Future of the World Trade Center

11:30 A.M. EDT

Ms. Kim Nisbet: Thanks so much for waiting. I'd like to welcome architect Daniel Libeskind, designer for the development of the World Trade Center's site plan, "Memory Foundation." I really thank you so much for taking the time to be with us.

Following his remarks, questions will be taken. Please wait for the mike before asking your questions, and state your name and affiliation.

Thanks so much, and please make sure all cell phones are off.

(Applause.)

MR. LIBESKIND: Thank you. Thank you. Sorry to be late.

The anniversary of September 11th is with us in just a few days and I think it's important to -- for me to say that we are on track. The rebuilding effort is very intensive and it's something that, I think, concerns everyone who is involved in the implications of what that attack meant to New York and, of course, by rebuilding site, and the very beginning I called it "Memory Foundation," because it deals with two really similarly irreconcilable aspects.

One is the acknowledgement of the devastation to that site and the heroes of that day. And the other one is about building in New York, as a future oriented city, with optimism and vitality. And of course, bringing these two things together is what this whole task is about -- linking them in an organic way to create the kind of spaces and functions and social relationships in space that really shine with inspiration and bring back New York in a way that is not just rebuilding, but really reasserting the importance of New York as a capital of creativity, finance and of course, a very important place in the 21st century.

So with those few remarks, I'm here to answer any of your questions from here.

QUESTION: Vladimir Lansky (ph) with Channel One, Russian Television. After September the 11th, the construction of tall buildings all over the world went to a complete stop, basically. What had to be done to overcome that fear of tall buildings? And are still tall buildings needed in the cities in the modern world? Or they are, you know, not needed that much any more?

MR. LIBESKIND: It's a good question. I think it is important to be in New York to realize the importance and the desire for height in New York. The restoration of the skyline in New York is not an abstraction because the World Trade Center Towers was such an important icon. And more than an icon, an orientation device that people from the whole metropolitan area and the way New York is a centralized city with outlying areas -- New Jersey, Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island -- really depending on that skyline. And I thought in the competition that the restoration of the skyline is extremely important.

Of course, we are not building just tall buildings without learning something from the past. We also are aware there is no investment for buildings over a certain height but -- in the competition -- and what we are proceeding with is a building that is, happens to be the tallest building in the world. It's a 1,776-foot-high tower which is symbolic, which shines in the sky, but which is a new kind of building because it's a hybrid.

It's partly an office building which rises up to about 70 stories, which is a kind of a traditional height of a building which can be serviced and made secure in traditional ways and invulnerable as far as we can make it, and of course, over that height we have the gardens, public spaces, the observatory platforms, restaurants, and, of course, restoring the antennas which were destroyed in the attack, reaching the full height.

So it is a new kind of building, but, of course, your question is right. People are concerned and everyone on this site is concerned with the safety and how to make tall buildings not just ecologically responsive but learn something from the past.

MS. NISBET: Okay, I'm probably going to start on this side and work our way over.

QUESTION: Hi. Joanna Walters from the Daily Express from the UK. You've been quoted as saying that in the redevelopment of the site, some boundaries; there are some boundaries where we do not negotiate.

Can you expand on that in terms of what you mean, especially in relation to the design for a memorial, your plans to have a shaft of light coming into the area on September the 11th?

And I wonder if you might also say in personal terms where your boundaries are with negotiation in terms of the team that you are working with and the fact that you are not the lead architect?

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, let me just say that statement sounds slightly ideological. I don't think I've ever made a statement, "I don't negotiate." Everything is negotiable in a democratic society.

There is no such thing as, you know, "I don't nego --" everything in an urban civic process -- and this has been an unprecedented public process -- is negotiable. And, of course, the design has to be robust enough and powerful enough to withstand the various compromises that are necessarily going to be made with such a vast project, 16 acres, you know, millions of square feet of office spaces and all of the infrastructure that is part of it, and, of course, public spaces that concern citizens of New York.

But, of course, there are elements of this scheme, which are very important not to be compromised because they are the foundations of what the scheme is. And those I could say very simply, the new connectivity of streets, Greenwich Street coming north/south, Fulton Street going east/west, which means the "Wedge of Light," which you refer to, with those symbolic trapezoidal light lines, which will be illuminated every 9/11, at those times.

Of course, the placement of the memorial, the slurry wall exposition of it, because it's a very powerful and important mark or icon of both the trace of the event, but also of what held the foundation of this great city. And, of course, then the spiraling skyscrapers, which reached that apogee at 1776 Tower, would mirror that movement, dynamic movement of the Statue of Liberty and its Torch of Freedom. Those are, of course, are very important, including the fact that the Memorial Site is shielded by cultural buildings: the museum buildings, whatever the cultural programs would be, the location of the Performing Arts Center, the creation of "September 11th Place" at the intersection of Fulton and Greenwich, and of course, the creation of an unprecedented series of public spaces: the Galleria, the Park of Heroes, the connection to the Hudson River, and most importantly, that this is not just rebuilding of the Twin Towers, but it's creating a completely new neighborhood in Lower Manhattan with a completely new nexus of cultural events -- a kind of magnet for things that have really never been in Lower Manhattan, which shift Lower Manhattan away from just being a financial center, a center for commuters to a place for people to live, to be, to visit and to enjoy.

QUESTION: (Joanna Walters, Daily Express) And the personal aspect I asked you about -- you're working on a team and not -- you're not the lead architect?

MR. LIBESKIND: I've always worked on a team. There is no architecture project that can be ever built in which is -- includes even a small house -- which is not part of a team. Architecture is, by its nature, a community-based profession and therefore, it's nothing new for me to work with many different people, many different stakeholders, many different architects, many different owners of sites.

QUESTION: (Joanna Walters, Daily Express) And you don't mind not being in charge?

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, I am in charge. I'm asked, and my responsibility lies in making sure that the composition of the entire area, which is not really just a series of buildings additively put together, but it's a composition that has integrity to it, because it has to guarantee public spaces for citizens, it has to do with infrastructure and connectivity of all the elements. It's not just about a site on where you can just plop some buildings into it and say, "That's it." It's a new neighborhood, as I said, and as a new neighborhood it has to be shaped both in space and function, in light, and, of course, that's my responsibility.

QUESTION: I wonder if you can elaborate a little more --

MS. NISBET: Microphone.

QUESTION: Oh, sorry, Nancy Leahy, Sankei Shimbun, a Japanese paper.

I'm wondering if might be able to elaborate a little more on the significance of the second anniversary as it is approaching, and how it affects the recovery and renewal for New York in a more emotional aspect. You're talking about, you know, renewing this neighborhood and making it new. So I wonder if you could just elaborate a little more on that?

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, I can speak from a personal point of view. When these attacks happened and before I knew anything about a competition, before anything was even talked about, I decided right then and there that I would move back to New York and move to Lower Manhattan, because I felt this was something I wanted to do. And, indeed, we bought an apartment right next to the site. Our office is, you know, overlooking Ground Zero.

And I think I'm not the only one. I think many people are moving back to Lower Manhattan. I think there is a sense that the rebuilding effort itself is part of a kind of vector of the future and of hope and of optimism that makes a difference.

So, on this anniversary of 9/11, I think there is a renewed sense that no matter how difficult this has been, and it has been, who is going to underestimate the emotional impact that this attack has had on every New Yorker and every person around the world who wants to be free and who understands what democracy's about?

But despite of all these tragedies, I think we are moving ahead and I think the rebuilding effort, I think, is probably the best sort of cultural answer, because what could be a better answer to these evils that befell New York than construction itself, which always brings with it optimism, the economy, social life, cultural life, and creates a sense of togetherness? And I think that has been really the sense of that site and of the feeling, at least, many people who are moving back; and many of the great DNC office buildings are being now turned into apartments in Lower Manhattan. So I think we are seeing a gradual transformation of that whole image of Lower Manhattan, away from just what it was before to something really different and positive.

QUESTION: And what's your address in Lower Manhattan?

MR. LIBESKIND: We are 2 Rector Street.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Mr. Libeskind, sometimes I watch on TV, some family members are very upset that the Port Authority is planning to put infrastructure under the Memorial Site. What's your position?

MR. LIBESKIND: You know, an architect doesn't decide on these programs. This is the program of the Port Authority. The Port Authority is responsible to higher authorities. I can only respond to the program given to me by the Port Authority and, of course, by the City of New York and by the very stakeholders. But the LMDC, of course, is the driving engine of that, of that program.

And, of course, there are issues with the memorial, with the bus parking and all the infrastructure. But one thing we know for sure that there is going to be a necessity for infrastructure, because even before the attack, we know that across the southern footprint, the PATH trains always ran. That was part of the lifeblood of New York. And no one had a competition to re-link PATH trains and subway trains. It was clear to anybody that for New York to go into the future it has to re-link that whole history and create a great terminal, and so on.

So, of course, there are pressures on infrastructure on the site. And even if we talked just about the memorial and cultural district, we need to have infrastructure there as well -- to deliver things, to be able to service these important institutions -- so it's inevitable. To what extent it will be the program the Port Authority gave us, to what extent it will change, is really up to authorities to decide.

QUESTION: I am Mercedes Gallego from El Correo Spain. I have two questions, actually. First question, the talks about security and about learning from the past, there are --some other projects that have been defeated had some special characteristic to help an evacuation in case of another terrorist attack, like landing helicopters or connecting stairways. What does your project contemplate for that case?

The second question is about, there was a decide of rebuilding the Lower East Manhattan in a way that the neighborhood have also a real life, not only offices, but life during the night and people who -- how do you think your project is going to help that?

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, let me start with the second question first. Of course, our aim is not to create here a 9 to 5 area, sort of an extension of Wall Street; then comes darkness. We are creating a neighborhood that will be open 24 hours a day with entertainment, with vital retail, with activated streets, with the fact that this will not be just a place where there is kind of a memorial, and then there is something else, but the whole concept links the civic nature of the memorial with a joyful and celebratory escape of streets.

And I think there will be a lot of people coming there; people who live there, people who commute there, and certainly tourists will be a big part of the place. And I think we are working on the fact that this will be a place that has the kind of density of events, culturally, that will enable it to be 24 hours, 7 days a week.

As to your first question, of course, we are concerned with security. It's one of the major efforts in all the planning of the Port Authority, of the LMDC, of all the people who are stakeholders on the site. And it's a major aspect of planning. Certainly, after 9/11, architecture has changed. We are not just planning more buildings, and as everyone is thinking of the unthinkable, and in that sense, a lot of attention, a lot of expertise has been devoted to everything, even things that are not very obvious to lay people: the cores of buildings, the relationship with cores of buildings to streetscapes, to truck circulation and traffic, and so on. But these are certainly important issues that are on our agenda.

QUESTION: (inaudible) country, and what's it like to work with that (inaudible). The whole world is watching.

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, it's part of what it is. It is -- the effort to rebuild is not only my effort, it's everyone who is involved. And I think every New Yorker, as I walk the streets, you can see that every New Yorker and every person in America and every person around the world who cares about this event wants it to be successful. And of course there are pressures.

This is New York City. This is a very contested ground. A lot of interests are vying for the same piece of land, so there is a lot of intensity, a lot of pressure. And at the same time, I think, there is a lot of goodwill and desire that this is a special thing. This is not just rebuilding of any site anywhere in a market economy, a democratic society, but a very special site which speaks in a spiritual way beyond just its own rebuilding.

So it has a connection to history across time into the future. And I think that's really what is so compelling about working on it, personally, on it because it's compelling since it's unprecedented. And, of course, it's not only that what happened is unprecedented, but the entire process that brought to this point of fruition has also been unprecedented. No one really knew how it would develop, and yet it is developing. And I think it's a testament to the vitality of this city that such a process has an optimistic and future-oriented goal while retaining the memory and the depth of what happened on that fateful day.

QUESTION: When will it be finished? And what -- the people who will (inaudible)?

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, in my scheme, I proposed and I worked very hard on the fact that it's not just about the whole thing, you know, at once. Because it's not something that will just happen out of nothing. It will take a long time to rebuild the entire site.

But in this proposal, within four years, a lot of it will be delivered New Yorkers: the connectivity of the streets, Greenwich, Fulton, the "Wedge of Light," the Great Lower Manhattan Station, the Penn Station will be built; the memorial with a slurry wall. The cultural buildings which shield the memorial permit the vitality of the streets on the other side to be joyful and have the character of New York, the Performing Arts Center; and the Freedom Tower, the 1776 Tower, that all will be done as a kind of nexus of attractions which will already guarantee that the site is really explored and becomes part of New Yorkers' view of the city. So that's really our intensive schedule.

QUESTION: Four year from now? Or --

MR. LIBESKIND: Four years from now. Yes.

MS. NISBET: I just want to make sure there are no follow-up questions and also speak into the mike as it really helps the transcribers.

QUESTION: I am Luis Aarmiento, from RCN Television from Colombia. Can you tell us a little bit of your relationship with Mr. Silverstein? How has it affected the rebuilding project and in the future, how -- will it affect it as well?

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, Mr. Silverstein is a very nice man. He's one of the powerful stakeholders in this project. We have to work very closely with him. We've had very good relationships. We are working David Childs, who is SLM, one of the architects of Mr. Silverstein. But I think it shows that we are moving ahead in a way that is meaningful, the design input into that particular tower, which was the first tower to be realized on the site, is important, and Mr. Silverstein has acknowledged it. And I think the relationship, as it's developing, seems very, very positive.

QUESTION: Hi, Isabel Piquer from the Spanish newspaper El Pais. I would like to capture the reaction of the families. Apparently some of them are protesting right now at the (inaudible) emotional (inaudible) growing because they didn't agree with the fact that some of the buildings will be built on the prints of the towers. And maybe you will think of changing some of the design, or not?

MR. LIBESKIND: None of the buildings in my proposal are built over the footprints. The footprints are left open.

Of course, the positioning and configuration of the Cultural Buildings is very important in the scheme because one has to create a filter between that site, and whatever will be designed as a memorial; and at the same time, make sure that the lively, vital streets with retail can function also in New York.

And of course, there is a kind of balance in this scheme between the need for the memorial, which of course, everybody has to acknowledge as a very special place, a space where people have to have a civic dignity and the victims have to be acknowledged as heroes of the day in a proper way.

At the same time, to rebuild New York, in a way which is not just a village, but New York that we all love and admire requires that we immediate these two functions through the cultural nexus of events. And of course, that's the balancing act, which was from the very beginning, part of this scheme.

It is certainly true that New Yorkers were originally split at the -- you know, when the discussion was -- you know, half of New Yorkers said, "Build nothing on this site. It's just all a cemetery. It's a devastated site. You can build nothing. Just make it into a park by the way (inaudible) the building." Or people say now, "Just build in defiance, because this is New York, and this cannot stop the city from operating in the future." So one has to find that organic link between the memory and the foundations for a revitalized New York.

QUESTION: Alberto Armendariz from the (inaudible) Argentine paper La Nacion. When you were, during the competition time, when you were advocating for your project, you said it was one of the most economic ones. Surprisingly, this week the LMDC still doesn't have an estimate of how much it will cost. I was wondering if you have any figures now? And your people who are here are saying, "No."

MR. LIBESKIND: You have to ask investors. I’m not -- you know -- the economy of the project deals with the practicality of, buildability of the project. It's not a project that depends on some largesse of monies appropriated from some vague organizations. It's a project that is based on a market economy. It's based on buildings built by investors. It's based on streets, based on retail, based on transportation, of course, based, also, on the cultural needs that the site now possesses. So it is a very pragmatic proposal. How much the whole site will cost -- well, you can calculate how much that number of buildings, you know, containing 10 million square feet of office space and all the necessary retail costs.

QUESTION: Would you tell us?

MR. LIBESKIND: You ask Mr. Silverstein; you can, of LMDC Port Authority. I'm not in charge of the cost.

QUESTION: Eva Bratholm with Dagbladet. You said there's a balance between the memorial and business part of the project. In your view, how important is the business
and cultural venue?

MR. LIBESKIND: Extremely important, because I think -- I believe that it is important that the site mirror, really, the aspirations of New York in every possible way; that it is, of course, speaking to that day, and it's a day which really changed lives.

Many lives were lost on that day which will not come back. There is a sadness, eternal heroism of that day. But also, our lives and our history have changed. You know, the way we travel, the way we think of the world, what we see on television, is different from that day on.

At the same time, I think we have to reassert New York itself. Lower Manhattan, which is, of course, the origins of New York itself. That's where New York, you know, that's where George Washington was inaugurated, it's where the first government of the United States took place. That's where the Statue of Liberty sort of invites the strangers and newcomers to this country to share in the freedoms that this country gives to its citizens.

So it is very important that the entire composition of the site mirror all these diverse views of what Manhattan and what the United States really stand for.

QUESTION: Jan Fleischhauer of Der Spiegel Germany. I was wondering if you could be a little more specific about the schedule? What is expected (inaudible)?

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, to be specific of the schedule, I think right now there is an ongoing competition, which is being judged for the memorial. We know that the results of this competition will be announced pretty soon. Once that is done, and then these plans are put into the context of the entire plan, the memorial will move ahead.

We know and we have been working with the Port Authority and LMDC very closely on the infrastructure of the transportation, because you have to build from bottom up. So we have to know what is happening in terms of the infrastructure down below, the seven stories below Ground Zero. And that is going ahead and architects have been selected to build the Lower Manhattan Station, so the Lower Manhattan Station is moving ahead.

Certainly, those two things, with the connectivity of the streets, and with the Freedom Tower, will give a shape to the entire site. And that is really an ongoing process and we are very close to beginning many of these things -- beginning to see many of these things.

But as you look down at the site, you will see much activity in it, and you will see that many things, even though some of them are temporary, are ongoing as part of the process that will soon be visible at the street level.

QUESTION: Clare Henry, Financial Times, United Kindgom.

There's a lot of debate about the cultural institutions and buildings that may or may not be on this location. Ideally, what would you like to see there?

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, let me just step back for a minute. This is simply not my decision. This is the decision of the city, of the LMDC, Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. That's why they were founded, to try to go through all these various proposals. There are many cultural institutions that will want to be on the site -- museums, performing arts centers, different cultural venues.

What I would like to see is a very broad range of cultural institutions, cultural institutions which don't cater just to, kind of, an elite, but really open themselves to a very flexible programming that could attract large numbers of people of all classes, of all kinds: families, children, experts, people who are coming to the site for particular reasons.

I think the broader that venue is, the more flexible and the more diverse it is, the more it will actually be successful in terms of also giving back to the site what it really needs since it will reflect that diversity in everything else that it's doing -- the memorial, the buildings, the retail.

QUESTION: I would like to know how close to (inaudible) on the (inaudible) catalog will actually be built the way you designed it? Because there are one thing, let's say that, you planned, but the actual shape of the Tower and a lot of the things you designed will change over time because of the process of planning and, as you said, you are working with team, it might be something completely different. How -- so how confident are you? Or are you confident that we eventually will see that Tower?

MR. LIBESKIND: I think if you really think what is important about the Tower, there are probably two things that are important about the Tower. Number one is the location of the tower, of any skyscraper. Its location is one of the keys to its import. That's really sort of, the strategy of, you know, where it's located.

Number two, its visibility, you know, in the sky. Those two are -- and, of course, those two are things that I'm very concerned about. That doesn't mean that a Tower cannot be developed. You know, after all, we designed these buildings within a very short, telescoped timetable, 10 weeks or the 11 weeks that we had.

Now we are working much longer on making these plans stable and putting in all the input of all the different details that are necessary. But, of course, there is a lot of possibility to develop an incredible Tower. It's not just about a shape of the Tower; it's about what the Tower says. And the Tower speaks in terms of the type; it speaks in terms of its public programming. That's very important. That's part of, I think, a very important character of the tower. And it speaks of certain relations with the Statue of Liberty in its form. And I think those three things, or four, I've now mentioned are, or five, are very important. And I have no doubt that in our collaboration these -- these will emerge of those things.

Of course, they would have to be worked upon and transformed, but I think no one would doubt that these are important elements. And I should not -- one should not think that the architects I am collaborating with don't think that these things are important.

QUESTION: My name is Makota Katsuta of Yomiuri Shimbun from Japan, (inaudible) Shimbun, Japanese newspaper. All right, in the (inaudible) is absolute nihilism and, you know, I think, nihilism -- it's not just nihilism. And there, you know, there have been a pretty good conferences (inaudible) spirits of; you know, (inaudible) also (inaudible) not to worry in Afghanistan in and Iraq. And there are, you know, I was assuming, you know, you are, you know, how, you know, successful do you feel (inaudible) to have been, you know, reflecting your views, you know, or absolute style, witnessing (inaudible) change to all of, you know, not just of this work, (inaudible) maybe (inaudible). Are you (inaudible) you, you know, ads from universal (inaudible) hopeless (inaudible)?

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, I think that's a good question. I think by rebuilding a site in a meaningful way, by caring about all of the aspects and the complexity of what the world is, and in a sense, New York is a microcosm of the world -- that's also why it was attacked. It is, you know, if you look at the people who perished that day, they come from different countries. It was the biggest attack against citizens of the UK in its history.

So I am very aware that anything that goes on in this site has to sensitively deal with that change. And, of course, as I said before, there is nothing more profound than rebuilding something, than building, because building is a confidence. It underscores the confidence in a future that is good. No one builds for, you know, in for negativity.

So, of course, one has to connect the memory of what happened on that day -- without disconnecting it, in other words, from what is being built on that site. And I treat it as, certainly, a whole site, not just as a site to be chopped up with a memorial added to it, but transform the whole site in a spatial, cultural, social, urbanistic way, so that it's -- it is something that is at the end new, something that stands for the values that we all share in terms of an open city, a city that is interesting, a city that transforms one's perspective from the grid of the 19th century, the 20th century into something that is really of a new time.

And, of course, the way the site is developed, ecologically, with a sustainable -- with sustainability not just being a footnote, but a major new component of how nature is being given voice in this site, not just the 8:46 and 10:28 angles of the "Wedge of Light," but everything that goes with them. That's part of it.

QUESTION: Hi. I'm Caroline from The Sydney Morning Herald. What relationship do you have with the Westfield Corporation that owns the retail space on the site? And have they expressed any opinion about your designs?

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, we, of course, are working very closely. They are one of the stakeholders, one of the powerful stakeholders. They had, of course, the retail in the underground of the World Trade Center before, and we are working very closely to make sure that our plans reconcile with their interests to maximize retail in the underground.

But, of course, we have also other issues that are in front of us: the city, and everyone in New York would want to have vital, interesting streets. So we have to make sure that we satisfy many different aspects of the project. But I can only tell you that we have been working closely with them, as we have been working with SLM, with architects of Mr. Silverstein, as we have been working with the Port Authority and LMBC, and of course, countless experts. Our meetings, our small meetings are 50 or 60 people. Our large meetings could be, you know, 300 - 500 people.

So you can just see the scale of knowledge and the number of people who are working on it, not to mention the fact that, you know, West Street is, of course, a state highway. There's Department of Transportation federally, local streets are owned, you know, New York City. And so it's a complex weave which really does reflect that a complex site, which was not just the acres that you see on top, but everything that is below it as well; and retail is part of it.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) on his design of the terminal?

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, I have communicated with him. He was on a vacation, I was not, actually, but -- lucky for him -- but I am sure that the work that we have been doing together with the Port Authority, LMBC, will be highly important for Mr. Calatrava's brief, because the station is an important element of the gateway to the site. It's also a civic space.

It's a place, not just any longer just to bring commuters as quickly and get out -- get them out as quickly as possible, but to create an amenity in Lower Manhattan, a place which is beautiful, a place that somebody going to work or coming back from work can just relax and feel, you know, "This is New York. This is a great place to be. It's a meaningful place to be."

And, of course, the beauty and joy of that station is integral to the success of the master plan as the whole. And I'm very glad that he has been selected. He is an expert in transportation. I think it will be a very good collaboration.

QUESTION: I am Elena Molinari of Avvenire newspaper Italy. I was wondering, how much are you going to be personally involved in every step of the rebuilding process? Are you going to be on the sides working every day for the next four years, or you think that the biggest part of your job is almost over?

MR. LIBESKIND: No, the biggest part is all the beginning. The truth is that it's an all-consuming task. There is no detail here, which is less important than another detail. Everything is kind of concentric to where you're standing on the site. And everything is equally important, because every decision affects every other decision.

And in such a complex parameter, where everything is really very tightly coordinated in this 16-acre site, as you can really see, everything is interdependent and linked together. And every decision affects every other decision.

So I do expect to be involved in projects. In the long run, we have, of course, in our contract, the role to oversee the development of the site until it's completely finished. So, our role will not end until the last building with its last pinnacle is built. And that might be ten years, twelve years, who knows how long that is? But that's my commitment.

QUESTION: My name is Esther Verhalle, Dutch Public Radio, NOS. How safe are the buildings going to be? Can you elaborate a little bit about what kind of attention is being given to the safety of the future Tower and the high buildings?

MR. LIBESKIND: All I can say is a great amount of thought by experts, and in security by experts in engineering, civil engineering, is being given to the entire site.

We know that, not even just explosives, but chemical weapons, biological weapons, apart, and we are aware of all of this as part of a new brief of security on the site. I cannot really go into details, but it's certainly true that Number Seven World Trade Center, with Mr. Silversteins's Company named as one, has a very different morph there. It's built in a different way from a -- just a standard office tower that would have been built before 9/11, so a lot of thought has been given.

Of course, there is a certain balance. Beyond a certain point of invulnerability, you no longer have a city. You no longer have the economy to build buildings. So again, as I said, it's a matter of balance. And I'm glad that we do live in a democratic society and that we still have the view that cities have to be accessible, that we have to also learn from the past. We have to learn from what happened at the World Trade Center site, we have to learn from those buildings as well. What can we do which is better, which is more secure, and which is affected by what happened on that day?

QUESTION: Jae-Ho Kim Chosun Daily Newspaper in South Korea. If you (inaudible) all of the concerns of the different parties related (inaudible) in this construction, I wonder how do you keep your original idea and concept?

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, that's the beauty of cities. How do you make a plan? It's not about making a single building. It's not just about an aesthetic about how something looks. But it's how do you integrate into a complex composition, spatially, architecturally, socially, iconically, the different interests; and make them also alive.

Because who would want to make one of these mistakes that was made by the Senate of Berlin, in my opinion, when they rebuilt Potsdamer Platz, where they had very fine architects? But at the end, to me, it's not an inspiring composition of urban spaces. It's just, you know, it looks like the paper that it was drawn on, or the computer screen on which it was generated.

So that's the art of 21st Century, how you bring all these diverse interests into the marketplace and let them sing with their own voice within a kind of harmony that is overarching and signifies the scheme of what's presented to the public.

QUESTION: Hi. Joanna from London, again. A couple of questions -- I mean, at the moment, everybody talks about the site as Ground Zero, as ex-World Trade Center or whatever. Is there going to be some sort of new, fabulous name for the whole thing, the phenomenon? That's my first question.

MR. LIBESKIND: That's an interesting question. People refer to it in various ways, but we already have a number of new names. We have the "1776 Freedom Tower," we have the "Wedge of Light," we have "Greenwich Street," we have "Fulton Street," we have the "Park of Heroes," we have the "Galleria," we have the "Memorial Site," we have the "slurry wall." Already many more names have appeared in a kind of heterogeneous way, just a part of the design and part of the proposal. So, yeah, it's aporiary. We don't know. I think people will name it different ways.

QUESTION: And a very brief, very brief follow-up. Do you actually have a veto on anything at the site? And just related to that, in terms of there being all these different, interested parties, do you have some sort of a unique agreement between you that because of the sensitivity of this development, you will not have disagreements; everybody will, you know, back down more quickly than they might have on another collaborative project? Or is there some sort of deal between you guys and what about the veto question?

MR. LIBESKIND: No. You know, though we are not working in a kind of Pollyanna world. Yet, we are not in an adversarial position. To build a city, to build a significant site of this scale anywhere in the world, in a democratic place, you have to have a sense of a common task. You have to have an -- kind of non-adversarial -- it's not business as usual, you know, just building some buildings and maximizing whatever it is that you want to maximize.

So I think that's really part of it. And it's part of a new understanding of urbanity; that is it not about some pretty picture, that it's not about what we could have achieved under a monarchic government in some old European or other context, but what do we do in the 21st Century and how do we -- how do we bring these diverse interests without creating a cacophony, but creating kind of a beautiful space and beautiful environment. It's a first. It's without precedent. And I think the signs are good that we will achieve something that is worth building.

QUESTION: But do you have a veto on anything?

MR. LIBESKIND: But I'm saying -- this is not the United Nations. We don't work like the United Nations. We don't work by vetoes, by those kinds of things. We work together on the complex issues and, of course, we know what is involved, what is at stake. What is at stake is the public spaces, the public hearts, the public soul, and the spirit of people who are really -- that's what the site is about. It's not just about just square feet of office space and, as I said, business as usual, just buildings some office buildings. There's more to it. And I think everyone, including every stakeholder, would agree with that.

QUESTION: But what if you don't like (inaudible)?

MS. NISBET: We've got time for two or three more questions.

QUESTION: Just little bit follow-up. (Inaudible) France, French TV. Could you leave the project, you leave New York, if any chance the decision-makers would go too far from your original ideas?

MR. LIBESKIND: No, I'm not that kind of an architect. I'm not an architect who moves out of New York and goes to China just because New York is difficult. No, I intend to stay here. You know, having come to the Bronx as an immigrant, learned something in this city -- that it's kind of unique, I don't intend to give up.

QUESTION: Hi, Roberto Dias from Folha De Sao Paulo, Brazil. Are you taking part in any of this question about what to do with the Deutsche Banc site?

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, in the sense that in our initial proposals, we proposed two proposals: One with a (inaudible) of density on the 16-acre site that we had been given, and one proposal with the Deutsche Banc site in mind.

We all felt that if it was possible for the Deutsche Banc site to become part of this composition, it would be better for the scheme because it will release some of the pressures of security and of density on the site. And I think we are not the only ones. I think the LMDC Port Authority, various stakeholders agree on that. But, you know, that's not really up to me to decide what will happen. But certainly it would be great for the scheme if that site became available.

MS. NISBET: One more question?

We got everyone. Great. Thank you so much Mr. Libeskind.

MR. LIBESKIND: Okay. Thank you. Thanks a lot.