musicman,

I guess that would depend on the criteria used for the discussion. Should buildings be built which are taller than the full extent of the fire truck with the longest ladder? If so, what type of and how many emergency escapes should be provided?

In this instance, as any replacement structures are obvious targets for a repeat performance, for what type of stresses and to what degree should the designs be assessed? Should these replacements be economically justified, or are they to be chauvinistic statements of American resilience?

Given the unavoidable political aspects of either decision - to build, or to not build – I would guess that a decision to not rebuild, or to replace the destroyed buildings with modest structures would be represented as a success for terrorism. It would inevitably be argued that "the reason they didn’t replace the Twin Towers with another skyscraper is because they knew we’d knock it down again".

I have a difficult time believing that replacement skyscrapers can be economically justified. The economics of building such structures in New York City today are dramatically different from those that existed forty years ago.

__________________
Eudaimonia