World Trade Center Memorial - Research Paper Example

World Trade Center Memorial Soon after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the first proposals were made to construct a tribute in remembrance of the victims. Even before the area known as Ground Zero had been cleared, there was already a good deal of public discussion as to what would be a proper memorial. Less than a year after the 9/11 attacks, a group called the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation was authorized to plan and create a World Trade Center Memorial. This corporation announced that there would be a competition to determine the design. The submissions would be judged by a panel made up primarily of artists, curators and professional designers. There were several requirements established by the Corporation for all submissions. While the designs could be “of any type, shape, height or concept,” they must include “five physical elements: a recognition of each victim of the attacks; an area for quiet contemplation; a separate area for visitation by the families of the victims; a 2,500-square-foot area for the unidentified human remains collected at the trade center site; and a way to make visible the footprints of the original twin towers.” (New York Times, Section B, page 1, April 29, 2003.) But almost immediately, members of the jury who were to select the winning design said that they did not want to limit the artistic expression of those submitting and that they would consider all proposals whether or not they followed the announced requirements. “Anything they might have in mind, any response, will be considered here,” said the scholar James E. Young, one of the jurors. “We want architects and artists - anybody who submits - to feel they can go where their imaginations, where their mourning needs to take them in order to articulate some relationship to this terrible loss. (New York Times, Section B, page 1, April 29, 2003.) The governor of New York at the time, George Pataki, explained why the panel was created. “You can’t have a Memorial designed by politicians,” he said. “Having a jury that was insulated and allowed to function-with the freedom to think and be involved and to have the time necessary to ultimately come up with what they thought was right-was absolutely essential.” . (Glenn Collins and David W. Dunlap, New York Times, p.1, January 19, 2004.) The difficulty of finding a proper plan for a memorial was expressed by a Manhattan architect, Frederic Schwarz. “Its almost an impossible task to transcend this unimaginable event,” he told the New York Times. “Its not just about remembering, but about reimagining a place that has never been seen before. Its nearly impossible. But not impossible.. (Glenn Collins< New York Times, Section B, page 4, November 21. 2003) There were more than five thousand entries in the competition. The jury to select the design took six months to make their decision. Much like a jury on a court trial, they were sequestered. Extreme precautions were taken to protect their deliberations. There was a detective agency hired to inspect each one of the submissions for explosions and deadly chemicals. Two sets of keys to the jury room were issued to all members. According to the New York Times, the members “were trapped in deliberations until consensus could be established. It called for expert testimony, then called for it again. It quarreled. It soul-searched.” (New York Times, Section B, page 1, April 29, 2003.) The first plan was to divide the selection jury into three units, each responsible for examining a third of the submissions. But the group decided this was not the best way to proceed. They decided that every member of the jury would examine every one of the more than 5,000 entries. As the deliberations progressed, jurors made frequent visits to Ground Zero to check on the feasibility of the proposals. They also sought information from experts as to how the location would tolerate certain types of trees, which were a feature included in many of the proposals. They did not want to approve a plan which would plant trees unable to survive the local cold and wind conditions. The landscaping at the memorial would also help to make the project more environmentally friendly for the local residents, with as small a carbon footprint as possible. In the years since the 9/11 attacks, the population around the site in lower Manhattan has expanded. There are now an additional 50,000 people living in the area. There were other architects who were involved in other phases of the ground zero rebuilding. Their work needed to be coordinated with the plans for the Memorial, or what those plans might be, since many of their designs were made before the final winner of the memorial competition was determined. One architect who was brought in early to help develop projects on the site was Daniel Libeskind. His design on the proposed spot for the memorial included a controversial seventy-foot pit. Edward Wyatt in the New York Times reported that many critics considered that pit to be “harsh and perhaps too dominating for a public space.” (Edward Wyatt, New York Times, Section B, page 4, February 12, 2003) But Libeskind defended his proposal. “Many people took the sight itself as the memorial,” he said, “But I think what I drew is really the sight for the development of the memorial. There could be anything down there,” he continued. “It should not just be a stark place and a reminder of the devastation, but it should also have something hopeful and lyrical about it.” (Edward Wyatt, New York Times, Section B, page 4, February 12, 2003) By the summer of 2003, the massive number of proposals for a memorial had been whittled down to 250. After a few more months, that number was down to less than ten. At that point, the finalists were given two months to create professional renderings of their proposals, which could include animation and scale-models. More than $1 million was divided among the eight finalists to make their presentations. Their displays were then made public, which did not please all of the jurors. The public response to the proposals was generally unfavorable. Even Governor Pataki claimed that he “didn’t see one that just jumped out and struck me as the perfect appropriate memorial.” Jurors then began working with the designers to improve their presentations. (New York Times, Section B, page 1, April 29, 2003.) By January of 2004, the jury was ready to hear the last proposals of the finalists and to make their decision. They had reduced the candidates down to three. Finally, the jury made its choice. The winning submission was the proposal by architect Michael Arad, who was working with the landscape architectural firm of Peter Walker and Partners of Berkeley, California. His original design was called “Reflecting Absence.” His plan was to place enormous sunken pools where the twin towers stood. Underground galleries were to surround the pools, with low parapets on which the victims names would be inscribed. (Glenn Collins and David W. Dunlap, New York Times, p.A1, January 19, 2004.) Arad’s design called for the memorial to be set amidst a grove of more than 400 oak and sweetgum trees. An environmental design company from Texas was chosen to handle the shipping and planting of the trees. “The oaks and sweetgums could live a century or more,” said Paul F. Cowie, an arborist who has been hired to work on the project. Douglas Findlay, who is part of the Peter Walker design team chosen by the juror, describes them as “sacred trees.” that will be part of a “living memorial...They need to thrive and grow and become old,” he said. (David W. Dunlap, The New York Times, November 19, 2006.) After determining what design would be used, the most important question was how to fund it. The cost of creating the World Trade Center Memorial has been an ongoing issue since the inception of the project. All reconstruction at Ground Zero, including the Memorial, was held up for a number of years due to disagreements about funding, both from government authorities as well as insurance companies. Finally, in December, 2004, a board consisting of thirty-one members was named to the non-profit World Trade Center Memorial Foundation. The board consisted mostly of financiers and industrialists, a few prominent local celebrities and also relatives of the victims. Their goal was to raise $500 million for the project. Originally, the board was supposed to oversee construction of the Memorial and eventually own and operate the buildings. (David W. Dunlap, New York Times, December 2, 2004.) But in 2006, the Port Authority of New York took over control of the construction in an attempt to simplify the planning and decision-making process. The decision allowed the board to concentrate on fund-raising, which had stalled.(David Dunlap, New York Times, July 7, 2006.) By April, 2007, it was announced by the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation that they had raised $300 million towards their goal of $350 million. (Glenn Collins, New York Times, June 2, 2007.) Other sources of finance for the Memorial included $50 million from the Port Authority’s funds, $100 million from Silverstein Properties, the leaseholder on the site, and $250 million from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which was paid through the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. (David Dunlap, New York Times, July 7, 2006.) Even with hundreds of millions of dollars available for the project, by 2006, it was determined that Arad’s original design would be too expensive. He was forced to make alterations to save money. The underground galleries, which would have contained the listing of the names, were eliminated. This change saved more than $170 million. The new plan called for the names of the victims to be displayed at street level.. The Memorial Plaza would be built on top of a seventy-foot building built below ground which would include a museum and a train station. (national 911memorial.org) The most contentious issue which Arad needed to address was how to list the names of the victims. He needed to do this in a manner which adhered to the building codes of New York City while still paying respect to the families of the victims and the victims themselves for whom the memorial is meant to honor. His original plans for listing the names were changed many times. “We ended up at Option Y,” Arad told the New York Times. (David Dunlap, p.A25, New York Times, March 24, 2009.) Through the years of planning, there have been several proposals about how to group the names of those being memorialized and what information should be included along with the names. Many of the proposals have created much emotional anger from the family members of the victims. “There is no ‘right’ answer,” said New York City Mayor Bloomberg. (David W. Dunlap, New York Times, January 11, 2007.)Virtually every proposal for listing the victims was disputed. The Mayor thought that the names should be displayed randomly, without affiliation, age or location. Eventually, this proposal was dropped. (Danny Hakim, New York Times, February 23, 2007.) There have even been disputes over how high on a wall the names should be listed and what color and lighting should be used to illuminate them. The latest and perhaps last design by architect Arad for displaying the names was reported in the New York Times: “There will be 1,568 names around the north pool, representing 1,475 people who were in or around the north tower, 87 people aboard the jetliner that hit it and 6 victims of the 1993 bombing of the trade center. The 1,414 names around the south pool will include 441 emergency workers, chiefly firefighters and police officers, 690 people from the south tower, 60 from the plane that hit it, 125 at the Pentagon, 59 from the jetliner that hit it and 39 from the jet that crashed in Pennsylvania.” (David W. Dunlop, p.A25, New York Times, March 23, 2009.) Considering all of the emotion involved in the Memorial, especially among the families of the victims, it is quite possible that any plan for the Memorial would have received strong opposition. The current plan was recently vehemently criticized by a relative of one of the victims, James McCaffrey. His brother-in-law, a fireman, was killed in the attacks. McCaffrey is vice-chairman of a group called “Advocates for a 9/11 fallen heroes Memorial.” As recently expressed in an op-ed column in the New York Daily News, he believes the memorial does not pay proper respect to those being memorialized. “The connection between the victims and 9/11 itself is absent,” he says. “No affiliation such as those of first responders or members of the military will be listed. It also fails to list the victims’ department, branch of service and their rank. Civilian victims will likewise have no affiliation, age or the floor where they worked listed next to their names. “Essentially,” he concludes, “this memorial is a generic rendition that could represent just about any event.” (James McCaffrey, New York Daily News, p. 25, March 26, 2009.) Other aspects of the memorial plans have received criticism from the National Trust For Historic Preservation. This group questions the way the construction plans handle the remaining column remnants from the fallen towers. The Memorial design will also use the space of the footprints-the area where the buildings stood- for other purposes, including water pumps, water tanks and electrical equipment. The Preservation group believes that this would result in substantial destruction to the remaining remnants of the tower, describing them as “a direct, irreplaceable and authentic link to the historic events of September 11, 2001." (David W. Dunlap, New York Times, March 2, 2006.) This criticism was answered by Stefan Pryor, who was head of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the original developer of the project. The public mandate was to ensure that the footprints contained the memorial, he said. Now what seems to have evolved is the point of view that they ought to contain nothing at all. Though we are entirely sensitive to and committed to historic preservation principles, we believe that goes too far. (David W. Dunlap, New York Times, March 2, 2006.) At the moment, no one knows for sure when the Memorial will be completed. Nor can anyone say with certainty how much it will eventually cost. In his criticism in the New York Daily News, James McCaffrey also doubts the current information about expenses. “Various estimates approximate the current cost of the Memorial at levels near $1 billion,” he says. He continues, “no one can realistically believe that these figures will not rise dramatically as the projects proceed.” (James McCaffrey, New York Daily News, p. 25, March 26, 2009.) And if more money is needed, it is unclear how it would be raised. These matters seem of great importance now, but the goal of the memorial has always been to create a permanent remembrance of a tragic event. If it is completed with the proposed features included, the issues of cost and delay will not matter to future generations visiting the site. Read More