From the Financial Times Editorial...
There have been many radically different design proposals for the Freedom Tower, the awkwardly named skyscraper that (we are told) will begin rising soon from the World Trade Center site in lower Manhattan. But through all the design changes, there have been two constants: its height, set by architect Daniel Libeskind at a cloyingly symbolic 1,776 feet, and the demand that it satisfy the vague requirement of being “iconic”.

The command to design a ready-made icon is challenging enough for an architect. It becomes doubly vexing when politicians, victims’ families, a powerful developer and even the police department have a seat at the drawing table. David Childs, the principal architect of the building, has dutifully worked to incorporate every new demand that these myriad parties have dreamed up.

Now, after years of bickering and embarrassing delays, blasting is set to begin next week on the bedrock at the core of the Freedom Tower. Yet even as the work begins, the Freedom Tower seems to have lost the “iconic” tag and picked up some more disturbing descriptions.

“Symbolic and economically troubled” was how The New York Times put it recently. Eliot Spitzer, the Democrat who could control the rebuilding of the World Trade Center if his run for governor is successful this autumn, recently fretted that it could become “a white elephant”. He was referring, of course, to the understandable reluctance commercial tenants feel about moving into a potential terrorist target. George Pataki, New York’s outgoing governor, says he will persuade government agencies to move in instead. But many are questioning whether moving, say, the FBI into the building would be such a wise move.

Many people involved in the rebuilding project will tell you they are confident that the Freedom Tower will be built, then whisper a list of reasons why it does not make sense.

So why go through with it? There is still time to change course and I have a proposal: New York needs an answer to the Eiffel Tower. It could satisfy the understandable desire to have a tall structure on the site, without carrying the financial and security risks. As far as I know, this is not an idea under discussion, though the concept was floated by Paul Goldberger in The New Yorker in 2002.

Detractors will say no one will build a big structure on the site that does not make money. But Ground Zero is expected to be the most visited memorial in the world. An observation deck would generate some revenue and it is not difficult to imagine a restaurant or two faring well in this food-obsessed city. After all, Windows on the World – which offered commanding views from its perch on the North Tower – was one of the top grossing restaurants in the US before it was destroyed on September 11.

An observation tower for New York: tall, iconic – and no white elephant.