And the Winner Is...
The Libeskind Plan

Feb. 27, 2003 -- NEW YORK -- Berlin architect Daniel Libeskind won the design competition for redeveloping the World Trade Center site with a plan that envisions a 1,776-foot spire and a memorial that preserves the fallen towers' footprints. But that decision isn't likely to end the battles among real-estate tycoons, community groups, politicians and victims' families over what actually gets built.

A group of state and city leaders, including members of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., the city-state panel overseeing the rebuilding, met privately Wednesday to choose between two finalist plans: the one from Studio Daniel Libeskind and a design by New York architect Rafael Vinoly and his Think team, which involves twin towers 1,665 tall.

In a news conference announcing the decision Thursday morning, Gov. George Pataki said the Libeskind plan "is truly an emotional protection of the site of ground zero itself" and also "brings back the life to lower Manhattan that is so important to our future."

Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Vinoly had performed design work for the brutal regime that ruled Argentina in the 1970s and quoted critics claiming he had misrepresented his past. Mr. Vinoly denied hiding his background. It wasn't clear whether the revelations had affected LMDC's deliberations.

A growing chorus of civic groups, political leaders and real-estate interests have become critical of the redevelopment process, which, they say, has changed without notice to accommodate the array of governmental and private interests with a stake in the project.

"This thing's made up day-by-day," says Beverly Willis, president of Architecture Research Institute, a New York think tank on design issues and an organizer of Rebuild Downtown Our Town, a group formed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "What we're all incredibly fearful about is what happens after tomorrow?"

Think's proposal for the Trade Center site (top) and Studio Daniel Libeskind's design.

A big concern is that the process may have rushed design decisions about what the buildings should look like before major questions about the area's future have been answered. Chiefly, should the Trade Center area be rebuilt as it was before the attacks -- as a business district with massive amounts of office space but with improved transportation links -- or as a largely cultural and residential district dominated by a memorial?

"What is the future of downtown?" asks Sheldon Silver, the powerful speaker of the New York State Assembly, whose district encompasses the site. "No one can answer that question."

Another looming question is how the winning plan can be reconciled with the demands of the leaseholders of the destroyed complex: a group led by New York developer Larry Silverstein, which holds a 99-year lease on 10 million square feet of office space from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the land; and the U.S. arm of Westfield Holdings Ltd., an Australian shopping mall firm that owns the rights to the complex's retail space.

People close to the leaseholders say that both finalist designs were drawn without regard to the terms of the leases and the commercial use of the area. "There's an inevitable collision coming," one of the people says.

Last month, Mr. Silverstein wrote the LMDC's chairman, John Whitehead, and other top officials complaining that none of the final designs presented a "viable and safe" plan for the site, but he has since reconciled with the officials. "Right now, he's pleased that he's an important part of the process, and he looks forward to working with all the key principals," a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein says. A Westfield spokeswoman declined to comment.

LMDC spokesman Matt Higgins says that despite the perception that the process hasn't been coordinated, the architects have worked with Mr. Silverstein and with the Port Authority.

The question of who will pay for the noncommercial buildings in both plans remains unanswered. The envisioned memorial and cultural facilities are likely to require government aid, which could be tough to obtain when both the city and New York state face major budget shortfalls.

Concern about the rebuilding dates to July, when the LMDC and the Port Authority released six plans that were roundly criticized as boring and too focused on commercial space. The agencies launched a new competition that resulted in nine plans by seven architectural teams. A design committee of the LMDC, formed without public notice, chose the two finalists.

Critics say the Port Authority, LMDC and Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs New York's subways, have pushed plans with scant coordination or public input. At a meeting last week, Port Authority officials presented a "Grand Central Station" for commuter and subway trains, along with a parking garage beneath one tower's footprints. But several people at the meeting, including victims' families, were sharply critical, saying the station might overshadow the memorial and the garage would desecrate the footprints, regarded as sacred ground.

Email your comments to rjeditor@dowjones.com.