I received an email from the Twin Towers Alliance this a.m., and I am curious to hear what others think about what should be built at "Ground Zero." (as an aside, I think their current logo is cool--see above)I really haven't kept up with the debate about this, and it appears to be pretty heated in the NYC area. The website reports that NY Gov. Spitzer has called the current plan (or the process of selecting the current plan?)--not to (essentially) rebuild the Towers, "an Enron-style debacle." In any event, I suspect that a person's view on this subject may track his/her view on a lot of things. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .
I personally think that we ought to rebuild the towers, more or less as they were before 9/11, with modern adaptations.
What do you think should be done with this hallowed piece of real estate?
18 comments:
rebuild... the exact same structures (wtc 1-7) plus the st. nicholas church and deutschbank.
by the way, are those symbols of Christianity i see on the new tta logo?
You know, I noticed what seemed to be a cross, too, but I doubt it. This coalition appears to be made up of a BROAD variety of interests.
But why do you think they all should be rebuilt?
rebuild already. and hurry it up. 6 years? are these being put up by the bush administration? why the ineptitude all around?
questions questions...
but make the building(s) more beautiful - modern. drop dead knockout architecture. why not? and yes, somewhere on site a beautiful place to remember and mourn the loss of 9/11. but stand tall. stand proud. and make them usable...
Hi- I'm the graphic designer who made the TTA logo. It's supposed to be the sheer walls of the original Twin Towers seen from ground level in the middle of Tobin Plaza.
It's an abstraction of images like this one here
And yes- this coalition is indeed composed of people from all religions, interests, political ideologies, etc.
No- the rebuilding process is not overseen by the Bush Administration. It's overseen by an organization called the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. For more info, head on to www.twintowersalliance.com
Cool, your name alone made me curious to hear your opinion--but thanks for weighing in on the situation.
claudia,
So are you saying rebuild a close facsimile of the previous towers or just build something (but be faster about it)?
glenk,
I'm thinking like you (re. the towers), but I'll have to mull over the prediction angle.
I'm with Claudia.
Build something and build something now.
I don't want to see the site restored to exactly how it was. It's the final resting place for too many people. I want to see a place where remembrance can take place, a nice park with a monument and perhaps a reflecting pool or something of that nature.
But beyond that I don't care what goes there so long as it brings with it people, life, commerce, energy, excitement, etc. Leaving it as a barren, desolate hole in the ground honors no one and taking life is what the terrorists were after. I'd rather see us restore life to the area.
so... you're saying the new buildings are not being built by whoever oversees the levees in new orleans? seems like they're on the same timetable.
dolphin,
I agree that the delay in developing the area is not good, but it has been hard to build consensus on what to do, apparently.
All the "rebuild 'em" plans I've seen included significant acreage for monuments/memorials and the footprint of the two towers were moved from the original footprints . . . is that respectful to the level you have in mind?
Yeah. I don't like the idea of rebuilding exactly as was there but that's just a standard liberal vs conservative world view difference. Conservatives want to leave things as they are, liberals want to make them better (that's just basic Political Ideologies 101). That ideological difference aside, I think we're on the same page on this in that we want to see SOMETHING built to restore life to the area.
Yeah. I don't like the idea of rebuilding exactly as was there but that's just a standard liberal vs conservative world view difference. Conservatives want to leave things as they are, liberals want to make them better (that's just basic Political Ideologies 101).
I perceive that you don't view that assertion as a slight (much less a foolish assertion), but that is not the difference. I may have to post on the subject, but I'm not sure how widespread such an (mis)understanding is, so it may not be worth it.
i'm from nyc. born there - raised there. the twin towers were not beautiful - but there they stood. they were a part of the skyline. and now they are gone. i'm sure there's 101 reasons why it's taking so long. i'm sure most of it is maddening on many levels. they will build something. the structure(s) will be beautiful and modern and cool. i believe that nyc and all the parties involved with get it together eventually - the troops will come out of iraq and it will all be one imperfect and amazing universe with very fucked up people at the helm. dem's. repub's - whateva. fucked up - one and all. i gotta have faith all around. because really in the end - it all matters not. we are a blip on the screen...
but having said alla that... if i were emperor they'd move it along and have it be drop dead modern amazing.
ok - i gotta go as i am catching american's 3:15pm to laguardia!!!
I pretty much agree Claudia (perhaps a little less expletively). Thanks for weighing in. Hope you have a safe trip.
I perceive that you don't view that assertion as a slight (much less a foolish assertion), but that is not the difference.
No, not a slight (I might have noted that conservatives by and large don't agree that the "better" that liberals want is, in fact, better). It's overly simplistic for sure, but the idea that conservatives favor tradition and the status quo, while liberals favor reform and change is fairly common knowledge. I wasn't trying to start a debate on the topic, honest. Didn't realize anybody would disagree.
Change for the sake of change isn't always positive or progress or "better."
Change, if imposed, is still imposed and is often counter to liberty.
Gov't-driven change often requires coercively taking resources from one person to give to another.
"Progress" is often in the eye of the beholder.
So, sometimes the status quo or tradition is good; and something that is "newer" isn't always "improved."
Not to mention, there are a host of "reforms" that Conservatives support that Liberals viscerally oppose (and vice versa), so the characterization is undermined even further.
Not to mention, there are a host of "reforms" that Conservatives support that Liberals viscerally oppose (and vice versa), so the characterization is undermined even further.
Yes, the foundation of thought on conservative vs liberal mindset (one equally touted by conservatives as liberals) is "undermined" because the vague principle isn't universally practiced in it's absolute strictest form.
Looking out the window I see that the sky is kinda of a steely gray. Guess that undermines the statement that the sky is blue.
"Looking out the window I see that the sky is kinda of a steely gray. Guess that undermines the statement that the sky is blue."
Sure it does, especially if it is in your interest for me to think that it is never steely gray.
Sure it does, especially if it is in your interest for me to think that it is never steely gray.
Well this is certainly reaction I never expected. Interesting to find a conservative who feels that pointing out that conservatives view the world conservatively somehow serves the interest of the liberal. I not all that long ago had a conservative point me to an article written by some conservative think-tank about what it meant to be a conservative, and among other things it noted the same thing I did. While I find it to be a negative (for me), this article found it to be a positive as did the individual who directed me there.
Perhaps you're not as conservative as you appear. I admit I somewhat liek the notion that pointing out that conservatives are conservative aids liberals.
Post a Comment