Status/Progress of the World Trade Center Site

MS. NISBET: Good morning. I'd like to welcome Daniel Libeskind, author of the Master Plan for Ground Zero and the World Trade Center. I’d also like to thank all of you for making it. I know it's been quite a newsworthy morning. He's here to give us an update on the status of the World Trade Center, as well as other projects he's working on – upcoming projects in the U.S.

We have a presentation that he'll give and then we'll go to questions and answers. Please make sure to state your name and affiliation before asking your question and we'll take it from there. Thank you.

MR. LIBESKIND: Thank you very much. Good morning. Well, all of you have certainly been hearing a lot about Ground Zero and let me just to try to put a little bit of light on what's going on. It's been a process, which as you know is fraught with emotion, fraught with political infighting because so many stakeholders, there's complexity. But we are certainly making progress and let me just take you from the original design, the strategy for the original design, which is of course to leave more than half the site for the memorial -- public spaces very important -- to create also a nexus of events that have a meaning symbolically: the Freedom Tower, the towers that surround the memorial and then of course to create a vibrant new set of buildings which include the PATH terminal, the visitors centers, orientation center, performing arts center and so on.

So let me just start with the original submission which is still very much the master plan intent. It's exactly what is being developed. As you will see, it is -- as I saw it from the very beginning, a site which has to be charged with the energy of New York, Statue of Liberty, the meaning of what happened on September 11th. And of course the skyline of New York is therefore very, very important, including of course the tallest building to be rebuilt on that site which is the Freedom Tower. And then the other four buildings which surround that site in a sort of spiral way that refers to the torch in Lady Liberty's hand. And that is what I call Memory Foundations; that is what is actually on the development as the master.

It's important to insert the site into the context of all of Lower Manhattan which includes Tribeca, which includes Chinatown, Battery Park, (inaudible) Wall Street. It's not a stand-alone site. It's a site that has to be tied in every manner functionally and socially to the fabric of New York. This is Ground Zero, that's really -- it determined by the two times of the attack: 8:46, 10:28 which creates the Wedge of Light Plaza, the intersection of Greenwich and Fulton Street and the positioning of the Freedom Tower. That is all on the development -- Ground Zero with the two footprints and the slurry wall defining the site and of the center September 11th place. That's really in a nutshell how the site strategy has been organized and how it has been really developing in terms of the site: the PATH terminal, performing arts center, visitor center, Ground Zero with footprints and the first tower to rise on the northwestern edge is the Freedom Tower, 1776 feet high -- symbolic in every way -- and then the other four towers spiraling downwards towards where the Deutsche Bank used to stand. That is really the master plan. That is the basis for developing what we are now developing.

And this recommended plan, again, it's important to not to see just as a (inaudible) point but something which is visible from the panoramic areas of the greater metropolitan area. You'll certainly see it from different perspectives -- from New Jersey, from Brooklyn, from the various bridges. And it's important to keep in mind that the entire composition of Ground Zero is not just another site development, but a site that is really harmonizing the various activities which are, of course, centered around the ground memorial. And I think a site that will really ultimately resound to the spirits of New York with the meaning of what happened on September 11th with optimism and importance of what America and freedom really mean. And that's really what is on the development.

Now let me take you to -- just very briefly -- again, that's the master plan drawing, the memorial site and the building surrounding it. It's important to understand that there are some 75 feet below the street level that have to be developed down to the bedrock. And that's very difficult, a very complex operation. You can see that the cores of the Freedom Tower, the cores of the large office buildings, which are some of the largest in the world, are really being built there right now. And of course with security concerns and with all the other things that's a whole city being built before you see it over the street. That's the site land (ph) as the most recent site land (ph). You can see the two footprints, memorial area, Greenwich and Fulton Street intersecting the Freedom Tower in the northwest edge, the building spiraling around, the PATH terminal with its access on the 1028 AM (ph) line, symbolically the light on September 11th of that day. And again, the performing arts center, visitor's center and entrance to the memorial and into the underground galleries.

Of course there's the slurry wall, a large kind of piece archeology, a living foundation of the site, which is certainly going to be incorporated into the memorial itself. You can see the footprints, the park and the symbolic descent to the bedrock and the Wedge of Light Plaza in my own original early version. On the left will be standing the PATH terminal and, of course, towards the Hudson River you'll see Ground Zero. And these are the various parts: the Freedom Tower, the memorial, the PATH terminal, visitors and museum entrance center and the galleria also a proposal which is going on, on Courtland Street.

Again, this is what is going on. This is what is under construction. This is what has been agreed upon by the various stakeholders and, you know, not a single part of this project is not contested. There is not a single element of this project which is not under great controversy. This is New York; this is not just anyplace. And it is only natural that in a democracy the turmoil of these pushes and pulls takes place. But I'm confident that by 2009, when the Freedom Tower, the memorial, the PATH terminal, the visitor's center are built, people will begin to see the inspiring and actually very moving site that will inform lives of people in New York and around the world.

There is -- what I started with, as an immigrant to New York, I was concerned that the symbolism and the meaning of the Statue of Liberty be incorporated and certainly there is the skyline and the Freedom Tower as it is emerging -- still, of course, a work in progress will, I certainly think, hope to fulfill that role.

Now, let me just go to a few other projects since this is not my only project. Rejuvenation: I'm working pro bono in Gulfport, Mississippi, for the Boys and Girls Clubs, which is for disadvantaged kids. Again, this is a project that is a prototype for how to create an interesting and exciting community center for underprivileged children, which is a prototype of how to fit such a center into really domestic-scale living around the United States. Here's a rendering: a model, a photograph. Again, this is a very low budget project -- $4 million. The whole project contains all the facilities, sports facilities, you know, games, places for after school activities, libraries and so on. Again, I think it's important to do something that is beautiful, that speaks to those who have been so severely hurt by the hurricanes and various things around the world. And again, our pro bono work on Mississippi I think will be an important prototype in our work.

Something very different that (inaudible) Roebling Bridge. This is in the Greater Cincinnati area, right at the foot of the Roebling Bridge, which is the first bridge that Roebling built -- it's a really model for the Brooklyn Bridge. (Inaudible) is a residential building rising from about 18 to 22 stories high, built within the market condition, very exciting, very new in this very conservative part of America. Something that will, I think, resonate with the history of the bridge -- the colors, the reflections of the water -- and it's under construction. It's a building that will have many important amenities and will I think be a gateway to this bridge and to Cincinnati and to this whole metropolitan area.

Again, it's very important that in an era where we are concerned with sustainability, high rise residential developments with a high density are very important, so that people don't have to drive with their cars, don't have to waste resources on driving and have a kind of urban sense.

This is the Jewish Museum -- Contemporary Jewish Museum in San Francisco. We call it the grandmother of our office because we started in 1998. It's a project that went through, again, turmoil and difficulties. But always think that architecture is much more a marathon than a sprint. You know, the board changed, they combined with another museum, they had a divorce, they thought what to do. Anyway, I'm very lucky to be building this museum. The groundbreaking ceremonies will be next week. It's right in the middle of San Francisco, between Market and Mission Street, right in that downtown vibrant area near the St. Patrick's Church, under the foot of the Four Seasons Hotel. And you can see that it's a turn-of-the-century building. It's a beautiful building that used to be a battery -- a station for batteries that fueled San Francisco's energy needs and now a new Jewish Museum which of course will be an intertwining of this grand old station with the new facilities.

I based the museum on chaim (ph), you know, in Yiddish -- in Hebrew -- chaim (ph) means life. It's based kind of -- about the emblematics of life. It has, of course, retail. It has galleries, very spectacular transformations of the 19th century technology on one hand. Twentieth century technology because we are also under the Four Seasons Hotel in a space which is under the hotel and, of course, the museum which is attempting to find its own expression in the remaining space. And I think that's just appropriate because it's a museum that will, I think attract people to the history of San Francisco, Jewish history, contemporary art and creativity, which is certainly the next step from those batteries that use to run and fuel this great city.

Another condominium in Sacramento, again, it's a difficult site which is on the main -- on the mall leading to the state capitol, but also there's some very high rise buildings so we reoriented the building in interesting ways, providing a very light-weight building that will also be the first really high-density high rise in the downtown of Sacramento. Again, a building that is glazed (ph) -- America -- this is America, so very important car parking. But to create an attractive car park on the mall with restaurants and to transform the image of the kind of brutal car park and mold it into the sculptural form of this condominium was the challenge. And I'm fortunate that this same developer is already building a sibling to this tower which we're also designing very close to the same site.

A new center for arts and culture in Boston, Massachusetts. It's a project right on the wharf, Rose Wharf, at the Rose Kennedy Greenway. It's, of course, an amazing thing that Boston has recovered its park space. We're building a pavilion which is really on top of that underground infrastructure system with all the tunnels and all the complexity of venting it. And it's standing in a very delicate position as a gateway to the wharf, gateway to the downtown and creating really on this necklace of green spaces a destination which will be a cultural center of the arts. Something that will I think be of 21st century in Boston. It's of course a work in progress. We've received permissions. We are moving ahead with the design and I think in a few years you'll see something on this greenway that will both relate to what is down below it and its complexity, but also will speak to new activities in Boston.

And an interesting project (inaudible). This is the largest project being built in the United States today. I'm in consortium with other architects (inaudible) Pelli, Helma Teeon (ph), Foster (ph), to create a really city center in Las Vegas. Something which is not just another shopping center and a high rise development, but something that is urban. And my task is at ground level, which ties together the high rise buildings and various things, into a grand public space shopping center, entertainment place, a place for the citizens of Las Vegas. It's a very large place, more than 70,000 square meters. Its image is more -- something like crushed glass. It has a delicate and yet very complex structure of glazed and solid elements and you get a little bit of a feeling that this is no longer the Las Vegas of (inaudible) imitation and nostalgia (ph), but a Las Vegas which is really developing into a 21st century city, certainly one of the fastest growing cities in the United States. And in a few years you will see this really at the very center of this strip.

Union City condominiums -- we're designing many condominiums, Union City really with spectacular views of Manhattan. We are doing a whole series but, again, buildings that are cantilevering to provide views -- spectacular views -- of Manhattan, buildings which are state of the art, which are also, just like the project in Las Vegas, seeking the highest (inaudible) certification as the most responsive and responsible building to be built for the 21st century.

And in Denver I was lucky to win a competition some years ago for the Denver Art Museum, the so-called Hamilton wing, extending between the Gio Ponti Buildings, very unusual buildings to be built in the America West, the grand buildings of the piazzas. And there it is -- a building that is really not a 20th century building; it's a 21st century building. It does not have any one elevation. It's a work in the round seen by millions of people in the downtown as well -- a building that I call "two lines going for a walk." It's a kind of intertwining of the history and vectors of Denver and the pioneering spirit of America. You can see that the building has a very small footprint on the ground, so as to allow maximum development of public spaces, connects to the rather office-like buildings of Gio Ponti and create many different galleries, including a grand atrium at the center, grand galleries for temporary (ph) exhibitions and Western art, contemporary art, oceanic, African art. Again, something very new in what was once considered a cow town but certainly no longer is.

The museum is titanium clad. It's a building that you can see emerging -- almost finished in October. It will open with galleries and atriums that have spectacular construction techniques. Mind-boggling actually that this could not have even been realized five, six years ago because we would not have -- one would be able to draw it but not really realize it on budget and on time, which it is. It's a public building. You can see the galleries now almost fully installed with the wooden floors, their variety. The building looking towards the downtown and very soon you'll have that icon in the West.

I was also lucky to -- together with this building -- to have proposed in the competition, after the competition, a whole master plan. I said, you know, it's not enough just to have a garage, because on the left, you know, I had to construct a garage. You know, thousands of cars have to be parked. But I said take that vantage to the city and build condominiums, build retail, build hotels, residential towers. And I was so lucky that my entire master plan has not only been realized but I was the one to realize every building as part of it. So these buildings -- the condominium buildings, the residential buildings with ground floor retail are also going to open in the beginning of October.

You can see there's a very urban quality, a high-density living right next to the museum with that whole fabric. I'm also creating a new plaza, the common (ph) plaza for the arts. You can see here from the residences the view of the building. And by the way, when the building went on the market, 80 percent of the units sold first were the units facing the museum and not facing the Rocky Mountains, which is kind of astonishing.

Here's the building as it's coming out of the ground and very soon the plaza of the arts with its fantastic sculptures, great public activities will be the new center of the arts where people will be able to live 24 hours a day. A vibrant area -- no longer just a museum as a stand-alone structure but really a new community and I think in many ways a model of what urban centers can be by combining private and public interests and combining the arts, living and so on. So that's a small overview. Thank you very much.

I'll be happy to take any questions.

MS. NISBET: Again, state your name and affiliation before asking a question. We're going to pass the mikes around (inaudible).

QUESTION: Frode Froyland the Norwegian business daily. New York has a poor record when it comes to innovative buildings, like the last 100 years. How would you describe it? I mean, now it's -- a dozen quite exciting projects on the way. How would you describe the situation?

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, I think you're right. New York has not been well known for great innovation. But I think we are living in a time of reawakening. It is a renaissance and when you see what is being proposed and what is underway in this country, certainly there is a re-appreciation of the role of architecture, sustainability, the importance of creating something which is not just, you know, market driven but something which will respond to people's desires in life.

I think it's a global situation. I'm working on many countries around the world -- in Asia, in Europe, in Canada. And I think the desire that architecture return again to the center of culture and not just be one more product, you know, to be disposed of is certainly what's driving a new development in architecture.

MS. NISBET: Do we have someone with a mike on the other end?

QUESTION: Nick Krastev, Radio Free Europe. When you won the competition regarding the World Trade Center (inaudible) overall impression was that you will be the person mainly in charge of the whole project. And later through the years the work we've been seeing is that the project is being carved into separate pieces. There are a lot of contradicting interests involved, a lot of politics. So my question is, in terms of efficiency of completing the whole project, what did you see at the time when you won the competition and how much your vision toward that project changes so far?

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, since I'm involved in a project every day of my life, it's not something that you can just make a couple of drawings and go and do something else. It is a project that, as I stated, is under tremendous pressure. There are many stakeholders. But as a master planner my role is not to build all the buildings; there are many architects who are involved in it. My role is to make sure that all the elements really respond to the original idea of the master plan which was supported not only by the politicians but by the people of New York. So again, it is more like conducting -- you know, writing a score and conducting an orchestra. You are not the player playing on the tuba and the cello and the organ, but to make sure that the harmony between all the different pieces. And of course now we have really very many of these pieces set.

And what is more important is that many famous architects want to work on the side. It's Frank Gehry, it's Snohetta, it's architect Calatrava. So again, the site has brought very top architects and certainly in terms of even to other buildings, the high rise buildings. We have high ambitions on the site. So I think that's really what is happening. And certainly my work had to provide a vision for what it is happening, but that vision has evolved exactly in the direction. And of course it had to undergo many different transformations but it is still on course. And not easy to achieve, but I'm confident that we're making progress in the right direction.

QUESTION: (Nick Krastev, RFE) Can you make some comparisons between your projects that you've completed before and how this one is (inaudible) evolving? Are you satisfied with the pace it is going on? I mean, those delays (inaudible).

MR. LIBESKIND: No one could be satisfied with everything that's happening. It's clearly a process that is not completely perfect; that is in some ways flawed. But that is also the nature of democracy. If the site had been owned by a pope or by a king and declared a (inaudible) and architects could do whatever they want -- it will be different. But I don't long for that time. It is a project done in the heart of democracy. There's a lot of tension in the process.

But look, in my experience, my first building, the Jewish Museum in Berlin, you know, it took 12-13 years to be finished. There was a lot of uncertainty, a lot of opposition, a lot of controversy and yet finally when it had opened, it continues to grow in its appreciation by the public. And as I said, it's a marathon. These projects are a marathon because they are projects that are emotional, projects that are difficult and projects where you have to have the stamina and the belief and the faith in your role to make things better.

QUESTION: Andy Robinson, La Vanguardia, Barcelona. Two questions: One is you mentioned that the Freedom Tower and its design (inaudible) related that this all about what freedom really means. But 60 meters, the bottom 60 meters of the Freedom Tower are going to be basically a windowless reinforced concrete façade. Is that really what freedom means or is it a tower (inaudible)?

MR. LIBESKIND: No. There are many good thoughts. There are many people who believed we should build one-story houses after the attack. I was not one of them nor were New Yorkers. The idea of a tall building didn't emanate from me; it emanated from the desires of New Yorkers at the Javitz Center, who voted overwhelmingly that Ground Zero should have an iconic high rise building. Of course, I worked very closely with the architects of record of that building (inaudible) to make sure that the bottom of the building, which is of course -- has to respond to security concerns. It's not a fortress. It's not an oppressive wall. And certainly, I think it's developed into a very luminous interesting cladding of glass and I think it will be an interesting building and an important building on that site. And I think in time it will become an icon of that site as well.

Of course, it's a work in progress. The top of the building is still being developed with its torch-like element. But there is no doubt that that building will play a very important role in the resurgence of not only of Ground Zero but of Lower Manhattan. And it will provide the course for the next four high rise buildings to be built really around that spiral of buildings framing the memorial site.

QUESTION: Heike Buchter, New York German Press. Much has been made of the clash between you and the developer Mr. Silverstein. Could you put that a little bit into perspective for us?

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, I'm not about to get a job, either with (inaudible) Silverstein or become their partner. Of course, there were tensions. And, you know, this is part of struggles in this kind of arena. But I can say that now that the insurance claims have been -- a lot have been solved, now that both the Governor of New York and New Jersey and the Mayor of New York have moved on ahead the site is moving ahead. And certainly those battles are -- which were fought in a large way in private are now much more in public realm, everybody can see them. And yet I think the result is that we're moving forward rather than dwelling on the impassible things. We have made progress and certainly the Freedom Tower is under construction, as is the memorial.

And you know that the memorial also had undergone tremendous tensions and revisions. And who would have ever thought that such a thing -- that everybody could have agreed upon, the memorial itself would also be part of that tremendous scrutiny that every element on the site has to undergo. And I think that's not bad; that's really the nature of the site.

QUESTION: Okay. Renzo Cianfanelli, Correire Della Sera of Italy. You mentioned the potential renaissance of New York. Now, why, in my observation at least, for example, if you move away from Manhattan, I see very little evidence of this renaissance compared, say to London, which has gone through an enormous change in the last few years. Or even Moscow, Moscow has a very interesting business center and it's been completely restored. And if you go, say to the Bronx, it has improved admittedly but not really enough. And in some parts of Queens you have the impression that you are in the third world.

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, having been -- being myself from the Bronx, having grown up there, I can only tell you that you're right that the improvement is not fast enough. But, you know, there are many areas -- New York is a very dynamic place. When you look at areas of Brooklyn, look at areas of Manhattan which even ten years were no-go areas, there is a lot of dynamic development.

And my own opinion is that development doesn't really take sort of gradually for a hundred -- it happens suddenly when people realize an area is attractive, that something should be done. And I think that even the Bronx and the Queens will, in a very short time people will realize they're a strategic location versus the infrastructure and center of commerce of Manhattan. And I have no doubt that New York will move forward. The large projects in Brooklyn by the developers, as controversial as they are, are a huge investment in a new kind of idea of what even these neighborhoods in Brooklyn look like.

So again, it's hard to generalize. I can't defend lazy politicians and people who don't really look at the good of cities. But I can only say that it's really inevitable that New York not be second to Moscow or to Beijing, to any place. It will always, I think be an iconic city.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, you're right. I would prefer to ride a nicer subway, even though I take it every day. These are structural questions and certainly -- one of the things I would also say that when I came to New York, or in 1900, four out of ten people who were in New York were just new immigrants who had just landed here from someplace. And that's still true of New York today -- four of ten New Yorkers have just come. Maybe they don't come from Italy or Poland or the places that used to come, but they are coming. And it's still that kind of a city and it's a tough city, but certainly I have no regrets for New York.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. LIBESKIND: No. As I pointed in Denver, for example, it was a private-public partnership. I think it's very important that we don't rely any longer on the old methods of, you know, this is a public monies, this is a private monies. But create a kind of synergy of interest that can move cities into a new arena.

And you know I'm working in the Fiera Milano, a large project in Milan, where -- a site that was, you know, a fairgrounds has now been transformed to a park, amenities for the public, high rise buildings of residential quarters. So I think all cities are interested in improving the conditions, not only comparatively. But in order to compete in a global world we need to have more beautiful and more sustainable spaces.

QUESTION: Tadeusz Zachurski, Polish edition of Newsweek. Mr. Libeskind, you came from Poland -- you were born in Poland. And last year you started project in -- first project, I believe, in Warsaw -- any reflection of this project in the city which was almost completely destroyed during the war and to connect it with this, your work on four continents. Which project was the most satisfying during the recent years and where do you feel at home?

MR. LIBESKIND: It's a great set of questions. I always say that my most satisfactory project will be the next one. But certainly the Warsaw project is a very meaningful one to me because as a child I used to go to Warsaw with my parents and we used to stay at that sort of oppressive Stalinist palace which stands right in the center. And my project in Warsaw is right across the street -- it's almost 60 stories high. It's one of the tallest residential buildings in Europe. And my idea there was to bring back what was eliminated from the Polish flag by the Communists. You know, the eagle was immediately eliminated and I brought the kind of the wing of the eagle; that's the fall of this residential building which is symbolic. But also I think will bring wonderful new views to Warsaw, a city that I love, as a place that is so meaningful in history and I think it will create an impetus that people will see Warsaw as really a European capital of a first rate in creativity. And really it's a project that I certainly enjoy working. The groundbreaking will be very, very soon and I hope that this will be an important building.

As for other things, I'm a very lucky architect because I'm lucky to be working on many interesting projects in different countries and it's very inspiring as I said. I'm lucky to be an architect now. What would have happened if I was an architect in the '50s having to build all those, you know, mass housing blocks. It would have been not so much fun.

MS. NISBET: Okay. We have a question over here and then we'll come back here for a follow up.

QUESTION: Vinicius Galvao, Folha De Sao Paulo. Do you have power of veto over the project?

MR. LIBESKIND: You know, it's not really about a veto power, because the veto power would suggest that it's something that the UN -- where people, you know, the votes and the veto. It's a very complex process. All I can say is that all of the various pieces of the project, whether it's the memorial, whether it's a Freedom Tower, whether it's other high rise buildings, whether it's the street's widths and infrastructure down below and it has to come through the focal at which I am. Because at the end, someone has to coordinate and make sure that the complexity of the various structures really will create a harmonic whole and that is certainly my role.

I wouldn't call it a veto power. But certainly together with many other stakeholders, which include the Governor of New York and New Jersey, the Mayor of New York. It includes the Port Authority, the LNBD (ph), it includes the private developers, it includes the families of the victims. It's a wide-ranging cross-section really of New York. And yet at the end, really it is about individuals asserting their best in a situation, which I said, is not an easy one. It's not some sort of clear hierarchical chain of command. And of course that's the challenge -- how to change the problems that come up. And it's a dynamic process. It's an evolutionary process. It's not just something -- here it is and now build it. It is, you know, in the sort of turmoil of reality. And I think that's to me the challenge, to navigate through the labyrinth of the complexity and do one's best and deliver something at the end which will be worthwhile and I believe it will be.

QUESTION: Hi, Herbert Bauernebel, News Publishing Group Austria. Does it bother you to be sometimes used as a central scapegoat for so many players in that process, as far as delays are concerned?

MR. LIBESKIND: You know, there are a lot of scapegoats in this process. You know, sure it bothers me, because had I only the power to drive the project by myself, I would have done it differently. But, look, a few faces are associated with the project. Now, I always thought, you know, the governors, the mayors, the investors, the architects will be long gone when I'm still in my role as a master planner of Ground Zero. And that role is important because, you know, the hoopla and the fireworks will come to an end. But at the end someone has to be committed enough to make sure -- and to fight. You don't -- I don't win all the fights, not at all. And many fights I don't win. But you have to be able to fight. And often I fight for, you know, two or three inches on a street width, which is not a very glorious fight because it's not something that anybody would really appreciate. But I think that two or three extra (inaudible) interests, you know, on a street will make it a better street. So again, somebody has to be in the role. Again, I'm not alone. There are many good willing people in this process. And there are also people who don't have the same interests and that's the nature of it.

QUESTION: The Norwegian Business Daily again. You described the architecture as a marathon. Do you think you are more than halfway through the marathon on Ground Zero and do you think the process going forward would be more straightforward?

MR. LIBESKIND: It's an interesting question, whether it's halfway. I feel that it's kind of halfway because so many of the key huge struggles are over. You know, there was a struggle where the Freedom Tower would be positioned, even. There were huge dilemmas, which have now sort of been focused and we have a plan that is being implemented not in words, but by construction workers. You know, there are hundreds of construction workers as we speak at Ground Zero today, you know, putting the footings and dealing with the infrastructure, the PATH trains and the subways underneath. So I would say halfway certainly that we are there.

Is there an unexpected in the process or will there be dynamic changes? I'm certain of it. That this is a process that will forever be -- until the very day when everything is open -- will be open to change. And I think that's the truth of New York and it's the truth of this situation, that it is a dynamic process. But I think that with the facts that we have now, the process is at least moving forward in the right direction and we hope that with all the changes, political changes and so on, the process will continue to be reinforced as one in which is a good one.

QUESTION: AD News, Holland. Which core elements are you willing to fight to the end, because you're saying the changes are made and discussions are being held everywhere, which article or elements you are not willing to discuss?

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, the elements which I have fought for in the memorial. For example, you know, I was on the committee with Mr. Siami (ph) to bring the budget from $1 billion back to half a million. I fought for the core elements. The core elements were that the (inaudible) of the footprints should be defined by going some 35 feet below the ground away from the streets. I fought for what I had in my original submission, the waterfalls. The waterfalls were an important element in my scheme to screen acoustically the noise of the street. I fought for the slurry wall. So again, those are the elements I fought and that's, indeed, what the award-winning project will contain when it is built. I fought for the symbols of the Freedom Tower and its positioning. It's positioning where there is air and light towards the Hudson River, where it doesn't catch shadows on the memorial and I fought that it should be 1776 feet high. It's symbolic and meaningful, not just a clever number, but something that in the skies of New York will mean something forever and that the core element on the very top where the antennae is should be torch-like and referred to as the Statue of Liberty. That's again, something, which is not completely in my hands, but I think it's important for the iconic view of the tower.

I fought for the fact that there should be a visitor center, a cultural building right at September 11th Place. That, indeed, is being built. I fought that there should be a performing arts center right across the street and that is a project of Frank Gehry and I fought for the streets going through, you know, Fulton and Greenwich and Courtland and so on. I fought for the symbolism of the 1028 line, where color (inaudible) station is now so that the light on every September 11th will go deep down into the underground platform where commuters are.

So again, I fought for many things. And I fought for the fact that the buildings would be disposed, not just in the grid, but would go in a kind of a spiraling way around, which was not easy to achieve, but that is certainly in the master plan and going to be realized. So again, many fights, but I did not win all of them, as I said.

QUESTION: Tadeusz Zachurski, Newsweek Poland again. You mentioned, you pointed out to constraints of democratic processing in architecture, especially in architecture. Wouldn't you prefer to working, for example, in China where so-called celebrity architects like you don't have this problems, once the project is approved, it goes on?

MR. LIBESKIND: That's a very good question. You know, I'm working in Hong Kong on a media center for the city university. But I've never been impressed by authoritarian governments giving the architect, you know, "Here, Mr. Architect, do whatever you want," because I believe in democracy and I think democracy with all its messiness is a creative field. I've never been attracted to work for places that simply authorize an architect to do whatever they want without the full democratic context that lies behind it. And as difficult as democracy is, and I have always thought that it's not just a matter of voting yes or no; it's really participating in the struggles. And fighting for what you believe. I think that is the only system within in which creative architecture can be produced. I'm not impressed with high-rise buildings that glow with full symbolism in cities in which citizens don't have full democratic rights. So, yeah, that's why I'm not building hundreds of buildings in China.

QUESTION: Giles here at the Agence France Presse. I'm wondering in retrospect when you look back over the last five years if you feel there was a moment where you felt it started to go wrong with the World Trade Center. And was it particularly the idea that there was a lack of leadership or clarity that defined the decision-making process because the way you've defined it today it sounds as if it's a free for all where the people who shout loudest or are the most aggressive may win out on a certain decision, rather than because of any creativity or imagination.

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, it's an interesting question. In hindsight, you know, you would think that the political powers would have exerted a greater interest in maneuvering through the process. And we have to remember that it was years before the claims -- the insurance claims were even settled, so nothing really could have been done with the site until then. But again, those are things that really an architect cannot really control. These are not architectural issues. An architect is hired to serve in another purpose. But again, so in hindsight, I would say yes. And perhaps, that process, the political process was too weak. It was not really focused enough on the urgency of rebuilding Ground Zero.

But having said that, I would say that because the site has never been declared as a special site with special prerogatives, and this site is, in some way, a cross-section of New York. Everything that's happening here, good and bad, is a cross-section of New York and, you know, who's to say that that is a bad thing for developing Ground Zero? Who is to say that a computer-generated projected that has been finally realized is better than a kind of messy project that has its traumas but will at least really glow with the reality of the people who are part of it, both good or bad.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, I -- you're right. That moment of (inaudible) was a moment of a great inspiration for participatory democracy. And I've always stated to the public whenever I had the chance that the more public participates in this process, the better it will be for this project. But you know, it's -- the momentum sometimes is difficult for the public -- people go back to work, they go back to their jobs. And as time moves on from September 11th, 2001, there is a kind of shadow that is cast. And again, those who believe in the project and those who fight for the project and it's not just the families, not just a few politicians, not just the architects, those who really think that that it's very important for New York and for America to rebuild this as an answer, a cultural answer to these attacks are committed to it. As I said, despite the complexity of the process, despite the flaws in the process, I believe that the project will be realized in a way which is inspiring and we have to be patient because it requires patience, I have to say. It's not happening overnight and that many of the decisions are decisions that are not in the (inaudible) public.

QUESTION: Alexander Rauscher-Nachwalger, Austrian Broadcasting. You mentioned symbolism. And don't you have sometimes the feeling that there is maybe a little bit the risk of too much symbolism meaning, you know, calling September 11th Square reminds me a little bit of Soviet Union maybe? I don't know.

MR. LIBESKIND: No, I don't think so. That's my name. September 11th is an important place. This is an event that changed history. It's not going to go away. What we see around the world is a consequence of the event. I think symbols are important. I think it's only when people forget that symbols are important and try to pretend that symbols don't exist, that we have a problem. So I do believe -- and the symbols there are symbols of light, symbols of orientation of buildings, symbols of open space and air, which of course are not just symbols, but are things that we really need in order to breathe freely. And I think that's really what underpins, you know, what you call symbols at Ground Zero. And again, I did not name the Freedom Tower, the Freedom Tower. It was the Governor, Governor Pataki named it. I named it as a -- tower should be 1776 feet high. So again, you can have many different interpretations, but certainly I don’t think that Ground Zero belongs to the Republicans or to the Democrats. It belongs to all New Yorkers and all people and should be developed in that way.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. LIBESKIND: Well, I've never had problems with bringing together these things into the place, which is 16 acres and has 10 million square feet of buildings which by any means would make it one of the largest projects ever attempted.

MS. NISBET: Thank you, Mr. Libeskind.

MR. LIBESKIND: Thank you very much.