Rebuild Them! by Keith Olbermann

[NYadgal]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 4:03pm

SECAUCUS - They were just a few feet tall and not even as solidly constructed as the old architectural models my father would sometimes bring home from the office for me when I was a kid - but they affected me in a way I never would have imagined.

The towers of The World Trade Center.

They were in our studios yesterday, plastic recreations of the originals, dragged in by groups who are taking advantage of the security concerns about the planned "Freedom Tower" to push the simple idea that the best way to memorialize the victims and restore the community is to re-build the towers exactly as they stood until three and a half years ago.

They're absolutely right - with one minor caveat. One of the towers should be exactly 229 feet, four inches shorter than the other. I'll explain why in a bit.

Before that, I have a confession to make. My first job in television was in the lobby of WTC #1 (as they used to call it; I never heard "North Tower" or "South Tower" until the day of the attacks). That's where CNN's New York bureau was located until 1984 - behind a two-story thick glass wall that, when we put the studio lights on, made us look like a very cheap high school science experiment.

I hated the place. I mean, if you work in the city's tallest building and you're stuck in the lobby, you develop a mean streak about it. The place was comically understaffed (the first two years, we didn't have a receptionist - whoever was closest to the front door opened it, for staffers, visitors, and bag ladies alike). The commute - from almost anywhere else in the city - was wearying. The mall beneath the towers was a desert, and the neighborhood a wasteland (the dilapidated old West Side Highway still stood - kinda - out the doors to West Street, and the only amusements were those days when big hunks of it would crash to the roadway below). Worst of all, the air conditioning used to go out on an almost regular basis. You've never known heat until you've worked in a television studio without ventilation. Suits pressed while you wear them.

As I hinted above, my father's an architect, so I had inherited the typical aesthetic condescension of his profession. What the heck was this Trade Center design supposed to be? The world's largest salute to Oblong, perhaps - with the faux-gothic grillwork on the outside tacked on in a fruitless attempt to class up the joint.

I went in there to clean out my desk on the afternoon of Saturday, March 31, 1984. I would not return until September 11, 2001.

Suddenly, of course, the sense of drudgery that only a disliked workplace can represent had been transformed into the terrible meaning we all now intuit. And that gaudy grillwork - the only remains standing - stuck out against the smoking pyre of the place with the starkness, and the sudden antiquity, of the Roman Colloseum. The feelings, I needn't tell you. 40 days as a street reporter in and around the scene of the catastrophe managed to reshape even my memories of the buildings I once dismissed as merely a great deal of weight sitting on top of the place I did my sportscasts.

And as the searing pain of those first few weeks gradually gave way to sadness and thoughts of what, if anything, should be placed on this most hallowed ground, the only thing, the only thing that seemed to make sense, was the towers recreated, as originally designed, oblong boxiness and all - with that one minor caveat about the 229 feet and four inches. I wasn't among the voices insisting that only rebuilding it as it was would show we hadn't been "beaten" - merely that all other forms of construction there would offend the sensibility, and diminish, not enhance, the remembrance.

I hadn't thought much of it lately. The process of healing is a regretful one in a way. We're designed to forget - not forget the whole, but merely the sharp edges. I hadn't forgotten the Trade Center, nor my three years in it. Nor had I forgotten the fact that some creatures had managed to use two planes that each contained a friend of mine (Ace Bailey, the former hockey player and executive, was on one, and Tom Pecorelli, who had been one of the studio cameramen for my shows at Fox Sports, was on the other), to kill so many innocents in the buildings, including two college classmates of mine (Mike Tanner and Eamon McEneaney, who happened also to have been the quarterback and the receiver for Cornell University in the first sporting event I ever actually got paid to cover).

Those things hadn't passed, and they won't. Nor will the simple reality that it all happened - a reality that will still of a morning unexpectedly punch me in the stomach, or make me wonder for a moment if something so horrible could've actually occurred, or if I must have imagined it in a consummate moment in a dream from an endless night.

But I'd forgotten about the rightness of putting the Trade Center back where it stood. Forgotten it, until I saw that model yesterday, and it all came back to me.

The "Freedom Tower" design wasn't somebody trying to be disrespectful; it was just the unavoidable project of an architectural trend in which everything must look like somebody just built it with a kid's erector set. The Hearst/Conde Nast building is just getting finished not far from my home, and it's that same style: Attach Beam A to Side Support B, Tap Support B with a pen to make sure it sounds as tinny as it looks.

But it was wrong.

The best way - the only way - to further soothe the pain is, as the proponents including Donald Trump are suggesting, to rebuild it as it was.

Which brings me to my caveat.

I'd use the original blueprints and design the "new" Trade Center exactly as it had been. But I'd insist that one of the towers be exactly 229 feet, four inches shorter than the other. It's an uncomplicated gimmick to guarantee remembrance. Because, as long as these new towers would stand, someone unaware would ask, "why is one of them shorter than the other?" Whereupon an old-timer could explain, solemnly, that the difference between the heights of the towers is intentional - it's exactly 2,752 inches.

One inch for each of the victims.

It's all the memorial we really need.

Thoughts?

Updated On: 5/12/05 at 04:03 PM

[KelRel]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 4:09pm

That is amazing, I agree with him

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 4:11pm

I have felt this way from the beginning. I never wanted people to remove the towers from illustrations of New York, and I have always wanted them rebuilt exactly the way they were.

And I'm so glad Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart are broadcasting. What would we do without their fresh voices?

[Elphaba]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 4:12pm

hmmm, I disagree......I think anyone who lost a loved-one would cringe if we built the same buildings.
I do not like the new design, but......to heal it needs to be new. Just my opinion...

[DayDreamer]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 4:15pm

I like that... I believe in subtle memorials...

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 4:15pm

I lost several friends, one the mother of two young boys. I want to see the towers rebuilt.

[shameless]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 4:16pm

Yeah, I was against rebuilding the towers as they were, but that is a really compelling argument. Too bad the decision is made.

[NYadgal]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 4:17pm

I lost loved ones. Nobody I was related to, but VERY, VERY close friends. I was in their weddings. I am Godmother to their children. I was roommates with them in college. I lost loved ones.

And I wish they would rebuild them. Exactly the way Mr. Olbermann describes. With one tower 229 feet and 4 inches shorter than the other.

It's an emotional issue, to be sure...

Updated On: 5/12/05 at 04:17 PM

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 4:26pm

Totally in favor of the rebuilt towers design, whatever is there will provoke powerful memories but the most respectful and heartfelt decision is this one, with that giant globe statue that was in the center but is now busted and in battery park placed back in the center exactly as is.
I often agree with Olberman and this is one I think he hits exactly on the head.
Sublety is so essential, I was on the Staten Island Ferry a few weeks ago and the person beside me as we were on the back pulling away from the city happened to mention that you used to not be able to see the Empire State Building from the water because of the towers, when the ESB peeked over the skyline, I cried. It was much more effective than any number of reminisances and tributes I have seen, just that one moment.
It seems with the towers back, every moment would be similar to that. It would be emotional and take time to heal, but the approved design just feels wrong.

[OnTheAisle]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 4:29pm

I got chills reading that - thank you for posting this...

[robbiej]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 4:32pm

I don't know. I've never been one to have them rebuilt. It's almost as if it's a wonderful bit of denial. Put it back and everything will be ok. But we can't put the nearly 3000 people back. We can't ever go back. And I think the design should reflect that. Something (and not just buildings) has been lost. But out of loss comes...what? Something new. Something affirming. Something that brings us forward...not takes us back.

I was also not a fan of the 'Freedom Tower'. I never thought we needed the biggest building. I always felt we needed to revitalize the area. Bring art and music and, most importantly, life back to that area of the city. Bigger isn't better. Better is better.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 4:37pm

I totally disagree about the rebuilding of the towers being signifying putting everything back and pretending it will be ok, I think building something like the Freedom Tower signifies an attempt to "move on" that is manipulated and actually is more like pretending the buildings were bulldozed for progress. If the buildings in the same design are rebuilt then every look at the skyline is a reminder of what did and can happen. Anything else there has none of that emotional impact.

[robbiej]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 4:45pm

Well, I completely and utterly disagree.

And I'm just wondering what companies are going to want to move in to the 'new' Twin Towers.

I agree with the Freedom Tower...I hated it. I hated all the designs for the area. But I hate even more the idea of rebuilding those towers. They're not there anymore. And instead of putting on the bandaid of us wanting to see them there again, why can't we address what that gaping hole in the city means (not like we really can even 3 1/2 years later). And why can't we look forward into what can come of it.

I have a real problem with the concept that to rebuild them EXACTLY is a wonderful memorial to the dead. Why? So office worker can sit at one of the dead's desks...and go about their lives? It doesn't seem respectful to just replace one life with another.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 4:46pm

This is fine from an emotional standpoint, but from a business standpoint it doesn't work. What company is going to lease on the upper floors? Who are the employees brave enough to work on the upper floors knowing that they might not get out alive? I believe those floors would sit empty for a very long time.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 4:59pm

I have to agree that it would not work for practical reasons. But I still don't see how the rebuilt towers is not a tribute to the dead. The impact psychologically would be extremely poignant, the same reasons that companies would not want to move in are echoed in the idea that the dead would be honored by the presence.
If anything Robbie J your arts center tyoe if idea would be what I would like to see, but that is also very impractical. It is the Freedom Tower though that I see as an insult to the dead.

[robbiej]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 5:04pm

Problem I have with it, in the end, is that 100 years from now, they won't have the same impact as it does for us. Let's face it...someday we'll all be dead. And if the memorial left is that it looks EXACTLY like it did before, how will people who didn't go through it completely understand the loss.

I don't think the whole area should be an arts center. Of course there will be a lot of corporate space...and that's good. But along with that, we must think about what's best for the City...what we can do for downtown businesses to bring traffic and money.

In some ways, we need to let go of our personal, emotional responses. We don't really matter. The life force of this City does. And how do we best nourish that wonderful, crazy, diverse force? That's the question we should be asking. At least in my mind.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 5:11pm

Will anything have an impact to those who were not there, in 100 years it is likely that no matter what is there it will have no emotional impact on the person seeing it.

Again I think business and vistitors coming back to the area is a wonderful thing, but whatever is there, especially if it is gigantic and a target may have a hard time attracting business.
The spirit of the city seems to be expressed in determination and ressurection. The ressurected is not the same, it is more powerful, meaningful and profound than that which was destroyed.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 5:13pm

I strongly recommend reading the book 102 Minutes : The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers
by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn if you want to quickly disabuse yourself of the (nostalgic? sentimental?) notion of rebuilding the towers exactly as they were. Too many corners were cut, too many building codes altered way back when they constructed the things the first time that contributed to the needless deaths that happened.

[NYadgal]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 5:15pm

Interesting.

My reaction to the rebuilding is purely emotional and, I'm quite sure, not at all practical. Thanks for the book suggestion.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 5:17pm

I'd say using shoddy construction techniques is not part of building the towers exactly as they were, that would be like trying to put the same offices in.
The idea would be to have them LOOK the same, the inside almost certainly would and should be totally different.
(I was never a fan of how the buildings looked to start with)
Also, it is almost certain that the same cost cutting and greedy methods will be used no matter what is built there.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 5:19pm

Those who don't remember the past, etc.

Would it not SCREAM irony if in fact greed so intimately informs whatever replaces the towers that, to enemy terrorists, represented Western culture's greed?

[robbiej]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 5:20pm

I was barely born when the final withdrawl from Vietnam occurred. But seeing that memorial in DC was an incredibly overwhelming experience. You understood the loss...the human loss suffered by this country.

As for the 'resurrection' argument, it's actually a little to Christian-centric for me. And I disagree that that's what the spirit of the city is. I would argue that the spirit of this city is progress and forward movement.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 5:29pm

I find it really, really weird that I used a "Christian Centric" image, but looking back I certainly did, that I find really odd. I have always been very adverse to that type of imagery.
I think my problem with the forward movement arguement is it is very "we can get ahead by technological advancement" that I see as the failure of the twentieth century, that was symbolized by the buildings being destroyed, so I see moving that direction as seeming to say we learned nothing.

[robbiej]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 5:39pm

Well...I know NOTHING about technology. I can't even master the whole text messaging thing.

When I, personally, think of forward movement, I don't think of technology (or at least not only technology). I think of creation. The act of creating something that will have lasting impact ie. a piece of art or a movement of music.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 5:42pm

See, I think of those things as "embracing the spirit of humanity" but I see those as almost the opposite of "forward movement" I see "forward movement" as not embracing those attributes in favor of some desire to be bigger and more powerful.