 |
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Senior Senator from New York, retired from the Senate in 2001. He died in March 2003. Sen. Moynihan was a fierce critic of the sort of short-sighted policy that allowed the magnificent Pennsylvania Station to be torn down and replaced with Madison Square Garden, which he called a basketball court with a hole under it.
His “Moynihan Station” proposal was an attempt to regain a hint of the beauty that was so wantonly destroyed. New York is now faced with spending billions of dollars to turn another building, designed by the same architects, into the “Moynihan Station.”
The effort to recapture the glorious original is sure to be a great improvement, but it could never come close to what was torn down. The opposite is the case at the WTC, where today’s materials and innovations could make new Twin Towers such a spectacular improvement on the beloved originals.
It is a good bet that if the Senator had been feeling stronger and able to maintain his place in the Senate, the insanity and the inanity surrounding the rebuilding of the World Trade Center would never have been allowed to overcome the public’s good sense.
Senator Moynihan is well-known for having held that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. The rebuilding of the World Trade Center has been overrun by opinions masquerading as fact. “Experts” who think too highly of their own opinions and too little of what the rest of us think are a big part of the problem. The following is a glaring example of how they operate:
FACT: In February, 2007 the American Institute of Architects (AIA) celebrated their 150 years by publishing the results of a Harris Interactive poll on “America’s Favorite Architecture.” The Twin Towers placed in the Top Twenty among the 150 finalists. It is noteworthy that the only other finalist no longer in existence was the original Pennsylvania Station.
FACT: In July 2002, this full-page New York Post headline announced what came as no surprise to most New Yorkers: “Half of New York Wants The Twin Towers REBUILT.” Coming less than a year after the attacks, with many people still shell-shocked by the enormous tragedy, that was an impressive statement. Especially since the other half was not a bloc, but included differing points of view. In other words, more people voted for the Towers than voted for Bill Clinton in either of his elections to the Presidency.
FACT: In “Sixteen Acres — Architecture and the Outrageous Struggle for the Future of Ground Zero,” respected architecture critic Philip Nobel wrote: “Though it would always run at least 50 percent in scientific polls (online it did much better), the idea of replacing the Twins never really had a fair trial…”
OPINION: In May 2005, New Yorker critic Paul Goldberger told a CNN reporter: “It’s possible to rebuild some version of the original Twin Towers. But why would anyone want to? They were not particularly beloved buildings.” What can explain the presenting as gospel truth his particular prejudice, which was shared by a narrow and self-important elite? Mr. Goldberger won a Pulitzer Prize for “Up from Zero,” his selective report on the rebuilding process. So, how do we account for the misleading nature of his statement on a subject that he researched? He can’t plead ignorance — or can he?
