Mark

A local architect here in Los Angeles has suggested that a beautiful public memorial park be built where the WTC used to stand instead of rebuilding it. How do you New Yorkers feel about that?

Maira

The corporation that owns the real estate is talking about rebuilding. I vote for that. A memorial could be incorporated into the design (like the Reflective Pond on the Washington Mall). BTW, does anybody knows if the Jewish Memorial near the WTC still there?

Joanne

The LA architect has good intentions, no doubt, but he is a dreamer. NYC has lost a significant percentage of its office space, the land the WTC is on is worth a fortune, or really many fortunes, and rebuilding is essential.

Jeff

Something commercial will go there with a token memorial. Joanne is right that they need commerical space. The old Woolworth building is about to go condo (located right on lower Broadway). At the request of the city of New York, the building will be rushing to refit the building back to commercial because there will be a shortage of commercial space. More importantly, people FEAR now. I got a chill going over the Throggs Neck Bridge earlier this week after all the bomb threats. People will not, or should not, work in a world trade center tower 3 and 4 in NY. NY is tough enough and people will need to, once again, feel comfortable in NY (it will come with a lot of time after the war is over) so I don't get a chill going over a bridge in my hometown.

DMN

Rebuild as a sign of strength, not the exact structure! As a New Yorker thats what I would like to see. A memorial is nice but we need a combination of both. Now as Americans we should not sell our stock, but buy. We can remain strong and move forward.

Another Thought

The following will be dismissed but I put it forth for what it's worth:

Skyscraper office buildings (and apt. buildings) have always bothered me for the concentration of people in undefendable places. By "undefendable" I always used to mean difficult to handle in case of fire or earthquake. Now there's a tragic new sense.

Yes, Manhattan land is too valuable for low-rise building, yet is it time to think about our vulnerability in such high concentrations of population and business activity in general? Not all businesses have to be located geographically within a few square miles, horizontally OR vertically.

Ironically, the reason no one can catch Bin Laden and his outlaw armies is that they observe no such centralizing principle. How can we say "never again" when we replicate the "undefendable" centralized targets? And there are, of course, other ways to attack concentrations of population.

A park would be lovely, but it will not be allowed to take the place of commercial building. I worry, however, that rather than standing as a testiment to resiliance, two 110-story towers would only be a haunting ghost image of our lost innocence, standing as if waiting to be attacked once again. And no amount of assurances that THIS time the towers could be built to withstand the impact the intense heat, etc. etc, would really convince us of invulnerability.

Charlie

They should definitely rebuild it with a memorial at its base for the victims. To those that suggest that it would create another big target, I say that is a little naive. Manhattan and other major cities already have plenty of targets. Any surprise plane crash in an urban area would be devastating. Others have raised the point that the big towers are too much of a target because there has been two attacks on the WTC in 10 years. That's not really accurate, it's really ONE person behind 2 attacks; if we had taken care of business after the first attack who knows if there would have been a second. Unless we turn Manhattan into farmland it will always be risky. Besides, if we don't rebuild then it's clear the b******'s have won the psychological battle.

Charlie

It took 7 years to build the twin towers.Lets rebuild them exactly as they were but lets do it in half the time and dedicate the effort to those we've lost.Lets show the world that, like our skyline,we will not change.

Charlie

Maira,

I believe the memorial is still there. It's pretty far away from the crash zone (4 or 5 blocks). They may have to check to see if it is structurally sound because it sits on landfill.

Cindy

I understand the concerns about high-rise buildings with high concentrations of people being difficult to defend, but it really isn't all that bad, IMHO.

Due to extensive regulation, we really haven't had a major high rise disaster in ages. The redundant safety systems designed into modern buildings for fire, earthquake and evacuation are really quite impressive. I was in a tall building during the SF earthquake, and it suffered no damage at all and the evacuation went very smoothly. And even in this hideous disaster, 90% of the tenants evacuated.

If we rebuild, we can make the building even safer under modern building codes.

John

There are a host of psychological, financial, and practical reasons the WTC can't probably be rebuilt as-was. First, the buildings were designed in the 60s to meet commercial needs which aren't as relevant now. Many of the financial firms based in Wall Street have become much more dispersed, moving to midtown or in many cases simply becoming "virtual" through all the advances in computing and telecommunications that have happened since then. The psycholgical/marketing issues are not to be sniffed at, either; modern office buildings need long-term leases at high per-square-foot rents in order to "pencil," and people's willingness to pay top dollar to work 100 stories up has already been fading, never mind the sense of vulnerability which is sure to be felt now.

The idea I've floated to some friends is to recognize the "world" part of the complex's name by building an international peace park stretching from the site to Battery Park (where the Jewish museum is located), including the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island ferry terminals. Then, use our muscle with the UN to "offer" them a new complex built on the site of the WTC. Have the biggest international architectural competition of all time to design it, and tell the UN we'll only pay our dues if they agree to move. The current UN complex on the East River is long in the tooth anyway and not suited to the current needs of the UN, so that property could be swapped for the WTC site and then put to better use.

I think turning this scene of hatred and sorrow into the capital of the world, and making the UN bureaucrats walk past the memorial and look out their windows to the Statue of Liberty every day, might have some lasting benefits.

frank

There's a funny email joke going around. It's picture of the New York Skyline. It has five fingers like buildings. The two on the right and two on the left are smaller than the very tall one in the middle. Get the picture

Spider

I say re-build bigger and better! a 2000 foot high symbol that America will not succumb to them!

tommy

I work for a large financial services company that announced today that they expect a billion dollars in losses due to destroyed offices as well as the consequent loss of business from closed markets. It will take a lot to fill a rebuilt WTC, as I think most companies will not want to locate in such a lightning rod for terrorists. After spending the worst day of my life waiting for the return of my partner from downtown Manhattan and for word from loved ones in the WTC, I would do everything in my power to prevent my loved ones from accepting a job in a newly built WTC.

Leslie

I heard on the national news last night that only one of the WTC towers was insured. I suspect that the WTC will be rebuilt but on a smaller scale. Further news reports today are saying that tenants are searching for office space outside of Manhattan, and will be relocating to Brooklyn, northern New Jersey and Connecticut. American Express who did not have an office in the WTC is moving its corporate office to Connecticut.

I work on the 40th floor of a 46 story building in Boston's financial district, with great views of the City. After my office building and 10 others were evacuated because of bomb threats yesterday, I really have to consider if I want to change jobs because I need to work on a lower floor because of my own sanity.

Leslie

Philip

As a New Yorker, I say rebuild. However, someone recently told me (before the tragedy) that these days they don't build much taller than the World Trade Center (110 stories) simply because they can't get elevators fast enough to get to the top.

Charlie

To Leslie:

I would not read too much just yet into all the news about people moving to the burbs and outer boroughs. Amex was not in the WTC but their office is next door in the World Financial Center. Their building sustained severe strutural damage following the towers' collapse. Given the large swath of office space that was lost, companies are currently just scrambling for any available space to set up emergency operations. It is too soon to say that they are moving out.

Elizabeth

Does someone know about this? It is just something I think I heard: I think the WTC had problems being profitable, maybe from before the 1993 bombing, more afterward when many people did not want to rent/work there.
Does anyone know more about this?
Because I think if they couldn't rent it out before this, how possible is it they could rent it out (another big tower) after this? Unless they made unprofitable deals, etc. . .
I woldn't work in one of them.

Joanne

Can anyone post a reliable source for the info (rumor?) about only one of the towers being insured? I saw this on a BBC web site, which has since been changed. Leslie referred to this above (at 6:02 OM today). I would really appreciate a source for this, as someone I mentioned it to really blew up about "rumormongering."

Charlie

To Elizabeth:

If I remember correctly, someone is giving you a twisted story. The WTC was built in the 70's in a project proposed by David Rockefeller (Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank)to his brother Nelson Rockefeller (Governor of NY) as a way to stimulate the local economy and help out the downtown area. The Port Authority (a joint government agency for NY and NJ) picked the west side location to help facilitate devlopment of the area's main shipping port which happens to be on the NJ side. Because the local economy was still down at the time that construction was completed, NY state took much of the office space. Remember, in the 70's, there were oil shortages, bad recessions and NYC was suffering bad fiscal problems (President Ford's famous "drop dead".)
By the time of the first explosion, occupancy was not a problem and up to Tuesday, the complex was fully rented and had just been refurbished. If there had been any problems, Silverstein, poor guy, would not have paid a few months ago several billion to lease the site for 99 years.