What company will insure it? At what cost? Perhaps Lloyds of London, at $5000 per square foot.
What company will lease space in it? Imagine their advertising campaign: "Come and work in the NEW IMPROVED--MUCH SAFER World Trade Center!"
What (sane) individual would apply to work on, say, the 100th floor?
Will there be a gigantic sign, reading "KICK ME", in huge letters on one side of the building?
Will there be anti-aircraft emplacements tastefully disguised by shrubbery?
Make no mistake: the time for rebuilding the WTC is after all the terrorists and their supporters are dead. It will be taken as a challenge, and the challenge will be accepted. Next time they'll use a nuclear satchel charge in the back of a taxicab.
Possibly circa 2020, if we ever get serious. At this time, this is no longer prime commercial real-estate.
Roll that tape again, please.
--Boris
I want to see something re-built there. I believe that although we have men in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting for us, we still need to send the message to those maniacs that they cannot do this to us. That we are resilient. I also think Heninger has a valid point. One tall tower with space around it would be sufficient to convey this while restoring some of the lost office space. Other smaller buildings would serve to clutter the area.
I realize that my sentiments run counter to those of most Freepers, but I, too, feel the open space should remain "open", having come to my conclusions shortly after the September 11 attacks.
I believe the best use -- indeed the only use -- for the sixteen acres where so many died, is for the Congress to declare it a national monument and burial ground: an Arlington of the North.
It should become the memorial for the civilians who perished there, and a hallowed resting place for the remains of those who have given their lives, and will continue to give their lives, in the ongoing war with Islam. A war which is far, FAR from over. We will not understand the true need and meaning of such a monument until the war actually _is_ over.
The New York Daily News (which is actually a liberal paper) ran an editorial a few weeks' back. In it, they argued that the several proposed "monuments" for the Twin Tower footprints were so bland as to have no connection to the attack, no historical perspective for future generations. The editorial included a photo of the famous "standing remains" of the North Tower -- remains which have been preserved, and which could be re-constructed at the site.
This is dead-on. One hundred years from now, ANYone will be able to visit lower Manhattan, gaze upon the shattered beams of the North Tower and understand EXACTLY what happened there, and the implications for all of us.
If there is a problem with "lost real estate", I'm certain that someplace, somewhere on Manhattan there are sixteen _more_ acres that could be used to replace that office space.
But if the hallowed "space" that currently exists is covered over with anything, its true relevance will be "covered over", as well. The country -- and those who died there -- deserve better than that. And so does history.
Again, just my thoughts, and I realize you have a right to yours.
- John
Sure does,and we don't need a physical presence to have memory.
Build.
They'll always come. Wave after wave after wave of commuters. Will they all stop at the memorial, no. Will they think about it yes. Put the memorial in their path and make them walk around it (Yes, I'm one of the Jersey people that commuted through the WTC on the PATH so I know about the crowds and their traffic patterns.) The southeast corner of the original WTC site had the preponderance of commuter foot traffic in and out of the complex. The only change I would make to the current plan is to place the memorial in that corner rather than the southwest corner. I would even go so far as to have four separate memorials in each of the four corners.
The Civil War was fought on farms and fields. A field is an appropriate memorial. Pearl Harbor was a Navy installation and still is. The World Trade Center was an office complex and shopping mall. And that's what it should be again.
The crowdedness of this plan's buildings, stores and people means this will be a denser urban space than even Times Square.
Is this something new? Walk around the rest of downtown and you'll see dense urban space. The original format of the WTC towers provided lots of open space. What I can tell of the new plan does the same. Dense urban space is very relative in Manhattan and the author knows that.
New York's foot traffic is a rough force, which in time will erode and erase September 11... ...There is little talk of September 11 in New York City, an irrepressibly partisan place. The act of remembrance is now done by the visitors at the fence, looking in.
It is true that there is little talk of 9/11 in NYC these days. I don' t know if it just because it's hard for people to talk about or if they really have forgotten. I tend to believe more the former though the latter is there. I know when I have a customer meeting scheduled around the site, I get angry, and I don't like being there.
The low reason for building the current plan is that the site is owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the Port Authority, the landlord-owner of the real estate, wants its rent flow back (some $120 million annually).
Why is this so low? Commerce is why NYC was attacked in the first place.
Remembrance in our time has become difficult. We are becoming a culture of short-term memory, with mass media creating inexhaustibly new experiences for us to have, discard and forget. The practice of deep memory, much less common memory, is becoming harder to maintain.
Totally agree. However, I don't think keeping the walls of the bathtub exposed would really change that.
Totally in keeping with the shallow society involved in commemorating the event. Gettysburg is space set-aside for remembrance, as is the site of the Arizona. You canNOT have a memorial 'integrated' with a workspace. The day-to-day workspace will easily overwhelm the memorial.
My idea was several locations in the area: closed structures containing full-sphere panoramic images from those locations of before and after - to help instill the sense of destruction and devastation, and insult ,to the Country.
Quite frankly, the Twin Towers site can not remotely be compared to either Pearl Harbor OR the Arizona. Those were battleground sites.
And according to some, should the Pentagon also be turned into nothing but a Memorial Park as well??
The problem with this sort of proposal is that it is being made purely to satisfy the contemporary personal emotions of Henninger and those taking similar points of view. It gives, at best, short shrift to the actual needs of New York City (and particularly Lower Manhattan) as a going concern, and falsely presumes that both New Yorkers and Americans in general of the future will have the same need to feel continual, perpetual grief at the events of September 11, 2001.
They won't. The people of 2051, or of 2101, are not going to need or want a giant hole in the middle on the biggest city in the country. 9/11 will be nothing more than a chapter in the history books for most of those people, and thy will see a giant 16-acre bathtub, "prettified" or not, as an outrageous example of the self-centeredness of early 21st-century Americans. (They'll probably think of 9/11 as the point at which the true excesses of the 20th century, particularly the Clueless 90s, came to its true end, and of any such overwhelming "memorial hole" as the last hurrah of a people with their priorities seriously out of whack.) Such a memorial might satiate the immediate touchy-feely needs of a certain segment of our society, but from the perspective of fifty or one hundren years hence, it would say far more about the egos of those involved in creating the site and preventing it from being rebuilt than it ever would about 9/11 itself.