Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:41:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Louis Epstein
Subject: WTC...Plans for Saturday


First off...
I sent the following to the New York Times yesterday.
It is significantly longer than their 150-word guideline
so I doubt they will print even an edited version.I have
yet to hear back from them(which I would if they were going
to print it).

I know and respect that some of you don't agree with all
I say in it,but if any of you would care to address some
of my points you do agree with in a letter to them(providing
postal address and phone number,as below...they require that)
please do!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:38:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Louis Epstein <le@main.put.com>
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: More,Not Less,for New World Trade Center


Dear Editors:

(I know you will pretend I started "To the Editor:",
but until the New York Times unites its news and
editorial pages under one ultimately responsible
editor,there is no one who is "the Editor").

I deplore Herbert Muschamp's endorsement of Governor Pataki's
contemptible desire that the footprints of the lost World Trade
Center Towers never be built upon...in calling for recognition
of "symbolic sanctity" he totally misjudges the symbolism of
such failure to rebuild.

If land cleared as a result of a horrific mass slaughter is
left cleared in perpetuity,we are bowing to the authors of that
slaughter as having the right to decide where we are permitted
to build,and implicitly promising that we will never rebuild
any other structure they choose to deprive us of.Likewise,the
appalling failure of any of the plans to include buildings whose
occupied space reaches at least as tall as the lost Twin Towers
also represents a reprehensible surrender to the killers.

Pearl Harbor was attacked,and remains a military base;
the Pentagon was attacked,and is being rebuilt as before;
New York should likewise temper its grief with full-scale
reconstruction.

If anyone is violating "symbolic sanctity" it is those who
represent constituencies who never liked the Twin Towers or
the urban design concepts they represented,opportunistically
seizing upon the consequences of the terrorist attacks as a
chance to remake lower Manhattan in their desired image.
While it is true that we can never completely recover the
world we had before September 11th,changing more than we can
avoid does not become us,and is further concession to the
murderers that is our responsibility and not theirs.

Yes,the six configurations of stunted symbols of surrender are
crowded,dreary,and overly similar...that anyone could oppose fully
restoring Greenwich Street seems never to have occurred to the
planners.But much of that crowding could be alleviated if all
the office space were concentrated into two dominating buildings
of heroic scale,standing majestically apart from their surroundings
rather than timidly melting into the surrounding cityscape.

We must show a "can do" rather than "don't dare" attitude...
new Towers exceeding the old would be stronger and safer than
any buildings in the world,and would draw tourists who would
be thrilled rather than mournful and morbid.Perhaps they could
even be taller than the buildings visitors from Taipei,Hong
Kong,and Kuala Lumpur could see back home.

The dead are in no way honored by greater concession to the will of
their killers than can be avoided.Memorials there must be,around,
within,and atop the new Towers...but we do the fallen the most
honor by reclaiming the ground on which they fell,and restoring
the hopes they had for future generations to enjoy also.

We need to redevelop the site on a larger scale,not smaller;
more like what was there before,not less.


Louis Epstein
R.D. 13
Carmel,New York
(845) 225-4848

[le@put.com]
---------- End forwarded message ----------

Eli Attia's petition continues to add signatures,up past 4300.
Edging closer to the wretched Anita Solomon don't-build petition.
The pure pro-rebuilding petitions that show numbers continue to
lag well behind but I don't know how well TTT's is doing.

He has also been active in the "Free-Form Discussions" at
http://pps.org/downtownnyc/ and has posted a version of his
Newsday article with a reaction to the six stunted proposals
from Beyer Blinder et al...unfortunately,he has not adapted
the remarks about 50-story buildings to the 62-to-85-story
buildings the plans propose.I am sure they are still NOT as
safe as 110-story buildings.

Consider this...if you're on the 120th floor of a building
that will stand for an hour and a half,it's about analogous
to being on the SECOND floor of a building that will collapse
in a MINUTE and a half.And you're about twice as well off as
someone on the fourth floor of the shorter building(as in,
only forty or fifty more floors on top of that fourth floor).
You may theoretically be within range of a ladder truck in
the latter eventuality,but it will never get there in time.
If it takes thirty seconds to get down one floor,you're out
with half an hour to spare from the tall building,and still
descending in a panic when the shorter one collapses.

(This is picking up on Eli's comment on how fifty-story
buildings would have been "pulverized" had the planes hit
them...obviously I hope no 120-story building will ever be
subjected to an incident in which it has only an hour and
a half left to stand!)

Andy Martin's radio show today was somewhat disappointing,
I hope he will try again soon to press the reconstruction
issue.The middle half of the hour was monopolized by a caller,
"Mark from Boca",who just wanted to bash the government and
all Arabs,try as Martin could to get back to the WTC...and
the final quarter was mostly a Moslem woman living in Orlando
who sounded very American but referred to the Middle East as
"back home",saying how she'd been offended by the anti-Arab
guy calling for genocide,and Martin pressing his pro-Arab
credentials in response.

It was worth the effort,but next time I hope off-topic callers
are kept on a tighter time limit.

Now,the remainder of this email addresses things for those who
are attending the Listening To The City II event July 20th,
except at the end for those who aren't.The issue arguments are
relevant to both,but the specifics about what we do at the Javits
Center are obviously relevant just to those who'll be there.

It has been noted that they are looking for reaction to
the ELEMENTS of the Phase I proposals,so as to refine the
three Phase II proposals,rather than planning elimination
of three of these while the others proceed as-is to Phase II.

On the one hand,they seem to have outfoxed us by making no
plan clearly the most Tower-ish so we can push behind it and
make it more so and make sure it survives cuts...but if it
is elements they want us to react to,we can play that game
and still come out ahead.

The six plans they came up with are all compromises of various
sorts.They don't give us what we want,they don't give the
arch-anti-rebuilders what they want either.The reactions based
on elements will probably pull them into making Phase II options
that are far more different from each other than the present
"six-pack of mediocrity" (Martin's phrase).

The New York Post message board continues to be dominated thoroughly
by pro-rebuilders...an encouraging sign that our opinions are the
ones most strongly held among those who care to voice one.The NY
Times articles tend to quote disappointed members of the anti-rebuilding
constituencies,who want less ambitious structures on the site,as backed
by the Times editorial.

Torn between these currents I think they will decide on options
that try to appease each of us,throwing the next phase of the debate
into starker contrast,and the more inspiring nature of heroic-scale
proposals should carry the day for us if we keep our eyes on the
prize and don't let ourselves falter.

REQUIRED READING for those who are attending July 20th
should be http://www.americaspeaks.org/design.html which
explains more about how the events work.LTTC II is apparently
the biggest such "electronic town meeting" AmericaSpeaks has
ever organized.

We will be separated into tables of about ten people each
led by a "trained facilitator" expert in "small group dynamics".
(Civic Alliance was kicking around the idea of facilitators from
all fifty states,not sure where they are actually from).

Each table is issued a networked laptop computer and wireless
voting keypads(I have a hunch that the near-ban on bags at the
site is in part intended to inhibit theft of these).A team of
"idea sifters" will help filter suggestions that come from the
tables for wider dialogue.

Obviously we need to express our ideas as effectively as we can
in this framework...it is important not to antagonize our "trained
facilitator" or to be rolled over by others' views.We are probably
best off if we sit two to a table to reinforce each other while
influencing as many tables as we can,but I do not expect that we
have any role in deciding what tables we are assigned to,and of
course should not do anything too overtly "organized",which would
antagonize the staff,I expect.

Similarly,I have a hunch literature etc. we bring in might be
viewed as "contraband",making our tables' experiences different
from those of people at other tables and thus skewing the event,
though I do recommend discreet attempts.

Dimitrios Makras has suggested that we bring postcards or other
depictions of the Towers to hold up,but I don't think this can
be effective in a vast room full of people distributed at tables.
However...if you have a picture of the Twins you might want to
carry it to show people to remind them how different the wimpy
little proposals are.

My effort to circumvent the bag rule...today I purchased a
12" x 15-1/2" envelope...the largest a printing/stationery
type place had available.It'll hold plenty of papers,and can
be used to carry my LTTC II participant packet home in.
I suggest getting outsized envelopes with whatever papers
about the Twins you want to have on you,but of course you
may be blocked from handing them out...be graceful about it.

I have written a petition at http://www.put.com/wtc/petition.html
that I recomment you print out and bring...a single sheet,fold it
and put it in a pocket and bring it out when events at your table
seem most conducive.It is a very "soft" petition that even someone
not too interested in the Twins can sign...all it asks for is that
considerations expand to include an option with a building at least
as tall as the Twins.No mention of design,exact site,or anything
else.

We may also try to get signatures for this after the event,
before heading to dinner,and we can see how many we got between
us.

In discussing the elements we need effective strategies.
Be firm without being pugnacious...make your priorities clear.
Listen to what other people want,and where possible explain
how bringing back the Towers helps them get it.

Criticize every plan for its crowding but not for the amount
of office space as a whole...emphasize how FEWER,TALLER office
buildings offer more open space and a more dramatic skyline.
Come back to that as a drawback whenever it seems appropriate
but don't grate on people if you can avoid it.

Make clear you consider heroic height a positive attribute,
that what some consider "arrogant" is to you "majestic",
that "blending in to the rest of the city" is "timid" and
something inappropriate in the circumstances.

(Some of the plans,if the buildings weren't shown in white in
the renderings,you'd have no idea where the WTC site began and
ended,they're that hard to tell from what's across the street.

Remind people that those little poles that reach 1500 feet are
NOT full recovery of the Twins' height...the Twins' roofs were
less than that,but the ANTENNA reached 1718 to 1726 feet depending
on your source.And none of the plans offers a 110th floor,or even
an 86th like the Empire State's observation (not highest) floor...
the Twins had an inside floor people could stand on at 1355 feet.

Remind people that taller buildings are stronger buildings and
new Towers will be even stronger than the old ones.Appeal to
the spirit when the people seem likely to listen...appeal to
other senses when that seems more productive.

Get to know the measure of your tablemates,and meet their
arguments with better ones.Make converts where you can!

Our networking dinner after the LTTC II will be at the Skylight
Diner at 34th Street and 9th Avenue,Joe Wright is handling the
reservation.My plan is for us to find each other in the Javits
lobby after the LTTC II program ends,talk to each other,and those
who will be at the dinner can then say goodbye to the others and
leave for it together,though others can also join us at the diner.
We may of course be distracted by the opportunities to be interviewed
by the media that must not be missed...we need our opinions as widely
publicized as possible.But there should be plenty of time.

Those not in attendance...time to start drafting your comments
on the Phase I proposals,and incorporating the arguments above
that make most sense to you.Send them to renewnyc@empire.state.ny.us
(shorter feedback goes to infolmdc@empire.state.ny.us) or mail
them or voice them at the August hearing.

You are also welcome to seek signatures for and mail in the
above-mentioned "soft" petition.

Every voice we have must be heard!

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.