The Freedom Tower

By Vaclav Havel, Translated from the Czech by Paul Wilson

Gov. Eliot Spitzer announced yesterday that he supported going ahead with construction of the Freedom Tower at ground zero, making official his change of mind about a project that he once called a white elephant.
—The New York Times, February 21, 2007

May 19, 2005

I have to admit to something I don't know whether I can actually say here: I absolutely hated those two skyscrapers at the World Trade Center. They were a typical kind of architecture that has no ideas behind it. Moreover, they disrupted the skyline of the city; they towered absurdly over the beautiful crystalline topography of Manhattan. They were two monuments to the cult of profit at any cost: regardless of what they looked like, they had to have the greatest imaginable number of square meters of office space. I was once on the top floor of one of those buildings for dinner, and I discovered that the entire edifice was constantly swaying slightly. I took it as a sign that something was not right and that something was going on here that was, in a sense, against nature. A boat may sway, but a building should not. The view down was dull; it was no longer the view from a skyscraper and it wasn't yet the view from an aircraft.

And here's what I fear: that for reasons of prestige they will build something even higher on the same spot, something that will spoil New York even more, that they will enter into some kind of absurd competition with the terrorists; and who will win in the end, the suicidal fanatics or an even higher Tower of Babel? You have to fight against terrorists with armies, the police, the intelligence services; their sympathizers have to be dealt with by politicians, political scientists, sociologists, and psychologists. Buildings, however, should be erected to enrich human settlements, not to make them duller. Why couldn't new buildings be put up on that spot proportional to the buildings already there, and that would simply blend into the existing skyline? Likewise, I don't think that some bombastic monument should be erected at Ground Zero. What happened there must be commemorated, but tastefully, as the fallen from the Vietnam or the Korean wars are commemorated in Washington, or simply with a single large space or room that would evoke the catastrophe and its context.

Interesting comments, particularly about the swaying of the towers-- for those who thought the core could not stand lateral forces.

It is still remarkable and ridiculous that people can hold in their minds that the towers withstood the impacts of two large jetliners, where the towers clearly maintained their basic integrity-- no significant distortion of the frames were seen, no buckling or bending-- and then after 60 and 100 minutes of fire, both structures could completely disintegrate WITHOUT thinking the towers were blown.

Though actually, most people don't even think of the WTC this way, most people don't even think about the WTC -- it is just government shills/war criminals who can hold this contradiction in their heads.