This is not Donald Trump's Idea. There are far more people who want the twin towers rebuilt than people who want any other structure. If the port authority knew what they were doing the towers would already be rebuilt. But, the terrorists won. Mr. Silverstein's primary reponsibility is the safety of his tennants. If they build something that looks like the Twin Towers, it sends a message to terrorists, that is something like what you did does not make a difference.This is also a challenge to future terrorists to knock it down again. Therefore Mr. Siverstein is forced to build something that is a monument to Mohammed Atta and his pals. While I am not saying that Mr, Silverstein asked AlQuaada if they approved of his plan, If he did they would. It's after all a cemetary that contains whatever fragments are left of the hijackers, a green space, with 2 graves and an obelisk. I would not be surprized if they called it Mohammed Atta Plaza.

trump makes money by making a lot of mediocre buildings (forget his marketing skills), why should he have a say here, since when developers are architectural critics, aslo, people (including trump) get your facts right, Lebskind did not design the freedom tower and trump did not design this proposal.

"Well if Trump doesnt get to put the towers up here in NY he might go to Chicago or somewhere else and then that will leave NYC feeling like we lost one."

oh swell... this horrible WTC reduex design making it's way to another city? what a nightmare... i'm in Toronto and we're already getting our own Tacky Trump Tower hotel/condo complex. i say just build the damn WTC2 in Las Vegas and turn it into a full fledged theme hotel. think of the "terror drop" ride, what an attraction!

Well if Trump doesnt get to put the towers up here in NY he might go to Chicago or somewhere else and then that will leave NYC feeling like we lost one.

We end up with the terrible design of Liebskin.

I think people should take Trumps suggestion seriously. It has merit and the LDMC is too lost in its own politics to see the future.

hijiki - Trust me, I'm not against new on the basis of any kind of fear of change. It's just that it's unlikely we'll get the "new idea" kind of structure you speak of. That's just not the way the "development" process works at present. As Jack says, to make a different point, this city is crazy. (But Jack, I don't think it's relevant to the current discussion that people didn't want the WTC when it was conceived.)

I'm in favor of the Gehry-designed Atlantic Yards (but there are some buildings that should be spared, like the old "Spaldeen" factory). I'm not maniacally against the West Side stadium, though I question whether the MTA is getting full value, I'm against using public funds, and I don't understand (speaking of maniacal) it's staggeringly high position in our mayor's list of priorities.

On the other hand, I am against the Ikea in Red Hook. As far as I'm concerned, each project should be judged on its merits.

To me and many others, the Leibeskind/Childs/Pataki project has few merits. There are significant pluses, aesthetic and psychological (in my opinion) to justify rebuilding the towers. If we don't, then - I agree with Jack -- we don't need the office space, so, let's do something else, like a park.

"I hope it becomes a proud element in the skyline and hopefully it will be a twin towereaque design."

Spending millions of dollars to build a 'proud element in the skyline' while the offices sit empty and vacant is not a vision anyone wants.

This city is insane. Unemployment is a big problem. So is housing. And we're now debating the building of a Westside Stadium which few people want, the 2012 Olympics which people equally do not want, and rebuilding a building at the WTC site that nobody wants.

Do you really think people will want to work over a mass grave? There's a reason why the rebuilt 7 World Trade Center now has no tenants.

This ain't 'Field Of Dreams'; you're not going to build it and then people come. It will simply sit vacant for longer than most people will ever admit. Even Donald 'Ego-meister' Trump.

the 'only proud option' was effectively countered enough for you not to make that claim.

the 'we didn't even want' referred to the original towers which the vast majority did not want when they were built. no presumptuousness.

i actually liked the original towers a lot, too. like nearly every major public art or architecture project, people hated them when they were built (if the majority had their way, they would never have been there) but they adopted them over time. give people a safe option they're already familiar with and they will almost always prefer it to anything new that might change their idea of place.

Yeah. "Proud answer" was rhetorically over the top but I disagree that the rebuilding argument has been "thoroughly countered", at least if by "thoroughly", you mean "effectively".

The "we" of your post is presumptuous especially as studies have shown a substantial plurality prefers rebuilding to any other option. People who want new, want new; others want the towers again. (As always, there are "swing voters".)

I didn't think the Twin Towers were conventionally beautiful but I did think they were "awesome". Once, after a too lengthy interregnum in Los Angeles, I went to a concert on the plaza there and looked up at the impossibly tall towers penetrating the clouds. I honestly giggled from the giddieness I felt at being home in New York and seeing that sight again.

Advancing architecturally in a significant and extraordinary way might be as "proud" as rebuilding but (sadly) how likely is that kind of advancement?

"The only proud answer to the devastating attack is to rebuild what was there before"

that's an argument that has been throughly countered. i think most people are in agreement that childs' tower is weak, but if symbolic pride is your motive, wouldn't you be more proud of turning a tragedy into an opportunity to advance instead of building a monument to a past we didn't even want? the 'terrorists win' line, as always, is still laughable here.

Jack, I'm glad you will probably never be in a position of power or decison making in your lifetime... and btw, wtc had nothing to do with moses, it was conceived by the rockefellars in an attempt to revive lower manhattan which was quickly falling into disarray in the late 60s and 70s. at least there are people with vision and the drive to take risks with grand projects... whatever they put up, I hope it becomes a proud element in the skyline and hopefully it will be a twin towereaque design.

Face it - nobody's clamoring for the Freedom Tower.

And though the "terrorists win" chestnut is laughable in most contexts, in this one it's somewhat true. The only proud answer to the devastating attack is to rebuild what was there before.

It's been suggested that it would be arrogant to do so. But while I think our foreign policy leaves much to be desired, I see no capitalist arrogance in saying we won't let violent adversaries alter our skyline. It seems unlikely to me that the rebuilt structures will be knocked down again, since it was kind of a surprise even to the terrorists that they went down the first time. And it is not good for our psyche to have a cityscape crafted by fear.

That said, if we don't rebuild the towers, we have already allowed our cityscape to be permanently altered by others, so it doesn't much matter what we build -- it doesn't have to be a tower or more offices; it might as well be a beautiful park. (Trump is right on this one too.)



Don't get me wrong. Trump's structures are generally garish and ugly; he has been an architectural force for ill in our city. But that's irrelevant here. He's not trying to reinvent the wheel. He's trying to agitate in favor of putting back what was taken away. You know that if the twin towers are rebuilt, every one of us will look at the sky and feel glad. No "Freedom Tower" will ever engender that reaction.

"sure, maybe we should tear down midtown and put a corn field there -- you know, for good will's sake."

billy k, you must love straw men. Especially with that corn field talk and bass-ackwards logic. I'm not one of these crunchy granola types who just thinks everything should be greenspace. I know the reality. But in the case of the World Trade Center let's face some facts.

One, the place was built in the pre-Internet world when many deals needed to be cut face to face and firms needed to be close to the people they did business with. That's not the case anymore. Nowadays back-offices are all over the world. The need to be in the Wall Street area to do business is fading.

Two, nobody wanted it to begin with. Do the research. The WTC was forced into the world because of Robert Moses desire to get the same square footage he would have gotten if he would have been able to bulldoze all of lower Manhattan; his wet dream. When finally built, it say vacant for years.

Three, who wants to work and do busines in an area filled with a history as painful as the WTC site? Let's face that fact real hard. Because very few people I know feel comfortable with the idea. And let's cut this nonsense out about the "footprints of the building". That's one of the most patronizing concepts. The whole thing is a grave. And it will never shake that image.

Just make it a park, and go on with life. Real estate demands are high in NYC, but by the end of this current building frenzy nowadays there will be more than enough office space than one knows what to do with. Lets not make the WTC site another white elephant of a real estate developer's profit margin dream.

captain midnight, might i suggest escape pods? enough on each floor for all potential people. it would have to be a circular building with the escape pods on the outside.

either that or chutes and ladders.

The WTC only became profitable a few years before Silverstein took his lease - at which point it was very, very profitable. Same story with the Empire State - it was called "empty state" and mocked for being such a bad investment.

alright then. Since none of you can agree on this the matter is settled. we'll just go with the grand Gaudi design and build it already. I'm getting pataki and silverstein on the horn and get this started this week.

sure, maybe we should tear down midtown and put a corn field there -- you know, for good will's sake. the question isn't even about tenents. Someone owns that land, they have the right to replace what was there. Politician's shoud have never gotten involved in this process for grandstanding purposes. What would the point of a park sandwiched between skyscrapers be, when battery park is a couple of blocks away. if the bringing the office space on line brings down square footage costs in the city, great, that in and of itself might help bring more businesses into the city instead of NJ.

hijiki is 1000% right. The World Trade Center barely had any tenants when it was first put up and sat vacant for years. It was always a vanity project. And it was built in direct response to the fact that Rober Moses was unable to completely wipe out all of lower Manhattan. Robert Moses then decided that if he could not bulldoze the city to suit his vision, he'll just build a huge monument to the square-footage he wanted out of his original vision.

Thuse, the white elephant known as the World Trade Center was born.

But if that wasn't bad enough, look at 7 World Trade Center and what Larry Silverstein is doing with it now. The square footage price is insane even by NYC standards. And it's got no real tennants at all.

Go figure.

It would have been much better if no building was built and it was all made into a park. Not as profitable, but the goodwill it would have brougtht could not be have been bought. Now we're just stuck with arguing white millionaires. Hooray for us.

The WTC may have had a high vacancy rate in its early years, but that's hardly its fault. In the context of the recession-plagued 1970s and the even more financially strapped NYC of the time, it's no wonder there were problems. Heck, where would we be today if people kept bringing up that the Empire State Building, finished during the Depression, was called the Empty State Building for years? But on 9/11, various sources placed the WTC vacancy rate at around 3%. Hardly "massive problems getting tenants."

you lose credibility if you deny historic facts. it would be hard for any new yorker to not know that the towers had massive problems getting tenants. with those blinders on, it's a good thing you're not involved in making adult decisions.

WAIT!!! This is ALL BULLSH*T!!!

It's sweeps week, The Appentice Finale is coming and Trump has a show (and himself) to promote. Don't think for a second that that ass has anybody's interests in mind but his own. Please Donald, stop!