Asymmetrical Information

"Posted at 9:11 AM" -- nice touch, or weird coincidence.

If we build something stupid looking on the site, then the terrorists really will have won. Personally, I think your idea is great. If we must build something big and tall there, we might as well just rebuild the same thing (at least the same shape, the design should be modernized).

Bolie IV

Lovely, Megan.

Mimeograph machine!?
Are they still being sold somewhere in some activist retro fashion outlet?

The problem with building the same thing, taller, is threefold: first, it will be a big fat terrorist target, and it will be practically impossible to find tenants; second, that the towers were ugly (msst New Yorkers, including myself, complained about them right up to the time they were destroyed); and third, hyper-tall buildings don't actually work very well as buildings, which is why all the "tallest buildings in the world" you see being built these days are being built by governments, not private companies. The superblock caused major traffic hassles downtown, and there was a major problem with elevators. The taller you build a building, the more elevators you have to build to carry the extra people; at some point, the elevators begin crowding out the rentable office space. The maximum efficient height of a building is around 50-60 stories (depending on lot size and some other things). The WTC coped with this by a) having an enormous footprint that mucked up the neighborhood and b) shuttling people in a second set of elevators up from the 70th floor, which even with the enormous footprint, was as high as the building could go naturally without cannibalizing rentable real estate for elevators. This meant that it took forever to get anywhere in the building. It is also, as we found out, very hard to evacuate a building that large in case of emergency.

So while rebuilding the towers would be a nice grand gesture, it would be a little embarassing to have to give away space in our new monument.

{clap clap clap}

Take the money that would have been spent on new WTC office space, and put it into broadband infrastructure for the surrounding area (say, within a 50 mile radius). With enough cheap, fast, reliable communications capacity, you don't need to create concentrated targets like the twin towers any more.

"Deputy countries editor of Economist.com"? Did we know this? I remember you getting a new job but I don't remember you ever telling us where.

Great article, in any case. Being a West coaster, I almost feel like I'm not supposed to have an opinion on what gets built there.

Megan,
I know my memory isn't what it used to be but I thought the sky lobby was on 44?
Let me know because if my memory is getting that bad I need to take suppliments of some kind.

We need to build something there, nothing just won't work. It is not New York.
New York is a city of soaring towers and concrete canyons.

Of course if we had serious urban planners they would rebuild west street first or at the same time but we don't have people who can look more then ten years into the future so I don't expect that.

I agree with starhawk on this one Meg, I don't want a vast green memorial, I want something very New York, and a building is very New York.

I agree with Meg on several issues however. No one said it had to be the same height or the same size, and while I would like it to be distictive...I didn't realize distictive meant ugly.

I also agree with Meg that the buildings themselves were damn ugly and fairly useless and that there needs to be a substantial memorial tribute incorporated into the building and the site as a whole.

But a vast green space with rocks? Not very New York, not particularly useful, not particularly pretty or interesting and can you imagine all the rocks that are going to get stollen? A big green open space like Oklahoma City? Ick.

The problem is that we won't know what "should" go there for 10 - 15 years and by then something will have already been done with it.

Fortunately, no matter what happens to the space, we as New Yorkers will complain about it. Some things never change.

I agree with Kate and starhawk; in fact, Megan's article is maybe the most disagreeable thing I've ever seen her write. The analogy to Gettysburg seems particularly misplaced. There's not much symbolic, architectural or economic value to whatever farms the battle displaced, so need to rebuild them. Big difference in New York.

Further, she tries to pigeonhole those who want to rebuild -- not everyone who wants to rebuild wants a replica of what came before, and I haven't even heard of this proposed since the first few weeks after the attacks.

Her economic argument also seems shortsighted. The Empire "Empty" State Building also had trouble renting space after it was built in the Depression -- does anyone regret that they built it anyway?

It's also a false dichotomy to suggest the only choices are ZERO office space and the large amount the Port Authority desires. Megan may be right the trade center had too much space to justify on economic grounds, but it doesn't follow that zero office space would be desirable.

I think she also may be right about the most efficient skyscrapers being shorter due to the elevator problem. My preference now would be for two towers with office space/hotels or whatever in the lower half, and a towering spire that tapers on the way up, with perhaps just enough floor space for a nice memorial or observation deck at the top.

I think the twin towers were beautiful, certainly much more than all new po-mo proposals. See Megan's 9/11 photo. And they were a symbol of NY. So I want them back.
If it's not practical or economical to rebuild them, then leave the site empty for some years untill some better idea comes up.
The current proposals are hideous, there is no hurry to adopt them. Anyway, it's for investors and enterpreneurs, the owners of the site, to decide what will ofer the best chance of making a return on their investment.

Though I completely disagreed with your Tech Central Station piece I thought it was at least well argued for the most part. However, if your follow-up comment represents the thought process that lead you to the conclusions you made in your op-ed, I think it places your suggestion in a much less favorable light.
True, building the same thing but higher would make a great terrorist target which would create an inflated insurance risk, but this misses the point. All of Manhattan is a great terrorist target. All of NYC is. All of America is a great terrorist target. Any society which doesn't follow sharia law is a great Islamist terrorist target. Is the idea that we should now start asking "But what will the terrorists think?" before starting any grand public building project? This is what people mean when they invoke the, admittedly overused, "the terrorists will have already won" concept.
As for saying that the twin towers are ugly and all New YOrkers thought so, this is really a purely subjective aesthetic judgement that can't be argued. All I can say is that one New Yorker in the comments didn't think they were ugly. NOw here's another one. I certainly think they were an aesthetically pleasing part of the skyline, and that the skyline will continue to look empty and out of balance without some tall building there to replace them.
As for very tall buildings, clearly you just innately don't like them, and you present some good practical critiques of them, but I really like them. I think they stir the soul and all that jazz. I think it's utterly pathetic that the tallest building in the world hasn't been in the US for awhile and that now only the Chinese seem to have the moxy to go in for these enormous, bold skyscrapers. When I saw that the Liebeskind plan called for the tallest tower in the world, though it's a bit silly that it's to be 1,776 feet high, I saw it as a wonderful return of vigor and spirit to America. Like most Gen-X'ers I"ve read the Fountainhead, and, more importantly, seen the movie. I want the tallest building in the world back in New York where it belongs. This is not at all analogous to Gettysburg. Was there any structure at Gettysburg which was destroyed which was symbolic of the American spirit in any way?
Your critiques of the WTC were the same critiques made when people tried to stop it from being built, are the same critiques repeated in the Ric Burns PBS documentary, and are the same critiques that could be made of virtually any ambitious skyscraper building project. They're too tall. They break up the street grid. The whole litany. To me this all smacks too much of postmodernist/deconstructionist "seeds of destruction" type analysis. The subtext seems to be that the creation of the towers was an act of hubris that in some way invited their destruction. Some may be want to live in a postmodern future where our broadband infrastructure means we all work in a decentralized grid with no impressive skyscrapers, or a luddite future where we've learned from our past mistakes and make sure that the tallest building in town is one from 1931 for time immemorial, I'd rather live in bold, brash, yes, hubristic New York.

I like the idea of building two 50 story buildings with the same footprint as the towers and then building a 60 story shell up from there with an observation deck (and restaurant?). The empty shell won't be much of a terrorist target as bringing it down wouldn't be all that dramatic.

Though I like the park idea better. Gee, Manhatten is all about tall buildings? What about Central Park? And is it really a good thing to crowd that many people that close together? With today's technology, it's much easier to spread businesses out, reducing congestion, traffic, etc... Building a big building for the sake of tradition in the face of bad economics is just silly.

Bolie IV

And is it really a good thing to crowd that many people that close together? With today's technology, it's much easier to spread businesses out, reducing congestion, traffic, etc...,

Isn't it a bit late to worry about that? I mean, we're talking about Manhattan here after all. If crowds aren't your bag, move somewhere else.

"Some may be want to live in a postmodern future where our broadband infrastructure means we all work in a decentralized grid with no impressive skyscrapers, or a luddite future where we've learned from our past mistakes and make sure that the tallest building in town is one from 1931 for time immemorial, I'd rather live in bold, brash, yes, hubristic New York."

Actually, I'd rather live in a futuristic future where everyone either does the broadband thing or commutes hundreds of miles to work in their skycars.

That's a hell of a lot more bold, brash, and hubristic than another really tall building.

(Now build one all the way out to geosync, and launch spacecraft from the roof... that would definitely be bold, brash, and hubristic...)

As for the site itself, I say the Port Authority should sell it. Design by committee is clearly not the way to go; letting the highest bidder have it and build on it without the committee can't be much worse.

Actually, I'd rather live in a futuristic future where everyone either does the broadband thing or commutes hundreds of miles to work in their skycars.

Hey, sign me up for the skycars!

That's a hell of a lot more bold, brash, and hubristic than another really tall building.

I'm not talking about just another really tall building. I'm talking about the tallest building in the world, gosh darn it.

Just one other point I thought of.
I don't agree that people will not want to work in skyscrapers. That is wimpy post 9/11 chickens who say that. The same people who had 92ad floor office in the WTC will want them in the new WTC if they are offered.
Think of it this way. We have gotten out of the habit of building memorials to our dead , llok how long it took us to build the Veitnam Mem. not to mention the WW2 mem. Building a big beautiful, modern structure on the site would be a great memorial.

ps. It is true that when proposed and built most people in the city thought the WTC was pretty hideous me included but I have to say that as years went on it grew on you and looked better in each passing year.

I've responded directly to this at http://www.felixsalmon.com/000192.php. In a nutshell, Megan's wrong, and the new design is actually very good: I've written about it at some length, if you're intereseted.

Eric, get your skycar right here.

Seems a little pricey.

Actually, Felix, you're wrong. The new design as actually very bad.

Okay, seriously, an asthetic judgement can't be wrong. It's a matter of opinion. I haven't liked any of the proposed designs.

Bolie IV

I don't agree that people will not want to work in skyscrapers. That is wimpy post 9/11 chickens who say that.

I wouldn't have worked in a skyscraper prior to September 11. I'm acrophobic.

I'd love to go into space, but you won't get me into a tall building on a bet.

B'coz America was attacked on the 225th year of its birth, and b'coz the reason for the attack is the reason why America was formed in the first place, it must build a single 225 Story Tower at the WTC.

And at the top of the tower should be a solid revolving gold dollar, the true symbol of all that is great about America.

Let the sun's rays be reflected from the dollar and be the beacon to all those in the world who value productive work, of which the American dollar is the greatest symbol.

Vidya

Vidya's idea is appealing - except for the part he doesn't mention, where the government extorts money from every American to pay for the building of this gigantic symbol...

If it's going to be done by government money, it ought to be something that benefits everyone - a park. If it's going to be private money, then get the F'ing government committee out of it, and let the owners decide what might actually be economically feasible.

I live 3 blocks from the site and I work 1 block away. Whenever I walk past it, I can feel the coming calamity the guvmint will be unleashing upon the site. Do we really need flashy buildings to remind us of 9/11? Who wants to move into NYC lately, into buildings millions of 14th century re-enactment activists would want to attack again?

Come on, the first WTC was a massive government project to please the ego of Nelson Rockefeller. Here we go again.

The tax on one square foot of prime commercial property in Manhattan ($10-$12) pays for a whole year of rent from prime estate in the office parks of Shenzen/Bangalore/Mumbai. Why are we investing in landmark buildings all over again when the trend is clearly towards the "virtual" and white collar jobs move out offshore where they can be done for pennies on the dollar?

I walk past the NYSE and its M16 toting guards several times a day. Makes me wonder if the downtown area would need those guards if the NYSE was electronic like the NASDAQ and almost every other equity marketplace in the world (Ulan Bator, I heard still has a trading floor).

The trend worldwide is towards decentralization and cost savings, the WTC project ignores these trends.

Go figure.

The majesty of the buildings, once you were inside, was just spectacular. And, even though I saw the Windows of the World as open to the public, what I would really like to see is not only rebuilding these buildings, BUT adding that the top floors would house the UN. Bingo. I'd remove the UN from where it is. And, move it right into the new WTC.

So, if it blows up again the diplomats themselves go up. And, if not, what a great protected space.

Anything else is deplorable. How come the Pentagon got rebuilt?

And, not this?

Because it's not commercial enough?

Because the powers that be in NY want to eat the insurance money for themselves; while they build the Javits center. Oh, really?

Why not, as I said, plan this with the UN getting the top twenty floors. Whatever it takes.

But the buildlings, themselves, should go right back up. Any space devoted to a memorial could be contained on the bottom. This idea that you need sculpture is just too strange. Once the site is rebuilt a lot of ways can deal with how the buildings came down. AND, how NYers came together to clean up the Muslim mess in 9 months time.

Don't expect politicians to think big. But just keep the pressure up.

I have repeatedly pointed out that the Twin Towers were becoming irrelevant long before the slaughter of 9/11. There is simply no logical reason to build a financial center when the work can be spread around to virtually every area of the globe. Why New York? Why not Omaha, Memphis, or even a small village in New Mexico?

Jane mentioned that some people employed in the higher levels of the WTC spent 15 minutes (each way?) on the elevators just to get to their office. I would probably be driven insane after my second day on the job. This was pure madness. There is much said about how the residents of Houston, Texas do a lot of driving. All I can add is this----it only takes me a little over 15 minutes to travel from my house to sitting down at my desk at work! How many New Yorkers can make this claim?

One could even argue that the recently departed Dick Grasso performed a con job on the rest of the nation. This man apparently made damn sure that the creative destructive aspects of the technological revolution would not harm the economy of Wall Street. To be blunt---those of us living outside of the city were played for suckers.

Tax payers should be willing to fund a memorial. Any proposed business center, though, must be able to attract private investors. It’s as simple as that.

I like what I'm hearing with these recent comments. Quite right, lets get rid of New York all together. Who needs all this majestic architecture and congestion? We can just level the whole place and turn it into office parks and Wal-Marts like everywhere else. Brilliant suggestions.

Ahhh, those elevators, such bliss.

Get on at the skylobby at 77 and go down. When the doors close, just at the elevator starts it's descent jump as high as you can.

Fall. When you land the whole elevator shakes.

Being a kid in New York. Elevator Free-fall and Subway Surfing.

Riding to work on the ferry, standing outside watching the sun light up the faces of those buildings.

Build them back. Send the message loud and strong, you can kick us, you can even hurt us, but you'll never beat us.

"Quite right, lets get rid of New York all together. "

No, it's rather a matter of hoping that New Yorkers (and Californians) cease acting like children and believing that money grows on trees. Please note that both states are strongly Democratic (or liberal Republican)---and love to delude themselves. They only have themselves to blame for many of their recent problems.

New York isn’t going to disappear anytime in the near future. The city's shipping docks are perhaps the largest in the world. Nonetheless, there simply is no longer a practical reason to preserve Wall Street. Am I wrong about this? If so, let’s hear a substantial argument why the stock trading firms cannot leave New York. I seriously doubt that this can be done.

I'm sorry David, perhaps I'm just one of them slow democrats, but did you actually imply that 9/11 was the fault of the democrats running the state into the ground? How did you make that determination? How are NY's problems due to the mismanagement of democrats, especially when Republicans have been in office as both Mayor and Governor for 8-10 years? Oh, they're *liberal* republicans? So the fact they're pro-choice means they've run the state into the ground?

And Port Elizabeth in New Jersey is, as I remember it, the largest port.

Why does Wall Street have to be in NYC? Because it's been there for hundreds of years. Because even if it's not there, something else will be invented to take it's place. Why do people even bother living in NY? Because if you put some of us (many of us) in suburban/country settings we would find ourselves institutionalized within a week.

New York is an exceptionally dynamic place to live (and we pay for the privilege to be here). We also (happily...or not so happily, but whatever) pay some of the highest taxes and subsidize the rest of the state (and, as Meg noted in an earlier blog, much of the country), so I really don't understand what your point is. How are New Yorkers sucking off the teet of the federal givernment due to their mismanagement by democrats, their huge port revenues and all the rich people who live here because of Wall Street? And how is any of this in any way related to 9/11 or the fact that we still have a big hole in the ground and something needs to be done to it.

The real trend isn't away from cities. The real trend is that the trends of a decade or two ago have become hopelessly obsolete. Will the trend away from cities also become obsolete?

Of course, the trend away from trends may become obsolete...

“I'm sorry David, perhaps I'm just one of them slow democrats, but did you actually imply that 9/11 was the fault of the democrats running the state into the ground? “

Absolutely not. The attack on the Twin Towers is the result of self pitying Muslim extremists (please read the writings of Bernard Lewis) enraged that the Islamic world is mired in backwardness and intellectual Ludditism. The hated “Christian West" now dominates the planet.

“How did you make that determination? How are NY's problems due to the mismanagement of democrats, especially when Republicans have been in office as both Mayor and Governor for 8-10 years? Oh, they're *liberal* republicans? So the fact they're pro-choice means they've run the state into the ground?”

It’s time for a reality check. Both New York and California are populated by citizens who prefer to live in La-La Land. You throw money around like drunken sailors to the Unions and government workers. Also, have you already forgotten John Lindsey who almost brought New York’s economy to its knees? Governor Pataki is almost like the late Lindsey. He specializes in bribing the union bosses. Former Rudolph Guliani was put through pure hell for even attempting to bring order to New York City’s finances.

I am very concerned with the craziness of California and New York infecting the rest of the country. Living beyond your means is highly seductive. Both these states offer a poor example. Unfortunately, they are also America’s media capitals and therefore can cause tremendous damage.

"Why does Wall Street have to be in NYC? Because it's been there for hundreds of years. Because even if it's not there, something else will be invented to take it's place."

Are you not overlooking the enormous impact of modern technology? I believe that something else has indeed been "invented to take it's place." It's called the Internet.

Build a rifle range.

David:

You're borderline trolling here and the amazon link from your name is busted. Just like to point out that the liberal Republican Bloomberg has cut spending pretty ruthlessly and pissed a lot of people off because of it. He's also gotten tough with a lot of unions. He's also raised taxes, much like Ronald Reagan did when he took over a California that was in equally bad shape. You also speak of New York as if it's one monolithic entity when the City and the state are often completely at odds with each other, hence the periodic secessionist movements etc.
This is virtually all off topic, but I don't even understand why you're bringing up the Wall STreet firms. Um, they're already leaving. Goldman Sachs is moving to Jersey city. This is exactly the point. New York needs to get out of the financial services mono-culture and attract other sorts of businesses, not really sure what this has to do with the discussion at hand. The only reason I bring this up is that Megan's original idea, which I utterly disagree with, but which is at least conceptually defensible, and which is coming from a New Yorker who spent a lot of time reporting from Ground Zero, seems to have attracted a lot of people who don't like the idea of dense, tall cities like New York, and therefore are arguing for more . . .what, I'm not sure exactly. Anyway, the density is what makes New York great. It means there's more people watching, more restaurants, more things to do. It's why we're willing to pay the premium to live here. Whether you do or don't is immaterial, but if you want to continue to thread please come up with ideas for what should be done with ground zero instead of merely decrying our dense, urban way of living.

I think your idea for the WTC site is excellent. But "the worst terrorist attack in human history"? Please. Have you heard of Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Dresden? (Let's remember the definition of terrorism: organized attacks against non-combatants for political or military purposes.) We can all agree that the 9/11 attack was a major atrocity; it's not as if it only counts if it gets into the Guinness Book of World Records.

I think it's utterly pathetic that the tallest building in the world hasn't been in the US for awhile and that now only the Chinese seem to have the moxy to go in for these enormous, bold skyscrapers.

Uh...moxy? This would be the same China that has sacrificed countless lives in going for dam-size records, if I'm not mistaken. If the Chinese government wants to blow a fantastic amount of money for the Shanghai WFC or whatever they're up to now, that's their business.

In Malaysia, the Petronas towers were built with oil money at the behest of a borderline-autocratic prime minister. They've had some trouble filling the real estate, IIRC.

And the justification for building a ridiculously tall building at the WTC site when it will quite possibly not be profitable is...?

BUILD THEM BACK UP!

And, instead of the Port Authority being in half the building, put the UN there! Let the diplo's even have apartments in the building. What a way to go.

If "terrorists" hit the building again; which I doubt, first to come down would be the UN.

Now, that's two-birds with one stone.

They can't complain, either. The views from the top of the WTC were gorgeous!

And, that would free up the property that now houses the UN, too.

There would be no 'unoccupied spaces; since what's left over goes to commerical space.

But the UN on TOP. Then, if terrorists come they can wave at our diplomatic terrorists inside.

Oh, yeah. Put the post office executives, too, up there while you're at it. Government officials LUV offices with 'views.' They fight over this stuff!

Comments are Closed.