To the Editor:

After reading Elie Gamburg's article Two Southtown Proposals: Towers in a Park that won't work commenting on the Davis Brody Bond Plan and the Thoresen and Linard "Alternative Plan" for Southtown (The Main Street WIRE, January 23, 1999), we would like to clarify certain issues involved.

• The most distinctive difference between our "Alternative Plan" and the Davis Brody Bond plan is that our proposal eschews the concept of "Towers in a Park." Rather, it advances the continuation of a planning concept that both Mr. Gamburg and we admire, find appropriate for Roosevelt Island and unique in New York City.<
• The towers shown in our plan are part of a continuum of structures that, by economic necessity, rise above the lower row of buildings that relate more closely to the pedestrian. The towers themselves are conceptually different. Ours are more compact and 'tower' like while the DBB buildings are more 'slab' like. In either case it is too early to critique their design as there are many factors that eventually will determine their configuration.<
• Our plan provides ample opportunity to create well-designed, intimate spaces for the specific uses of the residents of the adjacent buildings - the "private" spaces referred to by Mr. Gamburg. In addition we provide a "vast" open space, a Common or Green available to all the residents of the Island to use and enjoy. Its vastness is relative, however, with a length that can be walked in about five minutes and a breadth of a little more than a city block.
• Although we appreciate the original planning concept, in its execution Main Street through Northtown was left with some shortcomings in terms of light, air, scale, trees, drop-offs, etc., that we believe we have remedied with our plan.<
• There are a number of other considerations that we took into account in developing the "Alternative Plan". We refer you to our letter and Jeffrey Hochman's comments in The WIRE of December 19.

Thoreson and Linard