Hi folks,

I received permission from Cliff Haas to post this here. I'm sure most of
you know about the proposed light tower memorial in Manhattan, and I'm sure
most of you know the problems birds will have with this idea. This isn't a
matter of being patriotic or unpatriotic, it's a matter of thinking through
our actions on all levels.

Greetings:

Dr. Upgren has shared with me his latest letter to the creators of the Twin
Towers concept and he has requested that I pass it on to all of you.

Cheers,
Cliff Haas

In a message dated 9/25/01 4:10:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
aupgren at mail.wesleyan.edu writes:


Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:04:01 -0400
To: towers at creativetime.org
From: Arthur Upgren
Subject: Concern
Cc: aupgren at mail.wesleyan.edu

"Towers of Light" impresses me as a hasty proposal to insert banks of
brilliant floodlights directed upward from each of the sites where the
World Trade Center stood. But unlike the towers, the glare from these
lights would not be limited to 110 stories, but would shine up and out into
the sky for hundreds of miles.

For some time it has been known that upward shining light takes a great
toll of migratory birds of many species. Attracted to the light and blinded
by it, the birds follow insects into the glare and many are killed. The
glare disorients night-flying songbirds, which rely on glimmers from the
stars and landscape for navigation. Blinding lights, as these would be,
overwhelm these cues forcing thousands of birds to circle about like moths
around a flame, eventually ramming themselves to death into nearby towers
or collapsing from exhaustion, leaving the city to a possible overabundance
of insects.

This plan has other faults; it would not be visible in the daytime or in
poor weather and would be of no use then. It could interfere with flight
paths and approaches to three major airports (JFK, Newark, LaGuardia) just
when we want heightened security there. The Towers of Light would bring
about a return to Rachel Carson???s silent spring in the region, and a
probable increase in the insect population, as has happened elsewhere. In
some states and counties it would already be illegal. Is this the statement
we want to make?

This is a gaudy spectacle, more appropriate for Las Vegas than New York,
and might lure some into believing that we had shown the terrorists that we
had rebuilt the city when in fact we had not. It would not be a monument,
but a symbol of much more waste of money and energy, increasing our
dependence on foreign oil. Why not instead erect an eternal flame, perhaps
surrounded with the flags of all of the nations that lost citizens in this
tragedy. In that case, the city and the nation would enjoy an attractive
and inoffensive spectacle. It could be a permanent memorial that is not
divisive as this scheme would be, but strengthens our national unity. Many
people will not support this project; let's get one that we all can support.

Arthur Upgren
aupgren at wesleyan.edu


Cliff Drake
Seattle WA
cliffdrake at qwest.net