A Proposal for the Redesign of the World Trade Center Site
Go Directly to "Before & After" Photographic Composites
Go Directly to Site Blueprint & Enlarged Area Photoillustration
Imagine trying to tell a small child that millions of years ago, the world was populated by lizards the size of his house. Could he envision such awe-inspiring creatures? Likely not. But imagine if you took him to a museum and showed him a real, fossilized dinosaur. Its teeth the size of his arm would drive the point home.
This analogy springs to mind as New Yorkers debate the future of Ground Zero. For now it appears that the architects and developers involved in the site design process may have focused too much on commemorating the victims of 9-11 and neglected the Twin Towers themselves in the process.
When I briefly moved to Columbus, Ohio in elementary school, I couldn’t convince any of my classmates that my previous home had skyscrapers three times the height of Columbus’ tallest building. My friends had to visit Manhattan before they believed me. Even though we have photos and footage of the Twin Towers, how will future generations understand the true scale of what was lost on September 11? Having lived in Lower Manhattan post-9/11, I believe there’s only one way to go. The only true salve that might heal this hurting city requires 200,000 tons of steel and concrete. We must rebuild the Twins.
This isn’t a new idea. In fact, WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein offered it immediately after the attacks. It was rejected almost as quickly. And because it was so swiftly considered taboo to advocate defiant replacement during such a tragic time, the concept largely vanished.
This brings us to today. Considering that top architects and city planners developed these myriad proposals, why has the public responded so frigidly? Because, despite all brain power behind them, they’re bad. And now we’re told the final design must be chosen from among them.
The problem is, putting a newly designed structure on Ground Zero would have the same effect as building nothing at all. It would produce the psychological pain of looking up and knowing that something that should be there remains missing. Generations from now, people might not know what’s missing, but doesn’t that defeat the purpose of building a memorial?
We don’t need monstrosities like the proposed 100 stories of glass origami or spindly lattice work suspending sky gardens, built ridiculously high just to be tall. These ideas are creative, original and sometimes even beautiful. And maybe they’d look great in Hong Kong or Shanghai (where city planners work feverishly to trump America’s tall-building accolades). But they’re just not right for the World Trade Center. This hallowed soil is no place for abstract art. Lower Manhattan’s personality was set in stone by two structures for which there is no alternative replacement. They became our friends – almost living representations of our limitless, skyward aspirations.
Whether or not you agree with replacing them in actuality, ask yourself this: "Would you, right now, give anything to have them back if someone said they could be back tomorrow?" There’s your answer.
Opponents of rebuilding have argued on the grounds of modesty, practicality and fear. We’ve heard that restoring 220 stories of steel and concrete would be ostentatious. We’ve been told that buildings that size are no longer economical. And we’ve been warned until we’ve gone cross-eyed about the dangers of erecting another "target."
These arguments hold little water. Replacing the Towers would sew up a gash in the physical skyline and the wounded pride of New Yorkers. Building more futuristic and glitzy structures would be ostentatious. I doubt that the 2,792 dead would want the Twins to remain in rubble because rebuilding would be too flashy.
In terms of practicality, more record-breaking skyscrapers are rising in Asia every year, filling the roster of the world’s tallest buildings (America now holds only two of the top 10 places on that list).
As far as targets go, if you believe that, perhaps we should dismantle the Empire State Building and our professional sports arenas while we still have the chance. Halting the construction of grandiose structures because terrorists might hate them is exactly the kind of submission Osama Bin Laden wants.
So I offer a new proposal to hopefully challenge today’s inadequate finalists. It would put the Twins back on the east side of the site, preserve the original footprints for a memorial and satisfy the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation’s criteria for a functional new site. The longer you stare at the Twins, the nicer the proposal becomes. It just looks right.
New Yorkers have always done things larger than life, twice if necessary, to show our unfaltering strength and character. Now, we should embrace a plan that will turn New York back into New York again.
– Justin Berzon