[rjb001]

I hear what Traynor is saying about the need for the opinion of the majority to be recognized. I think that while most people usually look at an object and either "love it" or "hate it", the more thoughtful approaches to considering something are more worthy of attention. Banksy's comments, therefore, seem to miss the point of the distribution of usage in the complex, which implies he's just using the typical perspective of what is visible a mile away and not taking the time to study the complex carefully enough. It's true that corners were cut such as the spire and radome, but while the complex as a whole will be representative of replacing what was lost, his comments, to me at least, would fall under the typical quick glance type of judgement that doesn't tale into account the fact that the memorial is first and foremost exactly what it is called, and One World Trade Center is first and foremost an office building built off of the original hallowed soil where the towers stood. The name change of a couple years ago is proof that the PA recognizes that distinction. While the design of each building on the complex incorporates moments of reverence, it is the purpose of the memorial and museum to be fully reminiscent of what happened.