Sure, it's easy to look at pictures or a model of a building and say it's good or bad, but what does that mean? Frankly, I don't think it's wise for anyone to take business advice from Mr. Trump, not unless they are interested in learning how to file for bankruptcy (something Mr. Trump has had plenty of practice in), and I definitely don't think anyone should listen to his architectural critiques, particularly when one considers some of the eyesores, architecturally speaking of course, that bear his name. This usually plastered on in egomaniacally large letters.

Apparently, Donald Trump presented his own design for the new World Trade Center--basically a photocopy of the original design plus one floor. How creative. How original. Spoken like a true developer driven exclusively by dollars and cents, and lacking in creative vision. The creative vision of the architect, in this case Daniel Libeskind. The recycled design by Trump is not surprising. Back in November 2004, Trump was sued by an architect for stealing a design "the Donald" had originally turned down, but ended up using in his Trump Grande Ocean Resort and Residences in Miami. Just trying to save a buck, perhaps.

While Mr. Trump is free to express his opinion, it is irresponsible for him to use his celebrity to publicly belittle the creative vision of Daniel Libeskind, an architect I'd be honored to call my colleague. More insulting is the notion that Mr. Trump seems to think that his opinion on the Libeskind design is worth more than the decision of the WTC Design Competition jury. As a student of architecture and an aspiring architect, I personally felt a majority of the designs in the competition wrongly addressed the design problem. However, the jury's choice was the most appropriate from the available design choices. This is not said lightly, for I even found the design of my favorite architect (whose design principles influence my own work), to be the wrong solution and a disappointment. Indeed, a query of the architecture community as a whole would surely yield myriad opinions regarding the design of the new WTC Freedom Tower. Having said that, one would be more inclined to accept such considered and constructive criticism before one gives any weight to the juvenile name-calling of a bottom-line driven developer.

To design and rebuild the new World Trade Center as a simple replica of the original would be silly and most regrettable. Simply regurgitating the old would not be a symbol of the new, it would in fact, be a symbol of the old. A painful reminder of failure and a monument to defeat. America has changed in many ways since that fateful day in September, and as such the new World Trade Center design should reflect that change. It matter's not if Daniel Libeskind is the architect or if he isn't, what matters is that we as a nation and a people show resolve and look the future. The new World Trade Center should be a testament to all that we are good and that we as a people move always forward; or in the words of one of our greatest Presidents, Ronald Reagan: “I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead.” Let the new World Trade Center tower be for our nation that brilliant shining beacon to that “bright dawn” which lies ahead. Let it not be a dim gas lamp on the back alley of defeat.

The criticism leveled by Mr. Trump and the schoolyard bully manner in which it was delivered highlights his lack of credibility on this matter. His faux bluster and blow-dried swagger, which easily sways those impressed by self-puffery, in this case only serves to painfully point up how out of his depth and out of touch he is. The he-man routine will not wash here. Donald Trump is a man whose dreams may seem very large, but only so within the confines of his very small world. As such, outside “dimension Donald,” they are the small dreams of a small man. His egoistic myopia makes him blind to the vibrant dynamic at work as concerns the question of the Freedom Tower and memorial. The Donald should stick to what he knows best: bankruptcy, babes and booting apprentices off his “reality” show.

The fundamental questions about the Freedom Tower require men of vision and certitude. The vision to see the larger dynamic at work and proceed accordingly. The certitude to see the matter through to completion and to not allow, in the words of William Safire,” the nattering nabobs of negativism,” to waylay the affair. The process should not be allowed to descend into a bottom feeding faretheewell.

The World Trade Center Freedom Tower must, should and will be built. We as a nation and a people will see to that. After all, as Ronald Reagan said, “America is too great for small dreams.”

Matt Margolis at Blogs For Bush thinks the original towers should be rebuilt. While Matt and I disagree on the destiny of the WTC plans, his architectural background puts him in a better position than Trump to be heard. Scott Sala of Slant Point, a New Yorker, welcomes Trumps involvement, but for different reasons. Scott also criticizes Trumps statement "Why are we building this monstrous skeleton known as the Freedom Tower? If Freedom Tower is built, the terrorists win." Thomas Galvin of the Galvin Opinion also thinks the original towers should be rebuilt. More opinions at Semi-Intelligent Thoughts, Confederate Yankee File It Under, Say Anything, Shape of Days.

____
This post is also available at Political Gateway, Blogger News Network, ArchPedia, Archinect.com.