Gettysburg & new World Trade Center

The politicians recited Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address to commemorate September 11, but when it came to building on the site where September 11 terrorist attacks took place, they are building, as if they are building in Vegas.
If a developer were to go to the government asking to have control of the Gettysburg Battlefield site to build a couple skyscrapers wouldn't this sound stupid? If this is unreasonable why does building on the WTC site sound reasonable?
The argument of building on the former WTC site is suspended by one thread of coercion disguised as logic. This faint logic pretends to keep Lower Manhattan successful by not depriving it of the 16 acres site that many view as the last chance for a significant construction project in Lower Manhattan. This thread of logic losses it suspension qualities in an instance when one realizes that my thesis project provided more than 400 acres of better quality land for the expansion of Lower Manhattan that is a stone-throw away from the former WTC site. A couple dozen of new World Trade Centers could be built on this expansion. And Lower Manhattan will be a lot more successful than it used to be, without building on the site where September 11 events took place.

The nationally defeating selection processes of Ground Zero’s rebuilding.

There were 4 main selection processes within the rebuilding process of the Ground Zero’s new WTC. The resulted selection of each one of them defeated the national interest while serving a personal interest. The final product of this inferior and corrupted rebuilding process is being constructed as you are reading this.
First selection process was to choose an architect from a list to prepare six designs for first round of designs. The six designs were to be narrowed down to one design that was supposed to be built. The administrator of the process bypassed well known architects from list whose experience was far more relevant to the task in hand than the chosen architect. Then the choice was made much worse when the administrator of the process coerced the joining of his friends to prepare 3 of the 6 deigns. Then it was made far worse when the developers had their architects to join in to work in 2 of the designs (SOM was one of those). The first design process was a disgraceful failure highlighted as such in every reputable news-media outlet in America and the world. This design process was junked altogether and the LMDC started a new design process.
The 2nd selection process took place when the new design process copycatted a list of architects who submitted a study project which was curated and published by the NY Times Magazine. After eliminating the most significant architects of the list and adding an obviously wrong choice which was SOM. (The interest of developers stands in a startling conflict with the American national interest in the rebuilding process. In a published essay SOM pledged the allegiance as developer Silverstein's architects as early as November 2001.) Six teams were introduced to the world as the design competition's entrants. Then -as usual- the administrator of the process added his same friends as a seventh team. The 7 teams were to introduce a design scheme each and the designs were to be judged in design competition settings. Almost all the authors who wrote about the rebuilding process wondered why the most significant architects of world did not or were not allowed to join the competition.
Thirdly, the 7 teams were allowed a choice of a program from a 6 to 10 million square foot program rang for commercial program. If the competition was for real all entrants should have used the lower end of the program to win it. The lower end of the program range was also the national choice; a more national choice was not to build at all in the WTC site. Vinoly submitted a commemorative entry without a commercial program. Renowned Foster was only architect to use the smallest program. SOM -predictably- violated the program range and submitted a scheme with 130 % the maximum allowed program. It seems that SOM realized the inevitability of a humiliating rank and withdrew their entry before judging. The other 4 teams chose a program around the maximum allowed program.
The fourth selection process was when Vinoly and Libeskind became the finalists and were asked to refine their entries and the one of their schemes will win and be constructed. On the eve of the day where the winner was to be announced NY Times wrote that vinoly won. During the afternoon of this eve governor Pataki reversed the choice and made Libeskind the winner and Libeskind it was. After Libeskind won, he was coerced to collaborate with SOM (SOM was the biggest loser of the competition). This highly publicized collaboration was bitterly negative and a scandalous. Libeskind role diminished remarkably after this collaboration. SOM solely designed the being constructed now WTC1 that was the subject of collaboration completely ignoring Libeskind scheme.
The rebuilding process concluded with the choice of lebsikind scheme to be constructed. When Libeskind scheme was completely ignored, questions are coerced; if his scheme was good why not build it, if it was bad why win the design competition. I remember the extensive first page coverage of the rebuilding process on NY newspapers I remember years of TV coverage of the same process. I remember the millions in New York, America and the world following the rebuilding process enthusiastically. All of these came to no avail as the rebuilding process led to no design and developers took over. Compelling a question why should government fund that kind of failure? The rebuilding process could be compared to a process where a sports team allocated the bulk of their resources to hire a franchise player yet this player never played a single game.

Nepotism

Dear Investigator Daniel Samuel
One of the points that two investigators of the NYSIG raised while interviewing me was one instance of suspected nepotism.
I did not used the word nepotism, rather highlighted a pattern that may have led investigators to legitimately use the word nepotism. This set of coincidences started with LMDC's vice president -that ran the design process- hiring his -obscure- friends and previous business partners as paid LMDC consultants. Weeks later allowed the same friends to submit design schemes for the New World trade center under the name of the chosen architect (BBB). All the designs that were submitted at that stage failed miserably. The same friends were later added as a seventh team to 6 chosen teams composed of well-known celebrity architects from all over the world. The seven teams received government money and priceless heavy national and international news media attention.
There are two competing theories to explain new WTC rebuilding process' failures either severe incompetence or corruption. Incompetence does not come in that severe of a form, does not happen systematically and does not serve the interest of the same person every time. As you can see, I am leaning towards the theory that suggests corruption. In any case, the national task of rebuilding Lower Manhattan after September 11 should be neither incompetent nor corrupted. My book analyzed the rebuilding process of the new World Trade Center from a national perspective, yet it does not offer a list of suspects that you can immediately arrest. It rather offers clues and leads for investigators to follow. I followed architecture you should follow money to know who to arrest. To answer investigator Daniel Samuel’s question, "Should we arrest him?" I did not receive the kind of training you received to be an investigator neither do I have the expertise you posses. I cannot precisely, based solely on following the architecture determine whether you should arrest him. If you would take an opinion from a guy who went to school for architecture like me, I would recommend investigating these 2 possible theories before making a determination: 1- Mr. Garven argued unconvincingly in one of the books that was written about the rebuilding process that he hired his friends as a "think-tank" to help him. 2- Nepotism or worse.
While this one instance is serious, there are dozens of equally or even more serious instances of wrongdoings that I investigated while following the rebuilding process. The time NYSIG allowed me to present was not enough to bring all my findings to their attention. It is not fair to focus on this one instance of and ignore all the other ones.
I can answer any questions you may have regarding this essay, also I can print you a copy of my manuscript for your information. I can prepare a 2 hours power point presentation to highlight the investigative part of my book.
Your Sincerely
Ramez George (Was originally Written and sent on 2/18/2010)

The premise of my book

In 1994, I devised a scheme to expand Lower Manhattan, 3D computer-modeled it while attending a computer class in Parsons that concluded early1995. Developed the same design concept until 1998 incorporating -the then Coast Guard’s vacated- Governors Island.
I attended the Master of Architecture program at SUNY Buffalo in 1998 where I developed my concept into a different set of expansion schemes. This design journey explored connecting Governors Island with Lower Manhattan, Brooklyn and New Jersey. Devising public and vehicular transportation plans to stitch the new expansion to the main land. Designed and wrote my M-Arch’s thesis regarding the same topic and graduated in 2000.

After September, 11terrorests attacks the rebuilding process of Lower Manhattan started. I realized that rebuilding the new WTC on the expansion my thesis found is a far superior and a national approach to rebuild Lower Manhattan than the approach that is currently being adopted. I wrote a letter suggesting this and sent a synopsis of my thesis in 2002 to LMDC who administered the rebuilding process asking them to review it as a valid Lower Manhattan rebuilding approach. They denied my request in writing. I wrote a chapter in my book regarding this.

Following the rebuilding process, it was impossible not to notice the many flagrant violations of design, moral and administrative principles. I wrote an essay every time I noticed something wrong. Few years and dozens of essays later I realized that those essays could easily form a book. I spent a good portion of 2006 assembling a 2-part book. Part one of my book is an editing of my thesis, introducing it as an approach to rebuild Lower Manhattan factoring the situation after September 11. Applying this approach will expand lower Manhattan’s urban life expectancy and its success for centuries. Part 2 is sobering, exposing yet an objective critique of the current rebuilding process of Lower Manhattan and its outcome.

Ramez A. George
3506 34th Street Apt #A43
Astoria NY 11106
Cell (212) 729-4905
Phone (718) 482-1954
RGeorgeArch@aol.com
Blog: http://savenewyork.blogspot.com

In For A Dream's front cover

In For A Dream’s Introduction

The most essential difference between my project and all the other proposed projects to rebuild Lower Manhattan is the range. The -alleged- national process's embarrassing objectives were to construct another version of the former World Trade Center. New York Times Magazine curated a study project that proposed burying West street adding16 acres in addition to the existing16 acres of the World Trade Center site. My work for more than 12 years produced the farthest ranging approach to rebuild Lower Manhattan producing various expansions. Any of which could easily yield more than 400 acres of expandability. Applying the expansion as a rebuilding approach will go beyond building a new building to solve all the urban-design related problems that Lower Manhattan have for many decades to come. The suggested expandability will provide land to construct a business district that is much bigger than the World Trade Center was. The expansion will also have a room to construct the corresponding residential and commercial facilities that will accommodate the proposed business district.

One of the most significant differences between my book and all the books that addressed the rebuilding process is; the authors of all the other books wrote their books purposely, I wrote mine circumstantially.
I started by designing a study project to expand Lower Manhattan in 1994 and kept developing it until 1998. I won admission to the Master of Architecture program in 1998 to the school of Architecture and Planning at SUNY Buffalo . I continued exploring the expanding of Lower Manhattan during the duration of the 2 years graduate program. I designed and wrote my Master of Architecture thesis that was concluded in the year 2000 about expanding lower Manhattan. My design work was critiqued by honorable school professors, four hundred miles away from New York City’s politics. My thesis offered few expansion patterns for Lower Manhattan. The relevance of my project became compelling after September 11. I rewrote my thesis, in 2006 incorporating the new situation after the terrorist attacks. I started my book by including the latest, 2006's remake of my thesis.
In 2002, I wrote a brief illustrated description of my thesis and submitted it to the LMDC (the government entity that ran the rebuilding process) urging them to critique my work .When they didn’t I had to alert the media. Addressing the media, I started to write essays highlighting how far ranging and how national my rebuilding approach is. The details of this stage is included in this book
The start of what was thought to be a national rebuilding process brought undisputed evidences of incompetence and corruption. Trying to alert the media particularly CBS News, I wrote and delivered essays dissecting and emphasizing those evidence. I always believed that I was one essay or even one paragraph away from being heard. As the corruption and the incompetence of the rebuilding process grew, the number, length and the contents of my essays grew accordingly. After more than 3 years of writing essays to CBS News’ 60 Minutes, I realized that my essays critiqued the entire rebuilding process. Those essays formed a big portion of my book.
Late in 2005 I started the process of putting together my book “In For A Dream ?”. My book starts with my endeavors to expand Lower Manhattan including the year 2006's remake of my thesis. A part of the book details my efforts to be heard. Another section of the book was assembling the essays that are critical of the rebuilding process into book chapters. Grouping separate essays of a relevant topic into one chapter was a process that compelled the adding of transitory essays or paragraphs sometimes required the writing of either chapter’ conclusions, introductions or both.
This book is now complete and I am searching for a publisher.

Chapter 1, IN-FILL IS-LAND, The 2006's Remake of My Year 2000 Thesis

In a journey that started more than 12 years ago, I had experimented with various approaches to expand Lower Manhattan. Some of those attempts were recorded in my year 2000 Master of Architecture thesis book.
One of the findings of my thesis was that Lower Manhattan will expand to incorporate Governors Island. The size and shape of the expansion may fluctuate, the certainty of the expansion will not.
The title of my thesis is “IN-FILL IS-LAND”. One way to read it, is Infill Island pertains to the fact that Governors Island was originally around 70 acres, due to an infill that took place in 1901, it became 200 acres. “Infill Is Land” is my favorite way to read the title of my thesis. The fact that Infill in Lower Manhattan creates new land is a history authenticated fact.
The subtitle of my thesis is “A VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF GOVERNORS ISLAND”. My vision for Governors Island is to develop it and connect it to Lower Manhattan turning Governors Island into a new part of Lower Manhattan.
After September 11, 2001 my thesis gained urgency and its relevance became compelling as a Lower-Manhattan's rebuilding approach. I rewrote my thesis incorporating the new situation in Lower Manhattan. This book highlights5 expansion options. Lower Manhattan’s expansion could be any one of them or a hybrid between any 2 or more schemes.
This chapter details some of both the successes and the constructive failures of this journey.

Chapter 2, Entry 424

After America lost the World Trade Center in September 11, 2001 due to the terrorist attacks, the state and the city governments of New York jointly founded the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC). One of the LMDC’s assignments was the overseeing of the Lower Manhattan rebuilding process.
By 2002 I had experimented with various approaches to expand Lower Manhattan for more than 8 years. The successes of this design journey were chronicled in my year 2000 Master of Architecture thesis book. Giving the overwhelming relevance my Master of Architecture’ thesis had to the topic that was placed in LMDC ‘hands, I started to follow Lower Manhattan’s rebuilding process closely waiting for a chance to be heard.
Soon the chance came in August 2002, when LMDC asked for the “Request for Qualifications” to authorize some of the willing designers, to prepare designs for the new WTC, I submitted mine. I was optimistic, my approach was undisputedly national, I felt it was LMDC’s duty to hear me.
This chapter details my 10 pages entry that was numbered 424, I in fact enclosed my thesis work as portfolio samples. I will present the same portfolio samples that were submitted to LMDC yet more elaborately, since I don’t have the 10 pages limit here.

Chapter 3, Waiting For Morry

Giving the relevance my thesis had to the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan, I was hopeful that LMDC will hear me. When they didn't, I turned to the media. The media was eager to broadcast the rebuilding news. I spread the word and mass e-mailed many media outlets. Something in common in all the inquiries and the responses that I received they were all from CBS News.
Almost immediately after I started to contact the media, I received an e-mail from 60 Minutes II. Couple months later veteran reporter Morry Alter of WCBS was supposed to come to report my story yet called at the last minute to cancel. Short time later I received another phone call from WCBS. As months went by and I couldn’t find a job to do architecture I started to drive a limo and that is when the most important coincident of all happened. I got a call to drive a passenger and the passenger was the iconic Mike Wallace of CBS News’s 60 Minutes.
This chapter tells the story of those few coincidents and details the presentation that I prepared for Morry Alter which was the first time I configured my thesis according to the situation of Lower Manhattan after September 11.

Chapter 4 The Masters’ Plan Was the New York Times Magazine’s

The Masters’ Plan Was the New York Times Magazine’s Study Project to rebuild Lower Manhattan that was curated by Herbert Muschamp, who was the architecture critic of the New York Times then.

In this chapter I am using the New York Times’ curated study project as a precedent.
This project presented a more national and a more successful approach to rebuild Lower Manhattan than the LMDC’s run one. This illustrated the fact that there are other better approaches to rebuild Lower Manhattan that weren’t pursued, this was one of them.
The secret of the success of this project was its main design concept. The project's concept was building on top of West Street that expanded Lower Manhattan by 16 extra acres. This expansion allowed the many highly qualified architects collaborating in this project to produce significant architecture, a lot of it. I couldn’t help but see their project as a precedent to my thesis project in regard of expanding Lower Manhattan.
The New York Times curated study-project succeeded to the extent that another magazine did a similar project. New York magazine invited a group of six architects to present their proposals. The proposals were published on September 16, 2002, Issue of the New York magazine. Pritzker Prize winner Zaha Hadid submitted an elegant design as one of those six proposals. William Pedersen, of the famed Kohn Pedersen Fox (KPF) submitted another scheme of these proposals. KPF's scheme proposed building on top of West Street, crediting the expansion approach one more time.

Chapter 5, In For A Dream?

Following the Rebuilding process, It was easy to conclude that very much everything LMDC did was wrong, I kept a sort of a diary for any thing that I saw wrong. However I was hoping to avoid conflict by highlighting the fact that my approach is a far more national rebuilding approach that should easily supersede LMDC rebuilding approach that was in place. Regardless if LMDC approach was competently or incompetently administered.
I started to write to the media, particularly “60 Minutes” regarding how national, and how superior the rebuilding approach I am advocating is while hinting to how short sighted the rebuilding approach in place was. In this chapter I collected some of the essays that I wrote Mr Mike Wallace in this regard.

Chapter 6, The failure of the 1StRound of designs.

In this chapter I will briefly tell the story of the failed first design round. A failure that was of a malignant grade. Not the failure where after few minor changes things could be straightened up, and success is foreseeable. It was a moral as well as a profound professional failure. No one disputed this failure; even LMDC acknowledged it as a failure and went on to start another design process. As if it is OK to fail accomplishing what was very accomplishable. As if it OK to fail in achieving their embarrassing goals, while generously funded and watched by the hundreds of millions of well-wishers across the world.

Chapter 7, The Search for New York City’s Eero Saarinen

Architects are the journalists that publish their work on the skyline of the city. While an article appears in a paper for a day, a building appears in the skyline and stay there until glorified and loved or despised and demolished. Nationally posting an addition to New York's skyline after September 11, 2001, is a rare occurrence, it can only happene once in New York’s life time. Historian Mike Wallace verbalized this saying: “Catastrophe, ironically, has presented us with a great, historic, opportunity.”(Wallace 5)
There are no room for errors, every aspect has to be well thought and competently administered.There should be no 2nd chances since this was the second chance for the same administrators that failed the 1st time. In this chapter I ‘ll give an explanation into how to Competently administer a national design competition. This chapter will prepare the readers to understand and be able to crituoqe the New York's international design competition that will be addressed in the next 2 chapteres.
As a precedent, I chose the time tested, history authenticated public design process that created the design for Sydney Opera House. A process that Sydney (Australia) applied in 1957.

Chapter 8, Finished Before the Start

This chapter details the -very much conclusive- “assault” on New York’s hopes for a significant architecture. This assault took place right at the start of 2nd Round of the design process that was known as the design competition.
The rebuilding process was constrained to serve the purpose of a few and defeat the purpose of the entire country. After this start, there were no medals to win no heights to reach, irreparable harm took place. At this point the government-track of the rebuilding process “clinically died”. Even if the process would have succeeded in producing relatively significant architecture there will always be the question what if the process was competently run? What if the most significant architects in the world that were supposed to join the process did join? However there are no need for what if questions, the process failed miserably in every step of the way never produced significant architecture or any kind of architecture. LMDC ended up handing the building process over to the developers in what I interpret as an unconditional surrender.