The NYT's Herbert Muschamp needlessly dichotomizes the WTC constituencies into hawks and dovesthe Libeskind plan being the obvious work of warmongers, and THINK a pacifist creation. Muschamp, clearly pro-THINK, writes of Libeskind, "why, after all, should a large piece of Manhattan be permanently dedicated to an artistic representation of enemy assault? It is an astonishingly tasteless idea. It has produced a predictably kitsch result."
Balancing reason and emotion in Twin Towers void [NYT]

The LMDC, not surprisingly, picks THINK and Libeskind.
Two proposals for Ground Zero are picked as finalists [NYT]

The LMDC board members are favoring Libeskind and THINK.
The WTC finalists [Post]

As the decision-making deadline draws near, the supporters of the various WTC plans are splitting into their own little gangs of New York. We're not above massive oversimplification, so we'll make it easy for you: The Leftists love Libeskind; the Artists want THINK. From SUVs to bank accounts, bigger is better for the Wall Streeters, so they're going with the Foster Plan. The structural engineers like United because it works mathematically and confuses the hell out of everyone else, and we're not sure anyone likes Peterson/Littenberg.
Urban paranoia [Buzzmachine]
New world trade center site design concepts [LMDC]

Now that's better. The LMDC, mandated to rebuild the Twin Towers site, has picked six architectural teams for the design...