11:00 A.M. EDT
MR. LIBESKIND: Thank you for coming.
As I was thinking, it's only two years since the competition for the "Plan for Ground Zero" was held, very short time, and about a year and a half that we've been at work on this really extremely important project. And I think what I can simply say as a kind of summary is that we've made tremendous progress, given the complexity of the project, given the emotions that are involved in this project. And I can only say that the development of Ground Zero is on track, on schedule, and I think people in New York, in America, and the world will see results I think within four or five years. There will be actual buildings, streets and new neighborhoods created, and I think that's something that we should all be proud of because the intensity of this process has been so remarkable.
So that's -- you're here to ask question and I don't want to take your time by speeches.
QUESTION: I'm Felix Salmon from Euromoney.
I have two questions for you, if I may. The first one is, when are we going to get a good idea of exactly what the Freedom Tower and the PATH Station are going to look like? And the second is which, if any, of the cultural buildings would you like to design yourself?
MR. LIBESKIND: Let me answer the second question first. That hasn't been decided. The architects for the cultural buildings have not been selected and there is a process and I can't comment on that.
But to your first question, there are very definite answers to that. The design for the PATH terminal has been unveiled, (inaudible); that is indeed the project that is being built. It not only adheres to the Master Plan, but expresses the ideas of the (inaudible) very powerfully, and it's in the works. It's under a design.
The Freedom Tower that everyone has been, that was unveiled, with Mr. Childs and with Mr. Silverstein and the Governor and the Mayor and myself is on track, and indeed, that's the tower that is being built. So --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. LIBESKIND: Well, we believe that what has been shown to the public of New York and of the world is indeed what is going to be built.
Yes.
QUESTION: Hi, my name is Mercedes Gallego (phonetic) from the Spanish newspaper El Correo.
It's been said that you've kind of been marginalized inside your own project. How do you feel about that?
MR. LIBESKIND: That's certainly not what I feel. I mean, people might have also an opinion. I should be -- feel just the reverse, that everything that has been drawn and shown to the public, the positioning of buildings, the creation of streets, the creation of major spaces, the creation of the memorial with its slurry wall, the Freedom Tower with its remarkable relation with the Statue of Liberty, its 1776-foot height, the spiraling buildings of office towers which surround the site itself, the Wedge of Light plaza, the public spaces of new streets, Greenwich going through, and Fulton going east and west, all that is indeed not only a figment of an imagination, nor on a margin, but that's indeed what is part of the LMDC plan, of the Port Authority plan, and what has been approved by the environmental impact studies. So that is indeed what is getting built.
So that's not a -- something I feel is marginal.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. LIBESKIND: Well, you know something, if you compare -- first of all, I want to say that this is not a private project. This is not about my project. It's a project that belongs to all of New York and all of the world. It's not one person's project; it has never been. As a master planner, my role has been very, very central to creating and coordinating the various projects and various inputs to make sure that at the end what New York has selected, what LMDC and the public process (inaudible), is indeed what is getting built. And I am very strong on record to say that what is getting built is exactly what has been drawn and shown, and the public will not be disappointed when they see the buildings, the streets, and the spaces created.
MS. NISBET: And Gabe, on the other side, please.
QUESTION: Hi, Gabe Plesea, reporting for Romania Libera of Bucharest.
Actually this, is follow-up to Mercedes' question. On the outset, you declared, when you won the contest, that you have a master plan and you would have other architects and other companies contribute to complete, you know, the whole project. First, how was the response to this? You mentioned something, but if you could give us more details on this.
And secondly, what is the status of the monument, the memorials that are supposed to be built there?
Thank you.
MR. LIBESKIND: Thank you. Well, indeed, it is true. The master plans called for a variety of buildings, and the master plan is not just an abstract plot plan, which just shows where buildings are standing, but is a shaping of public space, the shaping of the buildings, both functionally, but also symbolically; and in that sense, all the projects that are underway, which include, of course, the memorial, selected in a separate competition, are part of the organic composition of the plan.
This is not business as usual from building the memorial attached to it. It's a integrated composition of high-rise buildings, which contain more than 10 million square feet of office density, which are not just buildings that could be built in Chicago and Singapore, but really have a unique relationship to the memorial, which is on the site; a unique relationship to the slurry wall, a sort of footprint; and a unique, new characteristic that this neighborhood is being rebuilt in response to these terrorist attacks, and in a way which celebrates democracy and the freedoms that we so much cherish.
So that is, indeed, what is being built. Of course, there are many different architects participating. There's an architect for the memorial. There's an architect for the PATH station. There's the architect for the tower. I was a co-architect to that project as well. And you can imagine that as the cultural buildings get built, and other buildings, there will be more and more. And that's, indeed what, what a democratic master plan stands for. It's not just done by an edict of a dictator or by someone who just says, "Do this, or do that." It's something that is part of the market, and yet at the same time, something that guarantees that the public's selection of this process will deliver those buildings and those images and those -- the contents, both functionally and spiritually, that the project, from the very beginning called for.
QUESTION: A question from Conor O'Clery of The Irish Times.
It's a rather offbeat question, but I'd be interested in your answer. There are a lot of critics of this design, but there are also a lot of critics of the design of the World Trade Center when it was put up in the 1970s. Very strong criticism. I just wonder what your opinion is of the design of the original towers.
MR. LIBESKIND: Well, from the very beginning of the competition, I felt that we had to learn something from that project. We have to learn to make it better. We know that there were problems when the Twin Towers were there: wind conditions; the plaza was often not usable in the winter because of the prevailing winds; the light was not particularly attractive at many times of the year. It was dead after 5 o'clock, you know, when the offices closed. There was no street light.
Everything in the plan that I proposed reverses those and learns something from it. It's no longer about creation, just a standalone, you know, sculptures in the sky, but buildings that are ecologically responsible, that create a neighborhood with light and wind so that people can enjoy public spaces in all times of the year, and creating new streets, bringing back the streets in a way that were there prior to the building of the Twin Towers so that there was the retail.
And not only that, that in the center of this plan culture is central. The nexus between Granite Street and Fulton Streets, where the wedge of light is, is a new concentration of cultural activities -- museums, performing arts centers -- that will turn this area into an area that is 24 hours and 7 days a week open for a great public. And that's very, very different than what was there prior to the awful attacks on New York.
QUESTION: Irmtraud Richardson, German Public Radio, ARD, just to clarify a point.
If I just understood you correctly, you said that what's finally going to be built on Ground Zero will be more or less identical to what you proposed originally. I would like some clarification because, to my unprofessional eye, it looks a lot different.
And secondly, I also would like maybe some more detail, some more specification, why you think that the buildings which are going to be built, apparently, have this special relationship to the memorial site. Again, to my unprofessional eye, I have the feeling that, in the end, after a long debate, commerce won out over other considerations.
And thirdly, and forgive me if this is something that I should know, but I just came back for the Republican Convention. I was on holiday in August. What's the latest in your contretemps with Mr. Silverstein?
MR. LIBESKIND: Well, to start with the end of your question, we are moving -- we are proceeding on the construction of the tower that he agreed that will be a very important hinge to the site, the Freedom Tower; and, indeed, to anyone's eye, comparing the two schemes, the scheme in the competition and the scheme that is being built, I think only small details have been changed. And, of course, that is natural because the competition was not about designing every building and every window and every doorway. You can't do that, you know, for 10 million square feet of density, for public spaces of the memorial which will have 5 million people visiting them a year, for a huge transportation nexus that is under the Ground Zero.
It's a vast, vast project. It's only 16 acres, but it is a microcosm of New York City and of the life of this great city; therefore, there has been often a misunderstanding of what a master plan is. The master plan is, if I can make an analogy, something like an orchestration and a composition of a musical kind. Of course, music is not just a bunch of notes; they have to be interpreted by people who play instruments and they have to also be then engaged in a full orchestral coordination. And that's exactly what a master plan is. It sets the stage. It doesn't end the performance. It sets the stage for all the activities.
And the fact that we have been able to move so quickly and so intensively, I think is a testament to the consensus that this plan has brought to various different points of view. You have to remember, there are commercial interests here. They are just not just about the symbol. There are commercial interests. There are retail people. There are inputs from families of the victims, the Community Board One, the local neighborhoods. There is, of course, LMBC set up that the Governor and the state because it's state money. Federal monies are in it. The City of New York, the State of New York that owns West Street and transportation systems.
It's a vast configuration of forces that have to be coordinated, channeled and create something that is not only some buildings but something that is memorable, interesting and, indeed, not just some buildings standing around, but if I might repeat again, those buildings that embrace the memorial, spiral upwards, just like the torch of the Statue of Liberty, to the high point, which is 1776 feet high, a very symbolic and important date of the Declaration of Independence, and stands in homage to both 9/11, the heroes who perished there, but also to the future of New York as the capital, in many ways, of the world.
MS. NISBET: Let's go to Vladimir and then across to the other side.
QUESTION: I am Vladimir Lensky, Channel One Russia.
The process of selecting of the design for World Trade Center was incredibly democratic. Do you anticipate any more changes in the design that you are working on now? And, if so, will the public be involved in making the decisions this time, especially the families of those who were killed in that attack.
And also, how do you anticipate the buildings that have already been built on this site, like Tower Number 7, being incorporated in the final design?
MR. LIBESKIND: Tower Number 7 was not part of the master plan. It was a project that was ongoing prior to the competition but it's, of course, integrated into the plan because it's one of the neighbors, as are the World Financial Center, as are a number of traditionally historical buildings around in lower Manhattan.
But it is a democratic process. I think the project -- and I think that should be really stated -- is a testament to the strength and power of democracy because this project happened in the public light and is scrutinized in the public light, not just by the families of the victims, who are, of course, great stakeholders, but by everyone. Everyone has an investment in the site. Everyone cares for this site.
As I walk around New York, there's not a single person, not a child, not a grown up, not even a tourist from elsewhere, who doesn't really care about what is being built on the site. And I think the fact that this has been a public process, that the LMBC, the Port Authority are public organizations responsible to the public steeling the process and not the only one, you know, fighting for this project. You know, I'm not alone.
There are a number of organizations. There is, of course, the Governor, the Mayor of New York and many others who care about this project. So I can only say that my experience has been -- that this is an exemplary way of doing a project. This is not, you know, done by some powerful hand saying, "Do this," and it's finished, as the previous World Trade Center's towers were.
Nobody had -- there was no public discussion about what was to be built. And yet, here, it's very moving that everyone is part of the process. And how transparent it is, I think, depends on the public's desire to be engaged in it.
My own view as an architect and as a master planner is that the more the public is involved, the better it is for the project. The more the public has a hand it, the better will be the result in this project.
QUESTION: My name is Belen Lopez from TV Galicia in Spain.
There have been some reports that the interests from corporations and possible tenants in leasing the office space in the World Trade Center is not as big as one might expect, and one of the explanations that is given is that people are kind of afraid of going back to a skyscraper. I was wondering what's your take on this.
MR. LIBESKIND: Well, that is the very reason why I did not design a 150-story skyscraper. Even though the skyscraper reaches 1,776-foot height, which is the tallest building in the world, its occupiable space is only about 65 floors, which is like a traditional skyscraper, like Rockefeller Center, where you don't have the sky lobbies and you don't have the vulnerability that these shall fail during the attacks with the complexity of escape mechanisms from such a building.
So the building is a tradition height. Of course, there are five public stories of restaurants and other things on top of the 65 stories, and then there's an ecological program that reaches -- it's to connect with antennas, which reach the full height. So it is -- we are aware of both economic conditions and other conditions on the site that would preclude and would not be -- it could not be realistic to just build, you know, 150 stories of office space.
And of course, security of the site is an important issue. And look, a site plan is only as good -- a master plan is only as good as the organic thought that went into it. The thought of this plan is that we don't have to wait for 10 or 15 or 25 years for the whole plan to be completed, but at each phase, and namely, the first phase, the first four or five years, we will deliver to New York a plan that is already completed in a way.
And then, of course, when the economic conditions allow, the other towers will be built that will be better for the site. But it's not going to be just a building, endless building site for the next unknowable period of time. That was part of the phasing idea of this master plan.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) ahead of my question, but you mentioned the vulnerability of the building being -- because of it being a tall building. But isn't that also because of the symbolic of the building? So even if you make it, like, shorter than the last one, don't you think it's still going to be symbolic of the country?
MR. LIBESKIND: Well, you're right. It is an important building. There's no doubt about it. That building, because it's a building that grounds and also centers the memorial, which is right below it, and the Wedge of Light, which is a great entrance, public entrance to the whole new neighborhood which is being created.
We are aware of it, and yet, I think part of the replanning of the site was not to simply declare the site a cemetery. There was, you will recall, a division in New York in the beginning. You know, 50 percent of the people probably said we should build nothing on the site. Another 50 said we should build even taller than what was there before. And I think the site really reconciles many contradictions in a plan that I think is both realistic, a plan that is also important to be realized because it asserts the freedoms of this city in face of the attack, and I think creates something which is memorable, important and something that will inspire people to understand the history of the site.
MS. NISBET: Don't forget to state your name and affiliation. Thanks.
QUESTION: I'm Juergen Schoenstein from Fokus Magazine in Germany.
What was there was called the World Trade Center. What's there now is usually referred to as Ground Zero. What do you think it should be called once it's there in the future? What would be an appropriate name in your opinion?
MR. LIBESKIND: It's a very good question. I don't think anyone can name it. I think it will emerge from the actual building of the site. For example, I called the tower 1776 Tower because it was 1776 feet high. It was not an arbitrary number of just our tallest building, but it was about -- dedicated to the Statue of Liberty and the fact that the Declaration of Independence is the first document in the world that declares all human beings being equal.
But the Governor said, well, it is a Freedom Tower, it's July 4th, and so now you can say -- people refer to it as the Freedom Tower. And I think it's an appropriate name.
I think the Wedge of Light has stuck, the name is used by people, by Mr. Calatrava, in designing a station, and perhaps the memorial with its principle will have also kind of a name and the slurry wall certainly has a name. But I don't know -- I cannot answer, really, what people will call the entire site, though I am convinced that it will be read as the neighborhood, as anew neighborhood, and not as the old World Trade Center site.
QUESTION: I'm Carrie Sheridan from Voice of America.
I understand that the memorial competition was separate from your design, but I'm curious, with the controversy over how to best memorialize the victims, whether to put their affiliations, if they were rescue workers or civilians, do you have an opinion about the best way to remember the people that were lost there?
MR. LIBESKIND: Well, I just want to say that part of my task in the master plan was to dedicate an area that is very significant for the memorial, that it is not just a memorial foot of -- high-rise buildings, but the centrality of the memorial, and how it is visually connected and spatially connected to what is below and up above it. And of course, what is below it is very complex, because we've got trains, PATH trains, which are the lifeblood of lower Manhattan.
In terms of the actual selection of the memorial, there was a jury that was -- that dealt with selecting through thousands of memorial entries, a memorial that was suitable, that met with all the emotional and pragmatic conditions of the site, and that selection was made; there is an architect for the memorial. And yet the memorial will also have, as part of it, that slurry wall, which was exposed during the attack, which I felt was one of the most important elements of the site because it is the wall that not only was revealed in the attack, but the wall that continues to hold the foundation of the whole site against the Hudson River, like a dam.
So all these things are part of the plan. I cannot comment in detail about the organization of the memorial and the names. That is for the memorial designers and for the memorial jury and for the Governor to decide. But I certainly inscribed into the site what I call the "Heroes' Line," the people came -- the police forces, the firemen -- the people came to the site from all boroughs of the metropolitan area to help, and that's part of the -- almost the surface treatment of streets, which embrace the entire 16-acre site. I feel that it is important to remember all the victims properly, and particularly pay homage to the bravery of the firemen and policemen who perished on the site in such large numbers.
QUESTION: Arturo Zampaglione from the Italian newspaper, La Repubblica.
Do you think that what you and your colleagues are doing there at Ground Zero is changing somehow the future of architecture, of your profession, of the role of architecture in society? I mean, what will be the long-term consequences of this work?
MR. LIBESKIND: That's a very interesting question, a very profound one, I think, because there is no doubt that in this time and in this place an interest has arisen in the public mind that architecture is not some foreign thing done by architects in some board rooms up high, but it belongs to the public, that the architecture is, once again, a public art practiced in the middle of democracy. And I think that has changed architecture, certainly.
I believe that it will have a long-lasting impact, and you can see it. The various projects in New York about the stadium, and so on, there's now a public discussion that would be inconceivable even five years ago that people would care about transportation and how projects relate to living, to the economy of the city and the aesthetics of architecture projects, how do they contribute to street light, how do they make life better in the city and are not simply exercises of sort of aggression against the city.
So I feel very positive that because of the nature of this project, because it brought so many hearts and souls and minds together, people have reacquainted themselves. It's a kind of a renaissance, the fact that architecture is an incredibly important part of the world, and whatever it is, however modest it might be, it's still is part of the environment and has to be responsible to that environment and contribute something.
One of the less glamorous things that is not easy to show in photographs and on a model is the ecological sustainability guidelines that we have written for the site. They are probably the most cutting-edge guidelines in the world. No building here will be just another high-gloss buildings. They will be buildings that are efficient. They are intelligent buildings that don't simply use, you know, Middle Eastern oil irresponsibly, that have to do something that is for the 21st century. And that is part of the development of this site as well. So one has to really remember, it's not just some pictures of buildings that are important, but the substantial way the site is being developed.
QUESTION: Tobias Moerschen, Germany's business daily, Handelsblatt.
As a follow-up to that question, can you tell us what the project and the mandate meant for your career personally? And can you maybe talk a little bit -- I think you have a lot of other projects in different continents, some projects in Germany, can you perhaps talk about that?
And on a very different note -- sorry, but I want to use this chance -- your legal dispute with Mr. Silverstein has been described by your attorney, you know, the money that you're talking about looks to him as kind of a try of Mr. Silverstein to bribe you into agreeing to his terms. Would you agree with that interpretation?
MR. LIBESKIND: Well, you know, I cannot really comment on the case because it's an ongoing. So I cannot really make a comment -- I am sorry -- about that.
But it's certainly true that stepping into this project has changed my life. You know, who would ever anticipate what such a project means. There is no precedent for it. There is scenario of how do you do such a project. It's unprecedented in world history. In fact, I thought about it because, once upon a time, I was even a student of history. You know, what is a model for such a site? There is really no such model. There is no such precedent.
And I think Emerson, the great American philosopher, was right. He said, "Only in America can the unprecedented really take place." Because a year and a half after we have started working, things are in the ground. The transportation nexus is being redesigned. The infrastructure is being put back together. The foundations for the Freedom Tower and other towers are being calculated and constructed. The transportation terminal is underway, and, of course, the memorial is underway.
So a lot has happened and I can only say that it's an incredible privilege to be part of it. It's also not very easy. It's a very tough thing because of the great forces that New York really represents, and that's really part of the inspiration of this project. And, again, I say I'm not alone. There are so many people that I depend on. I do depend on the Governor, on the Mayor, on the LMBC, on the Port Authority, on all these vast organizations.
Let's not forget that the Port Authority is the largest architectural engineering firm in the world. It's about 7,000 architects and engineers are working there, so it's, but -- let me just say, in terms of -- I have been lucky and I have been fortunate that this is not my only project, that we were fortunate recently to win a large competition in Italy, in Milan, for 64 acres in the center of Milan, the old fairgrounds of Milan, which was an international competition with investors. We had great architectural opponents. You know, Renzo Piano and Frank Gary together with Foster and SOM, and, well, it was a kind of a "Who is Who in architecture."
We were with our own small team with Zaha Hadid and Arata Izosaki and Pier Paolo Maggiora, and the large insurance companies of Italy. And we were lucky to prevail and win to construct completely new 21st century city with skyscrapers, with new living quarters, with a vast park, with museums and cultural institutes. That's a project that is ongoing.
We are also working on -- I'm also working on a fantastic project in Jamaica, on an entire island where an investor, who happens to be one of my benefactors of a museum in Toronto, The Royal Ontario Museum, asked me -- who is Jamaican -- if, would I be interested to design an entire island, to contribute something to the Jamaican economy and to redirect the beauty of Jamaican tourist industry, which was so powerful a century ago.
We are also working on a number of grand museums: The military museum -- The National Military Museum in Germany, in Dresden, is underway. The Denver Art Museum in Denver is, you know, really almost in space fully in construction. The Royal Ontario Museum is just emerging from the ground in Toronto.
We have projects in housing, hotels; we are working on the largest shopping center in Europe and Switzerland and many other projects. I probably did not mention even a fifth. But we're lucky and fortunate to be working on different projects.
QUESTION: (Inaudible).
MR. LIBESKIND: Well, you know, projects have different paces. You know, they develop at different rates. Some projects are just beginning, some are at the end, some are in the middle of the construction, so as many projects as we are doing, there are not too many because projects have their natural, sort of, attention span where you need to be involved.
In Denver, we are, you know, only going to the site to check that everything is being built as we drew it. That's very different from, you know, providing drawings for elevator course for, you know, for Ground Zero.
QUESTION: Okay, I'm Ola Westerberg from The Swedish News Agency.
I understand you can't comment on the legal case, but nevertheless, I wonder how that has affected your work relationship with Mr. Silverstein. Also, if I may, I understand the families of the victims have also expressed some concern that developments would damage the slurry wall. I would like your comment on that.
MR. LIBESKIND: The slurry wall is -- let me just say that the slurry wall is a very important wall and it's a wall that is constantly being monitored because it's not just a ruin, it's a living wall. It's a wall that breathes and gets moist and it's a wall that has been at the center of the attention of the Port Authorities from the beginning of time. So -- and it's a very delicate and, I think, also, a very moving memorial because we are not venerating here a ruin of the past like in Rome or Greece. We are actually looking at a living foundation that has been exposed and will continue to be exposed to the public eye. And I think that is something that has never been done.
As for my working relationship with Mr. Silverstein, it continues. You know, we have our disputes but we have to roll up our sleeves and continue work on projects that, of course, have to be timely and have to be on schedule and on budget.
And I think that part of the process, that what has been drawn, is not just a figment of an imagination that is going to be destined to wind up in a museum of history, but something that will actually get built and will get built in a way that is not only reminiscent, but is exactly what was drawn in that competition.
QUESTION: Sylviane Zahil from L'Orient Le Jour, Beirut, Lebanon.
Who do you think is the greatest and the most talented architect of the 21st century?
MR. LIBESKIND: Oh, it's hard to say because 21st century's just begun so we have to wait quite a long time to be able to answer that question.
QUESTION: I am Fredrik Virtanen, Aftonbladet, Sweden.
No one wanted to think about this, what will happen if a jetliner crashed into the Freedom Tower after it's done? And also, this Saturday, how will you be celebrating the anniversary?
MR. LIBESKIND: Let me start with the last question first. On 9/11 of this year, I will be in Italy unveiling. I was part of the competition and it's a very interesting one. The Italian Government had asked the American Government for something from the Ground Zero attack because so many Italian-Americans perished in that attack. The State Department has given to the Government of Italy one of the grand beams from the attack, and the government decided that the Veneto region, Padua, should be the recipient of a memorial.
And I was lucky to be selected to build that memorial. And I'm going to be actually in Venice and in Padua on 9/11, unveiling that memorial at the (inaudible). It's a memorial that speaks to the universality of what that date meant. It was not just an attack against New York. It was not just an attack against the World Trade Center. It was a global attack against democracy. And I think we often forget that it was citizens from 95 other countries that perished in this attack.
So it's very moving that I will be there with I think a project that connects, once again, the world to those images of horror, but also the images of inspiration that the Statute of Liberty and World Trade Center always have represented. It's a steel beam from that -- from the towers, one of the columns, very large beam, very large beam, 14 meters, and it's a large memorial.
It's in Padua. It's right next to the Scrovegni Chapel, where all the Giotta paintings are, very close to the tower where Galileo had his experiments. It's in a central place, a very beautiful, and I think it's a memorial that will be very much part of that Italian setting and its connection with New York.
MR. LIBESKIND: What's the other question, sorry?
QUESTION: The first question was (inaudible).
MR. LIBESKIND: Yes. Look, the notion, the old notion that (inaudible) function, that you build the minimum structure is over, when it comes to high-rise buildings. High-rise buildings now require redundancy to put in so much structure, so much extra structure that even unthinkable can with -- even the unthinkable can still withstand an attack, even though, of course, there would necessarily be damage.
So we are thinking of things that are beyond the traditional notions of making just an elegant tower, and I have to say it extends to all security issues on the site and this building is not alone in it. We know that buildings are vulnerable; that democracy is vulnerable; that we don't live in close cities under the totalitarian regimes. And yet, we have to calculate the risk in a sensible and balanced way so that we can have cities which are beautiful and cities that respond to evils with light and with a voice that is strong and free. And I think that's really the essence of the rebuilding of this site.
QUESTION: James Byrne of the London Times.
Mr. Libeskind, a couple of years ago, when you unveiled the scheme, you told a very moving story about going to the site originally and there being two little boys who wanted to follow you down the ramp into the pit and your scheme had a vision of a big pit, seven stories deep, with gravel on the bottom, this big slurry wall around.
Like many people, I have to quite a lot of visitors into town, down to Ground Zero to show it to them. There is really nothing left. Do you feel that the whole visceral content of your scheme has been lost now?
MR. LIBESKIND: No, I don't think so. It is true that most people took that image after design of the memorial, but I was not charged with designing the memorial. As the master planner, I was asked to provide -- really, that was my own idea -- to provide the largest possible canvas on which the competitors in this memorial (inaudible) would be able to exercise their own imaginations.
And I did provide a very vast canvas, 4.7 acres, not just in two-dimensional space, but going all the way down to bedrock. And to do that, I had to do many things which are very complex. Remove all the infrastructure from below the bedrock so that it would move somewhere else so that a memorial could indeed touch that sacred ground. That has happened. There was a competition. There was a selection. The slurry wall will be visible, will be part of it. And it's true, it's difficult to show master plans as they evolve because they incorporate always other dynamics into the process, and many people thought, "Well, why should you have a competition for a memorial in the first place? Isn't it a memorial already?"
But, no, that's not how the process was structured, and I feel that the project of Mr. (inaudible) fulfills its conditions because even though it doesn't keep the entire vast site open, the footprints certainly go down to bedrock and the slurry wall will be an important element of entrance into the site, and, of course, it will also develop. So I think for your comment about rawness, it perhaps will not be as raw, but I think will be very powerful.
QUESTION: My name is Kristin Nilsen, Aftenposten, Norway.
You started this session by saying that we would see results in four or five years. Could you give me a picture of what is it that we actually will be seeing in four or five years?
MR. LIBESKIND: In four or five years, you will be seeing -- and I think it's very important to be aware that this is not a standalone site, that this site has to be woven back into Lower Manhattan. It's not just this plot of land with the two towers, as we have it in our head. But look at the damage that has been done by this disaster to all the neighborhoods, to Tribeca, to Chinatown, to Battery Park City, to Wall Street.
So one of the main things is to reintegrate this 16 acre site into the lifeline of New York. That has to do with transportation, linking back the transportation and creating streets that did not exist there for many, many years. Granite Street will go straight through the site. That will be one of the first things you'll see. You'll be able to walk from Tribeca to, you know, to Battery Park in a few minutes. It seems like a world of difference when the podium of the two towers stood there. That will be a new connection which will revitalize Lower Manhattan.
Fulton Street, which will go east/west, connecting through the Wedge of Light, right to the Hudson River, will make the two shores of the East River and the Hudson accessible within a few minutes. That will be a fantastic new crisscross of Lower Manhattan and at that crisscrossing will stand the entrance to the memorial and the cultural buildings, which have been selected by the LMBC. So that will be a point of destination and a point of extending the spiritual sense of the memorial and the memorial will be there in four years.
The tower, the 1776 Freedom Tower will be there. It's under construction and that will be really a restoration of the beauty of the sky of New York and a kind of point of reference to all the things that are important to New Yorkers, the Statue of Liberty, Ground Zero, the sacredness of the memorial below it, and also the aspiration to the sky from all the metropolitan region.
The terminal will be there to bring people to work in Lower Manhattan. It is important, not only to think of buildings, but of regenerating life in Lower Manhattan. And I have to say I'm very proud that today statistics show that there are more people living in Lower Manhattan than there were before 9/11. So there is a move. People are coming back, grade B and C office buildings are being transformed to lofts and to apartments.
People want to be in that area. They want to be part of the rebuilding process. And that's part of a change of Lower Manhattan. And I think those things, the transportation hub, the re-linking of the streets, the Wedge of Light plaza, which will be a place for gathering, for comfort, for exhibitions, for public demonstrations, will be there, at the slurry wall and the Freedom Tower.
So that's really, in essence, the four-year plan. And that's, I think, what you will see very quickly.
MS. NISBET: We have time for about two maybe three more questions.
QUESTION: Hi, I'm Mercedes Gallego from the newspaper, El Correo, from Spain.
September 11 was also a symbol of the solidarity of the people in New York, how everybody came together to help each other. However, in the last couple of years, September 11 has also become the symbol of the war against terrorists, and particularly the war against Iraq, which wasn't really part of the terrorists. And in this year, it's also the symbol of the political campaign in the Republican side. How do you feel about that change of usage of September 11?
MR. LIBESKIND: No, in my view, this fight is not being developed for the Republicans or for the Democrats. It's being developed for all Americans, for all New Yorkers, and for all free people who want to see something good emerge out of the evil that befell New York. And it's about creating spaces. It's about creating facilities, about creating beauty, about creating perspectives, and something that is moving and that functions; and that's really, indeed, the function of an architect.
That's their politeia. That's the city. And that's what I've been involved in. And I think that's what will be there. Now, how it is appropriated and how sometimes people may use it, that's certainly true. But I don't feel that anyone that I talk to sees this project as a partisan project, as a project that belongs to some political party, although there are, you know, politicians involved. There are the mayors and the governors and others were involved, but in my experience, it has been very much a project that touches the soul of every person.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. LIBESKIND: No, I'd have to say it doesn't bother me because it is inevitable that a project which is so highly charged and so much at the center of everybody's mind will be referred to. And it's referred to, you know, in many publications, in many different ways by different people. And I think that's what makes it such a miracle that the project is moving forward and moving in a positive direction and that at the end I feel architecture really does stand for a kind of optimism because to rebuild something, or build something, and not just by following all the clichés, but building something innovative, something which is on the cutting edge does involve faith in the future. And I think that's what this site really stands for. It does stand for the faith in the future and it's not a backward-looking response.
QUESTION: If I may just return to the Freedom Tower. You said that it's being built. And in the interest of, you know, the democratic transparent nature of all of this, I do get the feeling that we really haven't -- especially when it comes to the skyline and what the top half of the Freedom Tower is going to look like, a result of that model, you know, is basically just a sort of sketch and idea. And, presumably, it is being built at this point and he has a much better idea of if, you know, whether there is going to be a sloping roof, what's going to happen to the turbines and the spire at the top, and all that kind of thing. When are we going to know what we're going to see there?
MR. LIBESKIND: Well, all I can say is from the point of view of the master plan, that what the Governor's -- next -- what David Childs, Silverstein, Mayor Bloomberg and myself, was a tower that adhered to all the principles of the master plan. It was a tower that spoke to the State of Liberty with its asymmetrical spire, a tower that was 1776 feet high, a tower whose roof sloped in direction of the memorial like the other towers making a gesture toward that central site.
So all I can say is that those principles were embraced by SOM. They were embraced by everyone else, and those are the principles under which this tower is being developed. Now, in any high-rise building of such a complex nature, there will be development and transformations and all I can say is that, as the master planner, I stand by the images that were unveiled and the models, and all I can say is that in good faith this is what is being developed.
We will have to, of course, monitor, like any project, how projects develop and how they change and make sure that it changes in a way that is integrated to the master plan.
QUESTION: Mr. Libeskind, I'm very impressed by you being so upbeat and so positive and everything. And therefore, my question: was there ever a moment in these last 18 months, ever since you were the winner that you might have felt some kind of disappointment?
MR. LIBESKIND: Oh, there were many moments. This is not a Pollyanna tale and I'm just going to be publishing a book of kind of (inaudible). It's about my experience called, "Breaking Ground." It was not easy. It is not easy to work, sort of, in the midst of these forces and to try to do something which not only claims an authority, but has the authority of all the stakeholders. It's not an easy process. It's full of emotions. But I have to tell you, I never thought of every walking away from this project. I never thought, "Now, I've had it. It was so horrible. I'm leaving. It's too much for me."
It is hard. And the project is hard every second. It's not a project that you can sit comfortably after a day of work and say, "Now, it's done and everything is moving ahead and I can now smoke a cigar." It's not that kind of project. Every minute there is a phone call. Every minute there are meetings. Every minute there is pressure on the project. And pressure is what it's about.
Great cities and great sites, particularly sites that are charged with so many meaning, with such vitality and such hope are under tremendous pressure from every point of view, and I've often thought that was the world. The world is always under pressure and you have to try to do something under this pressure. And that's how the process, you know, of distilling wine or making oil in tradition was.
It's always under pressure and you get rid of the dregs and you retain the essential core of the process. And it's not always easy and you might lose a leg or a head, you know, a hand or a finger in the process, but you have to be able to put yourself into it and be a believer in it. Because if you are a skeptic, a cynic or somebody who is lazy, you would have given up long ago. And it's not over.
MS. NISBET: We have one last question over here, and any further inquiries you can refer to Carla, his colleague.
QUESTION: Given what you said about the pressures involved in, involving this design, and given the reports at that one stage, you and Mr. Childs were not on speaking terms, how would you categorize now your relationship with your collaborative architect?
MR. LIBESKIND: Well, that was a, you know, there were high emotions. There's no doubt about it. And -- but that happened a while ago, and in the heat of the moment, many things happen. But as, you know, Shakespeare had it, I think, right: "All's well that ends well." If we are able to, through the process, come to grips with important issues and produce something that is solid, that is good, that is inspiring, then it has been worth going through that painful process.
And look, life isn't easy. You know, this is not about, you know, sitting down and just making a couple of drawings. It is fighting for what one believes and working with everybody in the best way you can. And you learn a lot along the way and you have to face a lot of adversity from different quarters, but I can say that the Tower, it was worth the struggle because I think what will be built will be something memorable and something that will add a dimension to the life of people and to the memory.
MS. NISBET: Thank you, Mr. Libeskind.
MR. LIBESKIND: Thank you very much.
