I saw this little "gem" in today's New York Daily News:
Art critic says good riddance to 'ugly' WTC
The World Trade Center was an "ugly box" whose loss did no harm to the city's skyline, one of the world's most outspoken art critics says.
"It was a large, scaleless lump, which completely dominated that end of Manhattan," Robert Hughes, an Australian who has lived in New York for many years, told the London Sunday Times.
Hughes, known in Britain for his BBC TV series and book "The Shock of the New," suggests 9/11 could have been far worse. "It would have been terrible if those Al Qaeda guys had knocked down either the Chrysler Building or the Rockefeller Center."
Granted, for years the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were criticized by many New Yorkers for being "ugly" and "an eyesore" on the Manhattan skyline. But now that they are gone, to say that their loss "did no harm to the city's skyline" is incredibly offensive, especially to people who lost loved ones that day who see the missing Twin Towers and think of those they loved are gone.
And a majority of New Yorkers still want the Twin Towers rebuilt, so it's just not the 9/11 families who miss those buildings.
It figures that such a bonehead remark would come from a non-native New Yorker. If the original remark wasn't bad enough, this Hughes imbecile compounds it by saying the loss of either the Chrysler Building or Rockefeller center would have been worse.
I don't know where to start with the stupidity in this last sentence. Hughes makes it sound like it was OK to destroy the World Trade Center, killing 2749 innocent souls, but knocking down either of the other two buildings he mentions would have been "terrible."
Goddamned jackass. Generally whenever I see the word "critic," those two words come to mind. Hughes can shove his "ugly box", and his insensitive opinions, where the sun doesn't shine.