December 24, 2002

GROUND LESS THAN ZERO

By James Eugene*

Okay, they have come out with nine new designs for the former site of the World Trade Center. I looked at them, generally liked them no less, but wondered why architects always have this need to be so grand in the planning stage. (I mean did anyone cost out those proposals?) Certainly none pay any real homage to what was there before, but then again, the Trade Center was more functional than aesthetically pleasing.

That much said, I think so much of the redevelopment process has placed the cart before the horse. And I wish to use this column to debunk some concepts that have been floated.

First, let me say, with all due respect to those who lost family members, the site is not sacred. It is not a burial ground anymore (the debris has all been removed and thus, there are no remains are at the site). The footprint of the buildings really holds nothing special. The bulk of people died there, but others died outside of the towers (from falling debris) and nothing special will be done at their locations. But most of all, if we treat the site as sacred then we are in just as many respects honoring the terrorists who committed this horrific sin, making it so that their handiwork mars us forever. I do not wish to grant them such an honor.

Second, I do not think that affordable housing should be placed on the site. This is prime Manhattan real estate. Make us much profit as you can, and then, if you want, use the profit to build affordable housing in cheaper areas of the city. You will get more housing this way, than if you placed it at the World Trade Center site.

Third, why are we even looking at design proposals? First, we have to figure out what will even go there. We don't even know right now what makes economic sense to go there. For example, let's say we build 11 million square feet of office space to replace the amount that was lost. Well, the city currently suffers from an oversupply of office space brought on by the contraction of the technology industry. Large blocks of office space are available for sub-lease dragging down primary lease prices. Do we need 11 million square feet of office space to further depress the market?

That much said, I would not want to see us run pell-mell into building luxury housing. Remember, a few years back when the office market was strong? Senator Charles Schumer commissioned a panel which issued an excellent report that discussed the need for more quality office space. At that time, there was not much quality office space available in Manhattan, which the report said was problematic because businesses were leaving the City in search of it. Then the recession hit and this problem went away, but New York City constantly reinvents itself and every decade we seem to address the same issues in this area, particularly the need for better commercial office space. Thus, it would make sense to have part of the site available for commercial development.

And "availability" is the key word here. How do we redevelop downtown in a manner that not only helps the area but also meets the goals of the City at large in the short- and the long-term? This afterall is everyone's goal. As difficult as that question may sound, I do (astoundingly) have some ideas and some examples.

First, the City and State have been wise enough to move aggressively forward and plan long-term infrastructure improvement. Implementation of these plans will be the key to any future success. Whatever comes to lower Manhattan, it will have more value if easy transportation access is provided, and it will allow for more attractive redevelopment.

Second, an appropriate memorial should be constructed right away. Personally, I am not in favor of a soaring memorial, and I am definitely not in favor of a permanent park (sorry Rudy). The Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C. is not soaring, but it may be one of the most moving tributes I have ever seen. And no one should complain if a site museum (which should review the site's history from before the Trade Center to the new development) is the first few floors of a larger complex designed to provide for office space or housing. A multi-purpose facility allows for economic growth and a suitable display of respect.

Third, if there are to be arts facilities, they too should be part of a larger development. Arts facilities help surrounding areas to grow, but the area surrounding the Trade Center site already has its growth in place. Placing an opera hall without an office complex about it just hits me as failing to fully utilize the site and will not spur growth in the area.

And fully using the site is important. The City took a big hit from 9-11, emotionally, but also economically. If we fail to plan to use the site fully, then we are allowing the economic scars of that day to become permanent. And our City cannot be crucified on a cross-forged of terrorism.

Okay you may say, but how do we know what to do? How do we, as a city, keep our options open? I want the government planners to think about how the Times Square District was redeveloped. In the 1980's, the Koch Administration proposed a large redevelopment of the area with major new office buildings. Then, the real estate crash of the late 1980's and early 1990's hit. At that point, it was not economically feasible to build office towers. In one of the great triumphs of government economic development, this dilemma was resolved by a concept that was later half-jokingly referred to as "Disney on Broadway." Family-oriented projects were proposed that allowed for redevelopment of the area, while also allowing for later development of the office towers should the real estate market rejuvenate. No sooner had many of the Disney-like projects been completed then the real estate market picked up and you guessed it, the towers are now being built beside the Disney-like projects.

Whatever gets developed at the Trade Center in these early years, should not suffer from the ills that the Trade Center suffered from in its early year (the towers were built, but the businesses did not come). But in the early stages of redevelopment, we should not tie our hands by forcing a future that is unrealistic. Instead, we should allow ourselves the flexibility to build as future needs present themselves. The seven proposals are nice, but I will be surprised if any one of them ever sees the light of day at that site. And if ever there was the potential for the saying "the best laid plans of mice and men…." to come to fruition, the Trade Center site is it.

CONTEST.

I am tired of the name "Ground Zero" for the site of the World Trade Center (bet you couldn't tell). I would like a new name, one that contains hope and boldness rather than destruction. So I am asking you to send your suggestions on what to call the site to me. My email address is jameseugene@empirepage.com. I will pick the top few choices and a winner (sorry, no panel of judges… this is my column… hold your own contest if you like). Winners get a mention in the column announcing the winner entries.

* James Eugene is the pseudonym of a veteran of NYC government affairs. Inside The Big Apple will appear exclusively on the Empire Page. If you want to send tips or column ideas to James Eugene, email them to jameseugene@empirepage.com.