village because it was built. To me it seems a good neighbor that I would appreciate as adding value. If it had been a few extra floors as previously contemplated, I think it would still have been so.

Cesar Pelli & Associates also provided a splendid design for the World Financial Center in Battery Park City that wears well even though its neo-modern style is no longer current. I think the courthouse is just as good or better.

The courthouse is far better than an alternative that was defeated. Before its design was commissioned, it had been proposed to construct additional courthouse space across the street. It was proposed to build a 22-story courthouse through the middle of the Victorian post office building. As reported in the Times, “Residents and preservationists had protested that the tower would add to traffic congestion and break the mood of the post office's whimsical Romanesque Revival towers, turrets, dormers and arches.” (See “Neighborhood Report: Brooklyn Civic Center; New Plan for Old Post Office” By Michael Cooper, October 1, 1995)

Building the courthouse shorter reportedly means that the designers cut back on the room for future growth for the court's caseload and its staff. I certainly hope that, when future growth is considered, plans to construct in the middle of the post office building are not ever resurrected.

An article in the Brooklyn Eagle describes the plans for the courthouse as “star-crossed” and goes into a bribery scandal involving the general contractor. It reminds us that “A proposal to build it in the Atlantic Center, over the LIRR station, was rejected by federal judges who made it privately clear that this was too far away from the center of things in Downtown Brooklyn.” Tell that to Bruce Ratner the next time he misrepresents Atlantic Yards (which he wants to build more han 4 times as tall!) as being “in Downtown Brooklyn!” (See: Federal Courthouse Project Hits A Snag; New Contractor Sought by Dennis Holt, 03-05-2004)

That same Brooklyn Eagle article tells us “One of Sen. Patrick Moynihan’s last acts was to attend the 2000 ribbon-cutting ceremony for the new building. Though physically frail, he gave a stirring speech on the value of public works, a sentiment rarely heard these days, and declared that this building would be memorable.” As many know, I am strongly advocating that we fittingly remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan by putting our resources into Moynihan Station, a “public work” like the courthouse rather than diverting them into Atlantic Yards. Atlantic Yards is not only NOT a “public work,” it represents something Moynihan fought against in his time. It was Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who, in 1986, sponsored the insightful law that bans the use of tax-exempt bonds to finance sports stadiums and arenas which Bruce Ratner now seeks to circumvent.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

October 2007 Hearing: Alternative Proposed Plans- Columbia University’s Expansion Into West Harlem

Roll back in time to the fall of 2007. The City Planning Commission was having hearings on alternative plans to accommodate the expansion of Columbia University into West Harlem. One plan was the community’s plan. That other plan, which had caught up with it, was Columbia’s.

Here is a letter I furnished the City Planning Commission with respect to its hearing held October 3, 2007. (The letter didn’t have the pictures added here.) As stated therein I went with an open mind and perhaps more predisposed to Columbia’s plan. The community’s plan was presented well but it was very likely Columbia’s presentation that did the most to make me extremely uneasy with what they were asking for.

Eventually, my feelings of concern and opposition grew stronger and that is when I wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Sun, Columbia Pulls a Kelo, December 20, 2007

That piece focuses in on the troublesome industry of eminent domain abuse. It is essentially the testimony I gave before the City Council the preceding day.

After my written testimony below was delivered, I delivered oral testimony before the City Planning Commission at a follow up hearing. There I noted that not many days before, at the Municipal Art Society I asked Columbia’s president Bollinger what should be the standard for saying `No’ to Columbia in favor of the community?” He responded (video available) equating use of eminent domain to effect transfers of private property to Columbia with road and park creation, an equation with which I do not agree. He also asserted that Columbia’s plan trumps the community’s because of its realism. I told them I didn’t buy that either.

The Columbia plan is predicated upon seeing speculatively into the future. It entails an immediate shifting of rights, benefits, and expectations of real estate wealth to Columbia because someone looked into a crystal ball. The community plan provides a framework to move forward into the future with steps being taken and negotiated in a familiar and time-tested fashion.

(It is not possible to provide the letter below with its original formatting.)


October 12, 2007

Hon. Commissioners of
The New York City Planning Commission
22 Reade Street
New York, New York 10007-1216

Re: Commission’s Wednesday, October 3, 2007 Hearing on Alternative Proposed Plans Accommodating the Proposed Expansion of Columbia University into Manhattanville

Dear Commissioners:

This is to provide comment on the two alternative plans for the proposed expansion of Columbia University into the West Harlem neighborhood known as Manhattanville which were the subject of the Commission’s Wednesday, October 3, 2007 hearing. I offer my comment as an urban planner (I have a masters degree) and real estate development lawyer with substantial background in public finance and subsidized housing, including, from the government side as a senior state government official, such things as ESDC condemnations and overrides. My comments are based mostly on evaluating information and statements presented at the hearing which I attended in full. I went to the hearing desiring to be more fully informed about the plans and expecting to be more predisposed toward the 197-c plan sponsored by Columbia University than not. I came away from the hearing less of that mind. (I admit that I am also influenced by having Jane Jacobs somewhat on my mind these days.)

Reiterating the background for those unfamiliar with it who may read this letter: The City Planning Commission spent an extended day hearing and taking public comment for two alternative plans for the proposed expansion of Columbia University into the West Harlem neighborhood known as Manhattanville. One plan that accommodates the university’s expansion into the area is a community generated 197-a plan. The community plan proposes the expansion of Columbia University in an NYU style expansion whereby the University would be interwoven into the community. Columbia University is proposing, under 197-c, an expansion plan of its own design that would not comply with the community-sponsored plan. The Columbia plan would make use of condemnation and its threat as a tool for the university to prevail over competing property interests. (The Commission will be taking written comment from the public until October 15th.)

In providing my comments, I point out certain elucidating parallels between the proposed Columbia expansion and another project currently of exceeding prominence in the public mind. In my summing up I deal with one of the most important reasons a responsible consciousness of the Atlantic Yard project is unavoidable.

The controversiality of the two competing plans involves many issues and factors in common with Atlantic Yards.

1. Two Alternative Kinds of University Expansion. In big picture terms it is again a contest between:
a. a proposed massive-scale megadevelopment plan backed by powerful interests centered outside the community seeking to invoke eminent domain to achieve it purposes (“zoning and planning for sale”), and
b. a community that, while supporting development along the general lines of what is proposed is seeking something more consistent with preserving existing neighborhood fabric and vitality (“organic development”).

2. Overall Design Qualities. There are almost inevitable comparable questions of design which is a given since each situation involves a proposal for mega-development on a grand “city making” scale, though, on balance, the expansion plan Columbia is proposing is probably a more defensible project with better design than Atlantic Yards.

a. The plan Columbia is promoting for itself is more defensible in the following ways:
i. It continues through streets
ii. In addition, to the existing through streets that it continues, the Columbia design adds what is in essence a new cross street exclusively for pedestrian use.
iii. It has a higher percentage of true open space which is better designed
iv. Is in an area more in need of development
v. It has the public enhancement of a premier university as its purpose.
vi. It does not directly displace low income people housed in the area without providing them comparable housing after they move.
vii. It aspires to sustainable design principles. Columbia stated that it was going for a Silver certification (Gold and Platinum is higher, of course.) And, following suit of other colleges, Columbia is pledging to its students and community that it will by a future date be reducing its overall carbon emissions. (Green, sort of like affordable housing, is an often used sales point these days.)
viii. It hides the facility's more “noxious” needs —— like parking, loading docks and energy equipment —— allowing the campus itself to be serene.

b. The ways in which the design is poor in the same ways:
i. Monopolistic monotony of ownership and design and a monoculture of purpose and uses for the neighborhood. The Columbia project would be 35 acres of monoculture. Atlantic Yards is proposed to be 22 acres plus another two existing adjacent superblocks owned by the megadeveloper taking it up to a similar total acreage.
ii. Destruction of existing landmark and old buildings.
iii. Repetitive floor templates for replicated buildings to be built within the same approximate time frame.
iv. Failure to integrate with and make use of the vitality of the existing neighborhood fabric.
c. Both this and the design for Atlantic Yards concede to the most prevalent conventional wisdom by envisioning retail at ground level of the buildings but the Columbia design is better in this regard in that it has continuous active edges along which the retail would be arranged. The Atlantic Yards design perhaps has a slight advantage of being associated with a slightly better mixture of other uses (office, hotel and residential) that would tend to make that retail active at more times of the day.

3. Arguments for Style of Development. The questions asked by the Commissioners at the hearing, particularly those they asked of Columbia, and the additional information they requested reflected an awareness that the University is basically asserting only two reasons why the University should:

a. not be steered towards an NYU style of development where the University and community owned land would be intermixed, and

b. be able to pursue a plan founded upon eminent domain.
Those two reasons are:

c. The University’s plan to construct a project over a central underground “bathtub” which would put 25% of the project’s bulk underground. The bathtub is proposed to be of varying depths and design depending where it is but it basically is to be under almost the entire 35 acre megaproject except for the “donut hole” under the Studebaker building, an old landmark building that will be preserved. The described purpose of the bathtub is not just to reduce the above-ground bulk but to hide the project’s more “noxious” needs, like parking, loading docks and energy equipment, and reduce the number of curb cuts by allowing for underground movement of vehicles, thereby allowing the campus above-ground buildings to be more serene. The shape of the bathtub, to an extent, works around what is there. To an extent it does not. It mostly works around the shape of the bedrock, tending to be more shallow in places to avoid blasting and going deeper where blasting will not be necessary. Though the design tries to avoid blasting destruction of physical bedrock, the community fabric and existing buildings are not treated as having, metaphorically speaking, any similar bedrock status, which as Jane Jacobs might express it is not to be “exploded.” (Out of all the buildings in the 200-year-old community Columbia proposes to preserve just 3.) The design works around the Studebaker donut hole. The other two buildings are outside the periphery of the bathtub. The design of the bathtub does not work around Sheffield Stable. Sheffield Stable, which is federally landmarked, is at the corner of the bathtub. It is not near any proposed curb cut entrance into the bathtub. One of the Skidmore architects on hand at the hearing indicated that it could be notched out of the bathtub without consequence to the traffic within the proposed tub.

Whether it is good or necessary*, the bathtub with its design underlying essentially all of the megaproject, is like the proposed elimination of streets at the Atlantic Yards project. The proposed elimination of streets at Atlantic Yards is very bad urban planning but it is likely being pursued for a number of self-serving reasons, including that it contributes to an impression of megaproject’s indivisibility into what could readily proceed as several smaller projects (The attached appendix covers in depth ill-founded reasons for elimination of streets at Atlantic Yards.) (* Jane Jacobs in examining traffic solutions, including "post officing" and time shifts and vertical grade separations wrote: "Except in the most intensively used central downtown areas, it hardly seems that the service complications accompanying thoroughgoing separation of pedestrians and vehicles are justified.")

d. The second reason is the University’s assertion that all the buildings in the megadevelopment must generate rectilinear floor plates of 25,000 square feet each. This is based on the University’s asserted analysis that 25,000 square feet supports the current fashion in arranging research floors based on the number of support people who these days are assigned to individual research teams. Many of the University’s older buildings have different layouts reflecting the fashion of floor plates of yore. The replication of repetitive buildings all constructed at the same time is very un-Jane Jacobs! Columbia is constructing a huge number of buildings with the same or very similar floor plates. Atlantic Yards involves the roughly contemporaneous design and eventual building of many buildings with somewhat similar, but not identical floor plates. The EIS creates similar maximum heights for the Columbia buildings. There is a question as to whether they will all be built at those heights (or how many will).

e. There is another purported constraint which the University says indirectly supports the invocation of the preceding two. That is the assertion that the University is endeavoring to meet the community’s need for limitation of building height in the area. Without limitation of building height, more bulk could be above ground instead of in the bathtub and taller buildings could deliver more of the replicated floorplate. There may be fruitful ground for a compromise here. Many of the existing buildings, if preserved would provide substantial bulk and perhaps quite usable floor plates but they would probably be shorter than desired. Being shorter they would allow sunlight and a relief from any canyon-like feel if other taller buildings were built around them. They could be interspersed with buildings with precisely the floorplates desired which, depending upon how tall there were, would replicate that floor plate quite a number times while reaching approximately the same overall neighborhood density.
The two invoked reasons for proceeding in megaproject fashion must be carefully scrutinized because if they do not sustain themselves under examination, the only other reason that comes to mind for the University to seek the ability to expand through condemnations is indefensible. That reason would be that the university wants to use condemnation as a tool against those properties and uses in the community that are so economically vital that they are unwilling to sell at prices that Columbia is willing to pay. While intuitively it might be understood why condemnation would be pursued for such a reason, it is not necessarily in the interest of a university to do so because it prevents the university from being part of an economically integrated and vital community.

4. Narrative to be Assessed. As with Atlantic Yards, the community has raised questions about the narrative offered by the mega-developer and whether it sacrifices accuracy to promote a tale which is self-servingly calculated to be more suitable for public consumption and promoting the approvals sought.

a. The community has asserted that there is an anomaly in that the Columbia plan has been promoted as necessary to serve an undergraduate population. They point out that, initially, no undergraduate facilities are being built at the development.

b. The community is questioning the University’s contention the bathtub has to be of such an extensive design, whether more couldn’t be done on a smaller scale utilizing tunnels instead. In other words whether it is a fictive defense of proceeding with the megadevelopment as a single project just as the Atlantic Yards megadeveloper has fictively defended the need for that to be single project.

5. Affordable Housing. As with Atlantic Yards there is the issue of housing. The project will directly displace low-income residents currently living in the area and it is projected that its economic effects will also indirectly displace residents living near. The University is promising to relocate all residents directly displaced. The University is promising to put $20 million in funds for other housing which they are looking for some other entity to administer. The megadevelopment will provide housing for students and faculty but no affordable housing for other populations. In the case of Atlantic Yards, those being directly displaced will not be able to afford to live in the megadevelopoment being built. Part of the megadevelpoment will provide affordable housing but at a square foot cost higher than the market rate housing that is being developed and by intercepting subsidies that would have had other more useful destinies.

6. Gentrification. Perhaps more than Atlantic Yards, the Columbia expansion presents the issue of gentrification. Gentrification will be an issue at the University site no matter whether the University’s own plan or the community-endorsed plan is pursued. Gentrification does drive out those that do not ride the rising tide. Some in the community oppose gentrification. An article in the New York Times stated, whether accurately or not, that “The greatest fear of West Harlem residents is that they'll eventually be driven out.” But reporting which concentrates too much on such fear or opposition does the disservice of confusing what are the most essential issues. The Community plan accommodates Columbia expansion and therefore gentrification. Also, opposition to gentrification is not a position to which the larger society is fully sympathetic. However readily it is mentioned, it is well understood that the flip side of individual misfortunes that occur during gentrification is rising prosperity in and renewal of the gentrifying neighborhood. The real story from the community’s standpoint is not the way in which prices will rise during gentrification but the way in which Columbia wishes to insulate itself from those rising prices through it proposed use of the tool of condemnation. Without condemnation, Columbia’s acquisition and growth into the neighborhood would create a rising tide of real estate values in which many in the neighborhood could participate. Conversely, the tools of condemnation and the threat of it serve to suppress and keep neighborhood prices low. Columbia ultimately acquires at a lower price at the expense of community residents. So the real story is a question whether there should be the gentrification endorsed by the community or gentrification the benefits of which the community is excluded from.

The issue of gentrification is more pronounced in the case of the Manhattanville area than in the case of the Atlantic Yards area because the Manhattanville area is economically run down whereas the Atlantic Yards area is in good economic shape and already gentrifying notwithstanding the erroneous finding of blight offered by ESDC. (New co-operatives, renovation and investment have been going on at a rapid pace in the Atlantic Yards area.) In actuality, one could argue convincingly that Atlantic Yards will have its own blighting effect on its environment strong enough to completely counter the gentrification that has been underway in this area.

7. Proper Use of Eminent Domain. Many of those who oppose Columbia’s plans do so partly demanding a “stop to eminent domain abuse.” The same is the case with those opposing the Atlantic Yards megadevelopment. The question is what exactly constitutes “eminent domain abuse.” One Commissioner (Cantor) astutely zeroed in on the fact that when eminent domain is used as a tool, the threat of eminent domain is also available and almost inevitably used. Making a distinction between the two it was pointed out that the latter is accompanied by the deleterious effect of what is called “planner’s blight.” “Planner’s blight” is a reduction of targeted real estate’s value and usability over an extended period of time prior to actual condemnation. Commissioner Cantor asked whether, if permitted, any eminent domain actions by Columbia would be done, as he expressed hope would be the case, all at one time at the beginning of the project. In other words, would the University proceed in a fashion that would avoid planner’s blight. The Columbia representative answered that the University was going to proceed in the contrary fashion. He said that the University would proceed with condemnation piecemeal over time and would ask ESDC to proceed with individual condemnations over time as and when it determined it would serve the University’s purposes. (Implicitly, one must infer that the University would benefit economically at the expense fo the community, in part through lower prices.) The idea that community interest should lie fallow and serve as handmaidens to the interests (and convenience) of megadevelopment languor is suspect. Atlantic Yards is proceeding in a way where the developer’s imprecise schedule has been set up for its own flexible convenience at the expense of the community. Although the Atlantic Yards condemnations are perhaps expected to proceed contemporaneously with each other, the megadevelopment area is currently suffering from some “planner’s blight” prior to the condemnations. Demolition of key buildings that could be supporting the community is planned to occur decades ahead of necessity, entailing the creation of inevitable blight. The megdevelopment languor of Atlantic Yards is contributed to in that, through ineptitude, the inadequate amount of time spent carefully planning the project initially has led to a protracted saga wherein excessive time is being spent defending indefensibly poor design.

While the threat of condemnation creates blight, the community also offered testimony that the threat of condemnation makes Columbia’s negotiations to buy property less than fair or arm’s length. Testimony from the community also asserted that ESDC, the proposed condemnor of properties to which Columbia wants title, is cooperating with a City housing agency to accept transfer of a lease for one of the affordable housing projects in the area. If that is true, then evidence of ESDC’s coordinating efforts would tend to amplify the threat of condemnation.

8. Eminent Domain and Public Purpose. Other aspects of “eminent domain abuse” involve whether property ought to be condemned at all and whether, once condemned, it is for a sufficiently and properly identified public purpose.

a. As has been very much an issue with Atlantic Yards, the public suggested at the hearing that condemnation is threatened or proposed, not for a plan of public purpose generated by public officials, but for a plan developed by the megadeveloper who is to benefit from that plan. To state a principle which should be tautologically obvious: Public purpose must be defined by the public. Perhaps it is less obvious given how often practice may have diverged from principle.
b. At the hearing, members of the community asserted that there was a question as to what extent Columbia was seeking to expand so as to support expanded operations. It was pointed out that Columbia owns (and can own) property built for university purposes which it sublets to others who do not use it for university purposes. When it does so it makes a real estate based profit not related to its operations as a university. Appropriately, when for instance, NYU owns Stella Doro bakery as a for-profit investment, real estate tax exemptions available to NYU for its university property do not apply. By the same token, property which Columbia wishes to acquire for real estate investment purposes should not be made available to it through condemnation or the threat thereof. Not only can Columbia invest in real estate directly, it can conceivably endeavor to achieve essentially the same result by acquiring new property for university purposes through condemnation and then subleasing other existing property for real estate purposes which it is then able to vacate. Given that there would be a certain temptation in this regard, I think the community was suggesting that the question should bear scrutiny. Similar questions about appropriate public purpose are present in the case of Atlantic Yards in that sound privately own housing and buildings are being condemned for housing the megadeveloer proposes to own, making what has been accomplished other than a change of ownership questionable.

c. Is the property being condemned too valuable to be appropriate to condemn? We may sometimes be too quick to value the megadeveloper’s proposed project and not assiduous enough when it comes to recognizing the value of the condemned property it proposes to replace. For the condemnation public purpose equation to make sense, the replacement property should have greater public purpose value than that property which is proposed to be replaced. Whether or not Jane Jacobs was right about everything may be questioned, but she thought long and hard enough about some things so that her views should be considered, among them the value of universities in a city’s fabric. About universities she says they are not to be disdained or their value minimized, “Rather, the point is to recognize that they are mixed blessings. If we can counter their destructive effects, these facilities will themselves be better served.” She goes on to say:

“Big universities in cities, so far as I can see, have given no thought or imagination to the unique establishments they are. Typically they either pretend to be cloistered or countrified places, nostalgically denying their transplantation, or else they pretend to be office buildings. (Of course they are neither.)”

Conversely, many of the properties that Columbia is seeking to oust may have better value if they remain and may enliven the shared neighborhood as a result. If there is any question how easily existing properties can be undervalued in a process like this, we need only look to the way existing properties in the Atlantic Yards footprint have been falsely characterized as “blighted.”

9. Preservation of Buildings in the Community. Columbia is proposing to preserve only three buildings in the entire area. Only one of them, the Studebaker building is a significantly sized building. At the hearing the Society for the Architecture of the City referred to the University’s approach as “slash and burn.” Having visited the site to explore its streets and buildings after the hearing, there are clearly many buildings which normally would be preserved. There are others, many “taxpayers” for example, of little apparent value. One has to ask whether all it would take to save more of the buildings constituting the historic fabric of the 200-year-old neighborhood would be a more vigorous exercise of imagination and a redoubled application of design skills. Preserving the landmark Sheffield Stable building would require just a notch out of the bathtub. Old buildings can be preserved but then the bath tub can’t be built under them. There was a fourth building that was going to be preserved, but the Borough President asked for the removal of the Cotton Club in order to create a wedge of public park down the hill from the adjoining large existing park. One Planning Commissioner (Karen Phillips) asked specifically about possibly making an effort to preserve the Cotton Club. Colombia had testified that it had gone to lengths to successfully accommodate preservation of the popular Dinosaur Barbeque restaurant. Even if the Cotton Club building is not preserved, preservation of a use such as that of the Cotton Club could well be worthwhile. (The value of putting a green wedge there hinges upon whether suggestions such as those made by Municipal Art Society are entertained.)

Atlantic Yards is a prime example where bad decisions, particularly exemplified by inaction with respect to preservation of the white terra cotta Ward Bakery building, have been promoted by the megadeveloper. These proposals should be countered by appropriate action from public officials.

10. Eminent Domain: Proper Process and Responsible Government Entities. Another question has been asked about condemnation: whether it is appropriate, just as in the case of Atlantic Yards, to side-step the City’s condemnation process by using ESDC to effect the condemnation. This a question about whether the City, which is more integrated with the large scale planning process underway is the appropriate entity for this responsibility. (ESDC has, of late, been criticized from a number of directions for lack of transparency.) More so, it is a question of appropriate process because use of the City’s condemnation process will invoke the more careful and public consideration prescribed under the City ULURP process. Condemnation by ESDC sidesteps ULURP. If ULURP is inappropriately side-stepped with exceeding large megaprojects like Atlantic Yards, the exceedingly poor results and negative impact to the City is likely to create an eventual public backlash where ESDC would be stripped of its condemnation powers, a possibility that has always been in the minds of public officials. - If involved, ESDC can also simply override any of the city’s zoning as well.

11. Shaping of the Neighborhood and Boundaries. Another issue is boundaries and neighborhood shape. Jane Jacobs put forth a number of predictive principles about boundaries according to which the Manhattanville neighborhood would be expected to manifest itself exactly as it has, a challenged area of lower than average economic vitality because it struggles with the vacuum created by so many surrounding boundaries. It deals with what Jacobs describes as “The curse of border vacuums.” The area sits inside a basket weave of the following surrounding boundaries described by Jacobs: The steep hill of a little-used park, superblock tower-in-the-park housing projects (and one astoundingly massive tower-around-a-park housing project), a waterfront, a major expressway, the elevated train tracks of the subway under which there are large parking areas. It is almost as if someone sought to create a text book illustration of everything Jacobs was talking about. There is even the presence of the University which Jacobs also talked about in her chapter on the subject. The University design seemingly embraces and reiterates these boundaries for cloistering effect. In addition to offering principles predictive of the inevitable continuing curse of such boundaries, Jacobs offers prescriptive principles for how to counter such effects. She calls for a high population and for diverse uses in the areas. She calls for streets in the area to be especially short. Potential street uses should be “extremely fluid, and that mixture of primary uses should be abundant; so should mixtures in age of buildings.” The proposed upzoning of the area is supported by these suggestions as is Colombia’s proposed creation of the new (pedestrian restricted) cross street. There is also some call for mixed use. The Columbia proposal which proposes fluidity of street use is not proposing a very good mixture in the age of the buildings. The Municipal Art Society’s suggestion to relocate to the west the quad/park from the center of Columbia’s cloistered design would deal more effectively with the boundaries and should work to accomplish what Jacobs describes as the conversion of a “border boundary” to a “seam” where uses come together. The waterfront and its park area is being transformed from a dead-end location to a pumping artery of recreational use particularly due to the bike path. This borders the area and “public room” adjacent to which MAS has suggested the interior park be relocated. The huge arched public room under the highway is also where upscale restaurants have spontaneously begun to locate themselves. There is an opportunity for street-quieting measures in this area which would add to the pedestrian space. How this is handled is likely to impact on the best way to handle what is currently the Cotton Club’s property. The park that takes off from the southern end of the public room is also likely to be better appreciated and less of a boundary with such rearrangements.
Atlantic Yards is a situation where the rail yards in the neighborhood that have been a boundary will be replaced but in a way that the boundary effect will continue. Healthy adjoining neighborhood fabric adjacent to the boundary will be cut away through condemnation in a way that will add to the destructive boundary effect.

12. Assessment of Openness to the Public. The community has raised questions about the openness of streets and open space in the Columbia sponsored plan. Streets would be open, but would they feel open? This is one reason that the Municipal Art Society suggestion on relocating the interior park is valuable. I believe that Columbia is asking that the streets be deeded over to the University. Does this mean the City’s Department of Transportation would be constrained in routing bike paths? Atlantic Yards has a similar problem where “green” “tower-in-a-park” space would be created that would not feel public. The model it uses is very much that of Stuyvesant Town/Peter Copper Village where the equivalent space is not actually public and does not engender a public feel.

13. Monoculture and Monopolistic Ownership. One Commissioner (Angela R. Cavaluzzi) expressed concern and skepticism about the use of a single architect (Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill) for the Columbia project. For Columbia and for Atlantic Yards, this is a significant issue to be weighed. What might arguably be in the short term interest of Columbia, at least from its own vantage, may not be in the interest of the overall city in terms of preserving a balance in societal capital assets. A huge group of buildings all built (and decaying) at the same time with monopolistic ownership and monotonous design and a monoculture of purpose does suspect service to the overall City*. Among other things, it forecloses opportunities for ongoing renewal before too much time has passed. The parallels to Atlantic Yards’ problems where the megadeveloper will monopolistically own 22+(about 8+) acres are obvious. (*The proposed Columbia bathtub is reminiscent of the bathtub in the World Trade Center. I am reminded that in the Trade Center monoculture dictated that all the restaurants, Windows on the World and every fast food restaurant, in that complex were required to share in the delivery of the same chicken, same lettuce, tomatoes, potatoes, etc.- A technical feat at once awe inspiring and somehow shudder inducing.)

14. Master-planned Megadevelopments Vs. Planned Organic Growth. Assessing the worth of a master-planned megadevelopment as opposed to planned organic growth requires a certain conscientious discipline that can be difficult to summon up and psychologically elusive. In another field of economics there has been increasing acceptance of the conventional wisdom that international free trade is good and that job losses in a nation are more than made up for by the benefits of lower overall prices, greater efficiencies and the small new industries that spring up in the process. But those who support free trade and initiatives like NAFTA point to the problems of promoting them because the companies that go out of business are discrete known and concentrated entities hiring many people in the same place who can express themselves through existing organized structures like unions. Conversely, the benefits on the other side of the equation are diffuse. Assessing the worth of a master-planned megadevelopment as opposed to planned organic growth involves in a somewhat inverse way much the same kind of a perceptual challenge. As a youngster I loved spending summers building out of my imagination tracks of imaginary towns in the mud. That part of me finds the Columbia plans with the painted-in green parks and added streets exciting. But I know that there is a very real and much harder to appreciate strength that comes with organic economic growth. It comes without the pretty pictures and fascinating miniature models. It also comes without the organized hired phalanxes of architects, lawyers and institutional representatives to speak for it. But I respect the power of naturally flowing unhindered economics and I am not quick to conclude that the forces that built up, SoHo, Greenwich Village and DUMBO are not better forces to endorse. Apply this offered wisdom as you will to Manhattanville and/or to the Atlantic Yards/Vanderbilt Yards area.

15. Community Benefit Agreements. Like Atlantic Yards, Columbia’s proposed expansion for itself presents the issue of “community benefit agreements” which the megadeveloper seeks to structure in order to reduce community objection to its proposed megadevelopment. Like Atlantic Yards there is the question of the enforceability and interpretation of such agreement as well as the question of who actually represents the community. There was public testimony that Columbia has not lived up to other past community benefit agreements (referring to the Audubon). (Forest City Ratner has not lived up to past promises.)

16. Job Creation. Columbia is selling the plan that it is sponsoring, just as Atlantic Yards is being hyped, with the idea jobs will be created: construction jobs and permanent jobs working for the University. Columbia’s estimation of job creation is more honest than what has been promoted in the case of Atlantic Yards and there will likely be more permanent as opposed to construction jobs. But would just as many and perhaps more jobs be created if the community’s plan for Columbia’s expansion were adopted? And wouldn’t all the jobs created be distributed throughout the community in a broader base way that would be beneficial? In the case of Atlantic Yards there should be little question that benefits would be broader based in a good way if the project were being done by multiple developers doing multiple parcels as should be the case and as Battery Park City was done.

17. “Zoning-for-sale” equations. There has been a suggestion that, with the right concessions on the part of Columbia University, such as the $20 million dollars they have offered to give to someone, perhaps a government entity, for housing, the scales might be tipped in favor of approving their plan. Notwithstanding that this sum is not necessarily relatively large, this analysis that there is a dollar scale available to be tipped does promote what someone at the hearing cautioned would be a perception of “zoning for sale.” Notwithstanding the thought that the New York Times may or may not have given to this, there are some profound negatives that may be associated with going down such a path. Among other things, by removing people from the responsibility of dealing directly with the situation at hand, it can lead to short-term thinking, rationalized compromises and inappropriate export of challenges and populations to offsite areas. Though not really the same, Atlantic Yards is very much an example of how muddy thinking can become when trade-off games are played.

18. Ends vs. Means. Inevitably when huge power like eminent domain is wielded there will be those who ask the question of whether the end justifies the means. This is in part because massive projects which are sometimes good are virtually impossible to accomplish without breaking eggs. But people will not forget that Columbia is a huge university that does good and makes contributions to the City. The question will be asked whether anything that in the end strengthens Columbia (or any school or university in the city?) is not good. Perhaps. And perhaps not. No matter the answer, it is important to be quite conscious of the balance of harm and foul in the equation- In the case of Atlantic Yards the abandonment of proper process is leading to a high quotient of harm and foul.

19. Balancing and Scale of Respective Interests Involved. Obviously the Planning Commission is faced with a question of balancing the interests of a huge and influential institution against a community of people with relatively less power. Even if the community plan for Columbia’s expansion is adopted, Columbia has on its side economic tools in competing for property and in the real estate development race, such as real property and sales tax exemptions that are not available to the rest of those in the community.
Like Atlantic Yards, this is a situation where there is a subsidized megadeveloper- (the tax breaks for Columbia and 50% aggregate public subsidy for the Atlantic Yards megadeveloper). Whatever the megadeveloper is doing, neither could do what they are doing nor could they be doing it to the extent they are if they were playing by the rules on a level economic playing field. Each requires public subsidy which needs to be assessed and of which we should remain conscious. In each case negotiation of these subsidies may have given the megadevelopers a head start in their relationships with important government entities. People talk about how the Ratner Atlantic Yards plans took them by surprise being announced as a seeming fait accomplit before the public was let in on the process and people also talk about how Columbia was underway buying property before its plans were known though that is less ominous since it would support either plan.

20. Race and Class. The questions of race and class have been raised with respect to the Columbia expansion and they cannot go unobserved. Similarly there are very much present in the Atlantic Yards situation where the megadeveloper has treated minorities and lower-income populations with cynicism, disrespect and lack of charity in riding roughshod over their interests.

21. Comportment of Megadeveloper. One of the Commissioners inquired about how well Columbia had been doing in reaching out to work well to take into account and deal with others in the Manhattanville community. When an entity is powerful there is perhaps something equivalent to a noblesse oblige responsibility. The Commissioner displayed some skepticism that Columbia had not engaged in stonewalling and other tactics that disregard the interests of those with less power.

22. Environmental Issues and SEQRA. As with Atlantic Yards, the community has made allegations that the SEQRA (in the case of both projects largely done by the firm of AKRF) is sloppy and self-serving. Environmental questions have been raised about Columbia’s planned expansion. The community noted that the project is on a local earthquake fault line and is also in a flood plain and hurricane storm surge area notwithstanding that the bathtub will involve construction of up to seven underground stories. The City’s emergency plans call for evacuation of the area in the event of a hurricane. The community put much stress on the fact that Columbia is proposing to build a Level III bio-hazard facility in the area and has been cited for violations in the administration fo these kinds of facilities in the past. The questions of biohazard facility safety are perhaps more removed from the central debate and perhaps more a question of overall city policy. This is all also a question as to whether safety issues can be sufficiently addressed by brute force engineering and technology. Likewise Atlantic Yards has environmental questions, some of which may eventually be addressed by the brute force of expensive engineering and technology. Whatever is built on Vanderbilt Yards will have to deal with the fact that it is a low land area and sewage needs to be pumped out of the area in a way defensible from a sustainable engineering standpoint. No matter what, technology will not do much to address the Atlantic Yards impact on traffic and mass transit or its shadow. People also raise questions about terrorist attacks.

23. Potential Litigation. One Commissioner asked about whether, if the plan that Columbia was asking for was approved, there was the threat of possible litigation that might (as with Atlantic Yards) lead to extensive delays in the implementation of the plan. The answer was that the threat of such litigation is present. If the reasons for public decisions are unconvincing, as with Atlantic Yards, that threat is much more pronounced. When significant tools like eminent domain are used it is good that checks and balances exist, though paying this price seems like a nuisance when the right decisions have been made. Unless the decisions that were made were right in the first place, fighting and winning the litigation does not constitute a win for the public. A win in the courts does not necessarily mean that public officials made the right decision, only that the decision was not so bad that the courts won’t pay deference to it. If defense of a bad decision is won, it is a loss for the public.

24. Entities Involved in Defining the Debate. It is interesting to note that many of the same people and entities appear in the cast of characters associated both with Columbia’s proposed expansion and with respect to the potential development of the Atlantic Yards/Vanderbilt Yards area:
a. ESDC appears in both situations on the condemnation side as the proposed condemning entity.
b. In each case AKRF did the environmental assessment

c. In each case the Pratt Center for Community Development has provided the community with representation and help in presenting a community-generated competing plan for development.

d. In each case housing subsidy agencies may be in the wings and may ultimately be cooperating with the megadevelopers to effect plans

e. Oddly enough, in each case the New York Times is dealing with one of the significant building industry entities in the process of building its new New York Times building. In the case of the Columbia expansion it is the proposed architect. In the case of Atlantic Yards it is the actual developer.

As noted very early on in this comment, a decision to adopt the University’s proposal rather than asking the University to comply with the community standards of the community-generated plan would almost certainly need to hinge upon thinking that the benefits of the University’s bathtub and 25,000 square foot floor templates configurations are of the utmost importance and unachievable any other way. I wish I had all the information and expertise to deliver a definitive verdict on this point but I do not. Columbia sees its proposal as more beneficial to itself. It may or may not be right. Large-scale planning projects have encompassed some colossal errors of judgement in the past. The Columbia-sponsored plan involves condemnation, and partly because of this it is of critical importance to scrutinize the verity of the need asserted. Furthermore, if Columbia is allowed to access the benefits it proposes and gets more than a fair real estate advantage out of not proceeding with what has been referred to as the NYU development approach, then we have this to think about: The city is filled with universities and other institutions all of which compete to succeed. Any approach that confers too much of an advantage upon one institution must be sought after by all. Replicated elsewhere, is this a healthy way for our city to develop?

Finally there is this point: Having experienced the City's handling of Atlantic Yards, I and many others are naturally going to be immensely more skeptical in reviewing the Columbia plan and much more sensitive to what opponents of it might be asserting, particularly when the issues are parallel. These megadevelopements are by definition big projects and any mistakes made with respect to them are thereby greatly amplified. We need to remind ourselves of the huge amount of political capital it takes to push forward a bad project like Atlantic Yards: Because it is so big and because it is so extraordinarily bad. The loss of political capital undermines the ability of projects like the Columbia project, which may be much more laudable, to get traction. When mistakes are made, 1200-pound gorillas are not wall flowers. These are huge physical things occupying public space and they do not recede into the past.


Michael D. D. White


(Even though more streets and sidewalks are desirable)

It’s worth asking why the Ratner Atlantic Yards project is proposing closing down streets, avenues and sidewalks to create superblocks when this is such palpably bad design. (It is also very un-Jane-Jacobsian and does not accord with the ideas of her colleague, William H. Whyte, Jr. about having developments connect with streets to ensure vitality.) By contrast, Rockefeller Center is an exemplar of how adding rather than subtracting streets can be a much better design.

The following answers present themselves:

1. Subterfuge to disguise project density. By taking the streets that would normally be owned by the city and the public and creating superblocks where that area will instead be part of the land to which the developer “holds title,” the developer creates the basis for an argument, deceptively subtle, that the project is not actually as dense as it is. If the streets are not transferred to the developer and deleted from the publicly-owned grid, the project would be at an FAR (floor to area ratio) so dense that it would be clearly illegal or not permitted under the city’s zoning code. By deleting the streets the project owner can better venture an argument that the project might theoretically comply with the maximum permitted FAR which is perhaps possible under the city zoning code in certain other limited instances. I am not sure that the argument could be successfully and honestly made, but the point is that taking the streets from the public subtly allows advancing a technical argument that the project should be viewed as less dense and as potentially theoretically compliant.

2. To inflate perception that the project provides more than very minimal “green space.” The streets, avenues and sidewalks owned by the public provide: light, sunshine, air, pedestrian ways, tree-growing space, public areas to socialize and the freedom to circulate. In short, streets and sidewalks fulfill many purposes in common with “green space”and park land. One of the rationales that has been offered for the project’s creation is the idea that “green space” will be created. This is probably offered also as an attempt to distract from the project’s oppressive density. Actually, the amount of true green space being created is rather infinitesimal except that developer wants to take credit for donating back to public the very same street, avenue and sidewalk space the developer is first going to wrest from public ownership. In other words, a shell-game. There is a good Marx Brothers routine running along similar lines. Not only is the net amount of true green space being newly created for the public negligible, but the quality of the green space being offered is exceeding poor. The space will be scrunched into the continual shadow of excessively tall buildings and will be crisscrossed by the vehicular and sidewalk access pathways that will still be functionally needed, notwithstanding that public roads and sidewalks have technically been eliminated.

3. Disguise for the lack of basis to condemn the block with the Ward Bakery building. One entire large block of the Atlantic Yards project is being condemned with virtually no plausible basis. This block of existing viable buildings, including the historic Wards Bakery building, that should be preserved. This Ward Bakery block is not needed to construct the proposed arena. The block is not blighted. The real reason the block is being condemned is to create an unjustifiable windfall to subsidize the developer. This will be done by involving the State ESDC to exercise a zoning override. The block is currently zoned mostly M1-1 and partly R7A. In condemning the land the developer will have to pay only a very low price reflecting this current relatively low density of development for which the block is now zoned. While not having to pay any more for the block than this (not even the site’s potential value at the higher density for which it might otherwise soon be rezoned if that is deemed desirable), the developer will get to develop the site at a density that is so extremely high it exceeds what would ever normally be permitted under the zoning code for the block. The tactical elimination of the city’s Pacific Street which would separate the block from the rest of the project in this area serves to make this overreaching far less obvious.

4. Obfuscation that the Project is a natural candidate for multiple developers. Were the existing streets and avenues maintained, the project would exist as a greater number of discrete blocks. Were additional streets put in, as well they should, as was done with Rockefeller Center (and would opportunely serve to extend existing street patterns in this case) there would be an even greater number of discrete blocks. A project of this size is an obvious candidate for development by multiple developers; compare, for instance, Battery Park City. The multiplicity of blocks would highlight this as the most appropriate way to proceed. It would emphasis in an embarrassing way that award of this project without a proper bid process has all along been the wrong way to proceed. It would also call attention to the fact that, for the public’s benefit, at any time later phases of this project can and should be readily transferable to other more accountable developers.

5. Subterfuge to better hide the fact that it is not planned consistently with what has been planned around it. It is interesting to look at the level of care and comprehensiveness the City and State have exercised planning for density in the immediate area of which Atlantic Yards is a part. In this regard, the anomalies are most informing.
Atlantic Yards has neighbors, neighbors in the form of immediately adjacent blocks and neighborhood. That it has neighbors is actually part of the reasons expressed for its being undertaken. In theory, it is part of a comprehensive plan to benefit its neighbors in the ways that it is planned to integrate with them.
It is therefore odd and informative that the plans for Atlantic Yards do not mesh with the plans for the neighboring property. Nothing can ameliorate the patent inconsistencies.
Let’s look at the contrasting plans for the parcels in this area, Atlantic Yards and all its immediate adjacent neighbors:

a. Atlantic Yards: Incomparably dense with respect to every square inch of property that Ratner will own.- Not taking into account the arena (and the oppressive effect it will have on circulation and traffic), the density is somewhere in excess of a 12 FAR.
b. Atlantic Commons: Across the street from Atlantic Yards. On average it is the same distance from the transit hub. It was built with government aid and supervision (both from the City and State) only a dozen years ago. (For those too young or naive to see a dozen years as recent in real estate terms, it should be borne in mind that this is likely less time than it will take to build Atlantic Yards.) This project is not built as large as would be permitted under the R7-2 district zoning where it is located. The proposed R7-2 district, a medium-density general residential district, has a commercial FAR of 3.4, (or going up to 6.5 with community facilities). Though the original street network has proportionally more streets in this area, I believe a street was added, rather than subtracted, when this project was built and it helps create a park which is properly designed so as to feel shared by all the public and surrounding community. The project is all residential and all affordable.
c. Atlantic Terrace: Across the street from Atlantic Yards. On average it is closer to the transit hub. Being built with government aid and supervision within approximately the same time frame as Atlantic Yards but will be completed much sooner. It is also being built on a site the reclamation of which is being promoted by government- a brown field. Many key coordinating officials are credited in common with Atlantic Yards. It is not being built as large as would be permitted under the C6-2 district zoning where it is located. The proposed C6-2 district, a medium-density general commercial and residential district, has a commercial FAR of 6.0 and a residential FAR of 6.02 (R8 equivalent). 63 of the project’s 80 residential units (78.8%) will be affordable units with at least 50% of the project’s units being affordable to families with incomes at or below 80% AMI. The project will have commercial space at ground level. Atlantic Yards is so much taller than this 10-story project that its shadow will prevent Atlantic Terrace from using solar panels as originally planned. The almost unavoidable conclusion is that if the Atlantic Yards project density is desirable, then the government-sponsored planning for this more laudable non-Ratner project now being built right across the street should also have involved much greater density.
d. Rezoning of Fort Greene-Clinton Hill: One of the most recent planning steps taken in this immediate area is the down-zoning achieved for the immediately neighboring Fort Greene-Clinton Hill. The City Council acted on July 25, 2007, to achieve the Fort Greene-Clinton Hill rezoning protections. The planning process involved reviews by, and reflects the work of, City Planning. The protected area includes 99 blocks of Fort Greene-Clinton Hill and part of the Wallabout neighborhoods, covering a wide expanse stretching from Atlantic Avenue to Park Avenue, and from Ashland Place to Classon Avenue. The change in zoning was effected through Jane-Jacobsian planning from the ground up effort initiated in 2002, driven by the Fort Greene Association, the Society for Clinton Hill, the Myrtle Avenue Revitalization Project, the Pratt Area Community Council, Councilperson Letitia James, as well as numerous other civic and local organizations. Prior to the rezoning, most of the area was zoned R6- still much lower density than Atlantic Yards. After the approval of this major rezoning, the majority of the area now has what is called R6B zoning, which restricts building heights to only what is there at present, meaning mostly 3-to-5 story structures with a maximum height of 50 feet.
e. Zoning for the Ward Bakery Building block (part of the land being condemned for the AY project): The block is zoned almost entirely M1-1 with an edge zoned R7A. This zoning, with its far lower density, represents the plan that the City developed for this block and which presently applies for this block absent the Ratner high density sudden replacement of this plan. M1-1 is an FAR of 1.0 (or up to 2.4 with a community facility), and R7A is an FAR of 4.0. This is also consistent with and representative of the City’s still-persisting zoning plans for the blocks in the area just south of this block.
f. Zoning for the Arena Block where cooperative apartment buildings were recently created and are now being condemned (part of the property being condemned for the AY project): This block is one of those closest to the transit hub. It is zoned C4-4A, R6B and R7A C4-4A is an FAR of 4.0, R6B is an FAR of 2.0 and R7A is an FAR of 4.0. This is also consistent with and representative of the City’s still-persisting zoning plans for the blocks in the area just south of this block.
g. Landmarks: Landmarks is part of the overall planning process for the fabric of the city and if there is comprehensive planning it should be applied in a consistent manner across the city. The question is “When is a landmark not a landmark?” The Ward Bakery Building which Bruce Ratner is eager to destroy (extremely over-eager) is a real asset to the area with extraordinary potential for contribution to the city fabric. Under normal circumstances one would expect the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission to be evaluating it for protection. But it is not. On November 26, 2006 an op-ed piece by Tom Wolfe appeared in the New York Times which made the point that the Landmarks Preservation Commission operates with insufficient independence from the Mayor. Whether or not the Wolfe analysis was entirely correct, all 11 Commissioners of the Landmarks Preservation Commission are appointed by the Mayor and the Mayor also appoints the Chair and the Vice Chair, which quite credibly supports the prevalent concern that the main reason Ward Bakery is not on the Commission’s radar screen is because the Mayor does not want it to be. 10 of the Commissioners receive no salary; a substantial salary ensues from appointment as the Commission’s Chair. The Commissioners and Landmark staff work hard and do excellent work. But when the Mayor takes an interest, how sufficient can the checks and balances be? What happens to hopes for consistency when the Mayor’s interest in a particular developer’s project is strong? If the site design called for Pacific Street (which separates the Ward Bakery Building block) to remain open, it would make such planning inconsistencies more obvious.
Noted above, the almost unavoidable conclusion is that IF the Atlantic Yards project density is actually desirable, then present planning (probably better) for neighboring non-Ratner property development logically ought to similarly involve much greater density. Assuming a careful and comprehensive design for the area, the only way to avoid this conclusion would be to suppose that the planning intentionally plans for very low density right next to the very high density Ratner-owned property as a mechanism to ameliorate the negatives of the extreme density at which Ratner is to build. Such a conclusion, if reached, would, in essence, require concluding that, in addition to the properties being condemned directly so that Ratner may take actual ownership of them, there is also proposed a subtle inverse condemnation of the ability and right of the neighboring parcel owners to, at an appropriate juncture, seek zoning changes to permit greater density on their property with the resulting increase in property value.

6. General obliviousness to good design- Metrotech. The most innocuous explanation for the elimination of streets, sidewalks and avenues and the creation of superblocks using the discredited “tower in the `park’” approach is that the developer is simply oblivious to the tenets of good design. The best support for this argument is the developer’s design for Metrotech. That endeavor likewise created superblocks and reflects peculiar decisions about street demappings. The Metrotech project created an area that suffers from lack of an active street life and is deadened by an uninspired repetitive sameness of design effect. Metrotech has also seriously confused the area’s street grid options, making south-to-north transit an almost insurmountable challenge even for a determined bicyclist.

Tuesday, August 5, 2008


The reason we are so taking so long to replace the World Trade Center is because the design of the original Trade Center was so poor. Its been almost seven years since the Trade Center was knocked down and we are behind schedule and over-budget replacing it. The New York Times “Rebuilding at 9/11 Site Runs Late, Report Says” (Charles V. Bagli, July 1, 2008) reports we now even have a new 34-page government report to confirm this to ourselves. We can tell ourselves some things that are true; that the original schedule was unrealistic, that the job to be done is extremely complex, that too many agencies are involved, but the real reason we are behind schedule is that the original World Trade Center was poor design. Don’t get confused by nostalgia; If the original design for the Trade Center were good or close to it we would be speeding to replace it tweaking it, in perhaps only minor respects. We would have our bearings and our reference points and we would know what we were about. Instead we are significantly redesigning what was there, adding streets and reconfiguring the transportation hub.

The “Human”

“Man on Wire,” a film in the theaters right now documents Philippe Petit's famous 1974 tightrope walk between the Twin Towers. In the Village Voice article on the film (Wednesday, July 23rd 2008) Anthony Kaufman quotes World Trade Center president Guy Tozzoli as saying, “Philippe did me a great favor. From that time on, people embraced the towers more than any other time; it made them very human.” How amazing to think what an incredible feat it took `humanize’ the Center! Such daring and ingenuity were used that we are going to see a movie about it 34 years later. Conversely, how unfortunate that something so large as the Trade Center desperately needed to be humanized. It was, in size, virtually a city district unto itself. Charles Bagli wrote that replacing the Trade Center involves “roughly as much office space as downtown Atlanta.” Think that so vast a place should have been uncomfortably inhuman to the human beings occupying it. As A. O. Scott reminds us in his New York Times review of the film (July 25, 2008), it is “worth recalling that the trade center inspired more love posthumously than while it stood.”

No one can detract from the “wow”factor of the original Trade Center. By definition a litany of superlatives apply because the Trade Center was simply so gigantic. Its technical achievements were recognized even in criticism of it: Lewis Mumford referred to the “technological exhibitionism. . . . now eviscerating the living tissue of every great city." It was flawed because it gigantism did not relate to humans living at a human scale. Unlike the Chystler Building or the Empire State Building, both large and tall buildings, the Trade Center did not greet and establish scale with its occupants. Crossing the windswept central plaza between buildings on a cold winter day or hot summer one was an unbearably interminable experience. You kept walking, but like a far-away bridge, the buildings did not seem to draw closer. Quickening your steps and bored with bleakness you might wonder if you had left time enough to get to your appointments as you contemplated the multiple elevator rides still ahead of you. On such a day, you would likely find many more of your fellow pedestrians driven underground in the vast low-ceilinged artificially-lit concourse. In urban planning school I made the World Trade Center’s underground concourse a private-study project precisely because it was a challenge in confusion and unintelligibility. It was not easy to find your way.

When the Trade Center went down human life was lost but I also felt a pang for something with which I had been so intimate. I had been everywhere in the Center. I used its subways, I had met in its upper floor offices to plan city housing. There were repeat visits to the observation deck: No matter how many visits you made you always felt annoyingly trapped and as if you were getting less than you paid for because of the weirdly-designed windows; as you shifted from one to the other, they would dash your hopes for a better view only letting you look out straight ahead to see one narrow strip at a time. Events were celebrated at the Windows on the World restaurant- (I just missed joining friends there the night that Dino De Laurentiis’s King Kong was pushed off the roof to rush down past the windows.)

Putting the Trade Center Behind Us

When the Trade Center went down, people who think that way immediately recognized the opportunities to replace it with something far better. Groundbreaking for the construction of the World Trade Center was in 1966, but the ribbon cutting ceremony for the Towers was April 4, 1973. The majority of the complex was only 28 years old when it was destroyed. Though it was only 28 years later almost nobody wanted to see the same complex rebuilt.

When I look at the pictures of Mr. Petit on his tightrope I can’t help thinking of it as a metaphor for where we are now. Once we stood with the Trade Center we knew firmly underfoot. Now we have moved out over an abyss, dealing slowly, cautiously with vast implications. We are moving slowly to the new design that will replace the Center. Until we get there the wind whistles and we feel the sway of the rope, wondering what will happen. We look to find an important balance.

Mayor Bloomberg quoted in the Bagli article says, “We want to have a design for the World Trade Center site that we will look back on 50 years from now and say that they did it right.” He is no doubt aware that after only 28 years we all looked back and decided that we “did it wrong” the first time So he is aware that we can make mistakes and hopes not to repeat them. Isn’t it extraordinary that such vast resources can be mobilized and committed by the public with the work of so many talented people involved and yet the results should fall so far from the optimal? It should be a cautionary tale whenever we engage in big development.

Unfortunately, as we walk this highwire of profound change the metaphorical tower to which we are headed is too much a twin of the past we have left. Fashions change. Fashions change and then, if you wait long enough, old fashions can come back. This is true not just with respect to the worn-out clothes we easily discard; the same thing is true in the architectural world where buildings with 40-year mortgages can actually last centuries. I sometimes wonder if architectural professionals attune themselves more attentively to cycles than the public itself. How ironic then that the Trade Center should have lived long enough for its flaws to be appreciated but that its destruction came just at a time when the pressure of cyclic fashion is to repeat some of its most significant flaws.

Battery Park City- When the Trade Center Was Behind Us

The World Trade Center cannot help but be forever be linked with neighboring Battery Park City, which is famously built, in part, on landfill contributed from the Center. The generally excellent level of design that Battery Park City achieves is markedly different from the World Trade Center’s original design. Thankfully that was so. But for a number of factors, including change of fashion, it might not have been the case. Change of fashion helped and was probably pushed along in part by reactions to the Trade Center having been built.

New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller substantially influenced the design of the World Trade Center. The Battery Park City that is now mostly built beside it is NOT what was originally designed for its site. Early on, there was another set of designs for what Battery Park City was to be; those designs were also influenced by Rockefeller. Those designs relied upon ingredients similar to what was used at the Trade Center, such as “tower in the park” style. They were pretty awful. When I was in urban planning school we studied those designs and I remember fervently hoping; 1.) that they would never be built, and 2.) that I would one day get the chance to work on a better-designed Battery Park City. Both of these things came to pass so I am thankful for a lot in life.

During the New York fiscal crisis of the 1970s the Battery Park City financing plan fell apart and New York State had to rescue bonds that had already been issued to fund it. The crisis led to new plans. The new, entirely different designs were far better. It also helped that Battery Park City was built by multiple developers who bid on subdivided portions of the site in accordance with overall design guidelines established by the architectural firm of Cooper Eckstut Associates.
The excellence of it all, well-thought-out public spaces, frequent weaving streets, a mixture of uses, detailed human design and ornament, fairly reasonable density similar to other successful historically successful neighborhoods is generally commended. I believe that among others, City Planning Commissioner Chairman Amanda Burden is pleased to tell people that her credentials include having worked on Battery Park City’s design. The design is so widely admired this must serve her in good stead. It comports nicely with the fact that she tells people that before she worked on the public spaces of Battery park City she was mentored by William H. (“Holly”) Whyte while working at the Project for Public Spaces. Mr. Whyte, renowned in his own right, is famous as Jane Jacobs’ mentor. (When his name comes up I like to mention that accounts of his career usually begin with his time at Fortune Magazine where the man who hired him was my namesake-uncle Ralph Delahaye Paine, Jr.)

Affordable Housing and Battery Park City

The pleasurable excellence of Battery Park City did not come entirely free from compromise. One thing that likely helped ensure the effective insistence on high standards is the fact that when it was built Battery Park City was predominantly luxury housing. It wound up with very little affordable housing compared to what was originally planned. When construction began with the first residential building in1980 the plan was still for all the residential buildings in the project to be bond-financed middle-income Mitchell-Lama projects. This went by the wayside. The Mitchell-Lama program was largely abandoned state-wide and at Battery Park City due to a number of factors including changes in the federal tax code, the financial difficulties of the city and state of New York and the resistence of developers to the program’s style of comprehensive project budget and income regulation. Instead, Battery Park City developers were permitted to seek other financing. Most of the residential buildings as a result were co-op or condo without a low- or moderate-income component, but rental projects in Battery Park City availing themselves of tax-exempt though rental projects were done with a 20% low- and moderate-income component. Those requirements were worthwhile at the time the buildings were financed but the 20% low- and moderate-income requirement has begun to expire for some of those projects.

The middle-income Mitchell-Lama building complex that kicked off the building of Battery Park City in 1980 is designed nicely enough so that it fits in well enough with the rest of Battery Park City, but looking at it you can recognize that its design quality and building materials and finishing are decidedly a level below the luxury residential buildings that were built afterward.

By allowing Battery Park City to be predominantly luxury housing extra funds were generated. In exchange for not requiring all of the Battery Park City residential housing to be middle-income an arrangement was made whereby extra funds generated by virtue of devoting most of the housing to higher-income families would be paid over to the City to finance affordable housing in other `off-site’ areas of the city. Initially, the City diverted most of those funds for its general purposes. In more recent years those funds have finally started to be used for the affordable housing that was intended. One should wonder what will happen now in light of the warnings that the City is again facing hard financial times.

Learning From Designs of the Past

These days there are those who offer the idea of tweaks to further improve Battery Park City’s design. Mostly they involve precepts which were not thought about when it was built. It is, for instance, suggested that to comport with modern aesthetics the project should have been designed with better access to the water (something that would have assisted evacuations on September 11th.)

The designs for the new World Trade Center site at Ground Zero will be better than and different from those for the original World Trade Center. To various degrees streets will be reinserted into the grid. This recognizes that the original superblocking of the site was undesirable. The reinstatements into the grid may be the most significant improvement offered. Transportation connections will be improved. There will be more trees. The original design for the Trade Center was so wide of the mark these cannot be referred to as “tweaks.” Nevertheless, it would have been nice if the new plans differed still more from the original plan for the World Trade Center. We learned what we learned in time to do Battery Park City well. It would be better if we incorporated more of those lessons in plans for the new Trade Center site where behemoth buildings will once again rise abruptly out of plazas which themselves need more humanizing character. Overall, the buildings, including the signature Freedom Tower, will be particularly featureless at the pedestrian level. Though streets reestablishing the city grid will be increased, opportunities to do this to a greater degree have not been taken advantage of.

Plans Offered Poor Choices

Does anyone remember how bad almost all the choices proposed for redevelopment of the site were? I refer not so much to the very first somewhat minimally fleshed out set of proposals that people rejected as uninspired but to the second set of nine proposals that were supposed to provide careful good design as evolutionary choices. If you are having problems remembering, it is not your fault. Those proposals are now hard to dig up. Go to New York Magazine and click on the links for the The City Review. A few renderings of all the major designs are also quickly available at September 11 News.

Some of the plans were utterly outrageous and it would have taken an army of Philippe Petits to humanize them. What if the HHH-shaped buildings (Meier, Eisenman, Gwathmey, and Holl) had been built? Or the vast interior Great Room,” the world’s largest covered plaza (Think Group)?

Best Choice

Only one of the proposals was very good, the Peterson Littenberg Architects proposal. That was the proposal that most resembled Rockefeller Center, perhaps a Rockefeller Center that had invited in two Chrysler Building sisters (and another iteration of it involved a taller tower too). Fashions may come and go but I do not think that Rockefeller Center has ever been out of fashion or that truly good design like that of the Chrysler Building has ever been disavowed. The Peterson Littenberg proposal was also the proposal you could best imagine as having taken lessons from and integrating as a good neighbor with Battery Park City. The Peterson Littenberg design proposed to tame the often superfluously wide West Street into a more gracious landscaped boulevard that could be readily traversed transiting into Battery Park City.

Restoring all the pre-existing density of the site is a challenge. The Peterson proposal dealt with this challenge by trading ground level green space for more lower height buildings (topped, like Rockefeller Center buildings with green plazas). The proposal which perhaps could be characterized as the most “feminine” (though it has towers) is the one that provided no obviously taunting targets for terrorists.

Libeskind/Childs Design ‘Chosen’

There is debate whether the “design” for the site that was “chosen” was really chosen, and the “design” that was “chosen” isn’t even the design that is now being proceeded with. Daniel Libeskind’s original Freedom Tower design was abandoned and replaced with another angle-the-edges-of-a-tower show-it-when-gleams ho-hum. Ironically, when the Libeskind design was chosen it was touted for its interestingly “asymmetrical” design. The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation’s website now promotes its replacement, cheering that “The Tower's design evokes classic New York skyscrapers in its elegance and symmetry.” It was generally considered that Libeskind “won” the competition because of Governor Pataki’s lobbying intervention or overriding of commissioners. Pataki then apparently decided to direct Libeskind to collaborate with David Childs from Skidmore Owings and Merrill to produce the Freedom Tower 2.0 design a year later.

The Freedom Tower 2.0 was replaced by Freedom Tower 3.0. The Freedom Tower 3.0 design turned out to be beta test edition and was reworked to become the Freedom Tower 3.2 edition now planned after it turned out, lo and behold, that the New York Police Department didn’t think that security concerns had been adequately thought through. This meant that a much less inviting and more fortress-like blocky bottom had to be added on the already uninviting building. To increase security, the Childs team shrank the building’s base to draw the building back 90 feet from West Street (compared to 25 feet for the original tower design). This not only allows “more room for at-grade security” it also creates a larger public plaza alongside West Street. That is the wide and unquiet West Street that the Peterson plan proposed to tame and that this plan does not. Perhaps not entirely by coincidence, building’s base footprint at 200 feet square is now noted to be the same measurement as the footprints of the original Twin Towers.

Security Detail?

Can today’s starchitects be trusted to consider details like security? And if they aren’t considering “details” of a gargantuan building, can they be trusted to consider the human elements of design? The issue of not having thought through the detail of security concerns is similarly presented with Frank Gehry’s design for the Nets arena which is proposed to proximately abut Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues in Brooklyn. In Brooklyn, streets might have to be closed during Nets games because of the lack of thought that was given and because, unlike the Libeskind building, the arena can’t be shrunk back from the street. But, seriously, if you are building a replacement tauntingly similar to the twice-attacked Trade Center, how can you not pause to think about security?

Architecture as Ersatz Conceptual Art

But if you hold Libeskind’s feet to the fire respecting “details,” it turns out that one of the main selling points for his plan, the so-called “wedge of light” was either another overlooked detail or a bill of goods. (See the New York Times, Shadows to Fall, Literally, Over 9/11 'Wedge of Light,' By Edward Wyatt, May 1, 2003) 63 When presenting his original design Libeskind had dramatically offered that on every September 11, from the exact time the first plane struck to when the second tower fell, the wedge of light in the Park of Heroes would be a place where “the sun will shine without shadow.” Dramatic, and it made it possible to sell the architecture as a piece of conceptual art- Problem was that it just wasn’t so.

If the replacement for the Trade Center amounts to a whole city neighborhood unto itself why do we treat it as a conceptual plaything for architects who are not paying attention to details? Why is that the high priority that steers the award of commissions? When you don’t pay attention to details you are probably not paying attention to the details within the picture known as human beings. Look what happened with Renzo Piano’s New York Times Building.

Details, . . .

The other night, I was at the Municipal Art Society’s annual meeting held in the New York Times building. Inside, the MAS annual report was being distributed. In that report it was noted that the Renzo Piano’s New York Times Building had received a “MASterwork” award from the society. The evening was July 9, 2008. That was the same day that the third climber in five weeks had attempted to scale the Times Building. At the very same time as we were meeting inside, construction workers were working outside to remove the ceramic rods and box up other features of the building’s distinctive architecture that provided the open invitation to climbers. If noting else, three climbers going up your building will get you to think about the relationship of your architecture to human beings.

. . . . Details, . . .

The Piano building has many admirable elements and is far superior in many ways to most modern buildings. Perhaps it deserves the award from MAS, but my point about attention to detail with respect to the building is not off the mark. It is reported that Piano forgot to include bike parking in the building (Streetsblog: New York Times Employees Say Renzo Forgot the Bike Parking) This has lead to disenfranchised bikers locking their bikes to the same structural/ornamental exterior elements of the building that people were using for climbing. This was something the Times didn’t want and something else they are now working to prevent. (There is some rumored question about whether interior bike parking was planned in the basement but then displaced when an upper floor was built without adequate load-bearing capacity for its intended library. According to the rumor, people say the library therefore had to be moved down to the basement.)

. . . . . . . . Details,. . .

Just looking at the Trade Center will remind you of security issues and just looking at the Trade Center should also remind everyone that people have been climbing buildings for years. (In terms of waking up to such things, Forest City Ratner not only owns the Nets with the aforementioned problematic arena but is also a half-partner in the Times building faced by this other security issue.) After Philippe Petit tight-roped between the towers in 1974, George Willig climbed the World Trace Center South Tower in May of 1977. Before Willig climbed the Trade Center, in the fall of 1976, Willig climbed the Unisphere in Flushing Meadow Park left over from the World’s Fair of 1964-65. ; (In case you want to know how far you can throw a stone without hitting a building climber I should disclose that my brother, Stephen, was the cameraman who climbed the Unisphere with Willig, getting up above him so he could film him coming up.)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Details,. . .

When we forget about the details of real vital humans living human lives at human scale it may go hand in hand with not recognizing or underappreciating other aspects of how the rest of us are all living our lives. The Times/Ratner building, a private enterprise, was effected by taking land and buildings from unwilling sellers who fought the tactic in court. Eminent domain abuse. Eminent Domain abuse is an issue of very major concern in New York, but the Times, which has engaged in it and reaped the spoils reports on it only sparingly. (Is discussion of eminent domain a tangent when talking about the relationship of urban design to human beings? I don’t think so. The challenge is to think holistically about the ways in which human beings integrate with architecture. It ought to be noticed that designs associated with eminent domain are more often designs that impose regimented concepts of “order” from on high rather than providing domain for the organically human.)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Details,. . .

The one other new building that is noted as getting a MASterwork award in the same MAS annual report is starchitect Frank Gehry’s “dirty iceberg” (the IAC Building) on West Street opposite Chelsea Piers. I am not sure why it deserves the award but the handling of entrances and exits in the building is an example of people-don’t-matter-but-anything-that-would-make-a-good-paper-weight-will-make-a-good-building school of architecture.

Reflexes When Attacked

The gleaming we-can-make-good-paper-weight submissions proposed to replace the Trade Center presented little evidence that we had ever learned something from the mistakes of the original Trade Center. It was more as if we were nostalgic for it. Many ideas were in the air as we thought through with what we should replace the Trade Center. Among them were two opposite schools of thought operative to steer between. One of them was a kind of knee-jerk reaction which was, in fact, very close to nostalgia. It is the knee-jerk response to defend what has been attacked.

Maybe someone is prone to criticize his wife, but if someone else does so, her flaws disappear and she is defended strenuously by the formerly critical husband. America had been attacked. There was a consistently recurring theme as a result. Most people didn’t agree or so advocate but they knew the feeling when a small minority of the people repeatedly said that we should build the towers again just the way they were. A similar theme related to this was the urge to make sure that there would again be a tall iconic building at the location. Over time this urge might have faded but in the wake of the attack it was like a primal urge to fight back. We had the tallest: It was taken away: We wanted the tallest back.

There was also what presented itself as almost the opposite school of thought: Whatever we built we should not build where the towers were. The voids that are to be the Reflecting Absence memorial represent this point of view. The voids will serve their purpose well. They will be an excellent memorial. They are almost certainly the best-designed aspect of what is proposed to replace the towers. Nevertheless, they were not inevitable. If there had been true nostalgia and love for what had been there before September 11th it is likely that something very similar to what was there before would have been replicated.

Ambivalence and Planning

The proof that we did not love the towers well enough is the actions we took after their demise. As Bagli reports in is New York Times story, 19 public agencies (and two private developers plus 101 construction contractors and subcontractors) are involved in replacing the Trade Center. That represents the true ambivalence and uncertainly about what we want to see there. New York has a byzantine love for layering on extra public authorities but it is not just that. Did the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (“LMDC”) need to be created as an extra layer of confused accountability? What were its justifying novel powers that really added something constructive to the mix?

I believe in planning and I believe that good planning takes extra time. There is certainly more to be planned and many more interrelated elements to be coordinated and accounted for in what still remains to be done at the World Trade Center but as we read the government report assessment that replacement of these elements is behind schedule and over-budget the following should be noted. The Silverstien-owned 7 World Trade Center abutting to the north, which was outside the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation’s formal jurisdiction, opened a full two years ago in May 2006.

The Glitz Play

Post 9/11 was a vulnerable time for us. We knew we were ambivalent and probably mostly remembered not really loving the Trade Center. But the starchitects came out to play and what with the fashions that were cycling round what we ironically got by virtue of our ambivalence is in many respects a replay of what we never loved very well when, beyond all imaginable odds we were given the chance to have something different after just 28 years. Maybe the starchitects were unduly influenced by the nostalgia they detected from the populace. The way in which the very first set of plans received a poor public reception may have convinced them that this was an instinct to pay attention to. Maybe they were afraid of not going for the glitz by virtue of what they attributed to that rejection. The architects also had the job of restoring a huge amount of density at the same time they were being urged to build tall. Some may say that in times of “war” there is an instinct to build tall formidable buildings with a masculine impulse. Maybe there is truth to this and that is why the design fails to escape the constraints of a testosterone-laced straightjacket. Would the impulse to continue the warp and woof of Battery Park City into the Trade Center site have seemed too feminine? Perhaps- at the time.

Public Spaces and New Streets for the Street Grid

It is often suggested that building a new section of the a city should start with the design of the public spaces and the rest should follow from that. When dealing with real life objectives that may seem simplistic and not pragmatic. Certainly, design for the new World Trade Center site involved many jigsaw puzzle aspects making it more difficult. The public spaces precept appears to have been followed to an extent. The redevelopment plan reintroduces East/West running Fulton Street and North/South Greenwich Streets. The LMDC website explains, “These streets will connect adjacent neighborhoods and support the active street life that is characteristic of New York City.” Street reintroduction at the site also defines the public space. East/West running Dey and Cortlandt are also reintroduced to a more minimal extent: for just one block between Church and Greenwich Street and only for pedestrian use.

- Dey and Cortlandt Streets

Streets dedicated to pedestrians can have splendid value if care is taken to keep them active. The length of Cortlandt that will be reintroduced as a pedestrian way will be between two towers that will sheer immediately up to the sky so care must be taken for this canyon to be “active” with street life not just a hurried torrent of dense pedestrian flow through a tight bottleneck. In Manhattan’s Forties (46th and up) there are mid-block passageways between Park and Madison which have been allowed to become bleak and inactive, a fate that can easily befall pedestrian ways that are inattentively managed. As Dey Street will open up and flow into and alongside the new transit hub plaza (alternately known as the “Park of Heroes”), inactivity won’t be a problem there.

Although the extension of Dey and Cordtland will not entirely traverse the site, they will flow into the new memorial park space rather than dead-end. Someone walking west on Cortlandt will be able to continue their walk although what someone walking on Dey Street will be able to do will depend upon the handling of a public or visitor facility that may go in at that location in the park.

- Washington Street, North and South

Washington Street which flows north/south and exists as a truncated remnant to both the north and the south of the site, unlike Dey and Cortlandt is not, per se, extended to flow into the memorial park as it could be. An impediment to bringing in Washington Street from the north as a vehicular way is that it would too closely abut the Freedom Tower for security purposes. Nevertheless, one has to ask why it is not designated as a pedestrian way from the block between Vesey and Fulton that, similarly to Dey and Cortlandt Street, would provide a last leg flowing into the memorial park. This could still be accomplished. A likely reason the plan doesn’t say it is being done is that the bordering Freedom Tower and the performing arts center at that location will not be providing actively used edges for such a pedestrian way.

Washington Street’s remnant flows up all the way up from the south to centrally located park space. In the plan it is apparently not thought of as continuing or flowing all the way into the memorial space because the park space it first flows into is the narrow Liberty Park. Liberty Park could readily be considered a southern part of the memorial park as it sits on its south like the sole of a shoe. An extra-wide Liberty Street is will create the demarcation and barrier interfering with this flow and connection. This “two-block” demarcation will be reinforced with a change in grade.

- The West Side of the Memorial Park

The longest side of the memorial park with no naturally flowing entrance points is the three-block length on the west side between Liberty Street at the bottom and Fulton Street at the top. This is the water side and the Battery Park City side. The lack of entry points is a form of blow-back from the original Trade Center’s design. Battery Park was built with a long continuos side to it back when there was little across from it to connect to on the Trade Center side. Now it is passing the favor back across the street just as if a die-cast impression had been taken. Like the south side of the memorial park, the lack of connection is reinforced by an extra-wide street, the very wide West Street, sometimes referred to down here as the West Side Highway. Too bad this street it is not being buried which has certainly been urged. This is the wide street with respect to which we are carrying out a continuing tradition of building multiple successive pedestrian overpasses to make crossing it on foot possible.

Just as there is green (Liberty Park) to the south of the memorial park, similarly there is unconnected green and pedestrian space across West Street that could readily have been thought of as extending the memorial park under other circumstances.

It is a bad idea to have two sides of the memorial park set off from the City by big streets unless the memorial is intended to be a drive-by experience. I don’t think that is the goal nor will it facilitate contemplative respect. I am reminded of the kind of detached automobile-centric monument viewing that is possible from the wide streets of Washington, D.C.

Memorial Park’s Overall Connectedness

So, while the east side of the memorial park is well connected with multiple streets flowing into it, there are two adjacent sides of the memorial, one of them very long, where the memorial park is separated from is surroundings by big streets, lack of connection to the street grid and grade changes. A third adjacent side (the north side) continues the minimization of connections by forgoing an available Washington Street connection to the grid.

The memorial park is a good size for its purpose. It is roughly proportional to City Hall Park just a few blocks away. City Hall Park has 14 connecting street entrances around its entire circumference. The new memorial park will have nine, six of them on the east side of park. You could calculate the total number higher, at 11, if you treated the two possible Washington Street connections, north and south as part of the intended flow paths into the park. The number would be 12 if you viewed Liberty Park as being an integrated part of the memorial park across the street.

Location of the Memorial Park

Is the memorial park in a good location as separated as it is from the city? Because of the highway, it will lack the kind of “enclosed” feel so often valued for parks. It may not be the best location but this is where jigsaw puzzle aspects come into play. Its location is essentially dictated because the Reflecting Absence memorial is to be where the two Twin Towers used to stand.

The location is good in that it is to the south and west of the major tower locations. That will be good for sunlight especially toward the end of the day. The very active streets on two sides will intrude into the contemplative experience and add noise. A change in grade should slightly help abate the noise but the flatness of the park will limit possibilities in this respect. The location is also good in that it will show off the higher quality and more varied Battery Park City architecture on the west.

The Other Towers

The 1,362 foot Freedom Tower comes close to duplicating a twin tower (101 usable floors). It is the same height as the slightly shorter WTC 2 twin tower. Same size footprint. Same observation deck height. Slightly higher symbolic height with the antenna taken into account (1,776 feet). No setbacks.

As noted, immediately adjacent to the north of the site, Silverstein built the 52 story tall 7 World Trade Center. The building is a simple sheer tower. Whatever its limitations, it is probably most important that because it is on a smaller contracted footprint than the previous 7 World Trade Center it was possible to restore Greenwich Street. That was a good preeminent goal. The building itself, however, is worse than a generic glass box because its base is several floors of scale-and-relationship-obliterating steel security mesh. There are no windows, no stores, no doors almost all the way around. Among other things, the ‘reverse’ side of the building (if it has one) is on Washington Street. Across, on the other side of Washington Street is a multi-story interior arcade along Vesey Street. Like what Phillip Johnson’s AT&T building attempted to do, that arcade could give the feel of a Florentine arcade (Piazza della Repubblica). Opportunity to capitalize on the value of this arcade is minimized by its chill industrial entombment from the Silverstein building base and the similarly inhospitable base of the Freedom Tower. The fortress bases of the Freedom Tower and Silverstien building, echoing each other, will stand kitty-corner to one another, ping-ponging strollers. Walkers will be beset by the experience of the loomimg fortress walls on far too many adjacent streets: Barclay, Vesey, Washington, Greenwich, Fulton and West.

In all, there are four other additional towers planned, with tower designations #2 through #5. Of these, #2, the 78-story 200 Greenwich Street is the tallest and #4, the 61-story 150 Greenwich Street will be the 4th tallest. The southernmost Tower #5 will be the shortest but design information about it still needs to be made available.

The best of these towers is the 1,155-foot Tower # 3 at 175 Greenwich Street designed by the Richard Rogers Partnership. It is a better-looking building than the Freedom Tower. In feel, the building is reminiscent of the Renzo Piano Times building. Its complex detailing does more to establish scale than any of the other towers. At one and the same time its Xing structural patterns will, like the new Hearst Tower, form an ascending pattern to the sky, while unlike the Hearst Tower, it will have many multiple repeating cues as to what the count of the floors is and how human beings within the building might use it. It also sets back. This furnishes an intermediate event to contribute interest to views while making the tower less overwhelming as it rises up over the memorial park.

Towers #2 and #4 are sheer, bland and overwhelming in the same unfriendly way the Freedom Tower will be. If the main interest they offer is to inoculate the skyline with diamond shapes. What they offer to appreciate at street level is bloodless. Rockefeller Center succeeds by establishing experiences at all sorts or intermediate levels. On Manhattan’s adjacent Sixth Avenue, buildings of almost identical design by the same architects fail by sheering straight up to the sky from flat plazas. By contrast the Empire State Building performs a clever magic act with its scale. If you stand right next to the Empire State Building, tourists will stop you and ask you where it is. Like the towers on Sixth Avenue, the Freedom Tower and Towers #2 and #4 will offer not offer the benefit of such an elusively subtle experience. Like the original Twin Towers, these straight-ups standing at attention, their tops presented to the skyline, will force acknowledgment. Should New York present at least a few such uncompromisingly abrupt experiences? Even if that is the case, are there not already enough? As for human scale, these planned towers leave the job of establishing scale and creating a street experience to other buildings at the site.

Establishing Scale at the New Site

Scale at the new site will be established by the following. The varied and interesting buildings of Battery Park City that are across the street to the west. Trees- There will be many more trees in memorial park and trees as fellow living creatures can do a lot to establish scale. Drawings of pretty green trees are also a frequent architect’s cop-out (or apology) when they realize that issues of scale have been inadequately addressed. The new Calatrava-designed transportation hub- even as its shape is strikingly novel. The Performing Arts Center at the north. The Cultural Center. Tower # 3, 175 Greenwich Street, with its set-back and detailed elements, designed by the Richard Rogers Partnership. The street entrances to the memorial park. The St. Nicholas Church to be built in the southern Liberty Park. Saint Paul’s Chapel (built 1766 before the Revolution, the oldest public building in continuous use in New York City) and cemetery- Interestingly and opportunely, the site’s new configuration should allow some sight lines through to this historic building. The existing vintage buildings at the southwest corner of the memorial/Liberty Park site. (Unfortunately, beautiful human-scale vintage building now visible at the north of the site will be concealed by the straight-ups of the Freedom Tower and Tower #2.) The steps that change the grade surrounding the memorial park. And, finally, oddly enough, the vastness of the Reflecting Absence memorial.

The Quality of the Memorial Park Experience

A vast amount of space will be devoted to the Reflecting Absence memorial. The size of the voids dictates that. In addition, the extended flatness of the surrounding park represents a constraining insistence that the voids be paid attention to. One day, decades hence, the park may be reworked to create a more varied less sober experience and it will be interesting to see what our instincts are when 9/11 has been subsumed as a part of more encompassing history. I suspect our instincts will be less constrained and less carefully correct. I wouldn’t say that the memorial park is too somber, but, until that time, no matter how many trees, the flat park, (not the pond-like voids themselves), if frequently visited, stands to be in danger of being unsatisfyingly tedious. (Perhaps the park will need to be filled up with sculpture, art and poetry produced by the children and loved ones who were left behind.) To avoid this danger, the other elements of the memorial plaza will have to do some heavy lifting. The quality of engaging design needs to be very high. The architectural conversation with the human scale element needs to be eloquently articulated. The Freedom Tower, and towers #2 and # 3 are not off to a good start in this respect. West Street’s long swipe of the park also does not help.

Steps Forward and Back?

In a classic performance a tightrope walker never crosses the abyss in one brisk walk from one end to the other. To generate suspense the walker hovers in the middle of the void taking steps forward and back. In terms of quality of design, I think Battery Park City was clearly two steps forward. The designs for Ground Zero are a lot better than designs for many other big developments in New York but aren’t they a step back from where we were with Battery Park City? The suspense has been there. The next step didn’t have to be step back because, as good as Battery Park City is, there are those telling us that there are possible forward steps still to be taken.

When Battery Park City was being built the official story was that Cooper Eckstut had formulated their design guidelines by carefully reviewing what qualities make the best neighborhoods of New York deeply beloved. Noticing New York is dedicated to the proposition that developing New York and appreciating New York go hand in hand. One would have hoped that when redevelopment of Ground Zero was being planned, there could have been more noticing and appreciating of neighboring Battery Park City so as to incorporate more of the lessons that could be learned from it as it learned from neighborhoods that came before. Admittedly Battery Park City is a more mixed use development with a higher proportion of residential development than Ground Zero with its many office towers, but that does not mean that more lessons shouldn’t have been carried over.

Even if the designs for Ground Zero are a lot better than designs for many other big developments in New York, we should care that all the steps taken are forward. The development will be a cynosure for world eyes and for us the equivalent of 14 or 15 downtown New York City blocks. It has been seven years and little is there at the moment; you still can’t go downtown without people from all over stopping you to ask where the site is. It happened to me again last night.

The designs for Ground Zero should set the standard for everything else. The goal of reaching a zenith of design quality should not matter less than the preoccupation of achieving the zenith of New York City building height.

Literally, the Ground Zero development exists alongside Battery Park City. Figuratively, as a standard, it exists alongside of the other big development going on in New York City. While the Ground Zero design may only represent one step back, by the standard it sets it can give license for other mega-projects, like Atlantic Yards, that are clearly two or three-design-steps back.

I suspect that the new Ground Zero will be around for many decades longer than the 28 years during which we grew so ambivalent about the original towers.

Steps Forward Now

I don’t believe there is any longer time or opportunity to do significantly better than the current not entirely satisfactory plans for replacing the Trade Center though they still can be tweaked. Washington Street can be more open, details attended to. Probably Towers #2, 4, and #5 can be made better. Overall, the redevelopment will be better than the original World Trade Center. It will be better than the usual development in New York. The transportation hub will function more effectively. The Calatrava station should be worthwhile even though it is being cut back because of financial constraints and will have less of its potential grandeur. Perforce the memorial should be an achievement. The public space will function better that what was there before. There is solace especially in that the street grid will be much improved.

Notwithstanding reservations, the best thing that can happen is that building progress apace. Models and renderings will never fully allow the public or even the best design professionals to fully experience what a city space will be like when it is built. I have little doubt that assessments I have expressed here will inevitably shift somewhat from the real experience of what is to come. There are some things I may like more when I see them in concrete. There are other things I may realize that I like a lot less. There is an advantage to building the physical things so that we can experience with impact where we have gotten to. Only then we can decide where we want to go next.

The building of the old World Trade Center was a learning experience. As noted it helped show us the way to Battery Park City. When the new Trade Center is finally redeveloped maybe we will again realize with clarity the ways in which we want a other big New York developments to be designed.

There is always the possibility of all sorts of change on many levels. The reviews of “Man on Wire” recalled for me a fascinating coincidence or trivia fact. The very same day Petit took his walk, August 7, 1974, was the date of the congressional leader confrontation that caused President Nixon to announce, just one day later, that he was resigning from office.