List of WTC designs down to 2.

Feb. 4, 2003 will be remembered as a day of mixed emotions. As much of the country and the world was mourning the passing of the Columbia shuttle crew, an announcement in a cramped office in Downtown Manhattan perhaps signaled that New York City wanted to move forward from the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001.

As the announcement of the two finalists for the World Trade Center rebuild were announced at the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation office, a sense of relief could be felt throughout much of the real: estate and business communities of the city: That a long, agonizing process had taken a major step forward. Two teams of architects with a much different viewpoint have been selected as finalists in the competition to create the design for the World Trade Center site.

Indeed, one critic said the choices "illustrate the confusion of a nation torn between the conflicting impulses of war and peace." Each of the designs includes, what would be the tallest building in the world, though in both plans, offices do not occupy the towers' upper reaches. There is a memorial observation deck in one case and a hanging garden in the other.

Of course, there is still the "Silverstein" factor. Larry Silverstein is the lead representative of the firms that hold the lease to the WTC site. In a letter, dated Jan. 31 to rebuilding officials, Silverstein asserted that the lease gave his group the right to rebuild the site as it sees fit and to choose the architecture firm that will design it. There are also several other forces competing for control of the site and for the authority to develop it.

After the two finalists were chosen by the LMDC, Silverstein released the following statement: "As we made clear in our Jan. 31 letter to LMDC, it is essential that we be included as part of a cooperative effort with LMDC and the Port Authority in developing a land use plan for the site. We will be watching the process over the next several days in order to assure that the plan is feasible, meets the demands of New York, and respects our rights."

And in a city known for battles over the most miniscule of land issues, the future of who controls what at the WTC site is emerging as an equally divisive split. The city is seeking to negotiate a land swap that would give it authority over the trade center site, while transferring ownership of the city's two major airports to the Port Authority, the agency that now owns the trade center property.

The two teams, Studio Daniel Libeskind, the firm headed by the Berlin-based architect Daniel Libeskind, and the Think team, headed by the architects Frederic Schwartz, Rafael Vinoly and Ken Smith of New York, and Shigeru Ban of Tokyo, will now work with rebuilding officials on refinements to their designs. One team is to be selected as the winner by the end of the month. The winning design will include the layout and conceptual vision for the trade center site's buildings, transportation terminals and a memorial to the victims of Sept. 11, 2001.

Libeskind told Real Estate Weekly that, "It is a very simple scheme in terms of the parceling of the site into very realistic blocks. And it contains very realistic footprints for office buildings. Plus, it has a base building for the retail that also works for light and wind. It's a very pragmatic scheme that can be realized very efficiently. As for any criticism, this is America. People have opinions."

Libeskind emphasized what he is attempting to accomplish. "I want people to see an extraordinary proposal not just for the site but for lower Manhattan And I want it to be used as both an economic and social regenerator."

Rafael Vinoly, explained to Gotham Gazette the proposal from Think. "The World Cultural Center is configured by two lattice work open structures that will be occupied by different buildings designed by different architects that will house the cultural component of the program. The office components are divide into nine sites that are normative office buildings designed over time that are not encumbered by additional functions but the specific of office space and on street retail frontage."

The idea is that you would go to these buildings occasionally rather than with a schedule. One would take a large elevator, to go from cultural building to cultural building, looking at the city. The view of the city from above is a totally essential part of the New York experience and we don't think that this should be the prerogative of the private office space or just another very expensive restaurant."

Even after a single team is chosen to complete a plan for the layout of the site, the office buildings that will be constructed there over the next 10 to 12 years could look significantly different from the renderings created by the two teams.

That is because these two plans, unlike some of those that were rejected, have the memorial, rather than office towers, as their centerpiece. The architects themselves have acknowledged that the designs of the office buildings in their drawings are subject to change. Some officials of the LMDC have maintained that, regardless of who owns the land at the trade center site, the development corporation will continue to oversee the development.

Neither plan would restore the total amount of office space in the original five-building complex, 11.4 million SF, but Think contemplates the creation of floor area almost equal to the 9.4 million SF in the twin towers. It's World Cultural Center plan would allow for the development of up to 8.6 million SF of office space (in contrast to 780,000 SF of cultural space), with two of the largest buildings on Church Street and a third on the block now occupied by 1 Bankers Trust Plaza, a 41-story skyscraper that was badly damaged during the attack and has never reopened. Libeskind's plan calls for 7.6 million SF of office space, with two of the largest buildings on Vesey Street and a third on Church Street.

Both plans call for more than twice the retail space that previously existed. This would be controlled by Westfield America as a subtenant of Silverstein Properties, which holds the overall lease on the site. There would be 1.1 million SF of shops under Think's plan, three-quarters of it underground, as the trade center concourse was. The Libeskind proposal would create 900,000 SF of retail space, almost two-thirds of it underground.

Julie Menin, owner of VINE restaurant and the president and founder of Wall Street Rising said, "I'm happy the process is now down to two plans and there was an opportunity to have input. I prefer the Think concept. A survey we conducted said the area needed cultural institutions. The idea of a world cultural center is excellent. It is a very fitting tribute to the lives that were lost and to the rebuilding efforts. It's of paramount importance if we ever want to achieve a 24/7 community. But transportation is the key. Accessibility is a key to attracting large tenants to move to lower Manhattan or remain there. Lower Manhattan is one of the few business areas in the country without access to major airports, for example, We are working with over 300 businesses who are interested in moving to lower Manhattan. On the other hand, there are now over 160 vacant retail spaces south of Chambers Street."

And while both plans have supporters and critics, more pointed has been the criticism of the LMDC, the Port Authority, and their process for arriving at the designs. Officials of the Regional Plan Association, a planning advocacy group, repeated criticisms that the process seemed to be made up as it has progressed.

"They've never really articulated how this process would work from start to finish," said Steve Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institutive. "It's isn't surprising that there is confusion and tensions are coming to surface. I don't see how you can impose designs on private sector developers, which you intend, to commission to build these structures. And whether it is Larry Silverstein or someone else, to say to the private sector that you have to build these building to this size and this design seems to be ridiculous. I also am concerned that the LMDC isn't putting enough emphasis on the importance of this site towards the rebuilding of the commercial aspect of lower Manhattan. Some of these designs, from an architectural viewpoint, may be in the real world, unworkable. I don't understand how the LMDC could commission these designs on a private sector developer and without giving the developer the ability to tailor the designs for the marketplace. Unless LMDC is planning to build themselves, like t he first World Trade Center, I believe this process going horribly wrong."

The LMDC has been careful to make sure that a spirit of cooperation is being maintained, at least publicly. LMDC member Roland Betts said the following: "Mr. Silverstein has been involved in discussions and decisions about the site. We had a number of consultants looking at all the issues that were raised in that letter and we came to different conclusions."