Two tall skyscrapers built with a cloud in between them; a cloud that is actually part of the building and connects the two. This is the newest proposed architectural plan for a construction site in Seoul, South Korea. Designed by a Dutch architectural company, it is basically the flagship design of the company. Extremely architecturally innovative, the connection between the two towers is modeled after a pixelated cloud. The cloud is other rooms and offices and the top of the cloud is terraces and gardens. However, there is a large amount of controversy surrounding the design. Let’s take a look at the design…
As you can see, it has a striking resemblance to something extremely personal and tragic to almost every American, and a lot of the world in general. The design has an incredible resemblance to the 9/11 attacks, the cloud being the smoke from the impact of the planes. Obviously many Americans are incredibly upset that these designs exist, not to mention are planned to actually be built. September 11th, an incredibly tragic terrorist attack on our country that killed thousands and left many families with a lost parent, child, or friend, and another country wants to build a building that looks just like the attacks?! Obviously you can tell why many people are extremely upset about these plans.
However, the architecture company and the PR chief say they did not realize the resemblance. Personally, I do not believe this for a second. Someone involved in the design process must have realized the similarities. September 11th was a world wild event, and almost everyone heard of what happened. It sparked a war that has lasted years and is only just this week coming to an end. So, how can they honestly say they did not notice the design similarities?
Furthermore, an article by Lucy Williamson of BBC shows that the people of South Korea don’t find a problem with the design either. Though some realize the similarities, they say there “is no law saying it can’t be built.” This comes off as direct disregard of our nation and our feelings, in my opinion.
But what would the political theorists from or class say? Mill advocates freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas, but this doesn’t seem to be a “speech” or an “idea.” This is why I don’t think Mill would defend the design with freedom of speech. But, maybe he would. There is no political theorist that talks directly about this issue. So, what do you think? Currently the firm plans to continue with the plans with no alterations to the design.