Talk:World Trade Center Memorial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Nice PD photo here of the tribute in light memorial


Contents

[edit] NPOV

It seems this article is biased against the memorial. Phrases like "not even a flag" as well as the list of things people do not like about the memorial seem to be presented in a skewed manner.

I'll take a look. SGGH speak! 10:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] title

the memorial is actually called the "World Trade Center Site Memorial" not the "World Trade Center Memorial". Change the title asap Savidan 21:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No. There was an name change and it is now formally the "World Trade Center Memorial". The old web site with the old name used by the LMDC has been replaced with this World Trade Center Memorial Foundation. patsw 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC) I added a redirect page for the old name. patsw 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
My bad Savidan 23:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Discussion

This one is obvious: The wining design name is now being used as a synonym for the memorial. patsw 03:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • How about merging World Trade Center Memorial into Reflecting Absence, rather than the other way around? I think the first name was mainly used until the winner of the design competition was chosen. Now, we have a name for the memorial, which seems to be the official name now. [1] -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reflecting Absence

  • The official spelling is absence.
  • My understanding is that the name Reflecting Absence is the name of the winning design entry and not intended to be a permanent name for the memorial replacing World Trade Center Memorial or it may refer to the twin pools alone which were formerly called twin voids. patsw 04:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for changing from British to American spelling. My mistake. I notice that the article has already been merged. If this article is to discuss both Reflecting Absence and the Memorial Museum, then I think the "World Trade Center Memorial" article name is okay. Otherwise, I'm not quite convinced, as the WTC Memorial Foundation refers to the The Memorial: Reflecting Absence. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the criticisms is stated as "The endless downward thundering of the 200-foot-square waterfalls would precisely mimic the motion of the original buildings' collapse — as if the Twin Towers never stopped falling, and never will.". Why is the word precisely in there? Do all things not fall at the same rate? That word is unnecessary, seeing as how me dropping a cardboard box off the side of a building would 'precisely mimic the motion of the original buildings' collapse'. Do you not agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.114.128 (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are there no images?

The natural source of images, the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, Inc., has restricted the usage of their images [2] in a manner that conflicts with the requirements of the Wikipedia. If you want to add one of their images, you might want to discuss it here first. patsw 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving the withdrawn proposals to the end of the article

Putting all the info about the withdrawn proposals at the start of the article is poor placement. It should be moved to the end of the article. patsw 18:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inflated costs

If the entire freedom tower is estimated to cost 1.5 to 2 billion dollars (US) to build, how in the world is the memorial and museum going to cost one billion. The numbers just do not add up. What will the square foot construction cost be to justify collecting one billion US dollars for the project. Is this going to be one more example of a non for profit organization preying on the emotions of the public to swindle their money?

This article has a very hostile POV towards the memorial. The estimated cost of the memorial is around $500 million, not $1 billion. (Even at $500 million, it would be the most expensive memorial ever built.)
A lot of the cost is for site preparation that is a necessary prerequisite to other construction at the site. This has the effect of making the memorial look more expensive than it is, and other structures less expensive. Marc Shepherd 10:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I beleive that the Taj Mahal or Great Pyramids must really be the most expensive memorial 'in world history'. Obviously not in American Dollars but they constitute a far greater use of resources. So, should we remove the reference "which would make it by far the most expensive memorial in world history" not just the citation needed? 23:15, 31 May 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.219.218 (talk)

[edit] Underground?

I saw on TV that they had gotten rid of the underground areas around the fountains to save money. If this is true, it should be updated on this page. The official page no longer shows those galleries, but doesn't say it's gotten rid of them either. The pictures they show do look like its just going to be an above ground fountain now, however.

The underground areas have not been entirely eliminated, but they've been scaled back. Marc Shepherd 10:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If this is true, shouldn't the wikipedia article reflect this, and specify what (if anything) will be underground? I see a picture on the right of the wikipedia page that shows people standing in the gallery beneith the falls. My understanding is that this gallery has been totally eliminated in the new plan (a terrible shame, imo). Yet the wikipedia article still shows the picture of the old design with the underground gallery.
This whole article is a mess and needs to be redone. I don't have the time to do it myself. Marc Shepherd 14:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Memorial and Museum

Currently, the Memorial and Museum section of this article lists the International Freedom Center. Given that the IFC will not be part of the WTCM, it seems its inclusion is inappropriate.

Ordinary Person 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No rebuilt WTC?

It's unclear in this article whether a new WTC will be rebuilt, or whether the memorial will take the place of the two towers which fell. I thought there was always a plan to build new, tall buildings on the site to replace the original ones, so as not to lose the value of the real estate. Can a sentence thoroughly explaining this be added to the article, please? Badagnani 02:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the WTC article you will see where the new buildings are in relation to the footprints of the twins. SGGH speak! 10:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus, why make the thing so depressing?

How's this going to help people heal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Refabs.jpg

Image:Refabs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)