Towers shouldn’t be rebuilt

Where once stood the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in
the heart of downtown Manhattan, there now lies rubble, wreckage
and the buried remains of the innocent victims and courageous
martyrs of Sept. 11.

So what to do with Ground Zero?

For the first few days after the attacks, New York City
firefighters, policeman, everyday citizens and volunteers worked
assiduously under dangerous and horrifying circumstances in a
desperate attempt to save a few more lives.

Since then, the less publicized but equally strenuous work of
cleaning up the devastated area has gradually progressed, mirroring
the slow recovery of the nation from the worst attack on American
soil in history.

As this process nears completion, the question of what should be
done with the area where the Twin Towers once stood (and the
surrounding areas which were also demolished) has become a hotly
debated issue.

There seem to be two major schools of thought:

1) to rebuild the towers or construct an equally grandiose
structure as a monument to the determination and resilience of the
American spirit or

2) use the land to create a monument or memorial to the Sept. 11
attacks surrounded by a park.

Simplicity and modesty are often more powerful than ostentation.
The resilience of the American spirit does not need to be
demonstrated by rebuilding an edifice on the same scale as the
towers. It already has been proven with the actions of the American
people.

I believe strongly in this course of action for both moral and
practical reasons, the most important of which is the threat of
another terrorist attack. A rebuilt Twin Towers would almost
certainly be a target for attacks by terrorists or, perhaps more
likely, random lunatics without any connection to terror
organizations, much like the probable culprit(s) behind thToe
anthrax attacks.

If somehow the buildings were rebuilt and then destroyed again
in another attack, it would be an absolute catastrophe with an
enormous impact on the morale of the nation.

This risk is simply far too great to justify building on the
site of the attacks. I also believe it would be wrong to
“replace” the World Trade Center, even if safety were
not an issue.

A park with a small memorial site would be much more
appropriate. As Rudy Guiliani, the former mayor of New York and an
opponent of building on Ground Zero, puts it, “Just think if
somebody had built office towers over Gettysburg or
Normandy.”

There are also some purely practical reasons against rebuilding
the World Trade Center. For one thing, there is no need for more
office space in New York right now. Even with the loss of the
towers, where tens of thousands worked, offices are closing in New
York, leaving space available. In addition, downtown New York is
incredibly congested as is and a park downtown would make this area
much more livable and pleasant.

Anyone who has visited Central Park could tell you how much of a
difference some open space can make in such an overcrowded
area.

There are significant variations and proposals for what we
should do with the Ground Zero area even among those who agree that
the towers should not be rebuilt. Some, like Guiliani, want to make
the entire area a memorial for the victims and heroes of Sept.
11.

I agree with those who propose that most of the area be used for
a park and call for a smaller monument to the tragedy. A park
dedicated to the victims of Sept. 11 seems like a more appropriate
tribute than an enormous monument.

I understand the impulse and motivation to rebuild what was so
horrifically and cruelly destroyed, but our primary obligation is
to the memory of the victims.

On the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, we should
honor them by declaring that Ground Zero will be dedicated as a
National Monument, fittingly the same designation as the
battleground of Gettysburg, also a site of terrible death and
devastation yet also self-sacrifice, courage and heroism.