For nearly 30 years, the Twin Towers have been the landmarks of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York. Until the day when al-Qaeda terrorists “dropped” two planes on them. In a short time the towers collapsed and were replaced by thousands of dead and huge masses of rubble. September 11, 2001 turned what was once New York’s economic hub into a shapeless mass.

“We will rebuild. We will come out of this stronger than before, politically stronger, economically stronger,” then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said on the day of the attack. But four years had to pass before work began on the “epicenter”, and ten before the monument was handed over.

The reason for the delay was largely due to the dual need to rebuild the mall and honor the victims. It involved the conflicting interests of businessman Larry Silverstein, who rented the World Trade Center just a few weeks before the attack, the interests of the New York Port Authority, which owned the land, and, of course, the families of the victims who wanted their memory to be properly honored.

This story and its protagonists were detailed by Columbia University Business Studies professor Lynn Sagalin in her book Power at Ground Zero—Politics, Money, and the Remaking of Lower Manhattan, with whom K spoke exclusively on the occasion of the 9/11 anniversary.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, Lynn Sagalin is in her office at Columbia University when a colleague walks in and explains that the plane crashed into the World Trade Center tower. “We immediately went down to the university lobby and saw on TV how the second plane crashed into another tower. I thought how we can help. We knew that several of our former students worked in the buildings and, unfortunately, they died,” Lynn Sagalin tells K about how she survived the moment of the attack.

You can destroy two iconic buildings, but you will never destroy the city and the stubbornness of the people who live in it.

Two years later, he began documenting zero point recovery efforts. A record that was completed in 2016 with the release of her book, which begins with the importance PKE had to New York City.

“In the 1960s, attempts were made to revive the southern part of Manhattan, as many businesses moved to downtown New York decades ago. The World Trade Center, opened in 1973, was the culmination of these efforts. It has become a symbol of the economic power not only of New York, but of capitalism as a whole, and has also become the reason that it has become a target for terrorists,” Sagalin tells “K” about the importance of the PKE and adds about the reconstruction process, which consisted of two parts : “The first part was the office and commercial towers that needed to be redone, because for New York Governor George Pataki, this was an important element of the economic reconstruction of southern Manhattan. . The second part was related to what the PKE represented. It was important for New York to show resilience. That you can destroy two iconic buildings, but you will never destroy the city and the tenacity of the people who live in it and helped build it generation after generation. The reconstruction was of great importance. Symbolic, economic, political and social”.

Thus began the design at the “zero point”. The project, which for Sagalin was supposed to serve two purposes: the reconstruction of the shopping center and the preservation of memory. This dual commitment will affect the course of the business.

“At ground zero, you had two priorities: reconstruction and memory. Both had to be satisfied within 16 ha. That space is pretty big for New York, but that all changed when Gov. Pataki said nothing would be built where the twin towers had fallen. So all of a sudden you had half the land left, and the rest of the buildings could not be built there. The solution was to purchase additional space south of the zero point. You see, both reconstruction and commemoration had the same priority, but perhaps everything related to the memorial to the victims had priority. You had to deal with the politics and planning of the monument at the same time as planning the commercial part. This determined both the timing and planning of projects at the “zero point”.

The families of the victims played a role at every stage of the project.

In 2003, Pataki chose Daniel Libeskind’s proposal for the new World Trade Center. However, despite the choice of design, three years had to pass before work could begin. One of the reasons for the delay was the design of the memorial and the demands of the families of the victims. During those two years of delays from 2005 to 2006, Mayor Bloomberg was instrumental in resolving issues and moving the process forward. As Sagalin explains: “Families played a big role at every stage of the planning and work on the monument. They had nothing to do with the commercial part, but they had a great influence in everything related to the monument and everything around it. It was very difficult for any politician to say no to what families demanded. Eventually, however, the monument was ready for the tenth anniversary, and Mayor Bloomberg, who was tasked with laying the monument’s foundation, was instrumental in bringing it to fruition. It should be noted here that the monument was built not with public money, but with private donations. So finding funding was also a challenge.”

Responsibility for the construction of the monument was assumed, among other things, by the Port Authority, which in 2006 also agreed with Silverstein to finance the work, thus completing the series on who can build what at the “zero point”. According to Sagalin, the reconstruction “at the epicenter” was an extremely complex political and legal process due to the many interests there, and work will not move forward if the tasks of each side are not clearly defined after 2006.

The monument was built not with public money, but with private donations, it was not easy to find funding.

Sagalin’s book ends in 2016 with the delivery of an imposing terminal designed by Santiago Calatrava. Six years later, when most of the projects in the “zero point” are completed, the final result of the author is quite satisfied.

“I will stand by my opinion when the book comes out. I consider it an achievement that a way was found to accomplish the dual task of restoring and memorializing the victims in a relatively short period of time, given the emotional charge and challenges that arise at each stage of the project. All of southern Manhattan was also revitalized as public money was also allocated to the area’s general upgrades. Is this the perfect project? No. Is it a bit more traditional than what the architects would have preferred? Of course. But that doesn’t mean it’s not an achievement. Most of us New Yorkers are practical. We will grumble, we will complain, but in the end we will accept it and move on. And I think this applies to the “zero point” as well. This is a large public space. Eight hectares for the monument, which is on the surface, and not underground, as originally planned. And this is better, because the monument has become a part of the city, which is especially important. You can’t forget the victims when you pass by. It’s a beautiful memorial.”