Freedom Tower Construction Begins

Freedom Tower... what an original name.

I maintain that the twin towers should have been rebuilt to look exactly like they did from the exterior, with much of the interior redesigned as a memorial. This new building will always seem out of place to me.

 

Why is this in the D&D?

 

I'll start...

is it me or is the word 'freedom' thrown around so much that it no longer has any meaning or definition? we talk about it so much and it seems to be a word that people say when they go to autopilot, knowing that if they say "freedom" "patriotism" and "justice" no one is allowed to dispute them. I hear it all, but never have I heard media heads or the administration describe exactly what these concepts mean to them.

 

I kinda like the cornerstone. I wish it were going where you could see it, but that wasn't my impression. I agree that the name of the tower goes over the top and that you can use the word "freedom" so much in the political realm that, like so much else in our society, it begins to lose some meaning.

I would have preferred, "The World Trade Center." Then, in smaller letters, "**** you!"

 

help me out, why is it called the "freedom tower"? what does that mean for you when a tower symbollizes freedom? could it be interpreted that the sacrifice of the twin towers allows us to recognize our freedom? To build a new tower shows that we are unpeturbed by the threat of terrorism? and thus, it is a symbol of that we are free to live our lives without worry of being controlled by a greater force?

or is freedom something that must be compromised in small doses in order to live a different type of freedom, a freedom to live, as in to stay alive? before, ideally, we were free to do what we wanted as long as it did not impact any other person or living thing negatively. now, things are much different.

today I was chastized for throwing a rock into a lake, because the lake fed into a resevoir. the reasoning behind this is that any terrorist could throw poison in the pond and thus poison the community that drinks the water. so, the freedom to throw rocks in a lake has been compromised for the sake of a "greater safety". better no-one throw anything in the pond, otherwise a terrorist could take advantage of the commonality of the act and use it to undermine people's lives.

the definition of freedom has changed, from the belief that "one could do anything, as long as it does not cause anyone harm", to "one can do anything as long as it cannot be percieved by someone else as causing harm". Notice that there is a huge difference between the two, as someone elses perception can range from logical, to indifferent, to paranoid.

Is freedom enduring? yes, but the definition has changed. Did the terrorists win? no, they did not win in destroying America, but there is no doubt that they did change our fundamental freedoms. One can argue that this freedom needed to be sacrificed in order for a greater safety. perhaps our former idealistic notion of freedom was just that, idealistic. It would only take a few people to take advantage of our system to wreak havok and completely change our lives.

This Independance Day, I look back at all those lives lost so that we could live in our own world of freedom, only to have our concept of freedom change after the repurcussions of one horrible event. To all those who made the ultimate sacrifice, would they think it was worth it for us to live in a state of partial paranoia? Is the "freedom" they fought for, the same "freedom" that we live in today?

This is not a spite against bush, unlike most of my posts, but a spite against our reaction to 9/11. To be free, one has to live without fear of our own actions, but constantly, daily, we are willing to sacrifice freedom for security, and that is not what our country was founded on, nor was it something that we ever fought for. I envy the days that we could look back at fear and say, "screw you, I'm not going to let you change my life," THAT was a time when we were free.

that's my rock into the lake, I hope it creates ripples.

 

I've always been partial to this design...

 

That dovetails nicely with my Tower suggestion.

 

I think some big arching windows on those top floors would look nice. They'd look like finger nails.

 

Here is some much needed controversy...

Let Freedom Tower!
Pataki's premature groundbreaking is par for the site.

The rumor began showing up in the press more than a year ago: New York's Republican governor, George Pataki, was thinking about holding the groundbreaking ceremony for the Freedom Tower at Ground Zero during the GOP's National Convention at the end of this summer.

Even for a career politician, it seemed a nakedly opportunistic idea. It also seemed a little premature, given that so few key elements of the skyscraper were in place. It was unclear at that point what the tower was going to look like, how it was going to be paid for, and how tenants would be found to fill its 60-plus floors of office space.

So Pataki, of course, did what any cautious, self-respecting politician would do under the circumstances: Together with the Port Authority and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, he decided to hold the groundbreaking eight weeks earlier.

And so at 10 a.m. this Sunday, Pataki will grab a shovel and a hard hat, or whatever implements politicians are using for such events these days, and smile for the assembled photographers as the cornerstone for the tower is officially lowered into the dirt.

He'll then give a short speech politely ignoring the fact that it is still unclear what the tower is going to look like, how it is going to be paid for, and how tenants will be found to fill its 60-plus floors of office space.

This is what it has come to at Ground Zero: A premature, election-year press conference held on Independence Day to celebrate the start of construction on a building called the Freedom Tower, which is designed to be precisely 1,776 feet tall and to rise next door to a vaguely conceived but lavishly outfitted museum called the Freedom Center. Who says patriotism is dead?

If all this were happening in service of a truly great piece of architecture—or even a very good one—it would be easier to keep the cynicism in check. But the Freedom Tower doesn't promise to be much better than pretty good.

As all the world must know by now, the thin, torqued skyscraper is the product of an unhappy collaboration between Daniel Libeskind, the site's master planner, and David Childs, a partner in the New York office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill and the architect handpicked by World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein.

Full Slate Article

 

The original twin towers were some schlocky '60s architecture. I don't think anybody ever considered them great design, though granted, any new great urban space is ususally killed by critics. I am surprised this new design ever got a consensus from all the required movers and shakers. You know what they say about anything designed by committee.

The name thing, Freedom Tower is very bold and appropriate.
The simplistc and idealized version of the 9/11 attack is that The United States is the beacon of freedom that is opposed by the forces of tyranny. On a scale this size the statements should be clear, simple and bold, much the same as the Statue of Liberty.

The degree to which The United States actually welcomes immigrants and grants them liberty could be debated but the symbol provided by the statue has given hope to millions of people. If the Freedom Tower gives hope to the oppressed people of the world why debate the nuance?

 

I think I might be scared to work there... naming it freedom tower and making it the tallest building.. seems like it would make it even a bigger target than before...

 

I know you can't let terrorists get you afraid of things.. but a building that was attacked in the early 90s.. again in 2001.. then rebuilt and named freedom tower.. I'd be uneasy spending much time in.. because of the history of it being attacked