The new design struck me as a cross between a crippled Transamerica Pyramid and a furled umbrella, resting in a stand.

The tokenism in selecting, and persisting, with Daniel Liebeskind's design threatens to scar our city irrevocably.

There are no tenants interested in moving down to Ground Zero, and the commercial viability of the site is in serious question. I still believe that Paul Goldberger's argument that the site be turned over for residential use is the best one. I'm not sure what such a complex of buildings should look like, but moving away for the dull, upright hysteria of Battery Park City is a step in the right direction.

I can understand both the emotional and aesthetic need to erect a structure in Lower Manhattan far taller than the buildings around it; the district needs a visual anchor. That said, I think that having a tall, exposed building densely inhabited is brazen, irresponsible and unethical. I suggest a structure whose primary function is technological, communicative or scientific. (On the first anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy, a series of designs appeared in the New York Times Magazine, one of which was a gigantic television tower whose form echoed a double helix.)

I think it might be worthwhile to consider restoring the old 19th century street grid. Wide, open, windswept places, for all of their appeal on paper, fail miserably in reality. To come upon Michael Arad's memorials via a living urban fabric renders the impact and the loss so much more palpable than walking across some generic barren space. The effect is like coming upon the Roman Forum or Trajan's Forum. The presence of the "pits" against the background of the intact urban fabric would render them even more potent as reminders of the disaster.

As for Donald Trump and the rest who want to everything back the way it was, I'll remind them of the fate of the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Lighting DOES strike in the same place twice. And right now, the storm is raging.