NY Governor say NO Commercial Re-building at WTC site (1 Viewer)

[Aurel Savin]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/30/wtc.site.ap/index.html
See the link above.
Personally I am very happy with this decision.

 

[Philip_G]

Wow, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Interesting decision though.

 

[Chuck C]

but on the other hand

 

[Rob Lutter]

Well, I guess the evil men accomplished their task
Doesn't anybody else think that it would be a better memorial to those who died to rebuild? :frowning:

 

[Morgan Jolley]

They need to make a new one, but I don't think they should do it on the site of the old one.

Maybe they should leave the area as an open memorial, or eventually build a museum there.

 

[Matt Krapf]

Interesting dilemma.

Are we "buckling" after the attack, by not re-building?
Should we reaffirm ourselves by re-building?

I suspect a BIG factor that played into it was the answer the question the owners of the site got, when they asked how much it will cost to re-insure ANY new construction? Particularly, if it's tall enough to be a target again? (bet on the insurance industry balking at the risk)

A more pressing question for NYC is how to recoup all the office space?

We'll see.

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

I like the idea. I don't think we are "buckling" by not rebuilding. I do think it would be better to leave the area clear, to turn it into a greenspace with a memorial so that people can visit and "remember". Putting up a building of glass and metal would go too far in erasing the memory of the WTC for future generations. I mean, they would grow up with a new building standing in the place where the WTC once stood and the significance of the site might be lost on them.

Bruce

 

[Morgan Jolley]

But they do need to build a new WTC. Not at the same spot as the first one, but somewhere.

 

[Brian Kleinke]

Very interesting... I'll be curious to see exactly what they put there.

Brian

 

[Rob Lutter]

Could you fit a large building where WTC 7 used to stand? That building was HUGE. They very well could put up a new building on that site.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I've edited the thread title to more accurately reflect the news story in the link.
Let's be clear: There has been NO decision about what will or won't be built at the site. George Pataki (who's running for re-election) doesn't have the final say, and his pledge should be viewed as a savvy move by a politician whose popularity in New York City has never been the strongest.
M.

 

[Will K]

I hate to be cynical, but anyone who thinks money won't win out in the end has way too much hope for the human race. Surely, a memorial will exist in one form or another as long as it doesn't get in the way of commerce.

But I agree that the new WTC should exist elsewhere and ground zero should remain a memorial forever.

 

[Ted Todorov]

They have already started building at the 7 WTC site. They have also hired prominent architects for the main WTC project.

Pataki's statement means exactly nothing. Of course if you want play with semantics, you could easily rebuild the twin towers slightly shifted to one side or the other and: "We will never build where the towers stood" will be technically correct though obviously bogus.

For what it's worth, this New Yorker is all for rebuilding.

Ted

 

[Michael Reuben]

For what it's worth, this New Yorker is all for rebuilding.

I think I knew that.
M.

 

[Reni D]

Sorry I dont know how to feel about this discission. I wanted the Trade center or another building re-built.Show them that they can hurt us but we stand back up.

 

[Ryan Wright]

"I don't think anything should ever be even thought about being built where Tower 1 and Tower 2 stood. ... That to me is like sacred ground."

Oh please ...
Yes, there should be a memorial of some sort. But "sacred ground"? Give me a break. I say, rebuild, bigger and better than ever, and put a nice memorial on-site.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Oh please :rolleyes..
Yes, there should be a memorial of some sort. But "sacred ground"? Give me a break. I say, rebuild, bigger and better than ever, and put a nice memorial on-site.

Thousands of poeople were mass murdered in a matter of minuted by government sponsored terrorists. I suppose that we should tear down Aushwitz and use that valuable farmland also, huh? Damn, man, have some respect for the people who were brutally murdered. :frowning:

 

[JoshF]

Thousands of poeople were mass murdered in a matter of minuted by government sponsored terrorists. I suppose that we should tear down Aushwitz and use that valuable farmland also, huh? Damn, man, have some respect for the people who were brutally murdered.

Totally different scenarios. In this instance, we're talking about being proud and rebuilding and standing in the face of terrorism.

In the other (Auschwitz) example, Jews have stood up to racism by rebuilding their culture and numbers - that would be the correct analog here. The camps remain there simply as a reminder. Some of them, in fact, are simply monuments (like Treblinka). Auschwitz just happens to still be 50% there so it remains. Watch "Last Days" for a full understanding.

 

[Paul_D]

Terrorists win. :frowning:

 

[SteveA]

The fact is - those 16 acres are probably the most valuable 16 acres of real estate in the whole world. Some sort of redevelopment is going to happen - at least on part of the site.