If you put up memorials to something everywhere doesn't it detract from the significance of the actual place and the event itself? (Asked as someone who doesn't support it here but is very supportive of the efforts at Ground Zero and had 2 friends who diend in the event)
@urbanite: I've no idea. I imagine the significance of any event is personal
Isn't the proposal a bit morbid?
Let's not forget:
Alex Clarke, chairman of the September 11 United Kingdom Families Support Group, wrote to Southwark Council on Monday setting out her group's objection to the proposal.
"Our loved ones died amongst the very wreckage that the 9/11 London Project Foundation plan to erect as a symbol," she wrote.
"I don't think the families and victims of the 7/7 bombings in London would feel it appropriate to erect the battered wreckage of a tube train, or a decapitated London bus, on the tenth anniversary of that event.
"This 8.5 metre tall image screams terrorism and brutality and we fear it will become a focus for a variety of demonstrations. Is this really a necessary teaching aid?"
She added that her group had been offered the pieces of steel but had declined them.
She concluded: "We already have a memorial. The Thames riverside deserves better."
kellandj however much you tell everyone its art its significance will be as a memorial...perception will be that its made from the steel superstructure of buildings that were destroyed in the most attrocious of ways and that this "installation" will be to make that event a feature in everyones' memory i.e. a memorial. If its "just" art then I find it somewhat distasteful.
Fair enough, whether it is art is subjective. As is whether it is a suitable site. However, whether the idea and symbolism of it is offensive to the families of those who died isn't. I really can't believe anyone could want this to go ahead after hearing that.