NADEAU 1

James Nadeau

Professor Mian

HI 2053 Intro to Urban Policy

12 Oct 2010

Mistakes Were Made by Beauregard

In “Mistakes Were Made: Rebuilding the World Trade Center, Phase 1” Robt.

A. Beauregard argues convincingly that public planning has become

marginalized in the U.S., primarily because “the state defers to capital” (146).

He makes a very good point that “In the USA, public planning exists under the

auspices of a weak state inclined to support the interests of businesses and

large investors and, depending on the policy issue, unable to impose public

values on the base prerogatives--what to invest, where to invest--of

capital” (146). To this point Beauregard provides some background which can

best be summarized as: Property interests and profit motive are primary in

development. When planners are involved they work toward specific economic

interests representing narrow constituencies in their locale, regardless any

greater public interest there may be in a project,

I agree whole-heartedly with Beauregard’s contention that “The public

interest has always been a nagging weakness of public planning in the

USA” (148). But I disagree with his application of this observation in his

contention about the World Trade Center (WTC) site rebuilding--that “Phase 1

was clearly flawed. It is difficult to say how, and what actually went wrong is

open to debate” (145). He elaborates by describing the process failing because

it did not address the public interest. I’d make a different argument entirely:

Phase 1 was a project conceived to advance the property interests of the

owners and lessors of record and it produced six viable plans that substantially
 NADEAU 2

provided what those parties required. I don’t believe the public interest played

any role in the initial efforts by NY Governor George Pataki’s ESDC and its

agent the LMDC. They did good work for their constituents: the Port Authority

of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority), Silverstein Properties, and less

directly, Westfield America.

If Beauregard is arguing that the public interest ought to have been a

component, even a major shaping force, in the redevelopment of the World

Trade Center site then he is ignoring the facts as they existed in the period

shortly after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. The United States

government failed to claim the WTC site by eminent domain, essentially

refusing to act directly in the public interest. Considering the enormity of the

response and recovery task ahead at the time, it is surprising the government

chose to act as it did, without regard for rebuilding the site. The President

committed and Congress authorized direct assistance totaling nearly $20

Billion. FEMA, DOT and HUD rapidly allocated their portions of those funds

having a hand in almost every facet of life in the WTC neighborhood (GAO). But

by leaving the site in the property-rights domain of the Port Authority, the

Federal Government implicitly denied any public interest and claim to it. I have

no inside information on the rationale used by Federal government actors not

to take possession of the site, if ever the discussion took place.

Despite Beauregard’s expectations in this regard, I do find his recounting of

the actions of the interested parties (let’s not say “stakeholders”) through the

second attempt at Phase 1 clearly shows “a robust public planning was still

absent from the process” (151) and New York and the nation will end up with

an ill-conceived commercial district wrapped around a paltry memorial.

 NADEAU 3

Works Cited

Beauregard, Robert A. “Mistakes Were Made: Rebuilding the World Trade

Center, Phase 1.” International Planning Studies. 9.2-3 (2004): 139-153. Print.

United States. GAO. “September 11: Overview of Federal Disaster Assistance

to the New York City Area.” Report to Congressional Requesters. 2003. Web.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-72

Questions

Thinking back to Winter-Spring of 2002, around the time the debris was all

cleared away from the WTC site. To revisit: The last Dept. of Sanitation barge

had made its journey across the upper harbor from the Hudson riverbank near

the playground pier at West and Chambers Streets to the FBI/NYPD sorting

fields at Fresh Kills on Staten Island. A few months have passed since smoke

and steam billowed from the pit. Downtown neighborhood streets and

sidewalks have seen enough snow and cold rain to wash away the last of the

ashes. The acrid stench of burning metal is now just a memory.

Place yourselves at that time in early 2002, to answer these questions:

1. Do you believe the American public deserve to have a voice and a hand

in the future of the World Trade Center site? Why?

2. Are property rights so paramount and contract law so essential that the

Port Authority NY/NJ (the landowner), Silverstein Properties (the buildings

owner), and Westfield America (leaseholder to nearly ½ million sq. ft. of WTC),

can not be told to take their insurance monies and a fair-market Federal

compensation and vacate? We use eminent domain all the time, don’t we?

3. The Federal response is top-down, and geared toward meeting Stafford

Act obligations, also providing funds from HUD to ESCD. Is it significant that

Federal disinterest in public involvement is evident in the aftermath?