Fortified Base

Let’s face it: The new Freedom Tower, designed by a series of mishaps, committees, politicans, and egoist architects is a superbad idea. Today, The New York Times today shows some examples under the banner headline Redesign Puts Freedom Tower on a Fortified Base. The base itself looks shimmery and light but the reality of it is that it’s made to withstand heavy duty terrorist activities.
It’s not necessary to make the case this is a collosal waste of money. There are still no takers for office space in this tower and I can’t think of one person who lives in New York who would eagerly go to work every day in this Freedom Tower. It’s too big a target, too rarified a structure and too high in the sky for any sane person’s self-interests.
The best critique I’ve read of the plans for the area is by Ron Rosenbaum in his piece called Ground Zero Hype: Is Giant Skyscraper A Freedom Folly? in the Observer.
I do understand the general desire of polticians and heros to “buck” the terrorists and stand up to their depravity by building something bigger and better than the Twin Towers. I also understand the interests of a few to make a clear pronunciation that the Freedom Tower is a sign of our willingness to transcend, to embrace “life,” and to construct anew. But what better way of signalling this is there than to use the entire area as a public arena – a museum, a park, a memorial, a preserve, a place of rest and repose and a symbol of our belief in living?