So the controversy seems to still be raging on about the replacement of the World Trade Center towers destroyed in the September 11 attacks. Many, especially the families of those lost in the collapse of the buildings, despise the design of the Freedom Tower, and development of the surrounding area and would rather see the original towers rebuilt.I happened to catch a David Schuster interview of Ken Gardner, the structural engineer for the WTC Towers II, yesterday and I agree with the fundamentals of his argument. According to Gardner, the towers were singled out due to their iconic status and what they symbolize to the United States: belief in humanity, need for individual dignity and beliefs in the cooperation of men. So to rebuild the towers exactly the same, except with increased structural strength, evacuation design and a few others, would be the best "thumb in the eye" to Bin Laden. The building was sufficient for its program when it stood so why not rebuild it as it was?
The unofficial proposals, by architect Herbert Belton, for the new and improved Twin Towers as it were retains the original facade, which mimic the upward flow of columns but will have larger windows at 40 inches wide. Each tower will be 500 meters (1515 ft) tall at roof level, nearly 100 metres (330 ft) taller than the originals giving a floor count of 125 floors and a gross floor area of 26,247,000 square feet making more of a symbolic statement.
What is a little confusing to me is the fact that the foundations for the freedom tower have already been started and steel bracings have already topped at least 30 feet. Now the structural design of the original Twin Towers and the freedom tower are nowhere near similar so it is highly improbable that if the proposal to rebuild the original towers were somehow approved, they could be built on the current foundations in place now. So then, what really is being proposed here? That the Freedom Tower foundations be dynamited and rebuilding started all over again?
I think that though it would be nice to see the towers rebuilt, it is a little too late now so all supports of this proposal should give up and just let go. Also, we should not be too hasty to merely wish to reassert the symbol of the towers as we would risk losing the human reality that was also destroyed. The shattering of communities and the destruction of real, human beings with names and families, and not of millions of tons of concrete and steel. To not rebuild the Twin Towers, basically continuing with the Freedom Tower, will always remind us of what was once there and the human lives that were lost. Herbert Belton and Ken Gardner's proposals to rebuild the Towers introduces the risk of us forgetting this.
