Recently, I came across mention somewhere on the wide-open Internet of this article by James Howard Kunstler and Nikos A. Salingaros, originally published on Sept. 17, 2001.

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, emotions were high. So I can understand what prompted these two authors to feel the need to blame the event on someone or something, but what I don't understand is their logic behind demonizing skyscrapers. The Pentagon is only three stories high, but it was hit as well.

Hindsight is 20/20, but I can't imagine many people took the sweeping "proven deathtraps" seriously when applied to all skyscrapers. Most of the sentiment directly after Sept. 11, 2001 I remember involved building a new skyscraper in its place. And that's exactly what we're doing, five years after the fact.

The focus of making buildings safer after 9/11 shouldn't be on the completely un-American concept of dismantling skyscrapers, it should be on producing safer ones. As an article by Jon Magnusson points out, the focus should be put on revamping safety codes to comply with this new reality of terrorism.

Since 9/11, building and safety codes have been given a great deal of scrutiny. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has led the way, publishing its wide-ranging report of 30 recommendations that would reshape not only building and life safety codes, but also the way emergency response procedures are carried out.

The recommendations are just that - recommendations. Until they are adopted by the various code bodies, however they can serve as a useful framework for facility executives who are concerned about high-rise safety.

So it seems like high-rises haven't gone out of fashion. I wonder if those two authors have changed their mind yet, but I suspect not.