Jeff Jarvis was a lot closer to ground zero than I was on 9/11, and ever since he's been one of the most passionate and articulate writers about that day and its aftermath, but I think he's partly wrong about the new designs for the WTC site. To my eye, they are a vast improvement over the first rendition, and while they certainly have a "master architect" show-off vibe to them, I think a certain amount of that is appropriate at this point, particularly after the office park mediocrity of the first go round.
The day after they fell, I found myself thinking two thoughts about what should replace them. First, we needed something just as tall, to restore the skyline. Second, what we built shouldn't have many people in it -- maybe just an observation deck. The Eiffel Tower came to mind as a good model. That's why I'm particularly drawn to the THINK design, which features two gleaming wireframe towers that are largely empty. (Their slideshow specifically references the Eiffel Tower.) Jeff's right that some of the other designs look dangerously unstable. Building something that causes visitors to say, "I can't believe that thing is still standing!" isn't exactly appropriate for this setting. Plus, there are the economic ramifications of building something that daring: no one -- seriously, no one -- is going to happily head off to work in a leaning twin tower.