"Our lives have changed dramatically since September 11, and where we work has become more than a matter of comfort; it has become a matter of survival," said Stevens Institute of Technology President Dr. Hal Raveche Thursday as he introduced an expert panel on the future of skyscrapers in the New York metropolitan area.
The Thursday morning symposium, held at the school’s campus, in Hoboken, consisted of two panels. On one, retired U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), with some of the nation’s most authoritative experts on engineering and architecture, discussed whether or not skyscrapers can be designed to endure attacks, or at least remain standing long enough to allow inhabitants to escape safely.
The second panel explored the question of whether or not Americans and New Yorkers would feel safe returning to tall buildings.
Between the panels, John Zogby, the president of the polling company Zogby International, presented with Dr. Raveche the results of the Zogby/Stevens survey of the public’s attitudes and perceptions about skyscrapers.
The survey was unveiled for the first time publicly and was titled the Opinion of Future Commercial Development in the New York Metro Area.
Zogby International conducted random interviews of 610 adults in the New York Metro region between Oct. 19 and 22. Residents of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut were polled.
The survey said that seven in 10 (71%) people in the metro area said that the World Trade Center property should be rebuilt as commercial office space.
The majority (54%) of those who said the WTC property should be rebuilt as commercial office space said it should be rebuilt at 100 stories or less. Forty-two percent say that redevelopment should be as tall or taller than before.
While most see the need to rebuild, there are still concerns. In light of the attack, working in a skyscraper would concern a majority (55%) of New York metro residents.
The majority of people polled (54%) said that no technology could make a new skyscraper entirely safe from terrorists.
Over one in five residents of the New York metro area would either resign (8%) or start looking for a new job (13%) if their company relocated to a skyscraper.
The survey also pondered whether New York City should move upward or outward. Forty-seven would support building skyscrapers to limit office development in the suburbs, while 43% would oppose more skyscrapers even if that necessitated more suburban development.
On the surface, the poll may look contradictory in the fact that the majority of people want to rebuild but have trepidation about moving into those buildings. Zogby said that in his professional opinion it is not contradictory but shows two current aspects of American thinking. "People want to defy the terrorists and return to the familiar," said Zogby. "But since the events of September 11, they want to modify that. The majority wants to build smaller and safer."
The first panel, chaired by Sen. Lautenberg, agreed that it is next to impossible to build a building that would be undamaged by a catastrophic event. They also agreed that should not necessarily be their goal.
"Right now we need to change our objective for building the buildings," said Sophia Hassiotis, an Associate Professor at Stevens. "If a plane hits any building, no mater how it is built, there will be severe damages. What our goal should be is to build a building that stands long enough for people to get out. That’s why we should focus on all the redundancy when it comes to safely aspect. More support columns, sprinklers and especially redundancy when it comes to fire escapes."
One point that Bob F. Fox Jr., senior principal and co-founder of Fox & Fowle Architects, made is that there is a need to think out of the box. His company built 4 Times Square, a high-rise office building that employs 6,000. He said that if the city doesn’t build up, it must build out, which results in urban and suburban sprawl, which comes with its own problems.
"Right now 4 Times Square in midtown cover only one acre," he said. "If we were to have to build a campus of two or three story buildings in the suburbs it would take over 150 acres to provide for the buildings and parking lots. The are serious ecological consequences in paving over that much greenland and forests, and there nothing that makes those building any safer from terrorist attacks. We need to build in areas that are densely populated and have good transportation systems."
The second panel they got into a discussion about whether or not people will return to tall buildings if built. "Do I think we can build a better building? Yes," said Angelo R. Cali, retired partner of Cali Associates (now Mack-Cali Reality Corporation). "Will it be indestructible? No. Will people come? Yes."
That was the consensus of the panel. If buildings are built, people will come. But the debate turned quickly to the more pressing question of who will come.
"Right now we have an opportunity to rethink downtown," said Adam Foster, the senior managing director of Insignia/ESG, Inc. "I think we need to diversify with things like residential homes, restaurants, memorials, retail, schools and museums in addition to solely financial intuitions."
On a similar note, Tom Wright, executive vice president of the Regional Plan Association, said that diversity is the key.
"A community is an organism, and only through diversity can they adapt to a changing environment," said Wright. "By diversity I mean more than real estate or insurance or manufacturing. Things such as open space, parks, restaurants, schools, and residencies."
Dr. Raveche concluded the panel by stressing the importance of rebuilding and the WTC area. "Terrorists know when they succeed when they change our core beliefs," he said at the end of the three-hour symposium. "The vitality is one of those core beliefs. That is why we must not let that vitality be destroyed."