"A Phallo-centric Terrorist Target" - Tongues are wagging about the "bold visions" of the new WTC planners. (To review the proposals, see the NYTimes and the RenewNYC websites for the best primary materials.) The designs are without a doubt conceptually daring visions of the city of tomorrow combined with sombre and contemplative spaces for memorializing the dead.

The NYTimes architecture critic couldn't be more pleased. But as if in direct retort, the paper's new staff entitle their analysis "Architects' Proposals Have Little to Do With Reality," saying "whatever is built there will not resemble what was unveiled yesterday... a bewildering array of crystalline towers, gardens in the sky, bedrock memorial parks 70 feet below street level, and the tallest and largest building in the world."

Laying aside the practicalities of some of the designs -- they pack way too much office space for a city that already has more than it needs -- the deeper problem lies in resistance to modern architecture. Herbert Muschamp notwithstanding, the weird and flighty designs of many of today's modern architects are not popular with the developers and tenants whose money gets things built. This is especially so in the United States and New York City is no exception. Americans show a a surprising tenacity to tradition in their public spaces. Witness another major Manhattan renaissance -- the rebirth of Penn Station within the classical stylings of the Farley Post Office building. Critics howled, but the public seems delighted by the design.

The art project that was unveiled yesterday was certainly a feast for the imagination, and perhaps some of the concepts will make their way into the final plans. But don't plan you garden party in the sky just yet.