The World Trade Center Debate - 2 Contributions:
No Surprises ::
Will a Humanist Approach Help?
Commentary: by David Mayernik
The First Six Proposals for Rebuilding the World Trade Center Site
"There is a legal requirement: Sliverstein and Westfield
[leaseholders to the World Trade Center] have leases on the site for
99 years," said Michael A. Petralia, a spokesman for the Port
Authority. "If things change, then obviously that will be subject to
some sort of negotiation. The disposition of the commercial space
ultimately will be dictated by the market."
--Charles V. Bagli, "Commercial Space Mix Could Affect Race for
Governor" The New York times , July 17, 2002, p.B7
Mr. Petralia deserves credit for his honesty. The skyline of
Manhattan has been dictated by the market all along, and it's a bit
disingenious to pretend that the market won't have its say here
again. But it is rare that the public cares enough about what
happens on the skyline to pay attention to the process, and there
seems to be a deeper concern, based on an emerging consciousness,
that the heady, even delirious, process of market-driven symbolism is
out of place in this situation. But with an agency in the driver's
seat ill-equipped to think big on the symbolic level, it is hard to
see how the great gesture everyone seems to want can in fact happen.
The Times architecture critic Herbert Muschamp, in the
same edition, said it bluntly in his article "An Agency's Ideology
is Unsuited to Its Task": "Without the power to implement its plans
(this power resides with the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey, the owner of the site), the development corporation is 'like'
a planning agency and the six proposal are 'like' plans. In
precisely the same fashion, this Saturday's [20 July] town hall
meeting will be 'like' democracy. Five thousand people will be
invited to weigh in, but who will hold the microphone?"
Well, the "town hall meeting" that following weekend did produce a
strong consensus against the six plans as presented, although there
were words of praise for some aspects of the proposals. But the
general, overwhelming, impression was that there was simply too much
commercial space--as if that was a surprise. Now, New Yorkers are
not naive by nature, so did anyone really think their city was made
any other way, or that this time it would be different? Evidently,
the assumption was that somehow, post-9/11, New York would prioritize
civic over commercial interests; but old habits die hard. Arguably,
New York has not been much interested in civic space since the grid
was extended over Manhattan Island in the early 19th century, which
was a coarse strategy for development rather than a proper urban
plan. The World Trade Center towers themselves were not very
civic-minded to begin with, so why especially should their
replacements and attendant memorials aspire higher?
I think the best thing that will come out of this process will be a
greater realization that cities actually say something about
us as a society, and that we can either surrender the authority to
determine that message to "the market," or we can collectively
determine what it is that we want them to say. Arriving at a
consensus on that message will take some time, probably too long for
the WTC site to benefit from it, but in the end cities generally will
be better for it. I would like to offer, in the mean time, a humble
observation: that the great things that cities should say have mostly
been said before--on the skyline of Florence, in the piazza of
Pienza, on the boulevards of Paris--and that deciding on the message
should, at least in part, come from thinking about the messages
proclaimed so eloquently by the great cities we already know, as well
as debating the rhetoric of a new city of our dreams.
David Mayernik
No Surprises ::
Will a Humanist Approach Help?
HOME :
Editorial :
Articles
