9/11 Memorial to be Completed After 2011

Now that the Port Authority doesn't want to give "unrealistic" or "phony" timelines about projects at Ground Zero, it's clear many projects won't be completed. Like the long-awaited 9/11 Memorial. Back in 2006, when construction started, it was thought the memorial would be completed by 2009, but then last fall, 2011 was given as a completion date, for the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Now it's more likely it'll be done around 2013 or 2014. One man whose wife died on September 11 told NY1, "There are so many people that worked for a long time planning and designing this thing, the individual parts, that it appears to me, that no one was taking a look at the whole project."

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on July 1, 2008 9:33 AM

Comments [rss]

John Knee

It certainly took longer than 6 years to plan, design and build the original towers. What is the rush? Do it right and take your time.

NannyState

^ Almost failcat worthy.

Clearly New York can build anything, just look around. But all these fragmented plans and competing agendas poured into a logistical and political mire, and guess what? You get this WTC debacle...or "education reform", or "universal healthcare". At the end of the day, Ground Zero was just another shovel-ready site that needed an unemotional process and an agnostic developer. What we have here is a food fight and if Patterson is going to be the adult in the room, he'd better step up.

zstone

For being so pro-development, Bloomie sure has trouble getting things done.

jchez

The WTC itself (the whole complex with two giant towers) was built in 6 byears. WTC 7 has been open for a couple years already. Oklahoma city and the Pentagon had their memorials up in a year.

What's the difference? Those projects did not have a bunch of groups at odd with each other dictating under threat of lawsuits what they want. The whole memorial thing should have been some open space with some traditional statues, a fountain or two and a wall of names. These fancy memorial schemes for reflection and meditation are a crock of post-modern, new age dung.

In Hiroshima they have the skeletal remains of a building and each year they ring a bell; the rest of the city quickly went back to being a super modern metropolis.

aveB4life

this is an insult to all those affected. just get something up at least. a memorial even. ridiculous.

MT

I have to agree with eyekandspel. At this point it seems like the 9/11 families (of which I am one before you jump down my throat) are nothing but a hinderance and are given way too much power. My 28-year old spouse is currently fighting throat cancer which seems to be directly related to being caught in the cloud when the towers collapsed and on the pile during the rescue effort and it would be nice if he could see skyline of his home restored before this or the mesothelioma (which he is already in the early stages of) gets him. Not everyone who was there that day wants it to be a shrine. In fact it seems like it's mostly people who weren't there that would like to keep it as it is. Some of us would like to see the city actually healed.

eyekantspel

While I feel for those who lost a loved one on 9/11, and suppose that gives them a greater right to input on the memorial, I have no idea why they are given any greater say than any other New Yorker on the rest of it. I'm not so much concerned with how quickly everything gets built as accounting for the money spent thus far. Several years into the project, there seems to be little accomplished, and I strongly suspect a lot of people are getting rich in the process.