I think this the perfect memorial. I'm pleased that they decided this, rather than any of the dozen sketches I saw proposed a year ago.
[ December 20, 2003, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
I am still of the mind that if theyre gonna build a tall ass building there again, then they need to rebuild the twin towers. Safer and tougher of course, but the twin towers again.
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
Good lord. A Freedom Tower? Freaking morons. That day marked a tragedy, not only in the loss of lives but also in a tremendous lost of freedom -- and, for the year following it, fanatical lockstep patriotism not at all unlike what the administrations of the USSR encouraged in their citizens. I agree that there needs to be a memorial, and I'm glad they decided on rebuilding the WTC in some aspect -- but god damn that name's ridiculous.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Not if it's the home of the Justice League it isn't!
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
I liked that article OSC wrote about what they should do with the WTC site...hold on, I'll go fish for it...
I agree with him on this one.
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
Heh. Good point, Bob. I want to see this called the Baxter Building, as a test of the balls of whoever's running this thing.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I wonder how long it'll be before it earns the nickname "French Tower?"
In all seriousness, I think a statue or sculpture fashioned from the WTC rubble would have been far more appropriate.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'm definitely glad they decided on a foward-looking replacement, rather than a backward-looking one.
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
I'm with Twinky, I think that a memorial statue/sculpture thingie would be better. Not only does the design they picked look rather bizzare but I think it's almost a challenge, you know: Hey, look we put the target back up! Come and hit it again! I wouldn't want to work there...
Posted by kaydubb (Member # 5953) on :
I agree with Daedalus, I understand what they are trying to accomplish with that name, but I can't help but feel it is a bit over the top considering what happened right after 9/11 (Patriot Act etc.)..
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
I disagree with OSC in that article, although at the time he wrote it (September 29, 2001), I would've been nodding in aproval.
I think it's important that we rebuild the towers, not in defiance, not for economic gain (please ), not for more office space. I think that a new building should be built over the site as a way of symbolizing that life can come from death, and, on another level, to symbolize all the people manhattan is built on (either physically or metaphorically).
What I don't agree with about the plan is that (a)I think the tower design is a big steaming heap of architectural crap and (b)that it's being used as a springboard for American jingoism.
The tower: It's a big white twisty-metal thing. It's post-modern, industrialist, and completely lacking organic lines. The thing will be built on the site of the greatest tragedy in recent American history, the greatest single site of death in modern American history, and instead of showing life and vitality despite death and tragedy, it shows that big twisty metal is good. The replacement tower should appear to flow out of the ground like water or roots from a tree
The motive: Calling the thing the "Freedom Tower" is painful. The building isn't going to be built in the name of freedom, it will be built in the name of profit. The people who died on September 11 didn't die for their freedom, they died because other people couldn't stand that they had freedom. The tower itself won't be a representation of freedom, since the tower will primarily be used by elite businessmen. But it's going to be called the "Freedom tower" and not the "Capitalism Tower". Why? Because "Freedom Tower" stabs people in that spot that forces them remember September 11 and the mindset that prevents them from questioning the government. It's like calling it the "Support our Troops Tower". Why can't it be called "Phoenix Tower" or "Pinnicle Tower" or even, "Manhattan Tower"?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
), not for more office space. I think that a new building should be built over the site as a way of symbolizing that life can come from death, and, on another level, to symbolize all the people manhattan is built on (either physically or metaphorically).