In these terrible days many architects, philosophers, writers have expressed their opinion about the meaning of the WTC rebuilding. Some (even in NYC) think that huge scrapers are easily a target for terrorists, other that we have to rebuild the Towers exactly as before. Giuliani has said that 'newyorkers will have their towers' . They should be similar but not exactly the same of the old ones. Well, what do you think ? And are other news about it ? Personally, I guess that we should build towers even higher to give a powerfull sign that U.S., Europe and all the civil society are stronger than before.

• ID# 211.2 (reply to #211.1) - 23 September 2001
  Altho' I'm in no mood to discuss anything related to the subject, I feel that the huge plot has to be pretty extensively redeveloped just to satisfy the demand for office space -- that is, unless the economy goes totally pear-shaped in even long term. (Now there's another calculated effect of the attack, along with the attackers' apparent demonic stock market profiteering on insurance and airline stocks...) Dunno about the other buildings in the area, whether any other have to be demolished & rebuilt, as I haven't yet wanted to read the Web-NYT article on the subject (or any related to the WTC architectural/engineering issue...) ED

• ID# 211.3 (reply to #211.1)
  From: Michael J. Wood ([email protected]) - 6 October 2001

  I am from NYC. I am a EMT. I feel along with everybody I know that the Twin Towers must be rebuilt. It is not a question of rebuilding. New Yorkers need to have the Twin Towers. There is no debate. As far as having the towers attacked again from the air, I find this unlikely. I do not feel that that type of attack will be possible again.

• ID# 211.4 (reply to #211.1)
  From: Jane ([email protected]) - 7 October 2001

  Hello my Name is Julie! I think they should build the Tower up to 110 or more floors! Ok if eveyone is so freeked out about this lets do this! starting off with 55 floors and make her so she can have more floor add on as need! Say we can build her up to 155 floors! Why not invent in upgradeable highries! We could also make the towers so they have skywalks to some other buildings on the upper floors as access way out! or even if neeed we can put a Chopper on the top of both towers if need with liftying racks that can hold a lot of people! Look All you we can still enjoy highrises and feel safe! It just how you look at it and build them If We stop building higher then we look week and can be poked and made fun at. I can tell you this the rest of the world will build taller and higher and bigger! Lets not look like the tiny people on the short end of the stick!
  Jane

  • ID# 211.5 (reply to #211.4) - 7 October 2001
    The helicopter thing is indeed interesting as cities like LA have a requirement for helipads at the top, something that has never been seen as essential in NYC. On the other hand, in disasters like the 9/11, a helipad, even with some kind of pre-installed escape craft for airlifting, would be simply insufficient due to the amount of people to be evacuated as well as the inevitable delays in getting choppers to the scene at all (I guess they'd end up being stored at some heliport away from the towers). But even with discounting any terrorist attacks such as those that happened, a helipad would indeed be a sound investment also for occurrences like emergency medical calls etc. ED
    • ID# 211.14 (reply to #211.5)
      From: b bricks - 9 May 2003

      why not put and Anti Aircraft Artillery battery on the roof...?

• ID# 211.6 (reply to #211.1) - 7 October 2001
  As a view on the reconstruction effort itself, something will indeed be constructed within the next decade, the need is simply too pressing. I'm, however, frightful of what will eventually rise to the site; however destructive the original WTC was seen to the urban fabric of western Downtown, they had taken after that such an integral place in the NYC skyline and both acted both as imaginative (visitors, postcards, pride factor etc.) and concrete (lots of office space at a commuter rail junction, 1 WTC transmission masts) symbols of the city that their loss was, for me, even surprisingly unanimously mourned. There has been talk to the effect that the approach of the originals' "blunt urbanism" would have to be replaced with a more down-to-earth and easily approachable complex that would also house other publicly-orientated institutions. That's in itself laudable, but with the post-1980 examples being mostly, IMO, architecturally quite flimsy, spiritless and gimmicky combinations of styles that can, by all means, function within the multicoloured quilt of Times Square, but as a strong statement that the location at the gateway to East and Hudson Rivers and the new NYC Landmark with a capital "L" they may end up being "too" artistic. The strength of the originals as viewed from afar -- where they were anyway viewed 95% of the time -- came from the simple tube form of the towers and the almost solid nature of the facades, due to the small window slits, and the skylobby level bands on the facade. Like an NYT article described the towers as products of the age of the 1960s "moon shots" (and thus of by-now obsolete urban thinking), similarly their structural system and, as a result, their looks reflected the technological belief that was abound at those times. The WTC was undoubtedly, along with the Saturn V the ultimate expression of that age of "infallibility" and both also had the similar no-frills practical beauty and vertically-aspired form. "Nelson and David" (as the towers were mockingly called at the time of the construction, after two Rockefeller brothers, Nelson being also the governor of NY) were NYC's own expressions of the aspirations that space age seemed to offer us all in form of new construction technology. Although the optimistic ideals of that time have usually fallen short, the WTC towers, completed when the Apollo program was wound down, were NYC's permanent Saturn Vs, landmarks that eventually also managed to gain the love of the so-hard-to-impress NYers, even despite the clashes between builders and demonstrators in the turbulent late-1960s. Although I have v. much tried to keep my personal view in the background on the aesthetic values of the buildings, in this case I guess I can make an eulogy that simply states that the Towers were in their simplicity and impact on the skyline the single most effective and beautiful element on the NYC skyline, partly due to the twin configuration, partly due to their rise from a concentration of "lower" (a relative term) buildings (Empire is more suitable to a dominating role in a low-rise neighbourhood due to its set-back form). As I saw the towers destroyed on live TV I could only watch in despair as I knew that they'd be gone forever; even if a loosely similar configuration of super-tall towers was deviced (which isn't even certain), the stylistic and urban-enviromental tastes have changed to ones that embrace more variation and pedestrian interaction (to an extent) and which will bring us something undoubtedly artistically more challenging and fulfilling. Personally, however, I'm not certain if the reflective/coloured glass walls, rusticated, set-back granite bases and marble panels on the facades (all in living colour) will be for me a satisfactory substitute, no matter how much it improves the quality of life in Financial District. Saying that I felt like losing twin sons that day is no exaggeration -- but perhaps a day that changed our way of living in so many ways was an appropriate moment to also amplify that loss and forever mark that occurrence in history. ED

• ID# 211.7 (reply to #211.1)
  From: Espen Hernes ([email protected]) - 7 October 2001

  Hello, I am a man from Norway who has been fascinated by skyscrapers for a long time, though my main interest has been old buildings/streets, such as the downtown/Wallstreet area. Ive also been to New York several times shooting a lot of pictures.
  Now my reason for joining this discussion concerning rebuilding WTC, is to comment on some of the opinions and views tha was put forward in the #211.1 message. In my opinion New York should be more proud of the amount of skyscrapers and the historic values tied to once beeing the city that started this trend, rather than launching a debate of rising to the sky competing with the Asian towers, just to "show the world that the US and Europe and the socalled civilized world did not shake to its guts by the terroracts". The US was shaken by these acts, and its time to reflect on why this happened, as we do when other crimes have been commited. Remember there is a world outside the US that condemn these acts but at the same time have other opinions and ways of living, also in Europe. Tall buildings should not be built just to become an arrogant erection of american capitalism, as the WTC was.If you hail such propaganda, I am sure the atrocities will continue, and the american people wil suffer more. If the WTC should be replaced by something in similar size as those now gone, they sholud be symbol of union, not only among americans, but among people from all parts of the world. Remember New York has a proud history of ethnic and cultural understanding. It was simply built by foreigners.

  • ID# 211.8 (reply to #211.7) - 7 October 2001
    Although I agree with the notion of the US commitments in foreign countries (including a part of the world where some people think western influence should be greatly diminished) being an impetus behind the attacks and I've never been too much into the height race itself, I still personally think that it should be up to each sovereign nation to build whatever they want without fear of some lunatics (yes, however soberly planned, executed and politically/religiously "argumented" the attacks were) attacking them. In that sense I wouldn't have problem with new super-tall skyscrapers being erected anywhere in the world, as these structures by themselves rarely have little to do with a nation's behaviour in other parts of the world -- it should be rather the foreign policies that get affected in the process.
    As for the WTC itself, although in a way a symbol of American engineering and construction (as was the Sears a little later), they held in fact a most international "congregation" of workers within, something that the nationalities of the victims also showed. The towers had indeed more than any other structure in NYC -- and most definitely in the US, even the world? -- held a truly international clientele, which made the attacks more than just an attack on US symbolism. And due to the destruction of the Center and its office space, any new structure on the site would have to similarly cater to international firms and employees -- if they don't choose to relocate somewhere else in the meantime... ED

• ID# 211.9 (reply to #211.1)
  From: Marty - 15 October 2001

  hello there,I have read these other followups and strongly agree about rebuilding the W.T.C. We need to build them very similar to what they were, except to add a few more saftey features on them for example having them connected at the rooftops and at several other areas so that people can can access from building to the other in an emergency. As far from future attacks from the air they need to inforce a nofly zone over every metropolitan area and if necessary install patriot missiles on top of the roofs. They should even build a third but even higher tower so there is more spacing of buildings instead of having so many buildings so close together and show that the U.S. and the world have united and became stronger since the september 11th. attacks.

  • ID# 211.10 (reply to #211.9) - 15 October 2001
    Agree with the requirement of connectivity á la Brasília's twin towers or the Petronases (should they rebuild an extra-tall multi-tower complex). As for the no-fly zone, the proximity of approaches to all three metropolitan NYC/NJ airports could make it all too easy to "divert" a plane from landing/takeoff pattern to Manhattan unexpectedly. For similar reasons the ultimate fate of Washington's Reagan (he who sacked ATCs in the early 1980s) ap is uncertain. Also no Patriots required to down the hijacker-murderers, a few Stingers or a battery of Sidewinders should do the job. And that was cynically put, wasn't it? But I guess that after 9/11 that's a turn the world has taken. ED

• ID# 211.11 (reply to #211.1)
  From: D Bruno - 20 October 2001

  Rebuild the towers? Absolutely. If we succumb to the notion that the towers will be attacked again because they are so high and and an obvious target perhaps then, we should build everything lower than only five stories, which is what the height of the Pentagon is. Better yet, let's put all our future buildings underground if we're going to let these terrosts get over on us. New York City is all about 'the tallest buildings in the world'. This is what people are in awe of when they visit the "Big Apple" for the first time, what they go there in the first place to see. Shall we transform the "Big Apple" into a little baby crab apple because of this? If the towers aren't returned at the minimum to their original height, (better yet, taller) then, Bin Laden's band of lunatic thugs will be gloating forever that they took them away from us. That is something I have a great deal of trouble trying to stomach. It isn't about how tall the buildings are but, how well we secure our country. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire has been dubbed as the worst disaster in the history of NYC since March of 1911 when it occurred until September of 2001. Citizens said exactly what they've been saying recently, "New York will never be the same again". Well, it never was the same, only bigger and better as the years went on and out of everything bad good will come if we look for it. Build em back, build em better, build em taller, and keep that New York spirit alive and going strong!

• ID# 211.12 (reply to #211.1)
  From: Guy Glitter - 22 October 2001

  Trying to forget the economic ratio for a second (imaginary world), wouldnt it be amazing if a big open space be left there in order to remember forever what happened? I am afraid that the costruction of new building will lead us to forget. GG

• ID# 211.13 (reply to #211.1)
  From: Rosa Torres Tumazos ([email protected]) - 12 November 2001

  I have an idea for the rebuilding of the trade center that involves using holograms to reconstruct the original Towers with an illuminated light beam extending 110 stories above into the night sky, in a spectacular sight that looks just like the original and would not be susceptible to terrorist atacks since it would be a virtual structure. The bottom structure could be various real smaller buildings with the same architecture as the lower floors of the original towers.
  Do you know how I can communicate this proposal to those involved in making these decisions? I am not in the architectural community, but am very excited about this idea. There is a hologram of the Statue of Liberty at the Liberty Science center in NJ that inspired me to think of this. It would become one of the world's newest wonders and a popular tourist attraction for everyone around the world.
  Rosa Torres Tumazos