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.
No comments:
Post a Comment