Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 01:16:08 -0500 (EST) From: Louis Epstein Subject: WTC Rebuilding #282:Hearing Approaching!! *************************************************** *LESS THAN FOUR DAYS TO THE ALL-IMPORTANT HEARING!* *************************************************** FEBRUARY 18TH 1-5 PM AND 6PM-unclear SCHIMMEL CENTER FOR THE ARTS PACE UNIVERSITY Enter at corner of Spruce & Gold Streets, line forms downhill from Park Row to the door. Make EVERY EFFORT YOU CAN to be there...and whether or NOT you can, send in your WRITTEN COMMENTS on the Draft GEIS by March 15th! Don't let chilly weather forecasts keep you away. Don't let feelings that you can't fight the system keep you away. Don't let feelings that enough OTHER people will be there keep you away. A LARGE NUMBER OF WARM BODIES AND LOUD VOICES IS ABSOLURELY CRITICAL. http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/environmental_impact.asp is the main page for what this is all about. http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/environmental_impact_contents.asp is the gateway to the PDF documents (no HTML available as of yet) of the individual chapters of the main report...the one most important to us is Chapter 23,whose six-page hatchet job on the "Restoration Alternative" (nwe Twin Towers) gets distilled into three unsubstantiated paragraphs of the 72-page Executive Summary. As Joy Goldberg pointed out,the chapter says "The Proposed Action is not,however,the only option considered by or open to LMDC." The comparison they enter into of the Restoration Alternative against the Libeskind-etc. Proposed Action is far from fair,and we must hammer this point home over and over again on Wednesday. The introduction(23.4) proposes towers close to Church and Vesey Streets (not closer to the streets than the towers in the Libeskind plan,though).It assumes that the additional 600,000 square feet of commercial and cultural space will be in other buildings making the site denser...when it would be very much in keeping with the spirit of this alternative to consolidate these uses into the new Towers, making these twins even taller,and the plan LESS dense than the Proposed Action. They complain that the below-ground retail will result in a less "enlivened streetscape"...but the shoppers will be where they and the store operators would prefer that they be! They mention the possibility of reclaiming the old footprints and cite "the public's expressed desire for some meaningful recognition of these footprints" as a reason for not considering such action. BUT...it was Governor Pataki's squelching of debate among an evenly divided public that sought to take this off the table,and "meaningful recognition" does NOT necessarily mean total emptiness! In 23.4.1 they complain that security would be lessened...concerning things like checkpoints for delivery trucks...but it's the Proposed Action that allows unchecked trucks to rumble straight through the site at ground level,perhaps holding bombs! In 23.4.2 they call the new twins shorter than the "Freedom Tower" in an apples-to-oranges comparison,and indulge in subjective urban design preference in trying to make retaining the old philosophy be a disadvantage. In 23.4.3 they express concern about historic resources and insist that Libeskind takes better care of them by paving streets through the historic area...they also indicate that protection plans WOULD be needed for any new development of the Deutsche Bank site even though the Executive Summary claims their NOT being such plans is a reason why the Proposed Action is better. 23.4.4 basically claims the Libeskind plan is better looking in its public spaces than what there would be with new Twins,but admits there's no worse environmental impact with new Twins. 23.4.5 admits that there's no worse environmental impact with new Twins when it comes to shadows (Twins nearer the old footprints would be notably better when it came to offsite shadows,actually). 23.4.6 admits that there's nothing worse about community facilities with new Twins. 23.4.7 admits there's no worse socioeconomic impact with new Twins, except that they invoke the "nobody would work up there" fears the terrorists love so much. 23.4.8 is more subjective preference of urban design other than the old,but otherwise admits that new Twins are no worse for the "neighborhood character"...of course only new Twins RESTORE the OLD neighborhood character,rather than forcing it to be different. 23.4.9 admits that there's nothing worse about new Twins when it comes to hazardous materials. 23.4.10 admits that there's nothing worse about new Twins when it comes to infrastructure. 23.4.11 is an exercise in confusion...having elsewhere said that the Restoration Alternative means they won't slice the site up with streets as they would with Libeskind,here it says that they will (and they consider this increase in traffic as something positive). They engage in guesswork as to how the Deutsche site will be redeveloped in order to raise the traffic numbers if there are new Twins. 23.4.12 indicates that for transit and pedestrians the Restoration Alternative is if anything better,though they try hard to discount this. 23.4.13 admits that there's nothing worse about new Twins when it comes to air quality. 23.4.14 admits that there's nothing worse about new Twins when it comes to noise,except perhaps during construction. 23.4.15 admits that there's nothing worse about new Twins when it comes the "coastal zone". 23.4.16 admits that there's nothing worse about new Twins when it comes when it comes to the floodplain,though they try to use the fuzziness of their conceptualization of the Restoration Alternative as a point against it. 23.4.17 admits that there's nothing worse about new Twins when it comes to natural resources,though they call new Twins worse for birds...even though the Libeskind designs' open glass over vegetation (now abandoned) and the Childs concept's whirring windmills are classic bird hazards and the opaque design of many Twin concepts are not.And they do admit these problems can be mitigated. 23.4.18 admits that there's nothing worse about new Twins when it comes to electromagnetic fields. 23.4.19 talks of construction impact,and can't say new Twins would be any worse,only that they would be different,and the possibility of independent redevelopment of the Deutsche sight MIGHT add up to something worse. All this...and they just want us to yield in the face of terror and settle for the Libeskind plan. NO!!! Read the document...collect your thoughts...and come up with three- and two-minute speeches (they generally allow three but if time is tight cut speakers to two).I am not sure whether there will be advance speaker registration but be prepared if there is. TTT has announced a Chuck Booms as a principal speaker at their press conference on February 18th,at 9:30AM at the Marriott Financial Center at 85 West Street.They require advance reservation by FEBRUARY 16TH to be allowed in. A restorewtc.com Java-chat will be held 9 PM Eastern Sunday February 15th. The NIST investigation into the Twin Towers' collapse was mentioned in my last email...there is now a quote from Skyscraper Safety Campaign co-chair Monica Gabrielle saying that the Twin Towers would never have been built had they taken fire safety into account...obviously what should have happened then and should happen again is buildings on at least that scale built BETTER! Local television news and national Associated Press wires have covered couples celebrating Valentine's Day weddings at the Empire State Building's 80th floor chapel.Think how much better it would be to be married at a new WTC at a higher floor than the 80th! See you on the 111th floor on 9-11-11! -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.