ARTICLE OF THE WEEK Name _____________________________

History 8 2002/2003

Each week you will receive an article that deals with a topical subject (articles will also be linked or posted on my web site). You are expected to read each article. Students in Accelerated History must turn in summaries for two-thirds of the articles assigned. Students in Advanced History must turn in summaries for half of the articles. Summaries will be due on Monday of the following week unless otherwise stated.

General Requirements

1) Summaries should follow format of the example on the reverse side. They should be typed in 12 pt. font and double-spaced except for the heading. The heading should contain your name, the title and source of the article, and date of publication.

2) Summaries should not exceed one page.

3) Summaries must be turned in on the due date. If you are absent, you may e-mail a copy of your summary as a Word attachment. To be counted as on time, I must receive your e-mail by noon of the date due. Summaries will not be accepted late.

4) Each summary must take care not to plagiarize the author of the article. You are attempting to place the information in your own words. Each summary must contain one well-integrated quote. You may quote the article or a quotation in the article. No quote should exceed three typed lines.

Evaluation

Summaries will be worth a weight of one. Grades will be based upon the following factors:

1) Does the summary follow the general requirements outlined above?

2) Does the summary capture the essence of the article and make sense? Summaries must focus on the key information in the article and recount this information accurately.

3) Is the summary well-written? Summaries should be written in a style appropriate to historical writing and use proper spelling, grammar, and sentence structure.

4) Is the quotation well-chosen and integrated into the narrative of the summary?

Jeffrey Stroebel

“Six Plans for Ground Zero, All Seen as a Starting Point”

The New York Times, July 17, 2002

Plans released by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation for rebuilding the World Trade Center have received criticism for being overly commercial, crowding too much business space into the site. Six different proposals were released to the public in July. All call for a complex of several office towers as well as a memorial to the victims of the September 11 attacks. The plans are on display at Federal Hall in New York City, and the public has been invited to comment on the designs.

Most objections stem from the requirement imposed upon designers that the new site replace all of the office space of the original trade center and significantly increase its available commercial space from 450,000 square feet to 600,000. The plans were also required to include space to replace a hotel destroyed in the attacks. These requirements were imposed by the Development Corporation and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey who owns the site. "These plans are all driven by hard economics," said Beverly Willis, an architect and the co-founder of Rebuild Downtown Our Town, a civic group. "There's no heart in them and no recognition of what we all had been led to believe would occur, that we would wind up with something wonderful on this site."

Officials from the Development Corporation and Port Authority emphasized that the plans were only a starting point and that there would be ample opportunity for revisions. John C. Whitehead, Chairman of the Development Corporation, stated that the plans could be significantly altered in response to public concerns and that the requirements for office and retail space could be revised in an attempt to balance public concerns with the property rights of the site’s owners.