When the decisions were made to put cultural facilities on the site that were unrelated to Ground Zero - a memorial to the victims - did you think people wouldn't eventually take notice of what those groups stood for and who they represent?
When the decision was made to build a single tower to replace the Twin Towers, did you not think that someone would notice that the site becomes a jumbled mess in order to restore much of the lost office space because the only way to do so would be to cram a bunch of smaller office buildings on the site to reclaim that space?
When the decision was made to build a memorial, did anyone think that no one would notice that there is actually no street level or higher symbol that a memorial is actually there? It is essentially hidden below street level. I guess you can argue that this is symbolic of the loss of the towers on that day nearly four years ago, but I think it's taking the symbolism way too far and becomes a post-modern mumbo jumbo of hooey.
I don't necessarily have the same problems that others do with the design of the new Freedom Tower. I only think that if we're going to build one, then a second tower that matches it in height and size shouldn't be a problem. Why build one if you can build two at twice the price.
The security concerns aren't altogether different for any of the office buildings at Ground Zero, so that if you build any towers at the site, they would need to be 'fortified.' If that's the case, then fully restore the skyline with two skyscrapers that can reduce the ground clutter and free up space for the memorial.
Heck, this is a lesson that Minoru Yamasaki learned when he designed the original WTC. Too many buildings on the site becomes a cluttered mess.
There's still time to fix the cluttered mess.
9/11 Valor Medals were awarded to the families of those emergency rescue personnel killed on 9/11 in a ceremony at the White House.
The New York Post notes that there really isn't anything to mediate in the discussions between the IFC and the 9/11 families. Either the IFC will follow the 9/11 family recommendations, or they're out of the project. It really is that simple.
Americans, of course, have every right to their views — no matter how disgusting and indecent they may be.
But not at a place of national solemnity like Ground Zero, where 3,000 innocent people died, at the hands of pure evil.
And the fact is, those behind this summit are also pushing the Freedom Center:
* Tom Healy, head of the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council, which is sponsoring the event, is on the IFC's staff.
* Carl Weisbrod and Madelyn Wils are board members at both the LMCC and the LMDC, which is overseeing plans to allow the IFC to set up at Ground Zero.
* Charles Maikish, picked by Pataki to run the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center, is the LMCC's chairman emeritus.
No wonder the first speaker at the summit yesterday was Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights. The group, founded by America-hating radical lawyer William Kunstler, among others, is demanding that everyone at Gitmo be freed at once.
Ratner and the CCR's worldview jibes with that of Tom Bernstein and his group, Human Rights First.
Bernstein's link to the IFC?
He's its founder and chairman!
Meanwhile, Bernstein's Human Rights group is suing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And Ratner's CCR has sought to put him (and Bush) on trial in Germany as war criminals.
Do Pataki and Bloomberg think a mediator will quiet such impulses at the Freedom Center? In the heart of Ground Zero? With activists safely shielded by the First Amendment?
No comments:
Post a Comment