| Rebuild Downtown Our Town |
 |
Home |
|
||||||||||
|
|
| Meeting Schedule
|
|
See Minutes of these meetings March 19, 2002 April 2, 2002 April 23, 2002 May 14, 2002 June 4, 2002 June 25, 2002 July 16, 2002 August 6, 2002 September 3, 2002 September 24, 2002 October 15, 2002 November 6, 2002 November 26, 2002 December 17, 2002 January 7, 2003 January 28, 2003 February 18, 2003 March 11, 2003 April 22, 2003 June 3, 2003 July 1, 2003 September 2, 2003 October 7, 2003 November 4, 2003 December 2, 2003 January 7, 2004 March 2, 2004 April 6, 2004 May 4, 2004
Future Meeting Dates |
| Meetings Minutes
|
|
May 4, 2004 - Pace University: Beverly Willis opened the meeting at 8:30 am. The minutes of the April 6th meeting were approved as written. Beverly Willis announced that there would be two presentations for this meeting. One would be her presentation of R.Dot's recently released position paper, Neighborhoods and Housing in Lower Manhattan- A Mixed income Community. The second presentation, Common Sense Considerations for West Street was given by John Dellaportas, Chair, Coalition to Save West Street. Beverly Willis presented R.Dot's recently released position paper, Neighborhoods and Housing in Lower Manhattan- A Mixed Income Community, a project completed with the assistance of the Pratt Institute Center for Community and Economic Development. This project was funded as part of the Civic Alliance's "Beyond 16 Acres Series". This paper was designed to inform and assist New York's public officials and planners engaged with the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan. R.Dot believes that the rebuilding process should encompass the spirit of 9/11 when people came together across lines of class and race to save lives add to aid people in need. The rapid response of service workers living nearby saved many lives after the attack. This work builds upon the Mayor's proposal, New York City Vision for Lower Manhattan, December 2002, which studied Fulton Square/ Seaport, East River Waterfront, Lower Greenwich and Tribeca. R.Dot added two additional neighborhoods for the study, the Lower East Side and Chinatown. All six neighborhoods were surveyed using a sample survey. The U.S. 2000 census yielded research findings specific to each neighborhood. R.Dot's survey yielded information on live/work, journey to work, general likes and dislikes of each neighborhood, a resident's perspective on missing amenities and intent to stay in Lower Manhattan for at least another five years. The U.S. 2000 census data provided research with more objective information regarding each neighborhood, such as average income per household, predominant age group, and number of households headed by a single parent. For a full scope of findings, Ms. Willis referred everyone to the position paper located on the R.Dot website (www.rebuilddowntownourtown.com). Ms. Willis used a slide show presentation to summarize the contents of the paper and passed around several copies of the position paper for members to view. The four major points addressed in the paper include: - Neighborhoods that can provide the mix of interdependent service skills required to provide safety, security, and other services necessary to support Lower Manhattan's quality of life - Need for rethinking how affordable housing can be made available to 70% of the Lower Manhattan households - Services necessary for the daily needs of Lower Manhattan's evolving neighborhoods. - Resources and strategies to preserve the mixed-income character of Lower Manhattan. The paper states that 55 percent of households in Lower Manhattan are characterized as low-income by U.S. 2000 Census Bureau definition. There is a crisis in affordable housing as 70 percent of Lower Manhattan earns moderate and low incomes. Many notable findings were discovered through the research for this paper and should be highly considered when planning for the development of Lower Manhattan. These findings include: - Lower Manhattan is a mixed-income community - Only 16% of Lower Manhattan households can afford market-rate rents. - An extreme diversity exists in Lower Manhattan and needed community amenities must be provided to preserve this diversity. - 95% of the Liberty Bond Financing is going to 18% of he people who earn middle and market rate incomes. None of the financing is going to households who make $50,240 (U.S. 2000 Census definition of low-income) or less. - Many in Lower Manhattan walk to where they work or where they live/work. A complete list of recommendations, resources and strategies can be found in the position paper which can be downloaded on the R.Dot website, www.rebuilddowntownourtown.org. Ms. Willis listed a few key recommendations, which included: - Maintain the existing mixed income character of the area. - Use zoning changes, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, CDGB funds and Section 8 vouchers to make housing affordable - Allocate the use Liberty Bonds to benefit all Lower Manhattan residents. - Encourage clustering of commercial buildings and housing to encourage walking to work - Coordinate public investment in essential neighborhood services with housing construction. Ms. Willis concluded by stating that the city must rethink its present housing strategies to accommodate the 55% of Lower Manhattan's population- the low income households- who earn under $50,240. Creating strategies and taking action now to preserve the mixed-income character of Lower Manhattan would create a model for the rest of the city. The second presentation, Common Sense Considerations for West Street, was given by John Dellaportas, Chair, Coalition to Save West Street. Mr. Dellaportas began his presentation with a power point slide show. The Coalition to Save West Street is a self-funded, self-run organization oppposes the proposed plan to build a short bypass tunnel on West Street. The Coalition has several key points that are the foundation for their opposition. They include: the estimated $860 million needed to build the tunnel, the estimated 3 year time period to complete construction, the 2 block-long ramps needed on either side of the 4 block-long tunnel, and the street composition of 4 lanes tunneled and 4 lanes at-grade. Mr. Dellaportas presented the findings of a study conducted by Pace University, March 15, 2004, which indicated that the overwhelming majority (61%) of down-towners oppose the proposed tunnel. Mr. Dellaportas reported that several downtown officials also oppose the construction of the West Street tunnel. These officials include: U.S. Senator, Charles Schumer, U.S. Congressman, Jerrold Nadler, N.Y. State Senator, Martin Conner, N.Y. State Assembly-member, Deborah J. Glick, Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields, N.Y. City Council Member, Alan J. Gerson, and Manhattan Community Board 1. Also mentioned in Mr. Dellaportas' presentation were several transit, environmental and planning groups in opposition to the tunnel. Among these groups are: American Automobile Society of NY, Clean Air Campaign, Institute for Rational Urban Mortality/ Auto-Free New York, New York Cityıs Straphangers Campaign, New York City Transit Riders Council, Rebuild Downtown Our Town (R.Dot), Taxpayers for Common Sense, Transportation Alternatives and Tri-State Transportation Campaign. Mr. Dellaportas commented that in this eclectic mix of groups, it is interesting to note that many of these organizations have had conflicting interests in the past, though all seem to agree with this one issue. Mr. Dellaportas gave seven reasons why the Coalition to Save west Street opposes the construction of the short bypass tunnel: 1) A Tunnel will isolate Battery Park City- Mr. Dellaportas quotes R.Dot in his presentation, "Tunneling ramps, if west Street is partially underground, will create more retail dead spots and will separate Batter Park residents from Lower Manhattan Communities". 2) A Tunnel will endanger pedestrians- Mr. Dellaportas presented a Daily News article that comments on the dangers of tunnels amidst highly used traffic streets in the city, exemplifying the tunnel built at 33rd street on Park Avenue saying that is causes at least two accidents per month due to low visibility for the both the drivers and the pedestrians. 3) A tunnel will harm the environment- the Clean Air Campaign concludes that "putting traffic in a tunnel does not reduce traffic, and increasing the total number of traffic lanes (surface lanes and tunneled lanes combined) can be expected to increase traffic. Therefore, there will be more cars, which will lead to more exhaust, which will have adverse effects on the environment. 4) A tunnel will harm the local economy- The Coalition reports that while down-towners are willing to share the burden of rebuilding the community, but that years of construction would make that burden unbearable. Mr. Dellaportas uses previous large-scale, transpotation-related construction projects as examples to stress being wary of official projections. He stated that Bostonıs Big Dig had a projected completion date of 1995 and a projected cost of $2.2 billion. This project so far has cost almost $15 billion and it still under construction. Likewise, the Williamsburg Bridge Reconstruction had a completion date of 1994-95 with an estimated cost of $400 million. This project is still incomplete and has thus far cost the city $1 billion. 5) A tunnel will waste almost $1 Billion- Transportation Alternatives was quoted in saying "Pataki Trade Center Site Tunnel to Cost $45,000 an Inch" and Taxpayers for Common Sense said that the project is one of "the fifty most wasteful roads in America". 6) A tunnel will have only minimal benefits- Mr. Dellaportas quoted Transportation Alternatives, "The rationale for the tunnel is to create more green space near the trade center site and 9/11 memorial. But the tunnel actually only creates very little more space that the boulevard option: 12 foot wide sidewalk versus 54 feet. Furthermore, there has been speculation that the stated reason for the tunnel differs from the real reason, which is that Brookfield, who own the World Financial Center, want a walkway to bring tourists over to their properties. 7) Cheaper, better alternatives exist- Mr. Dellaportas read a quote written by NY Times Journalist, Gene Russianoff. In his article, "Donıt Bury West Street", Russianoff writes, "There is a better way to improve West Street. For $200 million or less the street could be made into a grand surface promenade. The model is, in fact, the Champs-Elysees, a grand boulevard with eight lanes of traffic- same as West Street- and with no tunnel underneath. What works in Paris could work as well here: wide pedestrian-friendly sidewalks lined with tall shady trees and stores and buildings." After the presentations, Ms. Willis announced As R.Dot moves into an advocacy mode, we will no longer be scheduling monthly meetings, but more strategic ones. Ms. Willis asked participants to review R.Dot advocacy positions and pick one or more that each person feels strongly about. This will enable us to form powerful committees through which participants can help R.Dot advocate crucial issues. Lawrence Frommer announced the CUNY Institute for Urban System's event for May 14, 2004, The Sustainable Buildings Industry Conference. For additional information see http://www.ccny.cuny.edu/cius/conference.htm The meeting adjourned at 10:05 A.M. April 6, 2004 - Le Solaire: 20 River Terrace, New York, NY The Tuesday, April 6th Rebuild Downtown Our Town meeting at 9am was a tour of the Solaire Building at 20 River Terrace for R.Dot members and invited guests. The Solaire is the first of several new developments funded by Liberty Bond Financing and is a model of the latest developments in "green", or environmentally sustainable construction. Michael Gubbins, the building manager of the Solaire, conducted the tour. The tour began in the apartment of Beverly Willis, FAIA, co-founder of R.Dot, and resident of the Solaire, where Mr. Gubbins gave an overview of the building's environmental amenities. Among these were advanced central air and water filtration systems, a 24-hour indoor thermal comfort and environmental quality monitoring system, and exterior wall, designed and constructed to prevent air and moisture infiltration into the building. He explained that all building materials and paints are required to have low or no "off-gassing". Residents are briefed on the types of cleaning products and home furnishing materials that create noxious inhalants when used or mixed with other products. He pointed out that asthmatics and people who suffer from allergies have reported suffering fewer or no symptoms after moving into the Solaire. Mr. Gubbins pointed out that the building is designed to be 35% more energy-efficient than code requires, resulting in a 67% lower electricity demand during peak hours. This energy-efficient design coupled with building-integrated photovoltaic panels that convert sunlight into electricity result in lower electric bills for the residents and the owner. After leaving the apartment, the tour proceeded to the pesticide-free rooftop garden, accessible to all building residents, which provides natural insulation for the building, reduces the "urban heat island effect" and reduces storm water run-off into the city's storm sewer system. He explained that rainwater falling on the roof is passively absorbed as-need by the roof garden plants and soil; any excess water flows by gravity to the basement storage tank to be used for irrigation during times of low rainfall. The tour proceeded to the basement where Mr. Gubbins pointed out and explained the main components of the building' wastewater treatment system, which collects and treats waste water from every drain in the building to be reused for flushing toilets and cooling tower make-up. He also pointed out the natural gas-fired central heating and cooling system, which contains no ozone depleting refrigerants. The basement also include such amenities for Solaire residents as bicycle storage areas and a parking garage, equipped with 24 hour surveillance and a ventilation system controlled by carbon monoxide sensors. The tour concluded in the main lobby of the Solaire where the computerized building management system was explained. This automated system continuously monitors in real-time such parameters as indoor air temperature, humidity, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide levels and tracks the status of equipment to expedite required maintenance and minimize system downtime. Mr. Gubbins explained that by putting the monitoring system on an Intranet type of web-site, the facilities can be remotely-accessed from anywhere utilizing a standard internet connection. March 2, 2004 - Pace University: Beverly Willis opened the meeting at 8:30 am. The minutes of the February 3rd meeting were approved as written. New Participants include: Deborah Lester, Assemblyman Sheldon Silver's office, Erin Donnelly, Lower Manhattan Cultural Council, David Watson, Pace Cultural Affairs Beverly Willis introduced R.Dot's speaker, Norma Munn, Chairperson, New York City Arts Coalition (NYCAC), to brief the group on the February 2nd Panel Discussion sponsored by R.Dot, NYCAC, and the New York Foundation for the Arts (NYFA). Willis explained that the follow-up panel to the 2nd scheduled for February 26thhas been postponed. Norma Munn explained that the purpose of the panel, Arts and Culture in Lower Manhattan, Giving Visual Artists a Planning Voice was to inform the audience of efforts underway by various organizations and professionals involved in planning and policy making with regards to the arts and Lower Manhattan. Among the panelist were Norma Munn, NYCAC, Beverly Willis, R.Dot, Ted Berger, NYFA, Alan Gerson, Councilman District 1, Anita Contini, LMDC. The moderator was Kinshasha Conwill, American Association for Museums. The audience was made up primarily of visual artists, Lower Manhattan residents and members of other civic organizations. The purpose of the panel was to provide framework for artists to look beyond the World Trade Center Site and to give them a voice. Norma Munn commented that one of the artists in the audience brought up her experience living in Australia and how during the Olympics, artists were part of the committee that made decisions for the Olympics. One frustration of artists past attempts to get involved in the redevelopment process was that they were not able to influence decisions made by the LMDC. Discussion about artists as planners ensued. Stephan Umaerus commented that he is happy that wheels are in motion in regards to artists' involvement, but he is concerned, as an artist, about having a real impact on the planning process. Norma Munn responded that it could be difficult to have a real impact as artists donıt yet have a voice on a continuing basis. Linda Silverman asked if there are any other artists/groups attempting to become involved. Norma Munn said she was unaware of any besides the Ad-Hoc visual artist group, although there are a significant number of respected artists within the community. Lawrence Frommer asked what sort of framework could be employed to include the artists? Can certain districts get special permits? Bruce Rosen commented that there are special districts that cover Lower Manhattan such as Tribeca and Manhattan Bridge. The problem is enforcement. SoHo has been zoned for artists, however, an individual had be to certified under Cultural Affairs in order to benefit from the special district. Once qualified to live and work in SoHo, artists would still have to compete with higher paid professionals. Roland Gebhardt mentioned the fact that artists don't think like planners and so there would be a need to create a dialogue, assisting communication between artists and planners in order for the coordinated efforts to work. Norma Munn said that efforts would have to aim for some specific goal; for example creating a cultural zone, verses zoning for culture. Linda Silverman suggested the idea of museum sponsorship in order to exhibit the artists' ideas. Norma Munn responded that the artists want immediate participation. Deborah Lester suggested that artists should become more aggressive as far as getting invited to and attending relevant meetings downtown. Norma Munn responded that there are several arts advocacy organizations that already exists and work hard to have their voices heard. She said that going to the meetings is a waste of time, for the most part, as they tend to be scripted. Beverly Willis asked Erin Donnelly of the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council if she saw her organization as a facilitator for artists in Lower Manhattan. Erin Donnelly responded that while they do not facilitate through planning, they facilitate through residency programs and by getting artists permanently involved as community members. She suggested modeling museum boards and the artists' role on those boards. To put artists in leadership positions. Erin Donnelly suggested implementing a program to share planning tools with artists. Norma Munn commented that most of these artists are well-known political activists and may not need assistance. Beverly Willis said that while accomplished artists may not benefit from learning new tools, younger artists or other artist groups may be interested and R.Dot is interested in working with all artists. Linda Silverman asked if the Ad-Hoc group of artists have a plan. Norma Munn responded that they have been trying for 1 1/2 years to introduce their comprehensive plan and have been met with opposition. She continued that every politician has their own vision for Lower Manhattan, that include the arts, but none of them are planning with the artists. The consensus was that artists should be actively involved in the redevelopment process. R.Dot hopes to continue dialogue with the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council in order to see this goal come to fruition. Beverly Willis announced that there is a four page summary of the February 2nd Panel posted on R.Dot's website www.rebuildowntownourtown.org. Jesi Pozzuoli spoke about the Civic Alliance's repose to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS). R.Dot is a voting member of the Civic Alliance and has been asked to vote on the response drafted by the Regional Plan Association for the Civic Alliance. Jesi Pozzuoli briefly outlined each of the major points of objection within the draft response to the LMDC. 1) Civic Alliance believes that the DGEIS was conducted using the LMDC's Proposed Action, without any regard to any reasonable alternatives to this plan. The LMDC and the Port Authority are urged to consider an alternative plan for redevelopment, such as the Reduced Impact Alternative, for the final EIS, in order to avoid litigation, project delay and impediments to the economic recovery of Lower Manhattan. completed, then it is unlikely that all of the space will be occupied. These vacancies will have negative impacts on various economic sectors of Lower Manhattan. 2) Another serious flaw in the DGEIS is that it does not consider the cumulative environmental impacts that will occur with other ongoing construction projects. Katherine McVeigh Hughes mentioned that some of these projects include Deutsche Bank deconstruction and reconstruction at 130 Liberty Street, BMCC's Fitterman Hall deconstruction and reconstruction at 30 West Broadway, South Ferry Subway Station, 7 World Trade Center, 90 West Street renovation and various infrastructure repairs. The DGEIS finds that the construction of the Proposed Action will not cause adverse impacts to air quality. The Civic Alliance and others believe that with construction will come an increase in traffic that will most certainly have an adverse impact on the air quality. To this measure, it has been requested to LMDC that they make an explicit commitment to regulating diesel emissions through use of low sulfur fuel, installation of oxidation catalysts, use of particulate filters, testing advanced technologies, prohibit engine idling and improvement of equipment maintenance and inspection. 3) The Proposed Action will add up to one million feet of retail space to the site by 2009, placing a significant portion of the retail underground. Furthermore, the Proposed Action recommends building underground retail before any street level retail. The Civic Alliance and others prefer the majority retail space to be located at street level and advocate for street level retail being built first, in order to capture the "spill-over" effect anticipated with the added retail. 4) The Proposed Action includes the Freedom Tower's win turbines. While the Civic Alliance recognizes and applauds the inclusion of the wind turbines, it must be noted that the turbines can cause adverse health effects. The noise and vibration levels from the turbines have been known to cause headaches and migraines for people living and working in near range of the turbines. Beverly Willis introduced a letter written by R.Dot, addressed to the New York City Planning Commission regarding our advocacy positions. The letter highlights five points and stems from our concern for the well being of Lower Manhattan residents, businesses and the overall livability of the area. 1) We oppose the construction of the short by-pass through west Street, which would create traffic congestion and cause constant air and noise pollution for up to 7 years. 2) We oppose the closing and privatization of Greenwich Street at Vesey St. to any traffic save taxicabs and black cars, which would cast an undemocratic shadow over the WTC site. 3) We reject the proposed 1 million square feet of new retail space for the PATH station as a benefit to the area as it would kill retail business downtown and in other areas of Lower Manhattan. 4) We advocate for speeding up the construction process at the WTC site. Instead of living through 20 years under constant construction, we believe new structures should be market driven. Speeding up the process might include bringing in other developers. 5) We advocate for increasing the density and diversity of arts and culture in Lower Manhattan and believe a showcase of the arts, placed adjacent tot he memorial, following the European Kunsthalle concept would exhibit a sampling of the best talent the city has to offer. Jesi Pozzuoli reported Monday, March 1's presentation by the Borough of Manhattan City Planning office to the New York City Planning Commission. The purpose of the hearing was to inform the commission of specific request in changes for the redevelopment plan for the WTC site. After hearing the requests, the Commission would decided which recommendations they would sponsor and relay to the LMDC and Port Authority. In regards to R.Dot's advocacy positions, the requests were as follows: 1) City Planning is neutral regarding the construction of the short by-pass. They believe it can be both negative and positive. 2) All streets, including Greenwich Street, should be public and accessible by all vehicle and pedestrian traffic. 3) Ground Floor Retail should be maximized. Retail should be at or above grade. There should be minimal retail frontage on key streets. 4) Commercial construction should be timed to meet market requirements. 5) Cultural programs should be further developed before established. There should be 30' minimum open space between commercial and cultural buildings. All cultural buildings should be adjacent or near to open space. The next meetings are set for April 6, May 4 The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 a.m. January 7, 2004 - Pace University Susan Szenasy opened the meeting at 8:30 am. The minutes of the December 2nd meeting were approved as written. New attendees were: Julian Boxenbaum, Industrial Designer, Mark Castera, New York League for Conservation Voters, Susan Beer, Linkage, Inc., Deborah Lester, Assemblyman Silver's Office, Jim Morgan, Urban Design and Architecture Professor, NYU. Susan introduces the meeting's first speaker, Bruce Fowle, the founding architect of the firm Fox and Fowle. Bruce Fowle was asked to assess the Freedom Tower and the WTC site in terms of sustainability. Mr. Fowle, designer of the Conde Nast sustainable building at 4 Times Square, said that 4 Times Square is a building from 1995, the technology has changed since then and that the sustainable-design-movement is rapidly changing. Mr. Fowle informed the group that every new building is given a rating by the U.S. Green Building Council. The Council was formed shortly after the completion of 4 Times Square and is designed to rate buildings from an energy point of view. The rating system is on a point basis, with the highest rating being platinum then gold, then silver then certified. Mr. Fowle informed the group that there are to be guidelines soon available, written by the New York New Visions Committee, which he heads, but they do not yet include the Freedom Tower. The only information published about the Freedom Tower is what has been published in the newspaper, Mr. Fowle says. The only sustainable aspect about the Freedom Tower that is self-evident is the idea of the wind-turbines. Mr. Fowle believes that it is good to be pushing such technology, although wind turbines, in the past have not been placed atop buildings as they tend to combust at high altitudes. Mr. Fowle questions the amount of power a building would actually benefit from the turbines, thereby suggesting they are not cost efficient. He said that symbolically, however, it may be a very good idea. The U.S, Green Buildings Council has written guidelines for Battery Park City (BPC), for both residential and commercial buildings. The first residential building in BPC, the Solaire, was built under these original guidelines. The Soliare has not yet gotten its rating since the guidelines have a blanket statement for all large-scale building. There may be no smoking within the building, which is an unlikely demand for any residential building to place on its tenants. Mr. Fowle thinks that the Solaire will become gold-rated. Mr. Fowle said the guidelines for Battery Park City would be the best recommendations for the World Trade Center site, which can be found on the BPC website. The Audubon Society put out a report on bird mortality. This relates to the redevelopment of the WTC site as, compared to other buildings the WTC had the worst bird mortality in the world. The birds would die every day and night, either by flying into the building, or exhausting themselves, by navigating through the many lights. The idea of wind power would have to be reconciled with this issue. The specifics of what the U.S. Green Buildings Council would be looking for in the project of rebuilding the World Trade Center in order to qualify for LEED-Rating were outlined by Mr. Fowle as follows: 1) Site category- issues of light, air and shadows. He said the Libeskind plan would cast a significant amount of shadows on its neighbors. 2) Transportation- if everything goes as currently planned, it couldn't be better. The fact that all the loading and parking is below grade in already-excavated space is a positive aspect. 3) Water Management- storm water management should be demanded; reduction of use of water; use of grey and black water should be explored; water-efficient landscape that does not require additional water. 4) Energy Generation- Solar orientation is important for maximizing daylight, particularly if photovoteics fuel the entire redevelopment (which is not being considered right now). The building should optimize daylight to reduce the amount of required artificial light. Daylight dimming should be used so that as the sunlight comes into a space, artificial lighting automatically is reduced. While daylight dimming is currently expensive to install, the costs are declining as the demand increases. Electricity is the largest energy load within a building as not only does it use energy to light and energy to cool the heat caused by the light, thus compounding usage. 5) Use of right-size-equipment- instead of having large pieces of equipment that are running all time to serve the entire building when only 2 floors of the building is being used, the building should have only the necessary size equipment for what it is needed. The average tenant currently only uses 1.5 watts/sq.foot, as opposed to the average broker's estimation of 4-5 watts/sq.foot. 6) Variable speed motors- the motors only go as fast as they need to in order to move the air- though this is costly, but the energy payback is about 3 years. 7) DO2 Modeling- a computerized software technology that analyzes every hour of every day of a typical year. It can determine how much energy a building will be using and how much. By changing the quality of glass and amount of installation it can determine how the need for energy will change. 8) Maximize on-site energy sources- co-generation, as in the NY Times building, which produces electrical energy on site, which produces steam, which generates electricity to be used for cooling and heating. Instead of using energy produced from a remote plant and the power-lines that come to the building, with about 50% efficiency, the energy can be produced onsite with about 80-90% efficiency and is much cleaner. 9) Fuel cells- technology that uses hydrogen gas mixed with oxygen to produce hydrogen, which produces electricity. This technology does not produce waste or exhaust. 10) Material Resource Conservation- Construction materials used to develop the site should be made of material at least 60% recycled. All material within the buildings should be made from material at least 50% recycled. Local resource should be utilized, coming from within 500 miles of where the material is being used in order to minimize shipping costs and reduce the amount of energy needed to transport the material. Renewable materials, using certified wood and renewable carpeting. Eliminate Chloroflourocarbons coming from air-conditioning. 11) Interior Environmental Quality- Need CO2 monitoring to gage the quality of air. Eliminate VOC (Volatile Organic Compound) emitting materials by not having formaldehyde in the carpeting and furniture etc., Need to have control over the air-conditioning, with individual controls for each room; air conditioning only spaces that are occupied. Control pest and microbial contaminants 12) Operations and Maintenance- mechanical engineers should analyze the design process and check that engineering is properly done, supervise the installation, and check to see that everything is running properly. Evaluation of the mechanisms needs to be done every 5 years. Use eco-friendly cleaning materials for maintenance. Susan Szenasy asks, "Are we capable of beginning to understand the concept of green-building at Ground Zero?" Mr. Fowle responds, "Weıll know better when we see the guidelines, to know what is mandated and what is optional." Susan Szenasy comments that "The Governor has some strong guidelines regarding this matter" and asks what role this might play in the redevelopment. Mr. Fowle responds that "the Governor is very astute on this [issue] since Battery Park City. He is really the one pushing for this [green-development]." Katherine Hughes comments that the rebuilding of 7 WTC has already begun, and she asks what green-measures have been taken into consideration. Mr. Fowle responded that he is unaware of any green-intentions for build 7WTC. Susan Szenasy introduces the meeting's next speaker, Neil Chambers, executive director of Green Ground Zero. Neil Chambers introduces himself as the executive director of Green Ground Zero and as project architect, designing green architecture his entire career. Mr. Chambers explains that he is from South Carolina and the biggest structure there is a 120-foot water tower, while the remainder of the scenery is mostly natural. His experience growing up, surrounded by nature and greenery, has shaped his visions for Manhattan today. Green Ground Zero began about one and a half years ago as an organization that campaigned for greening the World Trade Center. As the organization grows older, Chambers hopes to make its mission more focused on implementation and education. Chambers believes that if green design is to be pushed to the outer limits of architecture, then people need to be educated about the functions of green-design. Green Ground Zero has also broadened their focus to include not only the WTC, but all of Lower Manhattan. In order to bring the focus onto all of Lower Manhattan Green Ground Zero held an international design competition. The competition led to a seminar where discussion of the various elements of green-architecture could be discussed and learned. Neil Chambers feels that green standards are becoming more commonplace with each new building built. Green Ground Zero focused on three elements when considering new construction in Lower Manhattan: solar panels; ecosystem representation; species reintroduction. Chambers feels it is extremely important to consider biology (local species and fauna), when truly considering green-stabilization in a given location. For example, New York State and New York City have a unique ecology that consists of an estuary with unique plant and animal life. The ecology of NYC is different than the ecology of the Catskill Mountains, which lye just north of the city. Green Ground Zero suggests dealing with the Freedom Tower as if it were a mountain. The idea is that at ground level, there would be the bio-appropriate plants and as one moves up the building, one would notice a change in the greenery used thereby creating a place for a diverse habitat and allowing for the reintroduction of the Paragon Falcon. Not only would this goal increase the biodiversity of NYC, but the Falcon would also be symbolic of freedom and expansion. Wind turbines atop the Freedom Tower would prohibit such integration. Susan Szenasy asks how Green Ground Zero would propose to deal with the increased amount of shading as caused by the new Freedom Tower. Chambers responds that they have looked into fauna and grasses that do not require a significant amount of sunlight. Katherine McVeigh Hughes asks if it is possible to use reflective materials on the exterior of the new buildings in order to compensate for the shading. Chambers responded that building for reflection might be cause lighting that is too harsh. Katherine McVeigh Hughes points out that if the Falcon perches are placed below the turbine, then the turbines and the falcons can coexist. Jim Morgan asks if microbiological factors have been taken into consideration. Chambers responds that for the plants they proposed for ground level. They also proposed using native soils and soils that would use and clean run-off water. Julian Boxenbaum suggests that perhaps efforts on Green Ground Zero's behalf could be more productive if they focus on the areas in Lower Manhattan surrounding the WTC site, as the WTC site has become complicated with political interest. Chambers replies that all of Lower Manhattan is already being taken into consideration with equal interest as the WTC site. Chambers also indicates that restoration of the area should focus on eco-historical restoration, to maintain the natural ecology of the area. Charles Boxenbaum asks what R.Dot might be able to do vocalize an opinion, reflecting the issue of sustainable development in Lower Manhattan, specifically regarding those building not yet designed. Bruce Fowle responds that the issue of building size and density is an issue that was once in the news. Mr. Fowle indicates that building big affects light and air space within a given location and if R. Dot wants to have a voice in the redevelopment of the site, R.Dot should look into problems that might arise with such high density, before the buildings are built. Mr. Fowle said that the maximum building size for the site can be up to two times the height and two times the girth of the new buildings in Times Square, including 4 Times Square. He also mentioned that if Silverstein is not allowed to rebuild the 10-11 million square feet of building space, then the air rights must be purchased back from him. To date no one has offered to purchase the air rights. Roland Gebhardt raised the issue of residual effects caused by new construction and he asks if the green-guidelines address other issues such as traffic. Bruce Fowles reminded the group that while he has not yet seen the actual guidelines, he would imagine that the guidelines do address residual effects. There were no announcements. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 am Next R.Dot Meetings: March 2, April 6 December 2, 2003 - Pace University Beverly Willis opened the meeting at 8:30 am. The minutes of the November 4th meeting were approved as written. Beverly Willis introduced the speakers from the Coalition of 9/11 Families, John Lynch and Anthony Gardner, who spoke on: World Trade Center Memorial Designs
The Coalition of 9/11 Families rejected all eight proposed designs for the World Trade Center Memorial. They stated that the memorial should be treated with same historical reverence as comparable sites in American history (e.g. Pearl Harbor, Gettysburg).
The Coalition makes the case that the footprints of the buildings are delineated by their box beam columns on the actual bedrock (70 feet below grade). The memorial guidelines demarcate the footprints at 40 feet above the bedrock creating artificial "footprints". The Coalition is opposed to any transportation (e.g. bus garage, infrastructure) and commercial development (e.g. mall, retail, offices) on top of the bedrock. They also feel that the memorial should be the centerpiece of all the redevelopment on the entire site. The Coalition conceded to restoring the original PATH structure as long as it was incorporated into the memorial. The Coalition strongly opposes any additions proposed to the new PATH station. The present temporary PATH station covers almost 50 percent of the south tower and the Coalition fears permanent plans for the future of the station will cover 70 percent of the tower. In addition, should Greenwich St. and Futon St. extend through the site, then must only be open for pedestrian use. The Coalition feels strongly about ensuring that a memorial museum for 9/11 is erected by the slurry wallı, and that the museum communicates the events of 9/11 including those who perished, those who survived, family members, rescue workers and others who responded during the attacks and in the aftermath. The museum is to be dedicated to 9/11 and Feb. 26, 1993 and should never include other themes or issues. The Coalition supports securing a repository in the area encased by the 'slurry wall' wherein all unidentified and unclaimed remains of the individuals who perished on 9/11. They also advocate to that all new World Trade Center construction is hallmarked by quality, safety and security, and is built under the legal jurisdiction of the local building and fire codes (the former WTC, built by the Port Authority of NY and NJ, was immune to Federal, State and NYC building and fire codes). The Coalition for 9/11 Families also feels strongly about obtaining a national historic designation from the National Parks Service for the bedrock footprints of the North and South Towers, approximately 70 feet below ground. This conflicts with the LMDC and the Ports Authorityıs current site plans set at 40 feet above the bedrock, thereby creating artificial footprints. They want maximum access to the bedrock footprints, as the box beam columns of the towers are encased within the bedrock and are authentic historical documents of where the towers once stood. They also would like the WTC site to become a National Memorial under the direction of the National Parks Service.
Roland Gebhardt commented that a few R.Dot members are working with Nadler, Deborah Glick, and the NYCLU to proper management of the site. said that while the LMDC has an obligation to make information available to the public, the Port Authority does not, which concerns R.Dot as the Port Authority are currently in control of the WTC site. Beverly Willis asked if preserving the bedrock meant keeping its surface exposed to the sky, or if preservation could be kept underground and in some way allowing visitor-access to the bedrock. The Coalition responded that they would be satisfied with preservation of the bedrock underground, in so far as it would be accessible. The footprints could be "roofed".
After the presentation and the question/answer period finished, R.Dot members reviewed all eight designs.
Roland Gebhardt commented that if nothing was built, as a memorial, it would endure the site with memory. This act would evoke people to come see the memorial. He said, too, that all of the proposed designs are very cosmetic and have nothing to do with memorial.
R.Dot issued a press release stating our position regarding the designs: The group also recommended to the LMDC that the time for the final selection of the memorial design be postponed until more designs can be reviewed and a public consensus grows in support of a single design." There were no announcements.
The meeting adjourned at 10:05 am
November 4, 2003 - Pace University Susan Szenasy opened the meeting at 8:30 am. The minutes of the October 7th meeting were approved as written. New attendees were: Jenna Orkin Susan Szenasy introduced main speaker, Dr. Lung Chi Chen, NYU-NIEHS Center of Excellence Department of Environmental Medicine NYU School of Medicine, who spoke on: Community Exposures to Particulate Matter Air Pollution from the World Trade Center Disaster. During the horrific disaster on September 11th, dust pollution spread throughout Lower Manhattan causing acute exposure to extremely high concentrations of particulate matter air pollution. The disaster caused the largest acute environmental disaster that ever has befallen New York City. The combustion of more than 90,000 liters of jet fuel at temperatures above 1,000 degrees Celsius created a dense and intensely toxic atmospheric plume containing soot, metals volatile organic compounds and hydrochloric acid. The collapse of the towers pulverized cement, glass and building contents and generated thousands of tons of particulate matter (PM) comprised of cement dust, glass fibers, asbestos, lead, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), organochlorine pesticides, furans and dioxins (3-5). These materials dispersed in an atmospheric plume over lower Manhattan, Brooklyn and at lower levels for miles beyond. They entered nearby office, school and residential buildings. The remaineder formed Ground Zero, a six-story pile of smoking rubble that burned intermittently for more than three months. Research done by New York University (NYU) World Trade Center (WTC) Investigations have focused on "particle air pollution". Studies have proven that exposures to high levels pf Particulate Matter (PM) air pollution, such as soot, can have severe health effects including: increased numbers of hospital admissions, heart attacks, asthma exacerbation. Studies have found that PM health effects are mostly among especially at-risk people, such as children and those with pre-existing health problems (e.g., emphysema or cardiac problems). It has been proven, through studies from the 1952 London Fog Episode, that when with the elevation of the pollution levels comes an increase in deaths. However, mortality is just the tip of the iceberg of PM pollution's adverse effects. A spectrum of biological response to pollutant exposure shows other harmful effects include, pollutant burdens, physiologic changes of uncertain significance, pathophysiologic changes and morbidity. The NYU School of Medicine conducted a survey of dust particles to explore possible health effects from WTC collapse. Members of this team collected WTC dust samples immediately following 9/11, on both 9/12 and 9/13. In all, they collected samples from 19 locations in lower Manhattan during those two days, both indoor and outdoor. The study was unique in that there had never been research on an incident similar to that of the WTC. The difference between WTC and the London Fog Episode, for example, was that for WTC, the majority of the particles were very large in size and extremely high concentration. Larger particles normally would not cause any problems. But because of the high concentration, some could have gotten deep into the lungs, causing adverse health effects. Those that did not penetrate into deep lung would be caught by the nose and throat causing coughing (WTC cough), though are not expected to cause any long term problems. The NYU WTC research project also has four ambient Particulate Matter sampling sites: Hunter College; La Guardia Airport; World Trace Center site; Sterling Forest. By studying the dust-samples collected at these remote locations, the research team was able to determine if harmful pollutants were in the air. In the inorganic fraction of these samples, metals, radionuclides, ionic species, asbestos, and inorganic species were identified. In the organic fraction, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, pesticides, phthalate esters, brominated diphenyl ethers, and other hydrocarbons were found. Each sample of settled dust had a highly alkaline pH (9.0-11.0). Asbestos levels ranged from 0.8% to 3.0% of mass; PAHs comprised > 0.1%; and lead content ranged from 101 to 625 ppm. Morphologically, most of the dust was fibrous and contained mineral wool, glass fibers, asbestos, wood, paper and cotton fibers. Coarse cement particles were also a major component. More than 95% of the mass consisted of particles larger than 10 µm in diameter. The largest mass concentration consisted of particles of > 53 µm in diameter, and there were proportionately more particles in that large size range in outdoor than in indoor samples. Materials < 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter comprised 0.88-1.98% of total mass. pH decreased with decreasing particle size, and particles less than 2.5 µm had approximately neutral pH. This finding is consistent with the dominant presence of highly alkaline, coarse cement particles in the large size fraction. There was no geographical variation in particle size distribution in the settled dust samples, nor was a relationship found in indoor samples between particle size distribution and number of stores above the ground. It is estimated that approximately 100-1000 tons of PAHs were spread over a localized area of lower Manhattan near Ground Zero. Analyses of airborne particulates were initiated at a site in lower Manhattan on September 14, 2001. Very high levels of fine airborne particles (PM <2.5) were detected in the first days after September 11. Collection sites were not located directly in the path of the plume, and thus actual levels of airborne particles may have been still higher. Fine particle levels peaked in the night hours when winds were calm and thermal inversions allowed pollution to accumulate to higher levels than during the day. Levels decreased on rainy days when fires and wind-blown dust were diminished. Airborne fine particulate levels declined as the fires were extinguished. They came to approach background ambient levels by mid-October. Coarse dust generated by demolition was detectable in ambient air until December, when pollution from the site diminished greatly. Results. Aspirated samples of WTCX PM2.5 were found to induce a mild to moderate degree of pulmonary inflammation in rodents at a relatively high dose (100 micrograms). This inflammatory response was not so great as that caused by ROFA or NIST 1649a (36). The same dose of WTC PM2.5 caused airway hyperresponsiveness to methacholine (Mch) aerosol comparable to that produced by NIST 1649a and greater than that produced by ROFA (Figure 11). Pulmonary neutrophilic inflammation was observed in mice exposed to WTC PM2.5. It diminished 1 to 3 days after exposure, although hyperresponsiveness to Mch did not diminish significantly in that same time period. Mice exposed to lower doses of pooled WTC PM2.5 (10 mg and 31.6 mg) and mice exposed by nose-only inhalation manifested neither neutrophilic inflammation nor methacholine responsiveness. No variation in response was noted in relation to the geographical locations at which the dust samples were collected. Limitations to the research include: species extrapolation: mouse to human; most studies used oropharyngeal aspiration rather than inhalation exposure; no direct information on toxicological effects from long-term or repeated exposures; gaseous and vapor toxicants and their interactions with PM not addressed; coarse mode PM not investigated- my be more important for eye and upper airways irritation. Conclusions: The community air concentrations of fine particle pollution generally did not exceed EPA's legal limits, however there were short-term peaks of a few hours at night that could have been of acute health significance to sensitive populations. Alkaline large particles were consistent with the WTC cough symptoms. WTC dusts caused airway hyper-reactivity in animals. Not everything is known about exposures or effects but the results do not indicate long-term risks to the general public from WTC particle air pollution exposures. Discussion: The Closing of Greenwich Street. Beverly Willis introduced the topic of closing Greenwich St. to solicit feedback. The question was if there was a general community-wide position on the closing of Greenwich St. in front of building, WTC 7. Beverly Willis announced that she had spoken with Steve Weber, Department of Transportation (DOT), regarding the closing of Greenwich Street. Steve Weber felt that a three-way intersection at Greenwich St., Vesey St., and W. Boadway was not desireable because it would impede pedestrian flow. Roland Gebhardt replied that it was his understanding that Greenwich St. was to be open to vehicular traffic, which is why CB1 had initially voted to allow for the extra building height requested. Roland Gebhardt mentioned that the new build 7 would not be built to be set back as far as the adjacent buildings. Instead it would be rebuilt to its historic building line, which would infringe on the visual openness of the block. Furthermore, the park in front of build 7 is designed in such a way that from the east side of Greenwich St., the park will jut out into the street. Also, there will be retractable bollards placed on the street to prohibit vehicular entry. Roland commented that should Greenwich St. stayed closed to vehicular traffic, except black cars and yellow taxis, then it would become a "private driveway" for the tenants of building 7. Roland Gebardt also mentioned that the plan, design and contract to rebuild building 7 was done without any public input. It was not presented to the public until the designs had already been agreed upon. There was expressed concern that Washington St., beginning for one block at Vesey Street, behind building 7, is also closed. The purpose of the closing is to provide truck access for both building 7 and the Verizon building. Yvonne Marrow replied that Washington St. was closed and used as access to the WTC and its use by thru-traffic has not been discussed since 9/11. The conclusion was that R.Dot would discuss the matter with other organizations and formulate a position. Getting the WTC built - Call to speed up process
Beverly Willis commented on that fact that the WTC site has become a giant construction site that impacts the wellness of the community. Beverly Willis suggested that R.Dot unite with other organizations to call on the governor and the mayor to speed up the reconstruction process. West Street, Short-Bypass Tunnel - A Citizen's View Beverly Willis opened the discussion with the comment that it is becoming increasingly clear that the business community is supporting the tunnel from Liberty to Vesey St. This support has the effect of keeping the entire area a construction site. The implementation of a tunnel would be at least a five-year project. Yvonne Marrow announced that CB1 has a question on their website which asks, "Do you want the tunnel built?". Thirty Six thousand (36,000) people said no. The tunnel would be four blocks long, with two blocks on either end used as ramps, for a total of eight blocks. Trucks using the ramp would cause an enormous amount of pollution. The counterargument is that with the ramp and tunnel, pollution from traffic would lessen, as the flow of traffic would improve. The Western ramp would completely cut off the North Battery Park community, with no pedestrian access to Lower Manhattan. This plan is in direct opposition to the Mayor's vision of a grand boulevard champlise, which R.Dot has supported. Beverly Willis mentioned that the Governor is completely pro-tunnel, despite pleas the community not to build the tunnel. Members at the meeting were curious as to what is driving the governors decision to support the tunnel, if the majority of the public seems to oppose it being built. Several responses to this question included; the tunnel would make for a more-aesthetically pleasing entry to the city; the tunnel would allow for easy flow of pedestrian traffic; the Govenor wants to see construction going on/ use of money; the Govenor wants to get support from corporate sponsors; the Downtown Alliance is in support of the tunnel. R.Dot participants expressed interest in finding out which businesses are against the building of the tunnel. The consensus was that R.Dot should oppose the West St. Tunnel. Who Will Manage the Memorial, Culture Center and Public Space at the WTC? Paul Vincente announced that he had planned to meet with Congressman Nadler the following week. The meeting was set to discuss control of the memorial, specifically the issue of the legislation to give control of the memorial to the National Parks Department. Vincente expressed interest in finding out if the Port Authority would be interested in relinquishing control over the memorial. Paul Vincente expressed belief that the Port Authority should not be in control of the memorial. He said that the building of the memorial is not a revenue raising proposition and so not necessarily within the needs of the Port Authority. The National Parks Department will not manage land that they do not own. In order for them to own the land on which the memorial will be built, there must be legislation passed, transferring the property to the National Parks Department. Yvonne Morrow suggested contacting Ruth Abrams to ask her how she got the LES Tenement Museum to be part of the National Park Service. There was no conclusion in this discussion because Paul Vincente and Roland Gebhardt had not yet met with Congressman Nadler. NYC Housing Standards - 20/80 and Green Architecture Susan Szenasy announced the R.Dot sponsored Neighborhoods and Housing Roundtable on Monday morning, November 10th at Goldman Sachs and Co., and passed around a copy of the program for the event. Beverly Willis explained that the event is part of R.Dot's participation with the Civic Alliance. She explained that the discussion of the Roundtable will focus on how to develop communities together with housing. There were no announcements.
The meeting adjourned at 10:05 am October 7, 2003 - Pace University Beverly Willis opened the meeting at 8:30 am. The minutes of the September 2nd's meeting's minutes were approved as written. New attendees were: Kimberly Flynn, Aisha Jenkins, Jo Polett, Joel Kupferman, Catherine McVeigh Hughes Beverly Willis Introduced David Woods, AICP, new director of the Architecture Research Institute and R.Dot. She gave a brief description of his distinguished professional background. Beverly Willis introduced main speaker, Dr. Robert Brackbill, Chief Investigator for The World Trade Center Health Registry. Dr. Brackbill was accompanied by another scientist from the Registry, Dr. Jim Cone.
The World Trade Center Health Registry is a project of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is funded though the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). It received its first funding in July 2002. The Health Registry is a database of people most exposed to the smoke, dust, debris, and airborne substances created by the WTC disaster. People included in this category are people who were south of Chambers Street on 9/11/01, residents south of Canal Street, school children and staff and workers in the rescue, recovery, and cleanup. The goal of the registry is to measure short and long term health and mental effects of exposures from the day of he WTC disaster; ensuing dust and airborne substances. The interview/ data collection contractor is RTI International.
While the presentation was warmly received, there were several members who expressed dissatisfaction with the scope and methodology by which the World Trade Center Health Registry is conducted. R.Dot participants wanted to know exactly what data the WTC Health Registry was collecting, what they are doing with it, how it would later be distributed to the public and how it might be combined with other studies. It was perceived that the WTC Health Registry was created, using federal money, to respond to requests made by 9/11 survivors and those exposed to the air after the WTC attacks. The public has requested was that a public study of the health effects related to 9/11 be done, as many residents and workers fear exposure to the plume from the attacks could damage their health. R.Dot participants felt the Registry should broaden its boundaries to include more people in their research. Participants expressed a belief that it is imperative that the study encompasses the broadest possible range without excluding key neighborhoods and crucial study areas. Some commented that because the WTC Health Registry is only surveying people exposed to the air, and within a limited study area, there are a critical number of people being left out of the Registry, as the Registry guidelines considers them unqualified to participate. "Who will Manage the Memorial?" Roland Gebhardt and Paul Vincente identified two potential issues: 1) memorial: the memorial is on land privately owned by the Port Authority. The memorial- a National Monument- should not be under the control of a private entity. R.Dot would like to examine the validity of the Port Authority's stewardship over the memorial. 2) The Port Authority is not required to report their plans to the public or even the city. Roland Gebhardt, Paul Vincente and David Woods will meet with the New York Civil Liberty Union (NYCLU) on these matters. The NYCLU has agreed to review R.Dot's concerns.
"WTC Building 7"
Beverly Willis gave a brief power-point presentation on recent decisions made for WTC Building 7. She expressed concern decisions were made without public input and no opportunity for civic groups to participate. Greenwich Street is now closed in front of WTC Building 7. It will be open only to black cars and taxis. There will be a guard at the entrance to the closed street and retractable bollards to prevent through traffic. Greenwich St. traffic will be rerouted at Build 7 to West Broadway. This recent turn of events directly contradicts two years of planning by the LMDC and civic groups. The WTC site plan was based on Greenwich Street connecting upper and lower Greenwich areas. R.Dot will seek answers and report back to its membership. "Speed up Construction of WTC" Beverly Willis proposed that R.Dot support speeding up the reconstruction process for the WTC site, allowing the market to decide the future of the buildings. There was a unanimous agreement at the meeting.
Announcements:
Yvonne Morrow announced two meetings for Thursday, October 9th. One was a meeting regarding the PATH permanent terminal to be held at the Custom House from 2-5 pm and from 6-9pm.; the second was a CB1 WTC Redevelopment Committee to be held in the Assembly Hearing Room at 250 Broadway.
September 2, 2003 - Pace University Beverly Willis opened the meeting at 8:30 am. July 1st (last meeting) meeting's minutes were approved as written. Beverly Willis introduced the main speaker, Roland Gebhardt, and his talk "Citizen Participation in the Planning Process". This is a summary of the presentation Roland gave at the Halle-Neustadt event, Halle, Germany, July 2003. The event's theme was planning and the public process. The presentation was based on a group of PPT slides of Roland's illustrations for R.Dot's five papers: The White Paper- Rebuilding Lower Manhattan and the World Trade Center; Position Papers, Retail- Strategies for Revitalizing Lower Manhattan; Revitalizing Lower Manhattan Through Arts and Culture; Youth Council- Building for Future Generations; Managed Streets- Street Life is Crucial to the Revitalization of Lower Manhattan. R.Dot is currently working on a position paper on Green Architecture and on Neighborhoods and Housing. He commented briefly on each illustration. As an introduction, he said: The people that would eventually form Rebuild Downtown Our Town (R.Dot) met for the first time on October 4, 2001, three weeks after the attack on the World Trade Center. They responded to an email request sent by Beverly Willis, FAIA, President, Architecture Research Institute, Inc. and Susan Szenasy, Editor in Chief, Metropolis Magazine, to attend a brainstorming session. The question was - how could we help to rebuild Lower Manhattan and the WTC site? Roland Gebhardt explained that his personal motivation and commitment stemmed from the desire to contribute to the recovery of Lower Manhattan, and an emotional need to compensate for the loss experienced on 9/11. He said that the traumatic events of 9/11 motivated people in and around New York, and all over the world. While city, state, and federal offices were overwhelmed dealing with the 9/11 emergencies, civic groups, like R.Dot, formed around the local, national and international needs of the community. R.Dot grew into a coalition of citizens deeply involved in the Lower Manhattan community who have donated their time, talent and design skills to provide renewal strategy options for consideration by state and local reconstruction agencies. As owners, occupiers or managers of retail, commercial, residential and institutional space and as members of the major community organizations in the zone impacted by the destruction of the World Trade Center towers, these individuals have a unique understanding of what makes Lower Manhattan a vital place. Roland Gebhardt said that R.Dot's goal is to work toward a comprehensive plan and rebuilding process for all of Lower Manhattan. It is R.Dot's belief that this process should be public, transparent and democratic and that all planning and design should be people-oriented. R.Dot's stresses that one must look at a city as a composite of individuals, all-contributing to its culture, in order to plan for it comprehensively. Its vision is to advocate building a 24-hour residential and business community that encourages a thriving culture of intellectual, entrepreneurial, creative and technological pursuits. R.Dot encourages diversity and small enterprises that help drive innovation, the economic engine of New York. It supports the creation a sensitive, innovative, and appropriate memorial in honor of those who died on 9/11 and in honor of those who survived. R.Dot holds monthly meetings for its members and for the public. R.Dot's meetings are structured to support the idea of civic involvement and to contribute its design talent to promote solutions for Lower Manhattan based on grass-roots observations, insights and ideas. For each meeting, R.Dot invites speakers with pertinent knowledge and expertise including futurists, academics from diverse fields such environment, language, culture, behavior, economics, law, architecture and other disciplines. R.Dot's meetings contribute to its mission through open discussions and the exchange of ideas. The general focus is to ensure that Lower Manhattan and the World Trade Center site are redeveloped as a whole, creating economic, social and cultural opportunities for all the communities of Lower Manhattan. R.Dot's "Rebuilding Guiding Principles" include self-determination and inclusion, livability and balance, arts and culture, productivity, decentralization, sustainability, diversity, efficient transportation and pride of place. R.Dot disseminates its ideas and recommendations through various channels: website, position papers, public advocacy, advisory to local community boards, City Council Representatives, Mayor's Office, Department of Transportation (DOT), Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC), and the press. R.Dot works collaboratively with other organizations, such as Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development (PICCED), New York New Visions, and the American Planning Association (APA). R.Dot is a founding member of The Civic Alliance. These relationships are important channels for learning, disseminating information and establishing a strong coalition that can catch the attention of city and state officials. On completion of Roland's presentation, Beverly Willis said that Roland's review of the past was a good introduction to the 2003-2004 year. R.Dot has joined its Civic Alliance partners to develop and implement an advocacy program titled, Beyond 16 Acres. Beyond 16 Acres is a cohesive program of events in support of the rebuilding process. The program's goals include advocating innovative planning and revitalization processes throughout Lower Manhattan by drawing public attention to current issues. The program also intends to build political commitment to urgent needs of the revitalization process. Beyond 16 Acres also aims to partner with public agencies to change and improve traditional methods of public participation to incorporate the voices of various stakeholders and citizens of the city who are traditionally excluded from the planning process. The program will follow three methods to realize its goals. These methods will allow comprehensive participation and cohesive discussion on urgent matters, as each participating organization chooses. Public panels will be sponsored by various organizations of the Civic Alliance. These panels will focus on specific issues such as housing, design, and transportation and will have a target audience of about 350 people. The panels will give the public an opportunity to discover some current research on the rebuilding process. The panels will also allow the opportunity for feedback from the public, thus enabling a better understanding of the needs of the people who are stakeholders of Lower Manhattan. Professional Roundtables is a second method created and scheduled by each participating organization of Beyond 16 Acres. These roundtables will bring together public agency representatives and leading experts in their fields to encourage innovative solutions for planning proposals in Lower Manhattan. The third strategy is to lead advocacy for a fair and transparent decision-making process, public accountability and adherence to equity during the implementation phase. A written document will be developed for both pre-program and post-program for each event. R.Dot is also responsible for the complete organization and development for each event it leads. A copy of the details of these ideas was distributed. ARI/R.Dot will be the lead coordinator for two public panel discussions one on "Retail, Culture and Events" and one on "Planning and Design". ARI/R.Dot will collaborate with PICCED on a roundtable for "Housing and Neighborhoods" and on a public panel on "Housing and Neighborhoods". ARI/R.Dot will also participate with the Regional Plan Association on two roundtables, one on "Street Management" and one on "Security and the Public Realm." The Civic Alliance has been working with The Rockefeller Brother Fund and Surdna on funding for these events. These foundations had asked the civic groups to join forces and propose a grant together. A group discussion of this program followed. Beverly Willis introduced the idea of a dinner event/ fundraiser. Linda Silverman agreed to chair the event. Linda Silverman asked about the idea of honoring the Mayor for his initiatives on housing. Linda Silverman said that it would be an opportunity for R.Dot to expand its outreach, as it would bring in many guests, and it may be an opportune time for the Mayor. A discussion followed about the tunnel from Liberty Street to Vesey Street on West Street. There were two views. One was that the tunnel would allow easier access to/from Battery Park City. The other was that the two block long ramps on either side of Liberty and Vesey would force pedestrians going north or south of the WTC site to walk an additional distance and would reduce street crossings. Yvonne Morrow referred to Assemblyman, Sheldon Silver's comments regarding the alternatives for the reconstruction of Route 9A between Chambers Street and Battery Place, as proposed by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and presented at a Public Information Meeting on June 24, 2003. Assemblyman Silver commented, "...The Short Bypass Alternative between Vesey Street and Liberty Street is very costly and the impacts of construction would be enormous. Mainly due to the need to relocate underground infrastructure, the cost, including the Promenade, would be $1 billion, which would be a major portion of the $4.5 billion federal money earmarked for Lower Manhattan transportation projects. It would take up to five years to design and construct, clearly, making it particularly unbearable for residents living adjacent to the project. In addition, this alternative would include two lanes northbound and two lanes southbound on the surface of the 4-block tunnel, creating more roadways for pedestrians to cross."
Announcements: The next R.Dot Meetings are October 7, 2003 and November 4, 2003 The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 am.
July 1, 2003 - Pace University Beverly Willis opened the meeting at 8:30 am. June 3rd meeting's minutes were approved as written. Beverly Willis introduced main speaker, Robert Weber, Asian Americans for Equality to speak on the "Rebuild Chinatown Initiative" Robert Weber introduced himself and Jennifer Sun as representatives of the Rebuild Chinatown Initiative and Asian Americans for Equality. Chinatown is a working-class community with 56 thousand Asian residents and 4000 Asian owned businesses. There are many views with regard to Chinatown's geographical boundaries. There are parts of Chinatown that are distinctly Asian, and there are parts that are Asian influenced. One third of the families in Chinatown live below the poverty level. It is an entrepreneurial community with small family owned businesses, which gives the area character. It is difficult for these families to get loans and to expand their businesses, as they do not have the credit records needed to apply for loans. The people of Chinatown tend to save their money in cash, and not use credit. There is a clear distinction between their community who is debt-free and our society that lives on debt. The demographics of Chinatown indicate that eight of ten residents were foreign born and 70 percent have not completed high school. Six out of ten speak little or no English. Local merchants have difficulty receiving grants as they do not qualify for many of the government sponsored business loan and grants programs. Chinatown had applied to become an Empire Zone, but did not receive approval from the State. As an Empire Zone, local businesses could receive various tax and credit benefits and is therefore an incentive to put businesses on the books and go from an informal economy to a cash economy. In the weeks following 9/11, half of the workforce in Chinatown was displaced and the neighborhood lost about 150 garment factories. The garment industry lost $500 million in production. Over 1,000 parking spots were lost, which exacerbated a long-standing shortage of available parking for shoppers and tourists. In addition to these hardships, residents had to deal with mental health issues brought on by the September 11 disaster. Mental health issues were not addressed within the community as it is not part of the Asian culture to openly discuss this topic. AAFE had helped over 1000 people deal with mental anguish, from the 9/11 attacks, within four months. Robert Weber and Jennifer Sun are both prominent figures within the Rebuild Chinatown Initiative. Their efforts are to empower the Chinatown community and to boost its economy, as a response to the 9/11 attacks. The Rebuild Chinatown Initiative is a comprehensive community planning effort that addresses all issues confronting the neighborhood. They studied past community plans for Chinatown and concluded that none of them were successful because there was no effort to include the community in the planning process. The Rebuild Chinatown Initiative formed a steering committee with about 25 other organizations to help direct their efforts. Partnerships are critical to this initiative as is the support and involvement of the community. One of the Initiative's goals is to make Chinatown an Empire Zone. The Lower Manhattan Affordable Housing Trust Fund has awarded the Initiative a $1.5 million grant to look at preserving housing in Chinatown as well as in the Lower East Side. The Initiative is putting together a committee and intends on raising $15 million by the end of the year. The money secured will be put towards preservation and bringing apartments up to code. Other initiatives include, implementing more regular street clean ups, the development of a civic-education community and to make Chinatown better navigable both on foot and by vehicle. The Rebuild Chinatown Initiative has devised eight objectives to help bring them to their goal. These objectives are to be used for problem solving and can be best accomplished through the support of the community. They are:1) improve parking and transit 2) stabilize core businesses 3) identify new business opportunities 4) improve streets and enhance public space 5) upgrade varied business districts 6) build on the traditions of the Chinese-American traditions 7) promote and preserve affordable housing 8) transform Chinatown into a neighborhood of choice. Looking toward the future, the Rebuild Chinatown Initiative's housing vision encompasses all of Lower Manhattan. Place-making is a goal for the Chinatown community as they hope to transform the area into a place of choice where shoppers, residents and businesses choose to linger and spend time. They hope to turn Allen St. into "Avenue of the Immigrants" and make it a more desirable place to visit. In conjunction with these aspirations, increasing parking and coordinating commuter vans and inner-city buses with community needs will make the neighborhood more usable. The Rebuild Chinatown Initiative wants to increase civic participation in planning and decision- making. Anne Johnson asked what was happening with the immigrant quota, to which Jennifer Sun replied that the quota would be lifted by 2005. Anne Johnson asked whether AAFE or the Rebuild Chinatown Initiative had researched the relocation of the many businesses that have left Chinatown since September 11. Robert Weber replied that they have tried to track down those businesses, however it is difficult as many of them may have started over, with new business names. Anne Johnson comments on the unfairness of closing down the knock-off designer bag shops and the fact that the police spend too much time on the matter. She stated that those businesses are critical elements for Chinatown's economy. Robert Weber stated that he could bring the matter up with the police. Gregory Heller commented on the emphasis placed on parking, by the Rebuild Chinatown Initiative. He stated that perhaps parking is not the answer to revitalizing Chinatown and that too much blame has been misplaced on the lack of parking. Gregory Heller stated that his experiences leave him with the impression that parking deters folks from visiting Chinatown as it congests the area. Gregory Heller said that mass-transit and bus line improvements would be much more beneficial to improving the neighborhood's economy. Robert Weber agreed with Gregory Heller but said that a large number of merchants have complained that customers choose to go to Flushing, Queens to shop because they can park there. He said the Rebuild Chinatown Initiative is looking into remote parking. Bruce Rosen asked if anyone had looked into securing funds from the Community Reinvestment Act. Robert Weber replied that they have not researched that resource. Robert Weber handed out several land use maps. Beverly Willis introduced Adam Slocum with the National Sports Museum. Adam Slocum had come to the meeting to solicit support for a new museum for Lower Manhattan. The National Sports Museum would hope to attract tourists and city residents to the Lower Manhattan area. Initially, the National Sports Museum intended to have non-profit status, however it has been decided that the museum will operate as a for-profit organization but will give 3% of proceeds to charity. Beverly Willis asked attendees if R.Dot wished to support the National Sports Museum. Attendees agreed that R.Dot should support the National Sports Museum contingent on the fact that the museum would be affordable for all residents and visitors. Gregory Heller spoke about the progress of R.Dot's Block Presentation project. He commented that the presentations should be given as half-day or weekend workshops. Beverly Willis commented on R.Dot's Hosing Position Paper currently in progress. She described the paper as a mechanism to put a face on all people of Lower Manhattan and citywide. Beverly Willis mentioned that the position paper references the Mayor's proposal for housing and how he intends to use Liberty Bonds, which are not required to accommodate lower-income housing. Bruce Rosen commented that is bad practice to use public bonds for private housing. The Housing position paper hopes to address this issue. There is no August meeting. The next meeting is set for September 2 The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 a.m.
June 03, 2003 - Pace University Susan Szenasy opened the meeting at 8:35 AM Meeting began with a welcome and introduction by Susan Szenasy. Three new members introduced themselves, 1) Jessica Pozzuoli, urban planner, working for the Architecture Research Institute and R.Dot. 2) Eileen Harvard, architect and a student at the New School for Social Research. 3) Cindy Quan, design student at Cornell University, is part of their Urban Scholars Program this summer interning with R.Dot. There were no corrections to the minutes from May's meeting. Speaker, David Dyssegaard Kallick was introduced by Susan Szenasy. David is the coordinator for the Labor Advocacy Network to Rebuild New York (LCAN) and is senior fellow at the Fiscal Policy Institute. The topic of discussion was "Social Justice in Rebuilding New York". After September 11th, the Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI), together with the Central Labor Council (CLC), began to focus on economic development for NYC along with a serious consideration for the history of the city. This consideration stemmed from a number of groups who worked with this network (FPI and CLC) that were opposed to large-scale development. Together with over 50 local unions, advocacy and research groups, service providers and community organizations they formed the Labor Community Advocacy Network (LCAN) to address major issues including jobs, housing, environmental justice and multi-centered development. The purpose was to create a statement on rebuilding New York for all New Yorkers. The following topics were discussed by David Kallick:
Housing
Environmental Justice
Multi-Centered Development.
LCAN 3-Part proposal.
1) Liberty Jobs.
2) Make Rebuilding a "High Road" Process.
3) Establish Sector Groups.
Resolution: R.Dot Affiliation with Architecture Research Institute, Inc.
Halle Event- Dresden, Germany
Housing and Neighborhood Position Paper R.Dot is conducting a housing survey for this position paper. The survey is a questionnaire being conducted as a phone interview which is approximately 10-15 minutes in length. The interview questions are subjective and are qualitative. Roland announced that R.Dot still needed volunteers to be interviewed in each of the six study areas. It was also stated that R.Dot also needed additional volunteers to conduct the interviews.
Commendation to Pace University
Announcements The next R.Dot meeting is July 1, 2003. There is no August meeting. The September meeting date is September 2, 2003. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 am.
April 22, 2003 - Pace University Susan Szenasy opened the meeting at 8:30 am. New participants included Peter Frankel. The meeting began with corrections to last meeting's minutes. Yvonne Morrow said that a statement attributed to her at the last meeting actually was said by Anne Johnson. She had already emailed her corrections to Beverly Willis, and the minutes were duly changed. Gail Suchman, Senior Environmental Counsel, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLFPI), a non-profit public interest law firm presented, "Utilizing Environmental Review Processes to Assure Green Design & Energy Efficiency." NYLFPI represents low income communities and communities of color, with respect to access to healthcare, education and environmental justice. Gail is a member of the Environmental Justice and Community Development (EJCD) project, which has been asked to become a part of the planning process in Lower Manhattan. She said EJCD has acquired an expertise in community participation and environmental review procedures, and understands the citywide implications of Lower Manhattan redevelopment. EJCD is trying to convince government agencies to see development projects holistically during the environmental review process, to pay attention to how they affect community, health, energy requirements, quality of life, natural resource depletion, and affect other communities. With respect to Lower Manhattan, impacts could be global. We need to look at local, regional, national contexts and impacts. The environmental review statutes are fairly limited in implementation and interpretation. They include SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act of New York State) and CEQR (City Environmental Quality Review of New York City), counterpart to SEQRA and a little more stringent with respect to procedures. Court decisions have limited the scope of analysis to in-state impacts. In Lower Manhattan, the redevelopment is considered a federal act, which will trigger NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act, a federal environmental review law). This will overcome border problems. Statutes are limited because of the courts' interpretation of the agencies' role. Agencies have much discretion in the process. Once challenged, courts only look for an abuse of discretionthis is a high standard to be overcome by plaintiff. Courts give tremendous deference to agencies. Studies show: 30% chance to overturn an agency's decision that there is no impact and no EIS need be conducted; 5% chance to overturn an EIS approved by an agency. But, in the South Bronx they were successful in overturning an agency's decision against an EIS. Also, the NY Power Authority was also ordered by courts to conduct an EIS. Courts are not the best way to affect decisions. Being involved in the front end, via organization and pressure, are preferable. In SEQRA, the scoping process is the next step in the process. Everyone should be involved at this point. The scoping process determines what the agencies need to study. Public hearings can identify alternatives to study as well as mitigation alternatives. Alternative analysis can be very broad, but it is typically misinterpreted by agencies. It can encompass new technology and methods as well as implementation (e.g., the possibility of a wind farm substituting for a nuclear power plant; changing the way a product is made; increasing energy efficiency.) Early after 9/11 there was a movement to limit environmental review in the redevelopment and public involvementthere was a sense that redevelopment needed to happen right away. Gail believes that 9/11 was used as an excuse to bypass the public process. She said that robust community participation, coordination among all agencies involved, and commitment by the court system to expedite any litigation is needed. She wondered if robust community participation has been squandered. It was utilized well for visioning the redesign of the site, but not yet for environmental issues. She questions in the future if the public will be uninvolved, or will it inform the environmental review process. At a seminar 60 days after 9/11 concerning the environmental review process, all agencies were asked to set out very clearly the procedures for the environmental review process. The LMDC has been designated as lead agency, but there still seems to be a good deal of confusion among each agency as to their role. NYLFPI recommended a comprehensive review that included transportation and infrastructure. The MTA decided to go ahead with a transportation hub (scoping to be held on May 29), and the Port Authority is going ahead with rebuilding the PATH station (they actually claimed after 9/11 that they were not subject to NJ, NYC, NYS or federal law.) LMDC was supposed to outline procedures for environmental review six months ago, but this has been delayed. Ron Shiffman mentioned that he had been meeting with leaders of the Mitchell Lama housing developments to find a way to get money to preserve affordable housing. 5,000 units are in jeopardy below 14th Street. He said that in the environmental review process, any development that affects animal life would need to be measured. When low/moderate families are displaced, no study need be done. He proposes an impact study done for every unit of affordable housing lost. Ron Shiffman also asked if the use of Liberty Bonds for luxury development as opposed to helping the average person was grounds for litigation. Gail said the goals of the Liberty Bonds are broad, and she would argue that luxury developments are against the spirit of those goals. But the governor and mayor have full discretion by law. She said that the power plant could be fought because it does not fall within the category of residential/ commercial uses as specified in the statute. She cautioned that litigation would be tough, and suggested that a media campaign which exposes the uses of Liberty Bonds for the wealthy could create political pressure. Gail was asked why the Port Authority needed to conduct a study if they were just rebuilding what was once there. She said they will probably call it a Type II action (replacement in kind). If they are replacing it in kind, they may not need to study it. But, she said, now is the time to investigate whether replacing it in kind is the right thing to do. Bruce Rosen said that there were many changes occurring in the redevelopment of PATH with state of the art improvements. There were also talks with MTA regarding Lexington Ave. services. Beverly Willis said the LMDC website shows that two alternatives for the WTC design exist. Option 1 is rendered on the site, showing a tunnel under West Street. The other option is not shown. This tunnel has never been discussed and conflicts with the mayor's plan. Can R.Dot take these two options and present pros and cons for this design? Gail mentioned that Libeskind's design is not the final version, and many changes are being made to it by LMDC. Jen Hensley said that Libeskind was there to create a set of guidelines by which some part of his plan would be implemented. It is unclear as to how this process will play out. Ron Shiffman asked what the guidelines were for, what there purpose was. Jen mentioned that they were land use guidelines, nothing more. Yvonne Morrow said that Libeskind's design was a land-use decision, not a true design concept. Also, NYSDOT is involved with West Street. She suggested contacting them with concerns about the future development of West Street. Beverly Willis asked if anyone was interested in forming an environmental advocacy committee to stay in touch with Gail to formulate a strategy to put in place when appropriate. Ron Shiffman mentioned that the Civic Alliance had formed a committee regarding these issues along with LCAN. He suggested that R.Dot align with this group and stay in touch with Gail. The second item on the agenda was a discussion by Gregory Heller regarding outreach by R.Dot to the broader community. As a member of CB3, he advocates specific outreach to Chinatown and the Lower East Side to stimulate involvement in the discussions of WTC redevelopment. Chinatown falls into the catchment area of redevelopment and has serious economic development issues and challenges right now. We need to reach out to organizations in that community, which have not been involved thus far. He said that all the time and energy spent on the design visioning process of the WTC site may have been a charade to distract people from the next process. Groups that need to be contacted include tenant councils, resident groups, merchants associations, and property owner groups. He will try to get lists of organizations from CB3 and CB1 and contact the groups to solicit an invitation to one of their meetings. R.Dot can then explain their work and give an overview of plans they have developed. This can help broaden the constituency. It can affect the EIS hearings as well if enough people are mobilized. He would like to send out 20 to 30 letters to different target groups, and try to present five to ten times by the end of the year. He mentioned the possibility of a forum with a number of groups together. Gregory asked people to think about their availability in the coming months to join a small presentation team for outreach to organizations. Beverly mentioned that Valerie Boom was working closely with Gregory on this project. Ron Shiffman said that this outreach is very important. He said there are already groups in the area that can be contacted to connect with the members of the community. He also said that Chris Kui Executive Director of AAFE (Asian American for Equality) was in his first session as member of the City Planning Commission, which is a great tribute to AAFE, and places a friend of R.Dot on the commission. He said that AAFE is one of a number of strong and important voices in Chinatown. When asked if the community boards were helping at all, Gregory Heller said they are trying but with budget cuts and many others issues, including liquor licenses, fighting luxury developments and trying to save community gardens, it is very difficult. The third item on the agenda was the R.Dot press release regarding Alex Garvin's resignation. Beverly said she emailed the press release to the R.Dot list as well as to the press earlier in the week. She said several public officials had commented favorably to the press release. Roland Gebhardt said that Alan Gerson responded positively to the release and said that the resignation was a real concern to him. Beverly said that, in a way, Alex Garvin was an ideal person for the job, he was open and knowledgeable. She asked if anyone knew of a candidate for the position that R.Dot could support. Yvonne Morrow said that he was a good ally, supporting the preservation of 114 Liberty and 125 Cedar. She said his resignation was very upsetting. Ron said that this resignation signals a schism between the LMDC and NYC. The fourth item on the agenda was a report by Roland Gebhardt on the Housing Committee's work. Roland had passed out an outline of the position paper on housing being worked on by the committee, and asked the members to add or comment on the outline. Roland said the outline is only a draft at this point. He said that the paper is scheduled to be finished by the end of June. Beverly said the discourse is being shifted to the housing-neighborhood connection. NYC is made up of neighborhoods which tend to be self-sustaining, with services, open space, etc. She said mixed income should be a goal of neighborhoods and can be addressed in the neighborhood housing concept. The mayor's plan calls for housing in specific locations, funded by Liberty Bonds. These locations are to be studied for the housing paper. Someone asked whether mixed zoning was included in the research for the paper. Roland said it was certainly being considered. In order to create sustainable communities, a diversity of income levels and ethnic groups must come together. The committee plans to study successful neighborhoods to inform their recommendations. He said that stratification poses a challenge to be resolved in Lower Manhattan. Ron said that in research for the Housing paper, studying cities nationally and abroad, a fine-tuned zoning can be implemented that allows mixed uses that protect both manufacturing and allow for residential development. He said that lifestyles have changed significantly, where not only artists and artisans live and work in same environment, but also others as well, i.e. technology employees. New zoning techniques can achieve finer tuned mixed uses in sensitive areas. The last item on the agenda concerned scheduling the next R.Dot meeting. They will be once a month, on the first Tuesday of each month. The next meeting was set for June 3. There will be no meeting in August. The next meetings are set for June 3 and July 1, and no meeting is scheduled in August.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 a.m. March 11, 2003 - Pace University Beverly Willis opened the meeting at 8:30 am. New participants included Douglas Willinger, Stefan Umaerus, Gregory Heller, Greg Smithsimon, Terri Hanlon. The meeting began with corrections to minutes. Yvonne Morrow read a statement, referencing pg.5 of the R.Dot meeting minutes from January 28, 2003 regarding the Retail and Arts & Culture papers. She read that she asked that the discussion of the two issues be tabled until CB#3 had the opportunity to read, discuss and comment on them. She said R.Dot should involve CB#3 in discussions. Hillary Brown, AIA, Principal, New Civic Works, an organization that works with government agencies, universities and other institutions to integrate high performance practices into the design and building of new projects, presented "Rebuilding Green: The Power of Public Ideas: An Overview of High Performance Building Opportunities." Hillary founded the Office of Sustainable Development in New York City, which created the High Performance Building Guidelines of New York City. This manual is a useful tool for guiding the design and construction of public developments, and its strategies and information can be applicable to private development as well. She proposed that high performance buildings in Lower Manhattan should be guided by a vision of sustainability that would consider energy, building materials, health and safety. The principles of this vision include: place-based thinking (local environment and conditions); the simulation and replacing of natural systems (using vegetation in a swale to collect/filter rain water); ecological accounting as a problem for designers; connecting to nature (natural light, indoor gardens, and fresh air); and a community and participatory approach to sustainability, with an emphasis on interdisciplinary problem solving strategies. The best-practice approach of this vision includes: sustainable sites; energy efficiency; indoor environmental improvement; materials and resources; and water management. These are the common terms of designers and laid out by the US Green Building Council. The Council has adopted a point system to measure success of a green development. Good examples of design include: sending storm-water to an aquifer or groundwater, rather than diverting it to water treatment systems; reduction of urban heat islands with more trees and lighter colored roads and sidewalks; reducing light pollution; and use of waste water technology. Energy performance can be increased easily as a part of today's practice through considerations such as: building envelope and sun aspect; lighting that focuses on task; passive heating and cooling; and building orientation. She proposes seeing a building as a collection of systems that can be synergistically improved, e.g. reducing the need for electric lighting eliminates a source of waste heat in building. She said a change in building materials can be cost neutral. They should be bought locally (within a 500 mile radius) to save energy used in transportation. Materials should contain recycled content. Wood should be bought from sustainably managed forests, and toxic out-gassing from sealants and paints should be eliminated entirely. She said environmental comfort, such as daylight views and high indoor air quality, enhances the well-being of occupants. She argues that a green approach to the development of Lower Manhattan is important for many reasons. It is a great opportunity to demonstrate our role of stewardship. It can also act as a signal for the future of energy use and natural resource utilization in this country. Signs of hope for increased sustainable development include: a supporting infrastructure of high performance building guidelines; numerous pilot programs across the country; tax credits for green developers; Executive Order 111, and increased support from elected officials; the popularization of the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System, which is being adopted by many governments and universities, and slowly in the private sector as well. Good examples of green design in New York are the Audubon building and Four Times Square. She pointed out direct costs (which she called a key "perceived" barrier). She said many high performance features can be integrated into projects that are cost neutral and have very low initial cost increases. The savings in operating costs are significant. Indirect benefits include overall improvements in occupant health, and savings in health care. She said a green building is a social investment in the community. She spoke about the life cycle costs of developments. In general, owners should look at life cycle costs to evaluate the opportunity for overall savings in the cost of a building. Productivity increases in green buildings create more profits for businesses. She concluded by saying a shift in cultural attitude towards green technology and energy use, and the involvement of the entire community is needed. Yvonne Morrow mentioned she was impressed with the use of recycled glass to make tile, and Hillary said that many manufacturers are responding positively to recycled content for building materials. Roland asked about the end user's role in the process and what effect he/she can have, and Hillary responded that end users are the market and should be knowledgeable of the possibilities and demand healthy products. She also said that end-users should be educated, take an active role in saving energy and living sustainably, and that they should feel like they deserve these things. Ron Shiffman raised the problem of the disconnect that exists wherein savings accrue to the renter and not the developer. It is the developer that must be coaxed into building with a green design. He asked if this had been addressed. Hillary responded that this is still a major problem that is being addressed, but that many subsidies do exist for the developer, including low interest financing and the New York Green Building Tax Benefit, which she said the New York State legislature should enhance. Ted Liebman mentioned that energy efficient buildings could be a selling point for developers, which can translate into higher rents. David Hupert said it was key that the economic considerations be laid out clearly for specific buildings in specific areas. Hillary responded that the initiative to accomplish this is under way, but it requires time and money. Gregory Heller asked about the incentives of owners to retrofit old buildings. Since NYC is mostly built up already, this is critical to the sustainable movement here. Hillary answered that programs exist that make it possible, such as the New York State Energy Research Development Authority's programs that provide technical and financial support, but the community is not taking advantage of it. Stefan Umaerus asked what we could learn from Europe, and Hillary mentioned that energy costs in Europe are higher so there has been a financial incentive to save energy. Beverly Willis said that a fundamental difference between the US and Europe is that Europe mandates energy efficient design, and the US approach makes energy design optional. Hillary said that regulation is required in the US for this movement to truly prosper. Charles Boxenbaum stressed the importance of the relationship between the user and the built environment, and that economics, though important, was not the only issue. He said interesting and exciting design quality was key, and that universities teaching design play a vital role in the movement. The next item on the agenda was the WTC development proposal. Maps that showed development designs of the WTC site were passed around. The first map showed the designs of the two finalists for the site chosen by the LMDC: the design of 'Studio Daniel Libeskind,' which R.Dot had endorsed, and the 'Think' team's design. The second map showed one version of the winning design as exhibited by the LMDC. Beverly said that the plans for the site had changed dramatically in the two and a half weeks with no public input. She said the original Libeskind design included: 7.6 million square feet of officespace; a West Street at grade level; and preserved Twin Tower footprints. The two new Libeskind designs - Option 1 and Option 2 - as presented by LMDC(after 2 1/2 weeks of redrawing) increased the amount of office space. The first option increased the total office space from 7.6 million to 10.05 million square feet, with 8.38 million square feet on-site, and 1.67 million square feet off-site. The second option created 10 million square feet of office space, all on-site. Both options created a West Street tunnel between Liberty and Vesey streets, and included a plan for a bus garage under the memorial site. The footprints of the Twin Towers were not completely preserved. Roland Gebhardt added that the depth of the bathtub changed. The LMDC website said that the next opportunity for public input would be at the EIS heari |