Skip

September 14, 2001
8:36 AM   Subscribe

Since we're posting about memorials and the WTC site, here are some interesting words from Ebert.
posted by tomplus2 (28 comments total)

 
That's just so un-american. No thanks.
posted by dagny at 8:41 AM on September 14, 2001


Either way they decide to go here will be right.

A park will leave a place for people to commemorate.
Another building will symbolize the will to carry on after tragedy.
posted by marknau at 8:47 AM on September 14, 2001


Rebuild it!
posted by Ty Webb at 8:56 AM on September 14, 2001


Un-american? Oh, yes, I guess it is un-american if America must dedicate all land to the endless pursuit of financial gain, instead of human gain, just as a matter of course.

It would be foolish to consider rebuilding. It is not cost-effective, and frankly, I think it would be difficult to find people willing to work in any buildings reminiscent of the original in size or design.
posted by Dreama at 9:09 AM on September 14, 2001


i like it.
posted by o2b at 9:12 AM on September 14, 2001


I think it's a good idea, like the Oklahoma City Memorial or the Vietnam Memorial. Have all the names preserved for history.
posted by timothompson at 9:18 AM on September 14, 2001


Two thumbs up!
posted by jumbosquid at 9:20 AM on September 14, 2001


"financial gain, instead of human gain"

you just lost me.. but let's debate this some other time.
posted by dagny at 9:21 AM on September 14, 2001


God.

Even in this sorrowful time , with all irony and cynicism and sarcasm out this window, Ebert manages to concoct something so corny that my eyes are practically staring at the front of my brain.
posted by glenwood at 9:23 AM on September 14, 2001



From Ty Webb's link:

"We can't bring back the dead, but we can rebuild the broken. In fact — to borrow a phrase from the Six Million Dollar Man — we can rebuild it better, faster, and stronger. "

How cool is that?
posted by glenwood at 9:25 AM on September 14, 2001



From Ty Webb's link:

"We can't bring back the dead, but we can rebuild the broken. In fact — to borrow a phrase from the Six Million Dollar Man — we can rebuild it better, faster, and stronger. "

How cool is that?
posted by glenwood at 9:25 AM on September 14, 2001


I think Ebert's heart is in the right place, but this is a complely wrong-headed suggestion. The "Rebuild It" article was much more in line with what needs to be done, if somewhat clumsy.
posted by lenticular at 9:28 AM on September 14, 2001


I think it's a natural division that seems to be sprouting up now: do we be "traditional Americans" (so to speak) and rebuild, bigger than ever before? Or do we try a new approach, and do as Ebert suggests?

I'm torn. I would love to see something rebuilt, but I would also equally love to see an open field. No names, no sponsorships, no arches, nothing. To me, that appeals far more to my humanitarian side. The building would appeal to my patriotism.
posted by hijinx at 9:34 AM on September 14, 2001


Instead of striking back, I think Bush should challenge the nation, in the same way JFK challenged us to go to the moon, to rebuild the towers, bigger, taller and grander than any other building in the world. We should dwarf Kuala Lumpur! We should do this within 2 years, and solicit assistance from all the countries that have offered help. That would truly be a "World" Trade Center!
posted by alball at 9:45 AM on September 14, 2001


When they built the towers, the earth they dug up to reach bedrock, 70 feet below, was used to create Battery Park. Let that be the place of our memorial, our green field. Living in Chicago, Ebert should know that idyllic parks don't survive in urban areas. In this case, for example, what of the homeless who want to sleep there and build a shantytown? Which is more wrong, having them mar the perfect simplistic beauty of this rolling green field, or kicking them out of a place meant to symbolize goodwill and freedom?
posted by kfury at 10:29 AM on September 14, 2001


Build it. 4 towers each, 220 ft tall. Double. But as an Ontarian I'm partial to tall buildings (CN Tower)
posted by cburton at 10:37 AM on September 14, 2001


I think all of the people who live in buildings overlooking Central Park (as I used to) would be interested to know that parks don't survive in urban areas. CP seems to be doing just fine. I'm sure that the people who responded in this MeFi thread might be boggled as well.
posted by Dreama at 10:43 AM on September 14, 2001


"Ebert manages to concoct something so corny that my eyes are practically staring at the front of my brain."
Great metaphor glenwood! I say we build the fucker back up, but bigger, better, and stronger.
posted by rorycberger at 10:58 AM on September 14, 2001


Well, if we're having a referendum here on MeFi, then I'll vote for rebuilding it exactly like it was.
But if there's going to be a memorial, well, Ebert's idea sounds very good. And anyway, if you consider the orgy of corny, sentimental journalism and the caveman-like attitude of the "let's-kill-them-and-burn-their-corpses-and-nuke-their-countries" op-ed crowd, well, Ebert (I'm not a huge fan of his criticism by the way) wrote a very sincere piece. His heart is in the right place as somebody above I think already said. I wouldn't bash him for that
posted by matteo at 11:05 AM on September 14, 2001


here's a perspective from the other Chicago paper:
http://chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0109140080sep14.column?coll=chi%2Dbusiness%2Dnav
sidenote: could some one do me a HUGE favor and teach me how to link, my html is way to rusty and i can't make it work
posted by rorycberger at 11:20 AM on September 14, 2001


In this case, for example, what of the homeless who want to sleep there and build a shantytown?

So what? Life isn't a Noman Rockwell painting. Bums, trash, prostitutes, etc all have their respective solutions. Not to mention I'd rather have a park with an occasional bum than no park at all.

Regardless, the leaseholder is planning on rebuilding eventually.
posted by skallas at 11:24 AM on September 14, 2001


Leave it. Give the city more park. I'm all for defiance in the face of adversity, but I think the park is a better idea.
posted by RakDaddy at 11:43 AM on September 14, 2001


When the buildings fell, I felt that the only acceptable thing is to build something insanely huge. I want to see a building the size of the entire WTC complex that towers 2,000ft into the sky. We are Americans. That is our signature. When was the last time you heard our people referred to as under-stated?

Hell, maybe even have some sort of arboretum in the building. It's just got to be a testament to our ability to thrive in the face of adversity.
posted by betaray at 12:13 PM on September 14, 2001


sidenote: could some one do me a HUGE favor and teach me how to link, my html is way to rusty and i can't make it work
<a href="http://urlyouwanttolink/">text you want link to have</a>
Here's what the above looks like when posted:
text you want link to have
posted by boaz at 12:25 PM on September 14, 2001


Even in this sorrowful time , with all irony and cynicism and sarcasm out this window, Ebert manages to concoct something so corny that my eyes are practically staring at the front of my brain.

Clever. But sad, really, that you feel that way.
posted by brittney at 12:34 PM on September 14, 2001


if they rebuilt the towers, would you work there?
posted by mattpfeff at 12:43 PM on September 14, 2001


if they rebuilt the towers, would you work there?

Yes.
posted by rushmc at 6:57 PM on September 14, 2001


kfury: Living in Chicago, Ebert should know that idyllic parks don't survive in urban areas.

You are being facetious, aren't you?
posted by hijinx at 7:17 PM on September 14, 2001


« Older   |   O Superman Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post