And why shouldn't she? The ugly hole in the ground has already been started for her.
Posted on 07/03/2002 12:56:39 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:07:11 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
July 3, 2002 -- The artist who designed the much-praised Vietnam Memorial in Washington says she has "quietly" been talking to officials involved in the Ground Zero tribute.
Architect Maya Lin is also reportedly worried that average New Yorkers won't have as big a say as 9/11 victims' relatives in the Ground Zero memorial.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
And why shouldn't she? The ugly hole in the ground has already been started for her.
No park.
No memorial garden.
No pussy 50-story towers.
No.
We need an exhibition of sheer size and strength. Rebuild the Twin Towers taller and larger than before. Anything less will be terrorist-appeasement.
AGREED!
No. Build two Twin Towers, each 911 stories tall. Anything less will be terrorist-appeasement.
Well, after about as much time as it took to begin and end America's major involvement in that divisive war.
As for NY, I had the idea of five 44-story buildings (220 total floors) placed in a Pentagon pattern with a monument/memorial/visitor's center at the center courtyard. But, of course, I defer to you, Maya Lin.
Jeez! What would those be? About 2+ miles high? Imagine the view.
Hell, if we can place a man on the moon...
The idea that you would not build a memorial is obscene. I have yet to speak to a New Yorker who wants to rebuild the towers like they were, or build bigger towers.
If they build bigger towers, who would rent the top floor? You?
The best memorial to 9-11 will be the destruction of the regimes that sponsored the terror. Past that, New Yorkers need to decide what they want to place there and the rest of us should support them in their decision.
Then you haven't spoken to me, or to a majority of the New Yorkers who post here.
And I'm on record, many times, as saying that a PARK is the worst possible choice for a memorial, and the worst thing that could happen to the site, the neighborhood, the borough, and the city. The memorial has to be a structure. Preferably a very tall one.
The idea that you would take the hallowed ground where 3000 americans died and build an office building on it strikes me as appalling, but if you can get the majority of New Yorkers to do it, I guess go for it. We didn't rebuild the Murrah building, we don't build on major civil war battlefields, Americans tend to memorialize their dead. Again, I will support the residents of NYC to do what they will with the site, but your assertion that most NYers want to rebuild the towers flies in the face of my own experience with them.
Really. My business takes me here 24/7, since I live right here. I speak to many more New Yorkers than you do, so my sample is better.
virtually everyone I have spoken to about this there thinks some sort of memorial should be built
Some sort of memorial, yes. Not a park, not a cemetary, not a necropolis, not a wimpy low-rise building, and most certainly NOT on the entire sixteen acres as many activists are pushing for. The footprints of the towers are more than sufficient space to be devoted to memorial purposes, and my preference would be for an interactive museum similar to what was done on Ellis Island. The tallest building in the world can go next door somewhere.
which of course doesn't mean you couldn't replace the office space elsewhere in the city.
It has to be replaced THERE, or the neighborhood will die. I remember when Battery Park City was a frontier, with nary even a grocery store for the people brave enough to move down there, and I have no desire to see it return to that state now.
Some of my friends also fear the construction of the gigantic memorial you describe, the general feeling that if some enormous statue or ziggurat was built then the entire NYC skyline becomes a memorial.
Not a statue or ziggurat, for crying out loud. A building. If people would consider the entire skyline a memorial, I wonder what they thought the skyline was before 9/11. That empty space needs to be filled. It hurts to look at it. What's more, it's something that our enemies can point to with pride at the moment, and in every future generation, and we simply can't have that.
The idea that you would take the hallowed ground where 3000 americans died and build an office building on it strikes me as appalling
Get ready to be even more appalled by an opinion of mine. It's not hallowed ground. It's defiled ground. It was defiled by mass murder on 9/11. The way to redeem it is definitely not by backing off and encouraging people pretend it's anyone's "final resting place"--since nothing and no one is buried there anymore, and there is in fact NO GROUND left at the site anymore. It was the spot where many people died, but it is no cemetary, and I resent the people who wish me to treat it like one. The way to redeem the ground that was once sacred, as every foot of ground in the US was prior to 9/11 whether we all realized it or not, is to build again in a big way, not to insist that we live with the defilement and the amputation and learn to love it.
but if you can get the majority of New Yorkers to do it, I guess go for it.Thanks for your permission, but I already know I won't get what I want. The fix is in. We're going to cave in to PC and to the feelings of a vocal minority of activists, advocates and anti-capitalists and settle in the end for a solution that pleases nobody, not even them.
Again, I will support the residents of NYC to do what they will with the site, but your assertion that most NYers want to rebuild the towers flies in the face of my own experience with them.
I've taken the liberty of pinging a few New Yorkers here, in order to broaden your experience.
The base should occupy the entire 16 acres of the former WTC center, and it should be at least 70 stories or so tall. This way there would be a very large indoor area available for multiple uses, while the office space would be distributed along the sides of the structure, and offices would either have a view of the outside or a view of the inside atrium, which should rise most of the way to the top of this new structure, again similar to the Luxor pyramid.
A central elevator complex could provide express service to all levels of the structure, with enclosed gangways connecting different levels of the elevator complex to the upper floors, while local elevators are placed in the office areas. The resulting inside and outside views would be breathtaking.
Anyway, that's my suggestion.
As a resident of the neighborhood immediately outside the WTC, I heartily second that! Anything less and we might as well just build a mosque there.
Hi there! Allow me to introduce myself -- I'm NYC GOP Chick, I live a few blocks from the site of what was the WTC and I think that anything less than grand towers is depressing. Yes, there *should* be a memorial, but it can't take up the whole space or even the majority of it.
Sorry, but that is just not true at all.
My business takes me to NYC once a month,
I live a few blocks from the WTC site and probably have a better feel of sentiment around here than you do.
virtually everyone I have spoken to about this there thinks some sort of memorial should be built,
So does everyone I've talked with about it, but the memorial shouldn't take over the whole 16 acres.
which of course doesn't mean you couldn't replace the office space elsewhere in the city.
With all due respect, you know squat about this city. The local economy here is still suffering and more than a few small businesses have gone belly up, because of the lack of clientele.
Some of my friends also fear the construction of the gigantic memorial you describe, the general feeling that if some enormous statue or ziggurat was built then the entire NYC skyline becomes a memorial.
Most of us are pretty sensitive about that gaping hole in the sky, especially when I walk to the corner of where I live and stare at the emptiness there.
The idea that you would take the hallowed ground where 3000 americans died and build an office building on it strikes me as appalling, but if you can get the majority of New Yorkers to do it, I guess go for it.
Most people -- even those of us who are aggressively pro-rebuilding the towers -- agree that the "footprints" of where the towers stood should be where the memorial is built. But why condemn the whole 16 acres of valuable real estate? If you want to claim every spot where every little bit of hallowed dust and debris fell that morning, you might as well just close down and empty out all of Manhattan south of Canal Street -- as well as parts of Brooklyn.
We didn't rebuild the Murrah building, we don't build on major civil war battlefields,
Those weren't major centers of U.S. and world commerce.
Americans tend to memorialize their dead.
Which can be done without turning all over lower Manhattan into a giant cemetary.
Again, I will support the residents of NYC to do what they will with the site, but your assertion that most NYers want to rebuild the towers flies in the face of my own experience with them.
Your lack of experience is painfully inaccurate. Just about everyone I know is for building them higher, and I'm not just talking about conservatives.
not me... I told you so!!!
It's on record here at FR...
I called for between 4 and 6 shorter buildings and Memorial Parks on the "foot-prints!!!"
Relax, there are no "owe sie's", afterall even a blind hog finds an acorn, once in a while!!!
It is the place and I hate the commercial but...!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.