Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Topics

Topics

Rebuilding Ground Zero: Long-term Costs of Short-term Planning


photo by Joe Woolhead
Photo by Joe Woolhead, courtesy of WTC Documentary Arts Project

On the seventh anniversary of 9/11, the public hand-wringing about delays in the rebuilding effort offers yet the latest evidence that short-term thinking remains the standard operating procedure in government. Now Merrill Lynch has backed out of talks that would have make the firm an anchor tenant at the trade center site, again calling into question the development timetable.

The demands to produce speedy results at ground zero have been, in fact, part of the problem, not the solution. The cry to get back to business as usual drowned out saner calls for deliberative action. The haste to rebuild was justified as defiance of terrorism, a memorial to the victims, crucial for the local economy, and essential for the welfare of everyone in lower Manhattan. Calls for long-term planning were dismissed as foot-dragging and worse - even downright unpatriotic. Paradoxically, the rush to develop is one reason things are taking so long.

Timetables based on the notion that such a large and complicated project could be planned and built in less than decade were overly optimistic. Anyone familiar with real estate development in Manhattan knows that developing any 13-acre site easily can take five to 10 years. A glance at the history of the original World Trade Center would show that it took over 10 years to build the twin towers (and more than 15 years from the unveiling of David Rockefeller's Lower Manhattan Plan in 1958).

This site presents an array of complexities of beyond building10 million square feet of office and retail in lower Manhattan. The site needed clearance and environmental remediation, negotiations had to be held leaseholders, insurance claims needed to be settled, and the transportation infrastructure rebuilt. At the same time, officials had to address the concerns of the families of 9/11 victims. Meanwhile changing conditions in the office and financial markets had the potential to detour the best-made plans.

photo by Joe Woolhead
Photo by Joe Woolhead, courtesy of WTC Documentary Arts Project

The Public's Role

People from all over the city wanted to debate what should be done before the city and state moved ahead full steam with the first proposal that came to mind. In the first year after 9/11 there was a vibrant public dialogue about rebuilding plans. Several major coalitions and alliances of civic, professional and community groups raised serious concerns and put forth detailed programs and proposals. These included the Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown, a coalition of more the 80 groups convened by the Regional Plan Association; NY New Visions, a coalition of 16 architecture, planning and design groups; Imagine NY, a project of the Municipal Art Society that held some 230 workshops, the Labor Community Advocacy Network; several groups in Chinatown, and more. There were also several organizations of families of the victims.

This civic chorus, perhaps one of the most widespread examples in New York City history of a popular desire to have a say in planning, was allowed to fade away. Then-Gov. George Pataki emphasized the need to move ahead with all deliberate speed. To do this he set up the Local Manhattan Development Corp. as a subsidiary of the Empire State Development Corp., ostensibly to expedite planning and management of the project by avoiding New York City's land use and zoning laws. To further expedite matters, Pataki appointed an LMDC board of directors top-heavy with executives from the financial community, though he was later pressed to appoint some board members recommended by the newly installed Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The LMDC cut short, narrowed and diminished the debate, but the unresolved questions raised in the public arena would come back later to stall the rebuilding effort.

Within months of its creation, and without competitive bidding, the LMDC commissioned a plan for rebuilding ground zero that basically put 11 million square feet of office space on the World Trade Center site. The agency released the plan in spring 2002 and was greeted with a fairly widespread thumbs down from the press, civic and professional organizations. Some 5,000 participants in the July 2002 Listening to the City assembly at the Jacob Javitz center voted against the plan, forcing the LMDC go back to the drawing boards.

The LMDC could have patiently considered the complex issues raised in the public discussions. Instead, in its rush to rebuild, the agency made some minor adjustments it felt addressed public concerns and immediately went ahead with the development of a new rebuilding program, calling for a slightly downsized office development with a memorial. The development corporation announced an international competition to come up with the design.

While the new program clearly represented a step forward, it diverted public attention from the big issues to discussion of the individual designs. With the selection of the finalists in the competition, the discussion over aesthetics drowned out the voices calling for a greater priority to the memorial, more residential space and more integration with the surrounding neighborhoods.

There then ensued a tense and time-consuming struggle over the design by architect Daniel Libeskind waged by developer Larry Silverstein, who eventually managed to exchange the Libeskind plan for a new arcade of office towers designed by other architects. But this only occurred after expensive and time-consuming conflicts and lawsuits over everything -- the program, the design, the memorial.

The calls from Chinatown and the Lower East Side, and labor and immigrant communities for a more inclusive planning process and reordering of priorities were barely heard. The LMDC's short-term thinking had won the day.

The back-to-work philosophy was responsible for more than just a problematic timetable for rebuilding. It also led to the unnecessary exposure of many rescue workers, lower Manhattan residents and office workers to toxic fumes and dust. The long-term effects of this short-term thinking on human health have yet to be fully understood (see related story).

photo by Joe Woolhead
Photo by Joe Woolhead, courtesy of WTC Documentary Arts Project

The City Goes Along

Before he took office in 2002, Mayor Michael Bloomberg aid he saw no need to establish a separate authority to redevelop ground zero. He was also highly critical of large-scale development in lower Manhattan, favoring instead development in Midtown, including the ill-fated Jets stadium and massive rezoning.

Soon after his inauguration, though, Bloomberg dropped his opposition, apparently in exchange for promises by the governor that he could appoint some members to the LMDC. The mayor's deal with the governor led to an informal arrangement where the state take the lead on the rebuilding of lower Manhattan and the city would take charge of Midtown. City Hall also issued a broad strategic plan for lower Manhattan that included some of the elements called for by the local community board and civic groups, such as a park and green market. This provided a broader planning context for the rebuilding plan. But the process was backward: The plan for the WTC site was done first, without any close integration with the diverse communities in lower Manhattan. Then these other elements were added.

When Bloomberg forfeited jurisdiction over the site, he handed to the LMDC the powers for land use review, denying many people a say in the process. If the city controlled the rebuilding, it could have submitted the plans for approval under Section 197-a of the city charter, the designated path for all official plans. The city's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) would have let at least one community board in lower Manhattan, the Manhattan Borough President, the City Planning Commission, and the City Council an opportunity to hold a public hearing, deliberate and vote on the plan. They would have been able to review and comment on the environmental impact statement.

That all might have seemed slower, but who knows what longer-term problems we might have avoided in the process.

Tom Angotti is Professor of Urban Affairs and Planning at Hunter College, City University of NY, editor of Progressive Planning Magazine, and a member of the Task Force on Community-based Planning. 

Stated Meeting: Cooling City Streets


The burst of cool air aimed at luring impulse buyers off of city streets will now come with a cost.

The City Council approved legislation Thursday that would fine businesses for leaving their doors open while they have their air conditioning blasting. The bill, which Mayor Michael Bloomberg is expected to sign, would exempt stores smaller than 4,000 square feet.

In addition to the air conditioning legislation, the City Council also approved a bill that would exempt the commissioner for the Department of Buildings from being a registered architect or a licensed engineer.

A Ban on Cool Sidewalks

According to a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a business with a typical doorway in New York City (or 6 to 7 feet across) can waste up to $1,000 and a ton of carbon dioxide if it leaves its door open in the summer.

That same practice can increase energy consumption by 20 to 25 percent, according to a report by the Long Island Power Authority.

That's why Councilmember Gale Brewer set out to ban the practice. Her bill (Intro 264 ) was approved by a vote of 41 to 8.

Any business that keeps its door open to lure in customers will first receive a warning, followed by a fine of $200 for each open door. Another violation would increase the fine to $400 per door.

The bill would not apply to emergency situations nor to instances where doors have been propped open for deliveries or by customers carrying out merchandise.

"There are not going to be Department of Consumer Affairs cops lurking in every corner looking for someone who propped the door open for five minutes," said Council Speaker Christine Quinn.

Brewer said the measure is meant to raise awareness, not revenue.

Some retailers and businesses associations opposed the legislation because they were afraid closed doorways would deter spontaneous purchases from passersby. Some council members who opposed the legislation said, in this case, the council was stepping too far into a business's affairs.

"We're going a bit far," said Councilmember Charles Barron, who opposed the bill. "Now we're going into our communities and closing the doors of businesses."

Though some retailers were concerned over the bill's affect on their business, the city's utility company, Con Edison, came out in support of the measure. "Critics who oppose the bill because they interpret it as a manner of individual elective choice miss the point," read a Con Ed statement. "It's not just the offending business that's paying the electric bill for the waste of energy. Everyone pays."

More Construction Legislation

In another round of legislation aimed at increasing safety and decreasing mismanagement at the Department of Buildings, the City Council approved three bills -- one of which brought an unusual amount of opposition from council members.

The council approved legislation, which would no longer require the commissioner of the Department of Buildings have a license in engineering or be a registered architect. The bill (Intro 755) was approved by 36 to 12, and it has seen considerable opposition amongst industry professionals.

One day following the council's approval, Bloomberg announced his intention of appointing Acting Buildings Commissioner Robert LiMandri as buildings commissioner. LiMandri has an engineering degree, but not a license.

Some members objected to the bill, seeing a need for a licensed professional to oversee the whole department – in part because the department has been mired in controversy and mismanagement. So far this year, there have been 16 fatalities as a result of construction site accidents.

“We’re hiding behind this,” said Councilmember Diana Reyna, who voted against the legislation. “We must not lose site of the fact that we’re losing lives, putting New Yorkers at risk.”

The bill requires either the commissioner or the first deputy commissioner have an engineering license or be a registered architect. Supporters say it will provide the administration greater flexibility when choosing a department head.

In addition to changing the requirements for the commissioner, the council also approved legislation (Intro 783) that requires a site safety manager be hired for construction jobs that require pouring concrete. The accident in January at Trump Soho, which caused one fatality, occurred during concrete operations, said Council Speaker Christine Quinn.

Concrete safety managers will be required at major work sites -- those involving structures taller than approximately 10 stories, said Quinn -- that pour more than 2,000 cubic yards of concrete.

The bill was approved by a vote of 49 to 0.

Also, by a vote of 49 to 0, the council approved legislation ( Intro 790) requiring all workers at construction sites take a 10-hour course from the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration every five years. A site safety plan must include a statement verifying that all workers have completed the course.

Disclosing Funding

The council unanimously approved a finance resolution (Reso. 1585) outlining what groups received $32 million in funding that was first earmarked when the council approved the city’s budget in June.

The council appropriated the funding to 158 organizations. Quinn said all the organizations were selected by the chair of the relevant committee, the initiative’s sponsor, or by the speaker’s office with advice from relevant parties. They were also approved by the council’s budget negotiating team.

Quinn said all of the groups had been vetted properly.  

The Bronx's Secret Shore


Bronx Beach and Pool Club, courtesy of Jim Manning
A 1950s snapshot from the heyday of the Bronx Beach and Pool Club, now closed.

ALSO:

Touring the Urban Riviera:
An audio slide show of New York's public beaches.

Whistle While You Work:
The job is outside, you wear a bathing suit -- and the city usually has openings.

Coney Island Roller Coaster:
The fight over how to develop the famed beach continues.

Urban Riviera?
New York's beaches offer surf and sun without a long drive on the Long Island Expressway. But how safe and clean are they?

New York's Best and Worst Beaches:
They are both on Staten Island but there the similarities end.

Where can New Yorkers enjoy a private, shorefront club, bayside swimming, a pebble beach and a restaurant with a beautiful view of the water?

You might not have said the Bronx.

That's because few New Yorkers have heard of the Bronx' century-old private waterfront clubs, which have provided generations of local families many of the same luxuries enjoyed by mansion dwellers in the Hamptons and Westchester. The clubs offer members-only pools and bars and private piers for fishing and boating -– all within walking distance of Bronx homes.

"It's family-oriented," said American Turners Club trustee John Maloni. "We've got old-time members, and their kids are members now."

But with the economy in trouble and developers eyeing the area's valuable shorefront properties, these little-known clubs are struggling to stay afloat.

Several independent beach clubs have sold their valuable property to developers. Of the surviving clubs along Clarence Avenue in Throgs Neck, several belong to larger national organizations or societies, which has so far helped them avoid selling their land.

"There's five beach clubs left," said long-time Turners Club member Frank Polgano. "There used to be nine or ten. The economy is destroying us. Not only is it expensive to run the place, but it's tough for people's personal expenses too. We're on the verge, we're extremely close."

Developers Versus the Community

Many locals fear their clubs will fall victim to the development in Throgs Neck. An influx of new families in the neighborhood over the last five years has made it especially appealing to condo developers and chain retailers.

"The area has been discovered," said Kenneth Kearns, district manager for Bronx Community Board 10, which covers Throgs Neck and the surrounding communities. "It was traditionally a nice viable, economically stable community of one to three family homes and mom-and-pop stores. And now it's changing because the city is changing."

Local businesses like the Silver Beach Deli now compete with the national chains lining Tremont Avenue: McDonalds, Wendy's and Dunkin' Donuts.

According to Kearns, the easy commute and the larger homes are wooing Manhattan families. He predicts that the new Yankee Stadium will spur even more development.

"Every day there's something else that wants to come in, and every day there's a fight," Kearns said. "It all engenders great controversy. People come in with lofty ideas for what they want to do. It usually runs counter to what current residents want. So there's a lot of debate and a lot of concern, and a lot of issues have to be resolved."

The district was recently downzoned to in an effort to limit development and crowding. But locals still worry about change, especially as the beach clubs – a summertime staple for many families – seem threatened.

Clubs at Risk

For a century, beach clubs provided a place to swim with the family next door. Members say they foster community and provide convenient and private alternatives to Orchard Beach or the public pools a few miles away, which are swarmed on the summer's hottest days.

But neighborhood changes have had an effect.

"It's not like it used to be in the '80s and '90s when the club was full of families and kids," Polgano said.

The Turners Club no longer has a waiting list for membership, and it suffered more than $100,000 in losses last year, according to Polgano. Maloni declined to confirm that number.

"People can't afford the luxury anymore. We have fewer members, and the bills are going up," Polgano said. He estimated a yearly membership costs around $1,000.

Unlike other areas of the Bronx -- a county notorious for its poverty --Throgs Neck boasts upper and middle class families who can afford such luxuries. In 2007, 41 percent of households had incomesof more than $75,000.

The economy, though, is not the only reason for declining membership. As new families move in, many of the kids who grew up in the area are leaving.

"We live in a very mobile society," said Lloyd Ultan, history professor at Lehman College and Bronx borough historian. "Usually in these clubs, memberships go through the family, from father to son, mother to daughter. If the sons suddenly live in Oshkosh, it's a long walk back to the Bronx."

"The kids move to Westchester, and the people who are all up here are grandparents," Polgano said. "The parents aren't joining anymore, and when member families move away, they're not really being replaced."

Sticking to the Neighborhood

Facing shifts in local dynamics, the clubs are hesitant to expand their outreach beyond the neighborhood, reluctant to tinker with their insular, community focus.

"They're very happy to be on their own and enjoy what they have," Kearns said.

It's no accident that the clubs aren't common knowledge. Local hang-outs, similar to neighborhood bowling alleys or card clubs, they aren't pitched at people from outside the surrounding community.

"The clubs are only for the people in the neighborhood," Ultan said. "Most members are just living a stone's throw off the waterfront anyway, so the clubs are just part of the neighborhood. It started out to serve the people in the neighborhood, and it was a way where people could get together and all had equal access to the water among themselves."

Membership applications include a vetting process. At the Danish American Beach Club, applicants need to be sponsored by a five-year member in good standing.

As Carol Richardson, manager at the Turners Club, recently said to a reporter, "It's a strip of heaven that we try to keep secret."

Even with their institution struggling to survive, Turners trustee Maloni said the club will not change tactics or expand outreach, continuing to confine advertising to local churches and the Bronx Times.

"We're going to stick to the neighborhood," he said.

 



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years