Most readers apparently agreed. Here are some of the reactions--slightly edited--to that editorial:

"You are right on point with your comments," writes Nathan Isikoff, vice chairman of Transwestern Commercial Services. "Whatever is built will be criticized by some. The most important thing is that the site be developed in a way that best serves the residents of the immediate area and the citizens of New York and includes an appropriate memorial to the innocent people who died there."

"I couldn't agree more with your comments," says one writer, who requested that her name be withheld. "The people who attacked us laugh at us as we publicly banter for years because of useless politics. We are now more vulnerable because we have proven to the world that our enemy can brutally attack us, and we still can't get our act together. We spend airtime complaining about conditions of prisoners instead of taking action. The political correctness of this nation has rendered us useless."

Another writer, asking for anonymity, writes that he "grew up near New York City and watched the World Trade Center go up from a distance, amazed at the sight of such a building. I've moved from the East Coast and live in a small city in the Midwest, in many ways insulated from the day-to-day life of a big a city. As a former planner turned developer, I understand the some of the tensions around the WTC debate. My deepest hope for this property is that the development process will be one that respects the importance of the site from spiritual, commercial andsymbolic perspectives. The lack of understanding, rancor and mistrust that permeates so many proposals must be absent to respect all that was lost on that sunny September day a year ago. We owe those that were lost, their families, ourselves and the world nothing less. I urge those involved in the planning and development of the former WTC to maintain their dignity, striving to find the best solution for all involved while respecting all that went before them and all that will follow for all time."

Other writers preferred to voice their opinion about what they'd like to see rise from Ground Zero: "My suggestion is to have the redevelopment itself be the memorial to those who lost their lives," writes Thomas G. McGarry of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey. "Naming the buildings after the deceased--collectively, in groups or by random pick individually--would seem entirely appropriate and enable the redevelopment to proceed with the normal input from the community, unaffected by the need for the whole site to be an undeveloped memorial. Also, make the architecture distinctive. The "twisted towers" concept you published recently I thought had great merit."