(Not even vaguely of the same magnitude, but just a personal comment…)
Where I live (Auckland, New Zealand) there is a hill, named One Tree Hill. Not terribly imaginative I’ll admit, but there you have it.
For all the years I was growing up in Auckland, and until last year, there where two things on top of the hill; a pointy cenotaph, and a large pine tree. The two formed an important part of the Auckland skyline and can be found on postcards and the like.
In 1994 some people attacked the old tree with a chainsaw (protesting something or other) but it survived. In 1999 someone else did the same thing and this time the damage was much more severe.
There has been discussion around what, if anything, should replace the icon, and my opinion is less severe (and humourous) than tracer’s robot, but it is in a similar vein; build a great bronze tree, the same size and shape as the old pine.
The skyscape will look right, we’ll remember the old tree, and it’ll make a fairly plain statement to the sort of people who would cut it down.
My deepest, heartfelt sympathy to all those affected by today’s horrible events.
Well, just to put in my two cents, I think that there should be a monument built on the spot. Like the Vietnam Memorial, it should have the names of everyone who died, and possibly also the injured. We could easily place some new buildings on the site and still have room for a monument.
Concerning the economic angle: the offices that were destroyed will eventually need to be replaced by 50,000 or so new offices. However, with new technology, it’s becoming less and less relevant whether you are located near Wall Street or not. So wouldn’t it now be cheaper to just build new offices in fast-growing suburban areas rather than new skyscrapers in NY.
As a person from Chicago who always wanted to see NYC my whole life and just got the chance to see it this June I can say first of all I loved NYC. I can see why people love it. The only bad thing I can find is you guys need alleys for your garbage. But even that was NEATLY piled up there.
I don’t think the WTC ever really symbolized NYC as much as the Empire State or even the Crystler Building did.
I mean as a tourist is seemed we would not have really been to NYC without a trip to the Empire State but we went to the WTC also as we were in Battry Park and had some time to kill.
I don’t think at least for outsiders it had the attachment that other building did for the city. So I think something will be rebuilt.
And as a side note after the first tower fell didn’t it look so weird just to see one of them?
I was like wow that’s gonna take some getting used to just seeing one.
By the way which one was which? Was the north or south one the one with the big antenna?
The barons of Wall Street want to be in Manhattan. While it’s not generally necessary to be in a skyscraper, it’s prestige. Also, it’s useful for when you want to get important original documents and packages delivered by courier.
The observation deck was on the south tower, and the antennas were on the north one. I’ve stayed in the hotel at the base before, and it was a bit weird to see the sign on the TV warning that reception was poor because the transmitters were straight above.
That’s been a problem in NYC now, too - the TV and radio stations that have their transmitters on the Empire State Building are working, as are the cable stations, but the ones that broadcast from Trade are out, of course.
Oh, and yes, the place should be rebuilt, if not necessarily to the same design. Not only is it vital to the world economy, but there has to be some symbol of retaking control.
If you rebuild a tower, or pair of towers there, it will likely be something other than a world trade center, something less impressive, less symbolic…less of a target.
The enemy threat must be perceived as a temporary issue that can be dealt with.
In reading some posts, there is a feeling running through the thread that if we rebuild (which is a decade away anyway), the threat of it being destroyed would be too much to expect it’s survival to be reasonable.
Not rebuild something this important!?..This is world-class foolishness, folks.
You must be so determined to preserve your freedom that it becomes inconceivable that we would allow the threat to permeate our lives into the future. The enemy - and that is how you must perceive them - must be destroyed so that your freedom is preserved. And you must be willing to make any sacrifice, and tolerate years of inconvenience for this to happen. It is a must - an absolute for freedom to continue. There is no debate…none…history had erased the debate from these types of issues.
Ignorance is bliss, and the protective layer of ignorance that wrapped the American consciousness has been torn away.
Some hunkering down will have to take place to fully erradicate the threat to our nation. This is not an option. We must proceed without compromises, at all times. We must be absolutely committed to dealing with the enemy so that is is INCONCEAVABLE that we would not move on and rebuild. We must be a stronger nation for this event, not a weaker one.
Not only that, but it’s also one of the few areas in Manhattan where skyscrappers can be built at all.
Didja ever notice how the Manhattan skyline seems to have all sorts of tall buildings on either end of the island, but no tall buildings in the middle? This isn’t because the middle is any kind of “low-rent district.” It’s because the ground in the middle of the island is too soft to support heavy structures. The ground at either end of the island has this huge, thick, stable slab of bedrock underneath it, which can support the weight of skyscrapers.
So, not only is the locale of the former World Trade Center towers “prime downtown real estate,” it’s also one of the few good locales for skyscrapers. It would be a shame not to build more skyscrapers there.
You know, it’s not like if we don’t rebuild the World Trade Center the terrorists will just go away. They’ll find other targets; if we don’t rebuild the WTC, they’ll just blow up the Empire State Building next. That’s why tracer is right: we need to rebuild the WTC, even bigger than the old WTC so it will be an utterly irresistible target, but it will secretly have all sorts of hidden ultra-sophisticated defense systems! We’ll lure the terrorists into a giant trap! It’ll be just like the second Death Star in Return of the Jedi! Okay, wait, maybe that’s not such a good example…
[sub]Sorry folks. I’ve gotta laugh at something. And the first part, about terrorists just targeting something else if we don’t rebuild, was actually serious.[/sub]
In a way I think we should rebuild it just to prove that we are not broken as a people - but there is something to be said about decenterilization (I know i destroyed that word). Maybe it’s time to think of smaller buildings that would be not be that critical to take out.
