New York Post: The great majority of respondents don't like the Libeskind design...
March 3, 2003 -- The thought of Daniel Libeskind's WTC design makes my stomach turn ("The Libeskind Illusion, Editorial, Feb. 2.
Building something that symbolizes weakness and appeasement not only dishonors those who perished on 9/11, but forever glorifies the actions of those who committed mass murder that day.
Mayor Bloomberg says the design will restore "lower Manhattan to its rightful place in the world." I firmly believe it will sink lower Manhattan into the abyss of mediocrity.
Ryan McCormick
Manhattan
I like the Libeskind design plan for many reasons.
1) The complex of angular buildings will return great distinction to the New York skyline. 2) The excavated pit will be a powerful and passionate memorial. 3) The 1,776-foot spire will be the tallest edifice in the world - a symbolic loudspeaker announcing that America will prevail.
Paula Huffell
City Island
I live on Liberty Street. Eight families - including my own - are still trying to repair our homes and return to downtown.
I am shocked that while I am trying to recover, the LMDC is considering rolling over in perpetual mourning by implementing any version of the Libeskind design. The pit concept will be a symbol of permanent depression, our inability to face horror and our lack of resolve.
This design alone is almost enough to make me leave downtown. I don't want my children to grow up thinking that this is an appropriate response to disaster.
David Stanke
Manhattan
How ironic that the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. selected a plan for the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site on the 10th anniversary of the first terrorist attack on the Twin Towers.
The morbid death pit they have chosen is like the final nail in the coffin of a once-proud New York symbol; damaged in 1993, brought to the ground in 2001 and now condemned to permanent oblivion - not by our enemies, but by our own leaders.
By 9/11/03, the design for a memorial should be in place. It would be appropriate for this memorial to include statues of firefighters raising a white flag instead of the stars and stripes.
Lauren Chase
Astoria
The LMDC turned its back on rebuilding the skyline and bringing culture to Lower Manhattan.
If the LMDC, pushed by a blind governor and mayor, want to have an eternal grieving necropolis, they can keep it. I'm never visiting that monstrosity.
I only regret having to see it from afar every day.
John Sanchez
Manhattan
To all other members of the public who committed their time, effort and money to the rebuilding of the World Trade Center: We've been had.
Once all the impracticalities are carved out of the Libeskind plan, we'll have something almost exactly like the six universally rejected and ridiculed July 2002 plans, with an ugly pit and 10 extra stories on one building thrown in.
What an incredibly sad epilogue to the era of greatness that the original Twin Towers represented. Last one out of Lower Manhattan, please turn off the lights.
Cherie L. Fernandez
Linden, N.J.
I'm sure I'm not the only American who, when viewing the architectural design selected to replace the World Trade Center, thought back to an observation once made by that great philosopher, Bart Simpson: "I didn't think it was physically possible for something to both blow and suck."
Michael Nighan
Rochester
Anything short of building the original towers with modifications to allow for a gracious memorial would be the same as surrendering to the enemy.
If the towers are rebuilt, it will galvanize the spirit of this country and send a stern message to our enemies that attempts to take down this country will always be futile.
Zach Katsihtis
Bardonia
Does Libeskind's design remind anyone else of Superman's "Fortress of Solitude"?
This design would be swell if we were memorializing the destruction of the planet Krypton.
Richard Gleaves
Astoria
I remember when I visited the Statue of Liberty two years ago and saw how beautiful those towers were from the statue's crown.
My plea to New Yorkers is to not let the powers that be build this monstrosity. Make them build the towers as they were before, and return the skyline back to its former glory.
Steven Bertorelli
Medford, Mass.
It is beyond me why the LMDC would choose a replacement for the Twin Towers that has been designed by a German firm, in light of Germany's current lack of support for our country.
Jeff Otto
Grant, Minn.
I am glad that the leaders of the Ground Zero rebuilding process are planning to keep revising the plans for the site.
Because Libeskind's plan, as it stands now, is plain lousy.
Zabignu Jablinski
Pine Valley, Ill.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
New York Times respondents are a bit more divided over the design. Some support it, some don't.
Re "Design Chosen for Rebuilding at Ground Zero" (front page, Feb. 27):
I cannot express in few words how moved I am by Daniel Libeskind's design for the World Trade Center site. May I just say to the greatest city in the world: thank you.
GEOFF DODD
Wayzata, Minn., Feb. 27, 2003
•
To the Editor:
Re "Practical Issues for Ground Zero" (front page, Feb. 2:
A New Yorker and resident of Lower Manhattan since 1975, I stood at my living room window on Sept. 11 watching a scene of evil incarnate. For two decades, the towers had been part of my landscape.
Now that a design for the site has been chosen, I know at last what I would like to see: I want the twin towers back. As they were: tall, intrusive, sometimes plain and ugly, yet majestic.
Give me back the towers, exactly as they were, and wait for a good night when the moon gets trapped in between them. Uncork something inexpensive, sit back on your porch and breathe in the cool air.
It's the civilized thing to do.
YORI YANOVER
New York, Feb. 28, 2003
•
To the Editor:
Re "Design Chosen for Rebuilding at Ground Zero" (front page, Feb. 27): New York is trapped in obsolete modernity; even if money can be found for such an ambitious project, has anyone considered the environmental costs?
This proposal is out of date in the 21st century.
JANE F. BABSON
Stamford, Conn., Feb. 28, 2003
•
To the Editor:
I am pleased that Daniel Libeskind's proposal was chosen for the World Trade Center site (front page, Feb. 27). It has numerous virtues but also some weaknesses.
There will of course be changes, and I am heartened that the depth of the "bathtub" has been lessened. The new 30-foot depth will be more than sufficient as a set-off for ground zero, while still allowing the necessary room for underground facilities.
The height of the tallest building should also be reconsidered. Seventeen hundred and seventy-six feet is a conceit, not a building.
FRED JACOBS
Merrick, N.Y., Feb. 28, 2003
•
To the Editor:
Re "A Memorial, Yes, but Battle Lines Form for Everything Else at Ground Zero" (news analysis, Feb. 27):
Nothing will be built on the "footprints" of the twin towers and possibly in the "bathtub" foundation because family members of the Sept. 11 victims consider that area "sacred ground."
But will the resulting emptiness be a memorial to those who died or to those who killed them?
RICHARD JOFFE
New York, Feb. 27, 2003
•
To the Editor:
While Daniel Libeskind's design has admirable intentions, is it a fitting tribute to America's darkest day (front page, Feb. 27)?
It is striking that none of the proposed designs for the new trade center were "bigger and better than before." That was the initial emotional response after the attack.
The best tribute to the 3,000 people who lost their lives and to the spirit of America would be to rebuild a trade center fitting to our spirit. One that echoes all our voices. One that is not compromised by terror.
And in my hope, one that is bigger and better than before.
JOHN PUPONS
New York, Feb. 27, 2003
•
To the Editor:
Joel Meyerowitz's photograph of the ground zero "bathtub" is extraordinary ("Saving the Wall That Saved New York," Op-Ed, Feb. 27). It paradoxically communicates strength, malevolence, fear and hope.
That a black and white photograph of this structure can elicit such powerful and complex feelings is the very reason it should be preserved as the heart and focal point of the future World Trade Center memorial.
STEPHEN Z. WOLNER
New York, Feb. 27, 2003
•
To the Editor:
Re "Practical Issues for Ground Zero" (front page, Feb. 2:
Th e problem of where to park the buses that will bring tourists to the proposed memorial at the World Trade Center site offers an alternate solution: ferry service.
It helped solve New York's transit problems after Sept. 11 and is a critical transportation component to the city's Olympics proposal.
Imagine how much more powerful the visitor experience to the memorial would be with the restored skyline and towering spire drawing nearer as one crosses the river, finally setting foot at the memorial itself.
It would be reminiscent of Daniel Libeskind's arrival as an immigrant to America, when he saw the Statue of Liberty for the first time.
On the more practical side, expanded ferry service would help alleviate traffic congestion by providing transportation not only for tourists, but also for the thousands of workers who will occupy the new buildings at the site.
KEITH OLSEN
Boston, Feb. 28, 2003
