I don't know about the rest of the country, but here in NYC some big news as of late s the cancelling of the Freedom Tower project due to terrorism concerns. It is also learned many people disliked the architecture. Many New Yorkers, including Donald Trump, want for the Twin Towers to be rebuilt at Ground Zero, with one added floor. While this is mostly a New York issue...of course I value all of your input and beliefs as we are all connected from the tragic events of that day.

Question for Debate:

Should the Twin Towers be rebuilt or should a new architectural project be pursued?

My honest opinion is that we should not rebuild the twin towers. Not because i dislike the skyline, because i loved it. But my fear is that by rebuilding them, we would just be replacing what was once there instead of remembering. I think people want to return to September 10th, 2001 and that frightens me. I think that they should build something new on that ground with an extensive memorial for the dead. But thats just my opinion.

I always hated the Twin Towers and, like many, thought they were a real eyesore. But if they're going to be replaced at all, it shouldn't be with something even uglier - and that's exactly what the Freedom Tower was. I'm delighted that it was scrapped. Obviously, the real estate is too prime to leave the site undeveloped, but I'd much prefer something a bit more understated, focusing on the memorial aspects of the site.

I have to agree. Putting up a new super-building seems to be in bad taste. Something a bit restrained would be better, in my opinion.


Here is an old article (Autumn 2001) which proposed an idea which seems to be in better taste.

What Should Rise From the Ashes?

This plan is just a dream, of course, but it seems very reasonable. The area becomes integrated into the rest of New York City, and allows for a memorial.

Should the Twin Towers be rebuilt or should a new architectural project be pursued?
I saw Trump last night (bad hair and all) huckstering for his uninspired redux of the twin towers and shuddered. From a left coaster's point of view, I don't believe the towers should be rebuilt. As Wertz mentioned, the land is far too valuable to lie fallow, but something with more vision than Trump's monstrosity needs to be built. With all the architects in the world, you'd think there would be more to choose from.

Oh, I just had to share this:

Should the Twin Towers be rebuilt or should a new architectural project be pursued? The Twin Towers were pretty ugly, it's 2005 we can build something nicer. My gut tells me we should build the tallest, most gigantic, building in the world at ground zero. That's the American way. When this building gets built, whatever it looks like, it will be an iconic American structure, like the Empire State Building, the Golden Gate Bridge or the Capitol building. As an iconic American building it needs a sense of grandeur. At the same time you have to honor the people who died on 9/11. I think it's possible to marry the two, make the first 30 floors a museum/memorial, something like that. Most importantly though, no statues of George W. Bush.

From the replies I've read to this prompt, everyone has established two things: the tower must either be rebuilt stronger and more powerful, and/or, it must commemorate September 11th. If we truly want to get anywhere, we've got to ask ourselves what the consequences of our possible actions will be. If we rebuild the towers with even more grandeur, as Trump suggested to the New York Post rather presumptiously: , then the message we will be sending to the world will be something to the effect of: HA! Terrorist scum, you can knock down our buildings and our citizens, but you can never defeat our will to rise up stronger! Now, this does not seem like a bad message at all, in fact it sounds rather courageous. If we built a memorial without adding another structure, we will be paying homage to the victims of September 11th, but doing little else to support the backbone of America. By building both a tower and memorial at the same site, we will forever equate that building with the tragedy of September 11th, and I'm not necessarily sure that this is a good thing.

I believe that it is imperative that America be able to fully honor and remember the victims of September 11th, but also be able to move on. By fixing memorial to the site which would also contain a modern, working building (presumably with offices or apartments or something), the people of the US will be unable to implement the building to its fullest capacity if they continue to associate it with 9/11. Perhaps the attention drawn to the building would possibly even encourage further terrorist action on it. I believe that the solution to this problem is to erect memorials separate from the building, say, in Washington D.C.

One thing is clear though, people want something rebuilt! Just 6 days after the attack, an article was published by CNN regarding the rebuilding of the towers. Eric Darton, the author of "Divided We Stand: A Biography of New York's World Trade Center" stated

-Aeschines

Sources:
(1) NY Post Online: Donald Set to Unveil 'World Trump Center'
(2) CNN.com: Debate begins on rebuilding towers

Trump did have some good points...

He made a reference to the "foot steps" of the orginal towers. He also talked about the perception of how we handled this in the eyes of terrorists. If we build the towers back as the stood, but a bit taller, but stronger, we tell the terrorist.. ... we are back...

I don't really know though, because I did not lose someone in the attack. I think that opinions of what should be done really should come from those that were more closely affected.

I'm not sure I agree with Trump's views at all. He seems to indicate that whatever replaces the towers should be a symbol to terrorists that you can never defeat the will of the American people etc etc.

But then you alow whatever replaces the Twin Towers to be defined as a message of defiance to the terrorists. It shouldn't be about sending a message to terrorists at all. They're a bunch of mass murdering criminals. You don't need to be defiant towards mass murdering criminals, you simply need to catch them.

It is my personal opinion that we should not only rebuild the towers, but make them even bigger. I couldn't think of a better tribute and memorial to those who died on that day than to erect a larger, humongous trade towers. Perhaps rename it in honor of them. Perhaps displays and sculptures on every floor in honor of the poeple. I would like to see the towers built as high as humanly possible in order to show the world and the terrorists that while you may knock us down-you will never knock us out.

Personally I believe that rebuilding the towers would invite further attack. It is find to say that it would be an honor to those lost and a sparkling reminder to terrorists that we shall overcome. That simply is not the case. We cannot allow ourselves to create something so grand and marvelous that it invites another attack on the sheer grounds it was made to out-do the previous structure. I am not against updating and making things grander, but for the excuse some would have this project done for it seems absurd.

The best monument we can give those who perished is memory. Never forgot the day, mourn the loss and rebuild for tomorrow. A memorial building or park would suffice. I happen to think when you forget something you invite it to occur again, rebuilding the towers or a grand monument' to greatness over the spot where the towers once stood is inviting attack because a part of the story is lost when something replaces the original area of the tragedy.

I like what they did with the site of the Oklahoma City bombing. A wonderful museum and other memorials were all that were needed to remember the loss. America has plenty of room, even in New York some things need to be preserved. September the Eleventh is one of those things that should never be forgotten. To make a new super-structure is not remembering, if you add a "memorial" level who would stop by but family of the dead? If you use the entire site as a tribute the day could never be forgotten. The day does not need to be forgotten.

Should the Twin Towers be rebuilt or should a new architectural project be pursued?

As a frequent visitor to Lower Manhattan, I was always impressed by the Towers from a distance for their sheer size and understated simplicity, then as I got closer to them, I considered them ugly and otherwise unremarkable. Some of the interiors were magnificent, and the view from the top was spectacular, but my overall opinion of its architecture was that it has relatively little character beyond its scope.

I think we were all still at least somewhat given to emotion when the decision was made to replace it with short buildings topped by a huge piece of modern art. What looked magnificent through the prisms of our tears seems alien and odd now that we have no tears left to cry.

I'm not so sure I agree with a lot of the motives offered for rebuilding the towers as they were, but more magnificently. Each of us will undoubtedly find our own meaning in whatever eventually gets placed there. But in my short visits, I have become accustomed to spending a little time a battery park, looking at that shattered globe, remembering my first sight of it when it was whole, and the mortal angst welling up in me those long hours I waited to discover, selfishly, if the people I loved had been at work that day, and if so, if they had escaped harm. That simple memorial which once seemed so insufficient has now become familiar. When that lump returns to my throat which cannot be ignored, that twisted sphere awaits me, and the gardens around it are fertile soil for my tears. I am now not so sure any other memorial would mean as much to me, but others will certainly have other opinions where emotions are concerned.

My hindsight is not exactly 20/20, and I feel no particular need to send a message to terrorists or to ourselves by what it rebuilt in place of the Towers-- we have responded by action, so wasting too much effort on architechural symbolism would seem only to serve as target practice.

But as ugly as I thought those buildings were when I took them for granted, and as much as I once felt like regurgitating at the audacious suggestion of just rebuilding them like nothing happened, emotion and reason, perhaps one still somewhat colored by the other, now seem to have taken my thoughts full circle, and I think it good to rebuild something as close to what was there before as the good people of New York can agree upon. Perhaps it should be given a more appropriate name, or perhaps it should have more or less style. I want it to be much the same so as to remember more than to forget. Love it or hate it, the Towers made efficient use of real estate.

And, as silly as it may sound, I think I would like a nice, new globe welcoming those who enter that building, a short walk from my old friend in battery park. I can't really explain why. But for me, I think that would be enough.

I cannot say my feelings won't change again over time, and I cannot say that my opinions are not just a symptom of my stage of grief-- they probably are. Change always comes, especially in that city, and sometimes change is good even when the circumstances affecting that change were horrendous at best. But today, it is difficult for me to imagine myself ten years from now looking at anything else occupying that place in the skyline and being glad that it is there.

The terrorists chose the Twin Towers as a target because they were symbolic of modern America. Whatever is rebuilt on the site should preserve the same symbol. It shouldn't be built as an "in your face" to the terrorists, but this likely will be an inadvertant side effect to building another notable structure which will represent American architectural supremecy.

That all being said, a large portion of the building should be a memorial. This is important because what happened on Ground Zero, as horrible as it was, should not be ignored or pushed aside. Then again, life must go on and American must persevere. By building a superstructure that also contains a healthy memorial, both goals will be accomplished.

Should the Twin Towers be rebuilt or should a new architectural project be pursued?

Building anything on this site, particularly a memorial, just appeases the terrorists. The terrorists will in effect have a memorial to their actions where everyone can reflect how they successfully terrified a nation, even the world. As many have argued, appeasement or the appearance of appeasement is bad. We wouldn't want to appease the terrorists like other appeasements in the past, would we? I suggest we ask the terrorists what they want there and then do the opposite. It should be fairly easy to determine since terrorists like to live in countries the US has invaded.