Trade Center Site’s Future Is a Prism of Plans

It’s a jagged hole in the heart of lower Manhattan, a 16-acre moonscape that continues to trigger fury, grief and numbing disbelief in those flocking to see it.

But the emotions flaring now at the World Trade Center site, powerful as they are, may be nothing compared to those ahead.

As the first phase of cleanup at ground zero nears completion, New York--and America--must confront a difficult question: What exactly should be done with the sprawling vacant lot? And how can the final decision, months or years away, possibly satisfy all those demanding to be heard?

On a recent wintry day, as chilling winds ripped through the crowds viewing the site, New Yorkers offered radically different suggestions. Some, shaken by the devastation, said the area is hallowed ground, a mass grave that must not be defiled with buildings. Others could barely contain their anger at the terrorist attacks, saying the area must be rebuilt--and quickly.

“We’ve got to do the right thing here,” said a Brooklyn teacher, gazing sadly at the wreckage below. “I mean, this is not just real estate.”

In recent weeks, victims’ families, survivors, real estate brokers, politicians, community leaders, businesspeople, historians, museum curators, developers, architects and bankers have voiced a flurry of ideas for rebuilding. The proposals range from sweeping monuments and memorials to vigorous new office construction that would rejuvenate the community’s beleaguered economy.

The newly formed Lower Manhattan Redevelopment Corp. will sift through all of these ideas before agreeing on a final plan, but major construction at the site is not expected to begin until later next year.

And long before then, there will be lengthy, perhaps rancorous, public hearings. The outcome is unclear, many experts say, because what ultimately takes shape at the World Trade Center site will say as much about how America chooses to remember Sept. 11 as it does about the future of development and commercial growth in downtown Manhattan.

“This could wind up being one of the most visited sites in the world when it’s finally completed,” said Richard Anderson, president of the New York Building Congress, an amalgam of developers, contractors and Realtors. “And to think we can decide what to do based on office vacancy rates or real estate trends is ludicrous. The whole country will be watching us.”

A key player is Larry Silverstein, the Manhattan developer who won a 99-year lease to the World Trade Center buildings for $3.4 billion and wants to rebuild them with a mix of offices, retail shops and a memorial. But the land is owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and before any construction is approved, a long list of state and city officials, plus zoning, engineering and planning agencies, must give their blessings.

Last week, the redevelopment corporation began forming task forces on various aspects of the rebuilding project, and for now the watchword is “inclusion,” according to panel chief John C. Whitehead. New York’s new mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, has voiced confidence that the panel will honor victims’ feelings above all and find a design that most New Yorkers can support.

But for many observers, it still seems premature to talk of concrete plans. Even though the World Trade Center surface area is expected to be cleaned up by June, paving the way for quick repairs on subways and other underground facilities, the clamor of different voices has only begun to surface.

“A lot of people are entitled to sit at the table,” said Edward T. Linenthal, author of “The Unfinished Bombing: Oklahoma City in American Memory,” a study of the city’s response to the 1995 terrorist attack. “This site belongs to Mr. Silverstein, but it also belongs to city and state officials, to victims and survivors. It belongs symbolically to the larger culture. Whatever gets built at ground zero will be the flagship statement of what Sept. 11 means to America.”

Indeed, Linenthal believes New York might learn from Oklahoma City’s experience. Although local officials there were initially determined to quickly rebuild the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, they eventually formed a huge task force to come up with a “vision statement.” It took nine months to write the statement, and the community finally decided to construct a quiet memorial park honoring the 168 bombing victims.

But Oklahoma City is light-years from Manhattan, which abhors a real estate vacuum and is unlikely to turn 16 acres of real estate into parkland. Still, the voices calling for just that won a major ally last month, when departing Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani urged the city to forgo development on the site and instead build a memorial with a museum. He said Silverstein could be easily compensated with office development rights elsewhere in Manhattan.

Giuliani’s plea drew a swift response from Bloomberg, who backed a mix of office and retail development on the site and said his predecessor had become “emotional” on the subject. Yet many more emotions are likely to surface in the months ahead; the battle is certain to spark one of the most intense planning fights in the history of New York.

“Everybody has to stop and ask: ‘What are Americans 50 years from now going to think of what we did at ground zero?’ ” said Nancy Biberman, president of the Women’s Housing & Economic Development Corp. “There will be lots of proposals, but whose will have the most lasting value?”

A cluster of victims’ organizations want little or nothing done to disturb the site. Monica Iken, who lost a husband at the World Trade Center and heads September Mission, opposes any development.

“You watch,” she said. “Before it’s over, this will be a struggle that’s all about money.”

Marian Fontana, who heads the Sept. 11 Widows and Victims Family Assn., is repelled when she hears people discuss the site in terms of economic development. “It’s hard for me to hear builders talk about construction and making money when we’re still pulling bodies out of there,” Fontana said.

Architects and museum curators, however, see an important opportunity to build something provocative and meaningful.

“We will never again have a chance to build on so much open land in Manhattan,” said Kathleen Hulser, a historian at the New York Historical Society. “We don’t need a clunky monument. We need something understated, something with value years from now.”

The ideas are pouring in: Some architects envision a memorial with two huge beams of light to replace the vanished twin towers. Others have called for a blending of open space and a park where people can post informal memorials, such as paintings and photographs.

No one wants to simply rebuild the old World Trade Center, but a “living, energized city” with new commercial buildings should be as much a part of the site as any memorial, according to Carol Willis, founder of New York’s Skyscraper Museum.

For others, the bottom line is business. Many local merchants have been clamoring for a swift economic revival in lower Manhattan, contending that development must be put on a fast track to aid their beleaguered community.

Just how much development, though, is a thorny issue. There is a projected 17% office vacancy rate in lower Manhattan, due primarily to a steadily worsening economy, according to a report by Grubb & Ellis Inc. As a result, Silverstein’s plans have drawn mixed reviews.

During recent comments before New York University’s Real Estate Institute in midtown Manhattan, Silverstein said new construction is not just about making money “but about taking a scar on the urban landscape and healing it.”

Others at the meeting disagreed, urging fiscal caution.

“Why should we commit to build a lot of space?” asked Michael Fascitelli, president of Vornado Realty Trust, a large New York landlord. “I don’t think you should be building that amount of space going into [an economic] downturn.”

Developers seem united, however, on the idea that the site cannot be left simply to a memorial. Anderson said that “the people who died here weren’t sitting in a park on Sept. 11. They were sitting at desks in an office building, and that has to be a part of any final development we approve.”

The hard part, he said, will be to build a memorial that attracts attention years from now, evoking a painful yet pivotal moment in time.

New York tried to do this once before, after the 1993 bombing attack on the World Trade Center. The Port Authority installed a granite circle with the names of the six victims in the wind-swept plaza in front of the twin towers. But it attracted little attention, and the monument was buried in the rubble of the World Trade Center last year.

What’s needed now, some say, is a remembrance that lets people interact and express their feelings. New Yorkers created such mini-monuments with flowers, paintings, personal notes and pictures in key locations around the city. Some still exist, attracting a steady flow of visitors.

At the least, the way in which the city decides what to do with the World Trade Center site may be as important as the design itself, according to Marilyn Taylor, who chairs Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, a prominent architectural firm involved in the planning process.

“I hope we listen to as many people as we have to before deciding,” Taylor said. “This could take us a very long time to agree on. But I really hope that it doesn’t. I hope that it takes a thoughtful amount of time.”