h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well? They were talking about this on the radio today so I thought I'd see what researchers here thought about it.


kea.

I thought about this the other day and thought they should not.I can't give you a reasoned arguement for it but when I heard it was going to be the biggest building in the world I thought enough already! You know the story of the tower of babel?

If i was a New Yorker i think i would prefer a memorial park of some kind, or maybe a massive hospital.

Yes I feel that there is something faintly arrogant about building something even bigger.I know we rebuilt after the blitz ..its tricky.

Well, it's a way of showing you will not be defeated. That if they knock you out you will stand back up. Whereas a big crater in the ground would just remind people of the defeat itself.

The idea of building a new World Trade Center is a bit of a double-edged sword, I think. Obviously there are those, especially New-Yorkers, who want to move on, but for some, re-building would hinder that progression. I think Americans are strong-willed and tend to have a "So-what-we-survived" way of thinking, but there are also the lives lost and the detriment to society to consider. I really like the idea of a park or hospital, because it could serve as both a memorial and a big middle finger to whom it may concern.

I think they should rebuild the towers exactly as they were; perhaps with better fire and escape precautions of course. It would be possible to incorporate a memorial to the people who died within the new structure at the same time.

Terrorism is a form of bullying. It threatens the weak parts in an attempt to control the whole. The only way to deal with bullies is to demonstrate that you cannot be intimidated. Replacing the WTC says "you may be martyrs for your cause, well the people you murdered are martyrs for ours, though they didn't choose to be, and we are far stronger than you."

Replacing the building with something bigger has a similar effect but reducing it to a memorial and nothing more is like admitting defeat: we are scared to build here again in case it becomes another target.

Our civilisation is not perfect but it's better than the alternatives the terrorists would offer. Many millions have died in the defence of this society and many more inevitably will. It's worth the sacrifice. Or would you have Osama bin Laden with his hand on the nuclear button? Or dictating policy to Brussels?

F

A memorial is a reduction. I can't see that. Choosing to build a business towerblock rather than a memorial would be an insult to the victims of the attack, people are less important than making money.

Well, the plan is to make both isn't it. An actual useful building, but one which will also remind people of what happened and serve as a memorial.

There is a quote about this "Our strength is not to never fall, but to rise again when we do" I can't quite remember the wording.

If I was a New Yorker, I wouldn't be keen on the idea of another office block - would you want to work on the top floor? I do wonder however - if space wasn't at such a premium in NY, and the site owners so out of pocket, would they really still be pushing ahead with that idea?

IMHO a memorial garden would be more appropriate - and that is nothing to do with fear of further attacks, more that the site is in reality a graveyard. If anything had to be built, something for the common good - a hospital or similar would be a better idea. Having said that, even a hospital is a commercial venture in the States!

Blackberry Cat,

Of course a memorial is a reduction. These people lived an worked in this building so rebuilding it - either in a similar or modified form - is a celebration of their life. It also says "F*** you Osama". Creating simply a memorial, understandable though that is, is a celebration of their death and is no more than an admission that the terrorists have succeeded.

"people are less important than making money" ? I think you mean 'more important' - or do you?

Business and making money are how our civilisation operates. Distasteful as that might be in some circumstances it is how we choose to live. This is the very reason the WTC was chosen as a target; because of its symbolism of the Western way of life. It is still possible to opt-out if you want. There is no problem with anyone wishing to live their lives differently but that doesn't give them the right to impose their values on us. Certainly we should honour the dead of that shocking day: but not in a way that looks like an admission of defeat.

F



F

In the UK Harrods was rebuilt after it was bombed and many people were killed or mutilated. As was The Arndale Centre in Manchester - there was no outcry about 'money before people'. The events of 9/11 were barbaric, as were Kenya and Bali. More people have been killed by the IRA than died in the Two Towers. As far as I know there is no memorial park to them. Maybe we should think about honouring our own dead instead of building a multi-million pound memorial for Princess Diana.

I think that rebuilding is perfectly reasonable. I think turning iot into a memorial park would be a bit incongrous right in the middle of the business district. A new tower would say that life goes on, which is the most appropriate message, IMO.

That said, you couldn't pay me enough to set foot inside the place.

I would say a park with living things in it, right in the middle of the business district, says life goes on more.

I don't get that. The purpose of the whole district is commerce. To turn a massive chunk of it into something absolutely non commercial would freeze that moment in time, and say "We cannot get beyond this. The normal way of things that carried on here must stop."

Certainly a park would symbolise life, would be life in it's most literal sense, but it wouldn't be a continuation of the life of the city.

There is no reason to not have living things as part of 'the life of a city' is there?

>>To turn a massive chunk of it into something absolutely non commercial would freeze that moment in time, and say "We cannot get beyond this. The normal way of things that carried on here must stop."<<

There was something earlier in the thread that made me want to say this too:

Just because the terrorists were appalling cruel, wrong and injust in what they did doesn't mean that the WTC is inherently a good thing. Personally I don't think that 'the normal way of things' should carry on. Big business, capitalism, whatever you call it, has a large responsibility in the negative aspects of Western life. It could use this tragedy as an opportunity to get some ethics.

If the WTC gets rebuilt with no acknowledgement of _why_ it was destroyed then the game just continues. If the US wants to stay engaged in war with Islamic and other fundamentalists then saying "F*CK YOU" to Osama Bin Laden is probably a good way to go about it.


I was thinking after I started the thread about a core principle of the Chinese martial art called Tai Chi. In that discipline one learns how to not resist the force of an attack, but rather how to keep one's balance, flow with the energy of the punch (eg by stepping back rather than standing one's ground), and use that to keep oneself safe. It's a simple/complex concept and I'm not good enough to explain it very well.

In that sense though I see something like planting a park as being a Tai Chi response. It says we know what happened here, and we still wish for peace.

Rebuilding a skyscraper is like standing up to take the next punch hard on.

~~

It's also very healthy for office workers to have somewhere green and live to spend time.

Which again is not what I think they should show. That if terrorists attack they just duck and cover, rather than stand their ground.

Except that we didn't retain our balance and the terrorists left us sitting on the floor. The Tai Chi response is to get up again...

F

All valid, but not what the US is about. The US was built on capitalism, and that is the primary drive of it's society now. I am aware of the tai chi/taoist philosophy but planting a park wouldn't necessarily be a way of responding to the attack, but giving in to it. But your point has given me an idea of what would be a great way to respond, and that would be to rebuild, but to make the emphasis of the building to be a centre of cultural and religious exchange, to make it a centre of learing and study where the peoples of the world could congregate. Put the largest mosque in the world on sevral floors between the largest synagogue and the largest church.

Reconcialiation, learning and understanding. That is the biggest f**k you, to Osama Bin Laden and to George Bush.

Xanatic I think you misunderstood me - the point is that not standing one's ground can be a strong, intelligent, and safe thing to do. In Tai Chi the point is to defend oneself without engaging directly in the conflict. So actions that appear 'weak', like moving with the force of the attack rather than standing against the force (which damages the body), ultimately defeat the opponent.

Fathom, that is an interestling perspective - that the New Yorkers are still on the ground and haven't gotten up yet. I agree that the Tai Chi response would most likely be to regain a balanced standing posture again. I think that rebuilding the WTC and carrying on as normal is more like taking a rigid stance (which is inherenlty instable) rather than a Tai Chi one of balance and flexibility.