And that stands for Port Authority or Pataki, take your pick.
The Port Authority has apparently threatened some of the architects involved with various aspects of the WTC site redevelopment with breach of their confidentiality agreements if they talk to one other about possible solutions to the growing number of architectural casualties in the master plan. So what's a muzzled starchitect to do? Why, talk to the NY Times architecture critic, of course.
Who then writes a damning criticism on the crumbling folly of the Port Authority's handling of the master plan, the redevelopment, and the memorial. The problem? Imperiousness and "the mix of secrecy, self-interest and paranoia that have enveloped the site from the outset - a climate that favors political expediency and empty symbolic gestures over thoughtful urban planning discussions."
Sounds like New York real estate and politics to me.
At Ground Zero, Disarray Reigns, and an Opportunity Awaits [nyt]
