The Freedom Tower

The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation released revised plans for the Freedom Tower today. Since 9/11, I've had very strong feelings about the spirit in which Ground Zero should be rebuilt. By and large, I haven't liked the Freedom Tower concept and the fundamental decisions that have been made about how to rebuild.

This afternoon I wrote and posted a pretty bitter diatribe against the Freedom Tower and those who will be making it. I wrote it, posted it, re-read it, tweaked it, re-read it, tweaked it some more, re-read it, softened it, and then just took it down. My feelings about rebuilding in the wake of the World Trade Center come from a very passionate and compassionate place, but for some reason, bitterness was the only emotion I could summon when trying to express myself.

Better to cool off a bit, I think.

But a few thoughts:

My biggest complaint with the plans for Ground Zero is that they seem artificially artful and theoretical. It's pretty obvious that there are valid concerns against rebuilding two of the world's largest buildings in the wake of what happened to them. And I think a lot of the rationale behind why the Ground Zero complex is shaping up to be the way it is is disingenuous.

People are obviously skittish about putting something up that will be as vulnerable and inviting to attack as the original World Trade Center was. I don't blame them. So what we're left with are buildings that are not as big, bold, and brazen as the originals. And only one real tower when it was two that were destroyed.

The cliched name "Freedom Tower", its light-emitting "Beacon of Freedom", and its symbolic height of 1776 feet (achieved by a 400 foot antenna) do not resonate as genuine responses to terrorism. They seem like platitudes designed to make us feel like we're prevailing over our enemies, even though it is the fear of them that has guided the reconstruction process.

This is complicated. We obviously need to do everything we can to learn from what happened and fortify ourselves better this time around. But I really do think it's fear- fear of not attracting enough business, fear of remembering too vividly what stood there before, fear of making too big of a target- that has guided the big decisions on the matter.

That said, I think the new Freedom Tower design is much better than the previous one. I like the facts that, to quote from the LMDC's site:

"the tower's footprint, measuring 200 feet by 200 feet, is the same size as the footprints of the original Twin Towers... At its middle, the tower forms a perfect octagon in plan and then culminates in an observation deck and glass parapet (elevation 1,362 feet and 1,368 feet - the heights of the original Twin Towers)."

In many ways, the new tower really does resemble the originals- which I think is critical.

I guess my biggest question is, why can't we have two of them? I think that's what's really holding me back from feeling good about this plan. It may sound trivial, but I think it's key: the duality of the World Trade Center was so essential to it. To forsake that duality in reconstruction seems to miss the point.

And why is this so? I honestly think the answer is fear.

Years from now, when the Freedom Tower is a natural part of the skyline, I look forward to explaining to my children what was there before. There were these two huge, identical buildings.

But we only rebuilt one?