Thanks for the link. Thoughts: a) Different types of structures serving different purposes. One could argue the Dublin spire is not even a true monument, but more, as the article points out, and act of (mere) urbanism. It's purpose is not to cause reflection on a specific event in time or specific emotions, as compared to the World Trade Center Memorial. To wit... b) ...therein lies some of the problem. As the article also correctly points out, the decision makers behind the commission of the memorial had rather exacting conditions, no doubt shaped by the immediacy through which they were recalling the event and channeling their grief. Such mindsets surely meant the memorial would be artistically doomed from the start, or at the least handicapped. The war memorials throughout DC had many years between the event and the commission to allow for more reflection, and implied honor for those involved. The WTC Memorial is one of the rare sect based (mostly) on the losses experienced. It's most comparable equal would be that in Oklahoma City, but in that case the site did not have the subsequent conditions imposed as the WTC. The design applicants for the WTC were told to honor the building footprints, accommodate surrounding development, provide greenspace, space for more somber reflection, tributes to the fallen, etc. "Oh by the way, we need your concept in 2 months and have little idea what the surrounding development will look like!" The resulting design is imperfect, but I don't think any of the nominees at the time were or could've been. Which might be in itself fitting given the nature of the event. To say nothing of us being critical of a space that doesn't even exist yet.