The Battle For Ground Zero, Part VIII

I've buried the lede - so skip 2/3 of the way through this post to get to the real juicy parts, or continue reading on the IFC/Drawing Center controversy here. Powerline has a copy of a letter sent to Stefan Pryor, President of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation in relation to the IFC/Drawing Center controversy. Nothing really new in there. It restates many of the reasons to oppose those organizations' participation at the WTC site.

It also includes a fair warning about Congressional activity to stop the politicization of the site. Since Congress has the pursestrings and federal money is going towards the development of the site, Congress could have the final say (cutting money) to force change.

I hope it doesn't come to that, but one of the reasons that Congress was reluctant to give federal money to NYC and Port Authority in the aftermath of 9/11 was, in part, because of a fear that the money would not be used wisely (fraud being another). This letter sends a strong message to the LMDC that they need to get their priorities straight and to deal with this issue straightforth and directly after the July 4th weekend.

As of today, nearly 1,400 people who were survivors or families of those killed at the WTC have signed the Take Back the Memorial Petition. More than 28,000 people in all have signed the petition, which can be found here.

Elsewhere, famous architect Robert A.M. Stern thinks that the David Childs designed Freedom Tower looks very much like one of Stern's designs for a tower in Philadelphia that was never built. Childs was accused of stealing the prior design (a torqued tower) from a different architect in 2003 and was sued for copyright infringement.

Associates of Stern say he's pissed over the strong resemblance.

The buried lede:
Most importantly (and yes, I know I'm burying the lede here, but I saw this issue after the others), Steve Cuozzo has more over the Silverstein/Port Authority relationship.

Are things between the PA and Silverstein basically honky-doodle?

In a meeting with The Post, downtown development czar John Cahill praised Ringler for helping focus the huge PA bureaurcracy on the Ground Zero task. But certain news reports sure suggest trouble.

Stories, for example, in the Times and The Wall Street Journal about the PA maneuvering to boot Silverstein from Ground Zero — stories that anonymously cited high-level PA sources.

And The Post reported last spring that the PA and Silverstein were bogged down in an excruciating battle over infrastructure issues needing to be resolved, and that each side was viciously — if not for attribution — blaming the other.

And the day of the design's unveiling, the Journal reported that the PA and Silverstein are bitterly slugging it out over how much retail space to build at Ground Zero.

With the well-reported history of contention and delay, forgive us for wondering why the tower presentation — except for Pataki's rote praise for PA executives in the audience — pretended as if the PA doesn't exist.

The official press kit distributed at the event found room for construction workers "whose lives are intrinsically and emotionally tied to the rebuilding of the World trade Center" — but not even a boilerplate comment from Ringler, PA Chairman Anthony Coscia or Special Director Joseph Seymour.

Can you blame us for wondering if the omission was either 1) a deliberate diss by Gov. Pataki or 2) a hint that maybe the PA was not quite as on board as we're supposed to think?

So we're relieved to hear the PA is fully behind the project. Now there can be no excuse for the tower not to rise on the timetable Silverstein laid out, starting with foundation work in the first quarter of 2006 and steel rising by 2007.

We have our calendars out.

As do I.

UPDATE:
More reviews of the Freedom Tower plan continue to roll out: 911memorials.org pans the plan - mostly because they feel any building would not be appropriate. They're also wrong on the facts:

The irony of this is that business have fled for decades the dark and dreary confines of downtown for the bright and airy midtown grid. The windowless Freedom Tower is even worse than the dreariest of downtown buildings.

The bright and airy midtown grid is a relic of when NYC was built. It is easier to build in midtown because the geological characteristics of midtown make it easier to build skyscrapers - bedrock is closer to the surface. Downtown's built mostly on landfill and sand - so that you have to dig deep to build an appropriate foundation. That's one of the reasons for the Bathtub on which the WTC complex was built.

And last time I checked, cross town streets aren't exactly known for being airy. They have the same narrow characteristics. Besides, the WTC was originally built as a superblock eliminating many of the former narrow streets in the area. The new plan restores some of those streets, but is a rediculous assertion that people fled to midtown.

Buildings in Midtown were newer for the most part than downtown, plus Downtown buildings had landmark status associated with them that made it difficult (read expensive) to renovate, let alone demolish to make way for new buildings.

Battery Park City, and the WTC complex (original) give lie to the fact that downtown was a dank and dreary place.

However, I agree that the fortified base is off-putting. And that's being charitable.