TRANSLATE THIS PAGE: Français | Deutsch | Italiano | Portuguese | Español

THE WTC SITE MEMORIAL: Reflecting Absence, by Michael Arad.

WTC Site Memorial Design Winner Is 'Reflecting Absence' By Michael Arad

This web site chronicles the efforts of Toronto-based memorial designer, William Stratas, and his team in the World Trade Center site memorial design competition, and offers numerous links to WTC-related sites.

See the personal/professional biographies of our design team: William Stratas, Kent Ford, Kevin Slack.

Latest News About The World Trade Center Site Memorial Competition:

» MARCH 3rd - This is going to be an interesting fight: Michael Arad takes off the gloves and gives the LMDC a slapping. Willy Neuman, intrepid reporter at the New York Post, again shows courage and dilligence in getting this exclusive story about an erupting conflict between WTC memorial design winner Michael Arad and the LMDC, the New York State agency that is managing the memorial development process until the memorial foundation takes over later this year. LMDC wishes to tender for an architectural firm to partner with Arad in development of the working plans for the site, and Arad wants to have a say in this process. He refuses to be sidelined. Keep watching The Post's regional news web pages in weeks ahead; I am sure Neuman is hot on the trail of this story.

I'm on Arad's side here, as he carries the soul and spirit of a powerful vision for the WTC site memorial. You can't necessarily trust state bureaucrats and political appointees to carry any vision beyond obedience to their political masters. Arad's design vision, as presented at the final competition announcement in January, extended beyond the immediate footprints of the former twin towers, and addressed issues at and beyond the perimeter of the 4.7 acre site at south-west quadrant of the WTC superblock -- in other words, the core memorial and surrounding environment.

In standing up to LMDC with such vigor, Arad is asserting himself in a manner parallel to what Maya Lin experienced in her travails with federal authorities in the early 1980s, when design details for her Vietnam memorial were being poked and hacked from left and right. She maintained her course, expended enormous energy in defnding her vision, and succeeded. Let's hope that Arad has Lin's cell number on speed-dial; he's going to need some coaching and moral support because LMDC plays hard-ball.

I am aware of some issues being raised with respect to the accuracy of records presented by LMDC on the web archive of WTC memorial competition submissions. Apparently, some entrants who submitted (or at least, who shipped their entries) do not currently appear in the archive. I am aware of Brian McConnell and Stephen Vassilev, at a minimum, both of whom displayed their boards in-person at our Competitior Forum in New York City on December 6th. I also am aware of two submissions I witnessed at the FedEx depot in Toronto on June 28th (names escape me at present) and those memorable boards (forgettable, but memorable, if you know what I mean!) do not appear anywhere in the memorial web archive under the listing for Canada. One comment I have heard from a fellow designer is that some 400 entries were not accepted into the competition -- does anyone have an official source or news story for that claim?

I think LMDC should list these non-accepted entries by number and name, and that reasons should be offered for non-acceptance or disqualification (possible reasons include: arrived late; not correct size; hopelessly damaged in transit; entry fee not attached; entry number/barcode not attached; revealed identity of entrant, etc). Recall that many thousands of registered participants did not submit -- 13,683 persons or teams registered in April/May 2003 but only 5,201 submitted at end of June, announced LMDC. I am speaking here only of those who shipped an apparently complete and rules-compliant submission prior to deadline, but today do not appear in the official web archive. It matters for the historical record, and for the reputations of persons who submitted, that the status of these 'ghost' entries be resolved. More wrap-up details to address for us, Mr. Rampe and Ms. Contini!

In recent past I have commented that LMDC, being a state agency with massive demands and stresses on its time, has no concern about fostering a sense of community among memorial competition participants. Hey, we weren't event promised a simple acknowledgement of our participation! However, in view of the successful outcome of the memorial competition and the clear superiority of the winning entry (which I support 100%), you would do very well to end this process with a massive exclamation mark -- the display of all 5200 submission boards -- rather than with a perfunctory news release for a web database of the entries. To express this another way -- please make the effort in 'bricks' as you have so effectively in 'clicks'.

» JANUARY 6th - The winner has been selected. Sincere congratulations to the jury for making the best and most appropriate choice from the eight finalists: Reflecting Absence. Congratulations to New York City architectural designer Michael Arad for his efforts and courage in this competition. Michael dared to question the suitability of the Libeskind site plan, and simply treated the south-west quadrant of the site as a blank canvas, upon which he sculpted two eloquent voids defined by enormous waterwalls that will create a truly impressive visual and auditory effect for visitors.

» DECEMBER 4th - Definitely there is some squirming over at LMDC this morning with news from William Neuman, the dogged NYPost reporter, of some developments within the WTC memorial jury. Seems that Maya Lin was strongly advocating the inclusion of the controversial Twin Piers memorial proposal as a ninth finalist. LMDC disqualified that proposal due to a rules infraction -- they determined that the named entrant, Fred Bernstein, had submitted more than one proposal, a decision that is under litigation dispute at present. And, according to Neuman, the jury was attempting to force LMDC's hand by requesting a change in procedure for disclosure of finalists. Seems the jurors were afraid of public influence and backlash at their selections, and requested that all finalists be kept secret until a single winner was selected. This request contravened the published guidelines of the competition, which stated that a final group of proposals would be unveiled as the jury continues to deliberate in secret over a final choice. And, Neuman adds that as of this date, apparently the jury has not yet reconvened. Hmmm, there is a lot more to this under the surface, I think. Is this jury trying to hijack the process? What dynamic is operating within that group of 13? Who is quarterbacking the procedure changes in their huddle? What agendas are in play? Our Competitor Forum collaboration event on Saturday could not be better timed.

» NOVEMBER 20th - It is clear from the string of postings yesterday on our lively discussion forum that many people are disappointed and underwhelmed with the eight finalists announced yesterday. Sentiments expressed include: dismay that no iconic visual element is offered; concern that competition guidelines were stretched or discarded; upset that no diversity is offered, that the proposals all fit similar look. The jury was given no guidelines other than the official mission statement, and so proceeded to form their own interpretation of that mission, and formed their own consensus of what they were looking for. It is clear that any structure that sought to tower above the site was rejected; the jury wanted to avoid grandiose and dominant themes. Personally, I believe they went too far the other way, toward an institutional and sterile neutrality (some would say nihilism) that typifies much architectural thought today. As one comment on our forum expressed, these designs could be placed anywhere to commemmorate any event, nothing is distinctive, nothing evokes the event and the circumstance of an day that changed the world. I believe the real test should be this: 50 years from now, will any of these proposals speak to future generations and accurately communicate what we all felt that day two years ago?

So, following yesterday's news, is there any daylight for action and protest? I appreciate that some people are urging me to take a leadership position, but it's not my style to confront higher authorities and lead a sacrificial charge into bureaucratic battle. However, I have organized Competitor Forum, an exciting event set for Saturday December 6th at New York University that brings together memorial competition participants in full-day collaboration and commemmoration -- register now! Others of course are willing to step to the plate and oppose these finalist proposals. The Coalition of 9/11 Families has issued their report card on the eight finalists -- straight 'F' across all eight proposals due to lack of preservation of the tower footprints at bedrock. Sounds like they are ready to do battle.

» BREAKING NEWS - NOVEMBER 19th - 11:55 AM ET - I have formed some initial opinions after reviewing the detailed proposals on the official competition web site. Firstly, it is very clear that the jury members formed consensus around proposals that symbolize healing and recovery. All the finalists are low-profile, sinuous, soft designs that do not 'shout' at visitors. All feature intimate enclosed spaces on large scale; they are comforting, not confrontational nor overbearing. Well done, jury! Secondly, it is clear that the Libeskind site boundaries were not a deciding factor. As the president of LMDC, Kevin Rampe, stated to designers in May, "be bold" and indeed, several of the finalists trashed the restrictions of the Libeskind site plan. He who dares, wins! For some interesting trivia, review the statistics on country of origin for all 5,201 competition entries -- nice to see that 157 Canadians cared to submit, plus one Icelander and a single Greek!

The World Trade Center site memorial competition finalists are:
[a new browser window opens with each of the links below]
- Votives in Suspension by Norman Lee and Michael Lewis; Houston TX
- Lower Waters by Bradley Campbell and Matthias Neumann; Brooklyn NY
- Passages of Light: Memorial Cloud by Gisela Baurmann, Sawad Brooks and Jonas Coersmeier; New York NY
- Suspending Memory by Joseph Karadin with Hsin-Yi Wu; New York NY
- Garden of Lights by Pierre David with Sean Corriel and Jessica Kmetovic; Paris, France
- Reflecting Absence by Michael Arad; New York NY
- Dual Memory by Brian Strawn and Karla Sierralta; Chicago IL
- Inversion of Light by Toshio Sasaki; Brooklyn NY

» NEWS UPDATE - NOVEMBER 19th - Some details are emerging this morning in advance of the official unveling of the final eight design proposals for the World Trade Center site memorial. according to this New York Times report, LMDC is going to extraordinary lengths to subdue and control any detrimental exuberance and publicity for the finalists. Apparently the finalists will not be introduced on stage today, and are forbidden from handling media inquiries; all media requests are to be channelled through LMDC officials. Finalists are forbidden to speak on any aspect of the process, and are left to stand as background players in the final days and weeks leading to the selection of the winning proposal. These measures are intended to eliminate any 'cheerleading' and outside influence on the jury's consideration of the final eight. Full details and images of the finalist proposals will be posted on this web site as soon as available later today.

» NEWS UPDATE - NOVEMBER 14th - Next Wednesday is the big day! At yesterday's LMDC board meeting, Kevin Rampe, president of the agency, stated that the eight WTC memorial competition finalists will be publicly unveiled on the morning of November 19th in a ceremony at the World Financial Center Winter Garden. Rampe also announced that the competition jury had requested that all 5,201 design submissions be put on public display as soon as practical (end-to-end, that's about 2.5 linear miles of 30-inch wide art boards!) Read additional details about this major announcement in this NY Times article published today.

» NEWS UPDATE - NOVEMBER 13th - In today's NY Times online (free registration is required to read the article), David Dunlap writes a contemplative piece for consideration in these final quiet days leading to next week's announcement of the memorial competition finalists. Entitled 'A 16-Acre Memorial That'll Never Be', the article places in perspective the compromise of commercial interests for memorial, and memorial interests for commercial, which has brought us to next week's announcement of the finalists. As Dunlap suggests, "take a breath now, because this may be the last opportunity to contemplate quietly the entire 16-acre World Trade Center site as a memorial."

» NEWS UPDATE - NOVEMBER 12th - After a period of significant personal and business challenges (and successes), I am back on duty. The past week has been completely quiet and uneventful with respect to the World Trade Center memorial competition. There is no news at all in the press, and LMDC is silent. The actual date for the unveiling of the eight finalists has not yet been confirmed, but all previous announcements, including Governor Pataki's speech on October 30th, specified "the week of November 17th" as the public unveiling opportunity. However, as I have stated previously, it's my guess that the finalists, complete with scale models and detailed drawings, are already in the possession of LMDC sometime earlier this week. I suspect the jury will have a detailed look at them well before public unveiling. And on a technical matter, I wish to report that archives of our WTC memorial competition discussion forum were fully recovered after a major glitch and the complete uninterrupted record of all the spirited discussions our forum participants have contributed will be back online shortly.

What's up with New Jersey? After suffering the humiliation of receiving only 19 design submissions for a memorial to the Garden State's 691 victims of the 9-11 attacks, officials are now completely overhauling the prior competition process, which ended officially in August. Details of the new competition, which will be open to professionals and non-professionals alike, are expected to be posted on the state's NJ9/11 memorial web page sometime in December. A recent news story explains the background and circumstances to this interesting development.

» NEWS UPDATE - NOVEMBER 3rd - Can you hear the sounds of the eight design teams furiously rendering their computer walk-throughs and gluing their site models? In computer labs and workshops out there somewhere, the finalist teams this week are close to completion of their second-stage proposals for the World Trade Center site memorial competition. Although public unveiling is scheduled for the week of November 17th, my guess is that the actual delivery date is one week prior, which would allow the jury time to review the models and plans, and to form initial impressions, prior to public unveiling. Remember, there is no role for public input in this jury process; popularity tallies and web site polls will have no impact, because the jury operates far removed from outside influence. It's my guess that jury interviews with the design teams will occur in the third week of November, and the final selected proposal will be announced no later than the first week of December.

» NEWS UPDATE - OCTOBER 31st - Like soldiers hiding out in some distant jungle outpost, far from news of the surrender, it seems that a number of memorial competition participants have not yet awakened to accept the facts. It's simple: stage one of the WTC memorial competition is over. The eight finalists were chosen by the jury and notified by LMDC in early October. In total secrecy the selected teams now are finalizing models, drawings and computer simulations of their proposals. The public will see these models and plans sometime the week of November 17th, when they are unveiled in a major presentation at the Winter Garden indoor atrium, immediately to the west of the WTC site. I suspect, however, that the jury will have seen and studied them prior to that date, as the deliberation and evaluation process continues in private, beyond influence of public opinion. Check out this follow-up story by William Neuman of the NY Post for additional confirmations. It's over for the 5,192 others; let's move on.

» NEWS UPDATE - OCTOBER 30th - Eight design proposals selected by the jury as finalists for the World Trade Center site memorial competition will be publicly unveiled the week of November 17th, according to New York Governor George Pataki in a speech delivered this afternoon to a business audience in New York City [read this LMDC news summary and a story on the speech in this NY Newsday article]. It is expected that models and fully developed second-stage plans for each of the chosen eight, now under development, will be displayed in the World Financial Center Winter Garden on the day of public unveiling. The exact day of the announcement apparently has not yet been specified. Finalists likely were notified by LMDC officials at end of September or early October, and have used the weeks since that time to refine their plans and develop models under a blanket of secrecy. This news is consistent with a story released by New York Post reporter William Neuman on October 10th. That story was not picked up by any other New York media and not corroborated by any other sources, leading many to discredit its vaildity. In the end, Neuman had the facts correct, obviously. So as I have said previously, now we go on to our self-declared stage three in this grand process, and finalize plans for our upcoming Competitor Forum event in New York.

» NEWS UPDATE - OCTOBER 29th, 2003 - For everyone who proposed 3000+ somethings (chairs, benches, bushes, lightpoles, etc.) in their memorial proposal, you just got more breathing space in your plan. Officials in New York City will announce today that several dozen names are being dropped from the official WTC victim list (read the NY Times/Associated Press story). Apparently these names are being dropped because they cannot be verified in even a minimally circumstantial manner; if forensic or circumstantial evidence of loss of any can be determined later, they will of course be added back to the list. This is not an unexpected development, as investigators have been ceaseless in tracking down and validating all victim names since the initial lists were assembled two years ago. Those initial lists carried over 6,000 names, hastily compiled in the chaotic attack aftermath, but soon were cut almost in half through identification of duplications and proper cross-referencing of family reports. In the past year, numerous attempts to defraud insurance companies through bogus victim loss claims have been ferreted out and prosecuted. The identity confirmation process is expected to continue for years and is made more difficult because approximately 40 percent of victims have not yet been confirmed dead through ongoing forensic testing of the thousands of unidentified body fragments picked from the debris. It's a huge and dilligent challenge facing authorities, obviously.

It's a challenge to be a writer with no editor. An extra set of eyes trained in journalistic disciplines would be a welcome addition to my efforts. Thus the need to clear up and correct a seriously mistaken impression that I communicated in my news commentary of October 23rd. My team's illustration artist, Kevin Slack, sacrificed his heart out for the work he did on the WTC memorial proposal. Circumstantial shortcomings, loss of focus and bad planning on my part created the massive time crunch that forced us to run up to deadline with absolutely zero accommodation for error or afterthought. I have more accurately linked together the chain of outcomes in my October 23rd commentary, below, in order to reflect the shared sacrifices that were made to get this proposal to delivery. Thank you, Kevin.

» NEWS UPDATE - OCTOBER 28th, 2003 - I think it is clear now that October will pass with no announcement of finalists in the WTC memorial competition. Other than the 5,200 of us, the general public is not yet tuned into this issue, so don't expect any empathy for your agony from family and friends. If you have not received a call to any of your contact numbers from LMDC chairman John Whitehead, or from LMDC vice president and director for memorial, cultural and civic programs, Anita Contini, then it's not going to come. My advice, therefore, to the 5,192 of us milling about our homes and offices with silent cell phones is this: it's time to prepare for stage three of the competition. Let's conveniently skip stage two, the development of final plans and models for presentation to the jury (did you really think you could survive the stress and scrutiny of such a huge undertaking?) and create our own next-level of the competition. The next level, for verified memorial competition registrants only, will be a web portal at my new site, eternalwtc.org, for global congregation, collaboration and commemoration of this grand project. I launched the first tentative phase of this site last Friday, an open discussion forum which in just over 4 days has generated over 20,000 page views and close to 1,000 readers. Further elements of this project will be opened later this week. Your mission assignment, if you accept my challenge, is to now prepare your WTC memorial submission for posting on the new web site. Get your photographs ready; prepare your Acrobat PDF files, regenerate your drawings from computer, and be prepared to send them to me for publication, but wait until I give the word. PLUS - get ready to attend Competitor Forum I in New York City, likely sometime in mid-November. I have big plans underway, and am pleased to share them with all of you. Thank you for your support.

» WEEKEND UPDATE - OCTOBER 26th, 2003 - The many rumors in the past few weeks regarding an impending announcement of WTC memorial competition finalists may have been incited in part by this news report on the announcement of design semi-finalists for the World Trade Center memorial in Hoboken NJ. Yes, that's Hoboken, not New York! It is rather easy for anticipatory, eager eyes to glide past that key fact, and then turn that news into the stuff of runaway rumor and errant scuttlebut. I strongly suspect this parallel news item subconsciously confounded many casual observers, and perhaps also reporters of now-discredited newspaper stories.

I attended a major fundraising event in Toronto for the United Way early this morning: the CN Tower Stairclimb. Annually for the past 26 years, thousands of city residents have taken up this fun and worthwhile challenge, to march up the escape stairs of the world's tallest freestanding structure (1,815 feet/553 m to tip of antenna) and raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Toronto's biggest community charity. [A bit of personal history here: I was a staff member at the CN Tower during opening summer, June-September 1976. I operated elevators as a member of the visitor host team, and was the youngest employee that summer. My main qualification: I was member of the flying club at my high school (a senior had earned his wings and we went up in a rented Cessna 172; yea, it seems a bit reckless in retrospect, but that was the '70s!). Tower management was so paranoid about staff and visitors coping with the heights that they must have been looking for evidence of fearlessness and daring -- thus I was granted quick acceptance to the elite opening summer Tower team! Pay started at C$2.90 per hour, ended up at C$3.15 after 3-week probation. At end of shift on my last work day, I became the first hosting staff member to walk down to earth by the escape stairs.] So what does this have to do with the WTC memorial, you ask? Plenty, because it's a simple extrapolation to compare climbing the CN Tower to climbing the WTC twin towers stairways. In fact, the 1,176 stairs of the CN Tower (located inside its hollow 40 foot/12 m diameter hexagonal concrete core) lift participants from ground to the 1,122 foot/342 m high outdoor observation deck, lowest public level in the 7-storey skypod. That's almost exactly the same height of the impact floors in 1-WTC, the north tower. Most stairclimb participants in reasonable fitness walk up the CN Tower in 25-35 minutes (the fastest have run up in less than 12 minutes) so even with 40+ pounds of gear and the counterstream of hundreds of office workers fleeing down the four escape stairways in each tower, it is certain that many courageous FDNY firefighters would have reached the damaged floors of 1-WTC during the 101 minutes of its suffering, as well as the lower impact floors of 2-WTC, the south tower, during the 48 minutes of its agony. I don't know how many CN Tower charity climbers today were mindful of this haunting comparison, but it hangs heavily on my mind and is an awareness you can't shake.

» NEWS UPDATE - OCTOBER 24th, 2003 - I am pleased to announce the first-phase launch of a new and permanent WTC memorial web site: EternalWTC.org. At present, this domain is forwarding directly to a new discussion forum, where I invite the world to join a free-wheeling talk on the WTC memorial. This forum offers a number of great features: no registration requirement, just click and submit your comments; you can use the optional 'subscribe' button to send and receive postings directly via your e-mail; and the discussion builds from the top, with latest posts always highest in view. This forum is intended to replace the old board at Archinect which has some serious technical flaws and can't keep up with our community's growing needs. So feel free to jump in and join the lively exchange! Other new features at EternalWTC.org are coming online later this weekend! Thank you for your patience and support.

» AFTERNOON UPDATE - OCTOBER 23rd, 2003, 3:30 PM ET - Again, the compassion and care of our fellow WTC memorial competitors for each others' well-being shines brightly. A number of architects wrote me earlier today, having read my morning update below, and expressed empathy for the emotional torture of not knowing the competition results. Among them, mon ami de Québec, Jean, says that the way he gets his mind off the stress of not knowing is to enter more competitions and do more great creative work in his practice (in other words, keep busy!) Jean therefore passes along these links that others might find useful: this site lists current architectural competitions worldwide (perhaps I can recycle parts of my losing WTC proposal there!) plus this announcement site published in Italy covering global architectural events, launches and competitions, and finally this one based in Canada that lists current architectural competitions and events. Thanks to all architects and non-architects who wrote me today offering empathy and similar sentiments.

COMPETITOR FORUM UPDATE: If the announcement of finalists does not happen soon, it will put our proposed gathering of WTC memorial competitors in jeopardy for the November date, which right now is looking to be Saturday the 22nd (this is not yet confirmed, just a target at this point). I am in discussions with an excellent potential host institution and enjoyed a very pleasant talk with one of their community relations managers yesterday. So let's hang tight and see how this develops over the next 3-5 days. Remember, I'm also planning a Competitor Forum event for January or February, so there will be a second opportunity with greater advance notice!

» NEWS UPDATE - OCTOBER 23rd, 2003 - I suppose this clash of egos and talents was inevitable: this article in today's NY Times states that Daniel Libeskind, master planner of the WTC site and David Childs, architect for the tower's developer, who are supposed to be collaborating, have reached an impasse on how the proposed world's tallest skyscraper should look. The collaboration was created in July, when LMDC officials locked both Childs and Libeskind in a room at LMDC headquarters on Liberty Street, and after many hours, an understanding was forged. I definitely prefer the asymmetrical Libeskind vision over the Childs monolith described in this article. With political pressure from Governor Pataki, who wishes to see the topping off of this tower on the 5-year anniversary of the attacks, and who also wishes to invite President Bush to the cornerstone ceremony in August 2004, the timetable for this project is herculean at best, and simply impossible at worst.

Well, I seem to have opened up a hornet's nest with yesterday's comment that "my team's proposal is not going to be part of that celebrated group" of finalists. Dozens of e-mails came over the following hours asking, variously, 'what have you found out?' and 'did LMDC contact you?' and 'what gives, dude, you were always so upbeat before?' I thank everyone for their concerns; here is the explanation. In June, as the submission was being assembled, I understood the shortcomings of my team's situation: there were too many elements not properly thought through, and time was slipping away. I lost my original illustration artist suddenly in early June, and urgently sought out a new contributor. On referral, Kevin Slack, a colleague here in Toronto, was confirmed 10 days later, but we were extremely tight for time after that, and I added a major new feature in the closing days that re-drew the design further, so the images are not as accurate nor as detailed as intended (Kevin's effort to keep up with the late changes was heroic, and in fact the final major image, a section diagram, was inserted into the master Illustrator file at 7 am on Saturday June 28th, just 4 hours before the board was outputted and mounted). Thus I am not at all certain that our entry was a sure bet for advancement to later review in stage-one judging; there was no time for reflection and refinement of our result. I have seen some other submissions since that time (shared privately), and remain concerned that our board didn't have that extra sizzle and comprehensiveness of overall vision that would accurately communicate its impactful features upon the jury's first glance. I was more confident regarding our text, which was written using a unique literary perspective that allowed it to communicate the visitor experience with intimacy and emotion. But there was a whole lot of text, perhaps too much for the jury to study: 1,937 words in the main body; 456 words in the captions! Thus, the strategy was this: I had to hope the jury would read the submission -- all 2,393 words of it. If they read it through to the end, they might be captivated by the foundation themes and would more likely be forgiving of the shortcomings and inaccuracies caused by our rush to submit. That is, if they also accepted the foundation themes and the 'structure' that is at heart of the plan. It is now clear to me that this is not how things happen in design judging. There will be so many technically clear, programmatically perfect and visually compelling entries for the WTC memorial competition that anything with a significant oversight eventually will be dropped. That's fine, I long ago accepted that likelihood; it was very satisfying to ponder other optimistic outcomes during the lazy days of summer 2003, when all possibilities were contemplatable. Hope is the world's most precious emotion.

» NEWS UPDATE - OCTOBER 22nd, 2003 - Several news items today. First, a thoroughly insightful article from the Cornell Sun in upstate New York, presenting an overall perspective on the WTC redevelopment process as interpreted by a leading New York architect. And second, a pair of items from New York's Downtown Express: an editorial that offers excellent perspective on the upcoming evaluation process for the memorial finalists; and a news story that presents the dilemma and difficulties New York civic leaders face in handling family requests to re-name streets in memory of victims and heroes of the 9-11 attacks.

I have been running like crazy these past 48 hours. Yes, the new discussion forum is really close to launch -- later tonight! I appreciate the feedback on this from some of my old reliable correspondents, and a few new ones too. Please be mindful of this fact: I am working to build a robust web foundation for the next stage of this grand collaboration called the WTC memorial competition, which can also carry us forward as a community over the next 3-5 years as the WTC memorial and overall site plan come to form in concrete, glass and steel. Over 5,190 of us will not be invited to second stage of the competition, but in my calculations we all get promoted directly to stage three: a community of interest that carries credibility and critical mass, and cares passionately for the best possible outcomes for the people of New York City and for all people who have been touched by the events of the past two years.

Some readers have asked me what I really think is going on — beyond the miscellaneous news and rumors that are dribbling out these past few weeks. My sense is either of two scenarios: the finalists have been contacted and now are secretly working on their 'rolling out' presentations to the media; or, the jury is going through a creatively intense debate and is about to release an utterly fascinating and magnificently diverse range of design proposals for final-stage judging. Of these two scenarios, I hope for the latter, of course! But quietly have come to understand that my team's proposal is not going to be part of that celebrated group.

Due to the very sad technical state of one or two of the WTC discussion boards out there, I am about to launch a new discussion offering that will be open to all who wish to submit, but properly moderated (by me), and chronologically organized into managable page segments. A second discussion group offering will be available some time at the beginning of November for verified memorial competition registrants only (details about verification later). Together, these two boards will permit wide-open and anonymous postings (less credible to read, and tend to be somewhat inflammatory) on one system and restricted member postings (more credible, from verified memorial participants only) on the other, yet with read-only access for general visitors to enjoy. Please e-mail me with any additional suggestions regarding these two proposed discussion boards.

» NEWS UPDATE - OCTOBER 20th, 2003 - Cautiously, I share a statement that is attributed to LMDC this morning, communicated in a telephone call with a member of a memorial competition participant team. The word from that conversation is that officials still have not made the selection for the initial finalists, and apparently, still have not decided how many finalists they will select. The contact at LMDC is said to have added that the first-stage results are expected to be released in the next 2-4 weeks, on their website. Excellent clarification, and many thanks to my contact who has shared this with us today.

You've seen the new graphic image (above) and yes, it's true: COMPETITOR FORUM I is happening in New York City sometime on a mid-November weekend. I am organizing this gathering for all WTC memorial competition participants and their spouses/partners. This independently produced event is for verified competition participants only (more on that later) and likely will feature a welcome reception, keynote address, three interactive design discussion sessions, and an evening social. Plus, there will be additional Participant Forum events to follow over the course of the next few months, allowing persons from overseas or cross-continent to more conveniently plan ahead. I have no idea how many people will be able to attend in November, but I do know this as fact: many, many competition participants desire this kind of event and are extremely excited at the prospect of congregating, collaborating and commemorating with others in this grand project. The registration link will be activated very soon, so stand by, and thanks for all your supportive e-mails! Of course, I am working on the assumption that stage-one results will be announced well before our event; with today's news this timing is now becoming an important factor in our plans.

» WEEKEND UPDATE - OCTOBER 19th, 2003 - For your reading pleasure I offer some noteworthy news links (passed along by readers) and a number of memorial submissions that are posted in full on the web. First the news: check this item from New York Metro that discusses Daniel Libeskind's apparent marginalization in the WTC redevelopment process. I don't think the outcome is so depressing for Libeskind; he now has his tell-all book to fall back on. And Downtown Express has posted a curious story about visitors to the LMDC's exhibit at WFC Winter Garden who are confused over what exactly comprises the WTC memorial -- they think that Libeskind's 30-foot sunken grass plain is the memorial (thanks to James from Houston for that link).

On the right sidebar of this page, you will note the growing list of links to published WTC memorial submissions or identified participants (as we all know, posting a proposal before end of stage-one judging breaks the rules, but merely being identified as a particpant is permissible). Here are quick links to some of the recently uncovered submissions (caution, auto-play music may interrupt your concentration): Daniel Topic | Kathleen Tonnesen | Unidentified | Unidentified | Unidentified (for this last one, click on the folder and then click again to download the full PDF). I offer no editorial comment on these prematurely released works except to say that by this late stage in first round judging these people likely need not worry about LMDC sending them disqualification notices.

I prepared my WTC memorial submission for public release yesterday (relax, I'm no fool; it's not posted on the web yet!) In June the original submission board was created and assembled in Adobe Illustrator 9.0.2 (Macintosh version, of course) and generated beautiful seamless output when processed and mounted by my large-format print provider. To modify the file for public release, first I corrected two or three insignificant factual errors (ugh!) then scaled the artboard down to half size, 16x20 inches. I saved this modified file as Acrobat PDF format, with image options set to 'screen optimized' low-resolution format, which upon export reduced the size of file by a factor of 20. I then created a simple cover page in Illustrator, exported to Acrobat PDF, that details the project's title, team credits, copyright and contact information. Finally I launched Adobe Acrobat full version (yea, I'm swimming in software here) and combined the cover page file with the proposal file, creating a two-page master file (1.3 MB in size) that was re-exported with a password lock and other security options. So I'm now prepared to release my team's WTC memorial proposal (using an autoreply e-mail relay to respondents) immediately after first-stage judging results are announced.

» NEWS UPDATE - OCTOBER 16th, 2003 - I guess we might as well talk about the baseball playoffs, because there seems to be nothing new happening in our WTC memorial competition universe this week. I have received a deluge of e-mail from readers since Friday, and, amazingly, site traffic has doubled again in the past 5 days. I'm patiently responding to the messages, one by one. Plus, the pattern of site traffic shows that, although search visibility of various keyword phrases remains very strong, most of you are now visiting off bookmarks or direct entry of the address. I also appreciate several readers thoughtfully placing links to this site on various discussion boards and web forums, which is extremely helpful to spread the good word. Yes, a discussion forum will be appearing on this site soon, open only to official WTC memorial competition registrants -- announcement shortly! Thank you for the confidence you show in following this site every day.

As I have suggested in previous commentaries, it now is evident that the NY Post story last week, still hanging out on the web with no corroboration, was way premature. No other news organization has yet published related news from their own sources, and I am willing to wager that those other sources, many of which are certainly from inside LMDC, when contacted by other reporters, said "zero comment" or "we have no idea where the Post reporter got that story" and therefore cut off any possibility of a credible second or third new item appearing in subsequent days on this topic. LMDC's primary mission in recent months has been to maintain the integrity of the memorial selection process. If there now is a deadlock in the jury, or if there is a grand and gloriously inspired debate happening in the jury, or if the design guidelines are being re-examined due to some number of absolutely brilliant and revolutionary proposals, or if the jury is simply exhausted and needs to take a new perspective, I would rather NOT read about it in the press. I want this distinguished jury to remain unsullied and untainted by any outside influence, so when they stand in the WFC Winter Garden later this month or in November, and the finalists are proudly introduced on stage, we all will know that totally independent consensus backs this stage-one decision in the competition. And then we will allow the jury to retreat again and consider stage two, with equal and even greater respect for the integrity of the selection process, since so much more will be at stake. So let me dare say this: may pestilence and pox rain upon any reporter who dares challenge the integrity of this process with premature reporting. I am content to wait for the official news and no longer care how long it takes to arrive at the official decision.

Today there is one news item of a more general perspective, which asserts that the WTC site planning process, started in early 2002 and ending with selection of Daniel Libeskind as master site plan architect, could have benefited greatly from more open debate on the basic program assumptions. It's a thoughtful and constructive item. ALSO - Be sure to see some of the new web links on right sidebar of this page for various memorial participants, several of whom have already posted their full submissions!

» NEWS UPDATE - OCTOBER 15th, 2003 - Nothing but runaway speculation is appearing in recent days on this unmoderated discussion board in regard to the silence from mainstream media about last week's NY Post scoop. One interesting suggestion is that the jury may be hung up on the final selection, and therefore might announce ten finalists, then proceed to a 3rd stage selection of three. Please remember, this is all rumor and speculation. Changing the rules in response to jury deadlock (if such is true) sounds like a good idea to me. Let's move forward!

» NEWS UPDATE - OCTOBER 14th, 2003 - The New York Post reporter who wrote last week's story claiming that the WTC memorial finalists have been selected (a story ignored to date by all other news outlets), now has moved to another 'scoop'. William Neuman pens this report in today's Post that claims Daniel Libeskind, the WTC master site design architect, is about to auction rights to his upcoming book that may recount the inside story of the WTC development process. "Foundations of Optimism" is the proposed book title, which principally will cover Libeskind's past works and early life. And of course, some 'portion of the profits' are pledged to children of victim families. I am surprised that Libeskind would consider a book deal while the chessboard of WTC planning is still very much in play. This is a 10+ year project and Libeskind signed on only 8 months ago. What if the book turns into an insider story (with autobiographical filler) on the WTC development process? Hmmm, the optics of this deal may not be good.

» MONDAY UPDATE - OCTOBER 13th, 2003 - All is silent. No further news blips anywhere. All sources are quiet, or at least in 'passive listening' mode. NYTimes says nothing. NYNewsday says nothing. So I'm off to my parents' home in suburbs of Toronto for Thanksgiving dinner. I'll be back online after 10 pm ET. Thank you to all readers who are so enthusiastic about my proposed gathering of memorial competition entrants, now in planning for New York City in early November -- more details on this very soon!
UPDATE: 11:52 PM ET - Still quiet, no further news updates; mom's dinner was great!

» WEEKEND UPDATE - OCTOBER 11th, 2003 - I am on duty at my desk over the next 3 days, which is Thanksgiving weekend in Canada, so watch for any further news updates as my sources may share. I am beginning to set plans for a gathering of WTC memorial competition participants in New York City. It's an idea I have floated in private e-mails over the past 2 weeks, and have received 100% support from all with whom I have corresponded. I am considering first week of November, or perhaps the end of October. So check your calendars and I'll keep you posted.
UPDATE: 11:52 AM ET - This morning, the ever circumspect and knowledgable Greg Allan published a summary of his discussion with a "former WTC juror" and architecture professional who, we are told, was involved in last year's site plan selection process -- which apparently means the source is one of these six people (five if you minus the non-architect) listed on an archived LMDC news release from September 2002. This unnamed source, who apparently has no involvement with the current memorial judging, but is said to be "familiar" with the process, states that the memorial jury now is down to ten proposals, and implies that the debate is very intense at this stage in their deliberations. This is an interesting piece of the puzzle but I would have expected a former juror and insider to remain completely zip-lipped under all circumstances.

Comments by LMDC chairman John Whitehead in this news story have been relayed to me by several readers overnight as possible contradiction to yesterday's NY Post scoop. Whitehead spoke to the reporter after Thursday's regularly scheduled LMDC board meeting. Whitehead said decisions should be made public "within several weeks" on the memorial finalists. I note that this comment is not inconsistent with yesterday's Post report: timing of a public announcement follows the actual selection of finalists. The intervening days or weeks perhaps are required for contractual documentation of the finalists as well as background investigation, as was suggested in a previously published LMDC Request for Proposal for 'Integrity Screening Consultant' (link to an Acrobat PDF file) still accessible on their RFP archives web page. Remember, there was no pre-qualification for the memorial competition; LMDC has absolutely no idea who the selected finalists are until their entry numbers are matched to self-declared identities on the competition entry forms. Officials would be ill-advised to proceed to public announcement without some kind of investigation to validate the identity of each finalist, including business and personal backround plus reputational integrity. If there are 8 teams selected, and say, 3 members per team, that's 24 parallel investigations to be undertaken; a task that's going to take some time to properly complete. Or, look at this matter another way: officials spent many tedious weeks in July sniffing and swabbing every submitted shipping box and art board for anthrax, smallpox, biochemical and nuclear contamination (nothing was detected, other than the blood and sweat of many passionate entrants). So do you really think they won't spend as much time as necessary now to validate, prior to public announcement, the identities and reputations of the finalists?

» BREAKING NEWS - OCTOBER 10th, 2003 - Today and this evening I have been chasing down a news media report, likely based on a tip from inside LMDC or the competition jury, concerning a very important development in the WTC memorial competition. According to the New York Post, apparently notification of finalists has occured, presumably within the past couple of days, but identities and proposals are yet to be announced. Thank you to readers who are forwarding details that they uncover through independent research. Please e-mail any news snippets to me at: president@planetcast.com.
UPDATE: 11:42 AM ET - An independent source via one of my readers has confirmed this news. Stand by for more updates to this story over the course of this day. The reaction to this news from dozens of readers has started to flow in. Peggy, amongst several, asks: If we have not been contacted, does that mean that we have not been chosen as finalists? My suggested answer is pretty simple: probably yes. Unless you have been away and unreachable for the past week, or have not checked your voice mail box(es) in the past 48-72 hours, the notification period is probably over. HOWEVER -- I definitely would recommend holding off release of designs on the web for a few days yet and wait for the official announcement. Let LMDC complete their background checks and qualification verifications on the finalists, on the remote chance that one or two may be dropped and your proposal happens to be next in ranking.
UPDATE: 5:05 PM ET - Several readers are questioning the credibility of the New York Post (a trashy tabloid?) and point out that New York Times and Newsday remain silent on this story today. The Post story does carry a reporter's name, so presumably there is research and credible sources behind this headline -- it could very well be an intimate of a juror, or one of the jurors themselves. I remind all readers to read my text carefully -- I am not the direct source here, I am just the conduit, and none of this information is official yet. So study the original news story yourself and judge accordingly.
UPDATE: 9:05 PM ET - Many thanks to readers who have contacted me with questions, observations and expressions of thanks for today's reporting. The e-mail continues to pour in tonight. In particular, a re-confirmation message about my corroborating source for the earlier confirmation of today's news, which does appear to be a NY Post scoop, as no other publications have yet reported. I am being assured by this person that today's story in the Post was independently confirmed to him by "the most credible journalistic source conceivable." Thus it does indeed appear, according to this story, that first stage of the WTC memorial competition is over, finalist notifications have been made, it's time to prepare ourselves for the official announcement, and get back to life as it was before.

MY PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AT THIS MOMENT: Some have asked me how I feel about this news. I feel very, very relieved that the process apparently is moving forward. I trust and pray that the finalists will be worthy of all our undiluted support and unrestrained praise. I certainly pray that nothing garish, ghoulish, over-ornamental nor duplicative of past memorial themes is selected. Unlike another commentator who at one time declared that his plan must have merited a top-80 ranking, I have no care about absolute position in the competition. My pleasure was to participate and to contribute. I return to the quote that I gave Associated Press on July 17th, in a worldwide news story, when I stated that "I believe that even if you don't make finalist you do have the opportunity to sculpt the result." The fact that my team's proposal board was read and studied by all 13 members of the jury meant that it touched their eyes, impacted their minds, and therefore made a difference: Mission accomplished.

The lecture hall was filled to capacity as I stood in a corner of the 300 seat room. Gary gave an hour long slide presentation that covered the time period from the first serious talk of reconstruction of the WTC site until the Studio Libeskind design was selected as the master site plan. Gary offered some interesting insights into the design process that highlighted the different approach that each of the seven semi-finalists took.

Gary stated he was contacted by Daniel Libeskind when he realized that out of all the architectural teams vying for the right to plan the WTC, he was a lone individual. The main difference between the Libeskind plan and many of the others was that the office space could be built in stages, it recognized the grid system of New York City streets and of course, the sunken memorial setting. He said that he expected the design set forth by Norman Foster to be selected. He saw that it gave everything that the Port Authority wanted: a large underground area for infrastructure and a completely renewed 10 million square feet of office space. Lord Foster had also done engineering work on the design, so it looked like a very buildable project.

Gary also related the story of the rivalry between the THINK team and Studio Libeskind. The THINK team struck first by calling the Libeskind plan "the pit" while the Libeskinds struck back by calling the THINK plan "skeletons." Governor Pataki made the final selection and Gary said the exact quote by the governor was "We won't have any of these [expletive deleted] skeletons." Gary also credits the creative energy of Daniel Libeskind and his wife Nina for her political skills in helping to accomplish their goal of being the selected design.

» NEWS UPDATE - OCTOBER 5th, 2003 - A loyal site reader, Steve, has tipped me about a very interesting public lecture coming up this week. Gary Hack, planning consultant with architect Daniel Libeskind on the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site, will be speaking at University of Buffalo's School of Architecture on Wednesday October 8th at 5:30 pm. Hack was involved with Libeskind's initial site plan competition bid in late 2002, plus the revisions leading up to final selection in winter 2003. He was a key contributor on Libeskind's site plan development team, as this news profile explains. This lecture is open to the public and free of charge; full details are on the UB Reporter web site. Buffalo is only 2 hours' drive away for me, but I do have a schedule conflict. Anyone else able to attend and report about this?

Some people have observed that a meeting of the LMDC board is scheduled for this Thursday, October 9th, and have speculated that an announcement of the memorial finalists may be timed to that meeting. I don't agree that there is any omen to be read in this timing. LMDC board meetings are scheduled many months in advance. When the competition jury arrives at its decision, LMDC officials will probably need at least a couple of days to track down and contact the leaders of the selected submissions, validate their identities, finalize legal papers and prepare news announcements. If there are any problems at this stage (the original entrant died, can't be located, does not qualify, etc.) perhaps a replacement next in sequence will be contacted. Only then would the results be announced publicly. LMDC also has an important decision to make regarding release of the finalists' art boards. They might choose only to announce the identities of the final entrants and not reveal designs, thus isolating each finalist from the influence of seeing the other proposals and making competitive deductions for final stage refinements of their own work. I support continued confidentiality of the finalist designs because it will avoid the cheerleading effect led by superficial news media popularity polls for memorial favorites. The final selection process must remain stripped of all external influences and political biases. Please note that this is only intuitive speculation on my part; I have no inside knowledge about the process that LMDC intends to implement.

» NEWS UPDATE - OCTOBER 4th, 2003 - In an interview with Downtown Express, a New York based publication, the president of LMDC, Kevin Rampe, reveals some fascinating comments that may have ramifications on the judging process now underway. Rampe said site plan architect Daniel Libeskind's proposed 150-foot tall waterfall adjacent to the memorial would be removed from the plan if the 13-member jury decides it does not fit in with the selected memorial plan. Design competition guidelines originally indicated that the waterfall would overlook the eastern boundary of the memorial space, but Rampe and some juror members (including Maya Lin) had made statements encouraging artists to be daring and break the guidelines. Rampe also said in this interview that the proposed cultural facilities surrounding the memorial may be adjusted to accommodate the selected design. Cultural buildings may have to move and the museum may end up moving, he said. The key, apparently, is to provide a proper context for the memorial. I'm still pondering my observations and comments about this; more later.

» SPECIAL REPORT - OCTOBER 3rd, 2003 - I wish to report some interesting news to you all tonight. I just returned from Yueh Tung Restaurant, in Toronto's downtown Chinatown district. For relaxation, I usually take something to read. On this occasion, I took the 9x12 inch mini-printout of my WTC memorial proposal. It's pretty beaten up and some of the ink is smudged, but occasionally I enjoy reading the text and imagining what the jury is thinking as they (continue) to study it. At end of meal (pineapple chicken and young chow fried rice) the server delivers fortune cookies. I always pick the one closest to me. I crack it open. I fumble with the slip wrapped inside. My eyes adjust focus on the small print. My brain processes the text. My mouth opens wide, but voice is silenced with amazement and delight. The fortune cookie slip reads: "Good news will come to you from far away."

» JURY INSIGHTS - OCTOBER 2nd, 2003 - Another e-mail from a loyal reader asks an interesting question: Will it be possible to obtain the "minutes" from the jury deliberations? It is a public project after all. Yes, it is a project sponsored by a public agency, but that does not ensure access to all details. If you look through the official approved minutes of LMDC board meetings, which are open to public, you note that the board members routinely open these meetings on public record, cycle through numerous agenda items, then vote to take the meeting into Executive Session and therefore off public record, with no audience or news media present, which is permitted under New York State's Open Meetings Law [paragraph (h) of subdivision 1 of Section 105]. I presume that's the time when the board thrashes out its political and financial challenges and hears the detailed scoop from LMDC executive staff. Taxpayers and news media don't get to read about those matters, although decades from now I suppose historians will when the minutes of the board's executive sessions are petitioned for viewing. In regard to deliberations of the memorial competition jury, I believe it is very likely that one or several members of the jury are maintaining a timeline diary or anecdotal log of the deliberations, not as an officially mandated form of record keeping, but rather as a gesture toward history. They may not be recording the specifics of debates over particular proposals, but rather the way the jury's consensus develops and evolves, and the way in which they collectively resolve the multitude of approaches and challenges this project faces in its design, philosophy and context.

» For earlier commentaries, please see the news archive.

Quick Facts About The World Trade Center Site Memorial Design Competition:

» A total of 13,683 registrants from 93 countries worldwide have registered their intent to submit proposals for the World Trade Center site memorial. Within the United States, 11,370 people registered their intent to compete. New York had the most registrants of any state -- 4,598 people -- followed by California with 1,151 competition registrants, and New Jersey with 922 registrants. By the deadline date of June 30th, 2003, a total of 5,200 submissions were received -- a world record total for any prior architectural or memorial design competition.

» By comparison, 2,500 people registered in August 2002 for the Pentagon memorial competition, and 1,126 submitted entries that met the competition rules. Manhattan architects Julie Beckman and Keith Kaseman won that competition, with benches and trees for each victim of the September 11th attack on the Pentagon.

» The Oklahoma City Memorial competition, held to honor the victims of the bombing at the Alfred Murrah Federal Office Building in 1995, attracted 4,800 registrants and 627 design submissions. Butzer Design Partnership, now based in Cambridge, MA, won that competition.

» The Vietnam Veterans Memorial competition in 1981 accepted 1,421 proposal entries and was won by Maya Lin, a second year architecture student at Yale University, who currently is serving as a judge on the World Trade Center site memorial competition jury. As a matter of historical interest, take a moment to read Maya Lin's design submission to the Vietnam Veterans memorial competition.

Highlights of Our World Trade Center Site Memorial Design Proposal:

» SORRY: Any description of our proposal's unique features must be witheld due to competition rules mandating anonymity of identity for all proposal designs until the finalists are announced.

For Further Information Please Contact:
info@planetcast.com or Telephone 416-593-6993