It’s been some time since we’ve had a FT thread, but there are some recent developments. U.S. and State Plan to Occupy Freedom Tower is the headline of the NY Times article.
This strikes me as such a bad idea on so many levels. How may I count the ways?
The height offends me. 1776 feet. It screams out, "we’re building this place for purely symbolic political reasons. We don’t care about marketplace and economic realities.
The blithe assurances that the building “is safe”. According to the Freedom Tower website:
IIRC, 7 World Trade Centre collapsed on 9/11 without even being hit, excuse me for not being reassured.
That the government stepped in at the last minute and bought into it, because the private sector would have let it go belly up and die.
This building is going to set some kind of record as “most often phycically attacked location in the Western Hemisphere”.
No one problem counselled with you because you probably aren’t really in a position to know whether it’s good or bad ideas.
The economic realities is that the location is the site of some of the most valuable office space in the country. They are going to build a big freakin bulding there to replace the ones that were destroyed. And what the hell, if you’re going to make a 1700+ foot tall building why not make it a height that has some significance.
IIRC, 7 WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition charges planted by the Jews but that’s neither here nor there.
The term “unblowupable” is thrown around a lot these days, but the point is that the new buildings will be more secure against the type of attacks that destroyed the first one.
What’s your basis for saying it’s doubtful? At this point, we have no idea when the thing is going to be built. So, security concerns aside, I would bet that the private sector has a lot of incentive to leave this thing alone - at least for now.