I did not agree with Bloomberg on his idea about the museum/memorial at the start - he was not in favor of it. I think some memorial is needed. But Bloomberg seems to have been right that time would diminish its popularity. He considered it as a bad reminder of the gore, and thought people “ought to get past it”. He lacked empathy about lots of things - a true drone tehnocrat.
Maybe the “museum” and “teaching” mission made the whole thing too elitist intellectual, and a less lavish mere memorial, if done well, would have been (and may yet be) enough.
If you read the article its not diminishing popularity that resulted in the museum being shut down, rather it was a victim of NY’s insane lockdown policies during the Kung Flu: ““Two-thirds of our income revenue annually comes from our earned income from admissions,” Jennifer Adams-Webb, co-founder of the museum and the CEO of the September 11th Families’ Association, told The Post. “We were completely closed for six months in 2020. We had been averaging 300,000 visitors a year … and last year we had a total of 26,000 visitors, so it completely annihilated our earned income.”
A museum focused on a single historical event — and one that was documented extensively live on TV and the internet with literally millions of hours of footage available — doesn’t seem like something that would have strong public appeal.
” I think some memorial is needed.”
There are memorials around the site. I consider the value of the museum to be a store and display of information related to the event. If it has to be closed at the site, perhaps it can be moved somewhere else.