godzillatemple
|
posted on September 20, 2001 05:45:41 AM new
After the Oklahoma bombing, the decision was made to not rebuild the Murrah building and to instead erect a simple monument on the site. I'm really torn, however, in my thoughts about what they should do in NY.
On one hand, I think we need a permament memorial there, not only to honor those who perished, but also to remind us all what happened and keep us vigilant. Life needs to go on, but I'm not sure it would be best to just "pave over history" as it were.
On the other hand, rebuilding would send a message to the world that we will not be cowed by terrorism. Plus, we're talking prime commercial real estate here, and letting it "go to waste" might have long term adverse effects on the economy.
Another factor to consider, of course, is the danger that rebuilding would be an open invitation to every other bozo who can get his hands on an airplane.
Any thoughts?
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
|
MurphyBird
|
posted on September 20, 2001 05:53:47 AM new
Rebuild, but incorporate a memorial too.
|
Deliteful
|
posted on September 20, 2001 06:31:30 AM new
The main thing is that we do something. Unlike the mindset of those we fight, America does not wallow in pity or destruction. We will clean up the rubble and move on with life. We will turn the place of destruction into a place for the living and thus we will honor those who died.
|
bunnicula
|
posted on September 20, 2001 07:24:04 AM new
Definitely rebuild!
|
hjw
|
posted on September 20, 2001 07:25:00 AM new
Maybe it would be wise to be "cowed" by the possibility of terrorism when the question of architecture is under consideration. I wonder if building skyscrapers, is a good idea.
Helen
|
gaffan
|
posted on September 20, 2001 07:32:48 AM new
Leaving the prestige address aside, everything I've ever heard about the actual office space in the WTC and the infrastructure of the buildings indicates that the buildings were ungainly at least, subject to all manner of sporadic system failures. It's also possible that a similar building which didn't use the structural steel tube design wouldn't have collapsed. So if the question is "should we rebuild the WTC from the blueprints?", I think anyone familiar with it would say no.
New design. One storey taller. Memorial on the top floor of one of them. Oh, and build three.
-gaffan-
[email protected]
|
toke
|
posted on September 20, 2001 07:34:05 AM new
Rebuild. We have too many targets available already to let fear concern us. We need to carry on.
|
Femme
|
posted on September 20, 2001 07:42:04 AM new
Rebuilding would show the true American spirit.
|
RainyBear
|
posted on September 20, 2001 07:45:20 AM new
Definitely rebuild, but with a different design. The twin towers were never the most beautiful additions to New York's skyline, and frankly (despite the horrible way it occurred), the skyline looks better now.
They should rebuild the WTC complex, but not make the buildings as incongruously tall as the old Tower One and Tower Two, and make the new buildings more architecturally interesting; less stark, more "old New York."
|
uaru
|
posted on September 20, 2001 08:00:16 AM new
Most definitely rebuild! Bigger, Better, Bolder!
|
al
|
posted on September 20, 2001 08:03:14 AM new
"...and make the new buildings more architecturally interesting.."
Good idea,Rainybear.Slight interior modification.Behind the facade of the the new WTC towers.......twin missile silos.
|
hjw
|
posted on September 20, 2001 08:09:25 AM new
In addition to avoiding skyscraper architecture, I wonder about reducing the concentration of government in one location such as there is in Washington DC.
Helen
|
sadie999
|
posted on September 20, 2001 08:13:23 AM new
Rebuild. Not exactly the same because it would just be silly to use 30 year old technology. Sky scrapers are part of the NY skyline so I'd like to see that.
I know that finishing the clean up will be a relief for some. A friend says it still makes her sad and jumpy to go to work knowing there's thousands of dead people under the rubble. That was a few days ago - I haven't been keeping up on how many bodies are still down there.
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on September 20, 2001 08:14:12 AM new
Yes.
|
figmente
|
posted on September 20, 2001 08:15:40 AM new
I believe that the NYC financial district will still need the office space, however, building of extra high skyscrapers has been dead in the US for decades and will not revive. Rebuilding remotely as they were would be a cruel reminder to many who lost in or witnessed the disasters, and asking people to return to work in such buildings would not be realistic.
|
al
|
posted on September 20, 2001 08:22:20 AM new
"I wonder about reducing the concentration of government in one location such as there is in Washington DC."
Another GREAT idea,Helen! I'm all for it....now who wants 'em.
|
johnbgood1
|
posted on September 20, 2001 11:32:22 AM new
Clean up the mess and turn the area into a memorial park in honor of the victims.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 20, 2001 11:37:00 AM new
Yes, rebuild. Maybe with some sort of rememberence on a wall inside/outside.
|
plsmith
|
posted on September 20, 2001 11:38:09 AM new
That land should be cultivated into a vast green resting place, with memorials to all the innocent people who lost their lives on the planes, in the buildings and on the ground.
|
saabsister
|
posted on September 20, 2001 11:53:51 AM new
I think plsmith's suggestion is the most fitting for a memorial. If the towers are rebuilt and a plaque merely affixed to the wall, the impact is lessened. A large open space in the midst of a bustling area is more stark in its contrast and would be a massive reminder of the scope of this tragedy - much more so than another large building. But if the intent is to rebuild a commercial site instead of a memorial, a suppose another skyscraper will fill in.
|
plsmith
|
posted on September 20, 2001 11:57:26 AM new
To put it more bluntly, the site is a cemetery now; the ground should be treated as hallowed. Many thousands who perished there will not have the luxury or comfort of a formal burial elsewhere...
|
julie321
|
posted on September 20, 2001 12:12:35 PM new
I've tried looking for where I've read this but can't seem to find it.
I seem to think it's somewhere on cnn.com, but anyway
What I seem to remember is that a team of architects has already begun talking about forming a "cooperative" to consider the options. The one firm that I remember being quoted in the article talked about rebuilding with the ideas of current times instead of the old big glass building idea. As I remember, it was written that their idea would be to create a large green/park area which included memorials and create it as an almost place of meditation and thought. Along with this, they also wanted to incorporate buildings, but not on the huge glass/steel scale of the the old towers era but smaller using current design ideas.
If anyone can find this article, it's much more clearly spelled out.
This idea sounds to me as a very good compromise to reestablishing space that must be needed to house businesses and at the same time creating a memorial to the people and the event.
|
julie321
|
posted on September 20, 2001 12:12:46 PM new
editing this double because I found the article:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/19/rec.wtc.rebuilding/index.html
[ edited by julie321 on Sep 20, 2001 12:20 PM ]
|
krs
|
posted on September 20, 2001 02:18:51 PM new
The luxury and comfort of burial.
|
bkmunroe
|
posted on September 20, 2001 02:22:39 PM new
I'd like to see the area rebuilt with an architecturally attractive cluster of moderate-size skyscrapers with a memorial in the center. While the twin towers were eye-catching, they weren't too attractive or practical.
|
docpjw
|
posted on September 20, 2001 02:24:26 PM new
Yes , and on the Same site.
|
krs
|
posted on September 20, 2001 02:25:09 PM new
krs posted on September 12, 2001 08:20:12 PM
It must be rebuilt but in a different form. Instead of two towers there should be one taller than the ones now gone and built with associated shorter buildings in the form of a
closed fist with a giant raised middle finger.
|
hjw
|
posted on September 20, 2001 02:27:51 PM new
yeah...
luxury of burial
comfort of burial
makes no sense.
Helen
|
gravid
|
posted on September 20, 2001 02:34:03 PM new
The value of the land is also tied up in a 99 year lease and it would be unrealistic to ask the lease holder to drop that huge value and not use it as a commercial site given the worth of NY property. Especially now that there will be such demand for footage.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 20, 2001 02:35:17 PM new
julie321 - Making it clickable http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/19/rec.wtc.rebuilding/index.html
I also heard that, and that the owner of the land was involved in making the decision too.
|
