Plan Chosen for Trade Center Site

A soaring spire, angular office buildings and a deep pit marking the foundation of the World Trade Center was chosen Wednesday night as the winning design for a massive rebuilding of the site, according to sources familiar with the decision.

Capping an intense, monthlong competition between two teams of world-renowned architects, a blue ribbon panel selected the Studio Daniel Libeskind plan for the site over the offering by the so-called Think group led by Rafael Vinoly and Frederic Schwartz.

The decision was confirmed by Schwartz, who said in a statement: “I am honored to have participated in this process and will continue to help the city, the state and other planners in any way I can. Since 9/11, I have been dedicated to working with the city and my country to the best of my ability.”

The final decision, set to be formally announced today, was made late Wednesday by New York Gov. George E. Pataki and New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, as well as officials from the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

John Whitehead, chairman of the development corporation, telephoned Libeskind with the news, telling him that his “vision has brought hope and inspiration to a city still recovering from a terrible tragedy,” according to Associated Press. Libeskind, who did not return phone calls from the Los Angeles Times after the news became known, reportedly said that being chosen to redesign the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was a “life-changing experience.”

The decision, made on the 10th anniversary of the 1993 bombing attack on the World Trade Center, ended a fierce tug-of-war that dominated the architectural competition.

The Libeskind proposal, which features a 1,776-foot spire as well as office buildings as tall as 70 stories, will cost an estimated $350 million to construct. It was thought to be the front-runner, largely because it had been endorsed by Pataki and Bloomberg. But the Think plan, which called for two steel lattice towers, had unexpectedly won the endorsement of a development corporation planning committee Tuesday, and seemed to be picking up momentum.

“I can tell you that it was a unanimous decision and the decision was clear,” said development corporation spokesman Matt Higgins, who refused to comment on the choice as the decision-makers left their evening meeting.

Earlier Wednesday, Nina Libeskind, the architect’s wife and business partner, said, “Things don’t look too encouraging for us. But we have to wait for a final decision to be made.”

Ric Bell, executive director of the American Institute of Architects New York chapter, said in a television interview that he did not know what brought about the apparent shift in sentiment.

“But I’m very happy with the selection,” added Bell, who speculated that the Libeskind proposal -- which like the Think plan was one of nine competing proposals unveiled weeks ago -- was chosen because of “how the site would be integrated into the neighborhoods surrounding it, and with public transportation.”

Planners cautioned, however, that economic pressures, engineering requirements and other unforeseen factors will inevitably force changes in the winning design. A separate international competition to design a memorial on the actual ground once occupied by the fallen towers will be held later this year.

Both architectural teams were compelled to make key changes in their designs as planners commenced a final review. The Libeskind plan originally called for the preservation of a portion of the 70-foot-deep “bathtub” -- an area formed by concrete slurry walls holding back the Hudson River -- to create a museum and memorial. But the site was reportedly reduced to a 30-foot pit to accommodate construction of a public transit hub underneath.

Similarly, proponents of the Think plan moved a proposed museum and memorial site from the top of two 110-story towers to a location between the 30th and 35th floors. Vinoly and Schwartz also were taking steps to reduce their plan’s estimated $800-million construction cost.

The architectural teams had extraordinary credentials, and they received strong public support for their plans to rebuild the hallowed ground. Yet the differences between the two groups -- and their leaders -- were telling.

Vinoly was catapulted to architectural stardom in 1989, when he won an international competition to design the $1.5-billion Tokyo International Forum, a performing arts and convention center. The spectacular steel and glass structure opened to widespread acclaim in 1997.

In the last decade, Vinoly has become well known as an elegant designer who invests classical forms with a modern look. His signature touches are sweeping curves and dramatic roofs.

For the World Trade Center competition, Vinoly teamed up with Schwartz of New York and Shigeru Ban of Tokyo. Their group advocated building “the first truly Global Center, a place where people can gather to celebrate cultural diversity in peaceful and productive coexistence.”

The Think team initially came up with three separate proposals. One, a “Sky Park,” called for a 10-block rooftop public park and a cantilevered lawn with views of the Hudson River and New York Harbor. The second, “The Great Room,” featured a huge public plaza under a glass ceiling. The third, “Towers of Culture,” which the team eventually went on to develop, replaced the destroyed twin towers with open lattice-work cylinders, with various buildings suspended inside. The plan was championed by New York Times architecture critic Herbert Muschamp as “a piece of urban infrastructure, a transportation system turned skyward,” which symbolizes the city’s aspirations.

But Libeskind’s design had enormous appeal for those who wanted to ensure that the replacement for the World Trade Center would include a powerful memorial as well as new office buildings. Libeskind -- best known for designing the Jewish Museum in Berlin, which has won praise for embodying the horror of the Holocaust -- won support from those who thought his plan most directly addressed the devastation of 9/11.

The Berlin-based Libeskind proposed preserving the void of the twin towers’ foundation, while exposing the bedrock underneath Manhattan and the two slurry walls that seal off the site from the Hudson River. He envisioned a memorial museum, in a cube-like glass form, projecting over the pit, along with jagged office buildings, a series of wedge-shaped parks and a tower symbolizing “life victorious.”

In a review of the architects’ original proposals, The Times’ architecture critic, Nicolai Ouroussoff, judged Libeskind’s plan “a work of remarkable, almost brutal intensity.”

*

Getlin reported from New York, Muchnic from Los Angeles.