There is still the potential for surprise. I would not write off Libeskind just yet. And remember: when the original architect of The Twin Towers was revealed back in the 1960s, nobody expected it to be Minoru Yamasaki, American-born of Japanese parents, who ironically saw his towers as a symbol of world peace. He was considered second-rank. Critics of the day lambasted the design, and reviled the buildings once they were up. Unfairly, they never won any awards. But since they were destroyed, they have taken on a heavy significance. Which is why several of the competing designs carried echoes of Yamasaki's towers. Of these, Foster's is eminently realizable, but economically perhaps over-optimistic. And Foster is a rationalist: he cannot summon up the emotion that bubbles close beneath the surface of Libeskind. Not being New York based, he does not enjoy the same closeness to the levers of power and influence as Vinoly.

Also - remembering Yamasaki - you can't help noticing that there are some lower-ranking, commercially-savvy traditionalist American architects, Peterson/Littenberg, in the competition, fielded by none other than the same Lower Manhattan Development Corporation that is running the competition. These are architects who offer big conventional memorial gardens as well as big, conventional square footage. At first, New York's architectural community sensed a fix. Would cynicism win out? Or was the political significance of the site such that something more ambitious will be allowed? Now, nobody considers the Peterson/Littenberg proposal a serious contender, but everyone may be wrong. As for Foster, after his initial burst of activity and enthusiasm, he fell silent. Whereas Libeskind continued a drip-feed of publicity, and Vinoly worked away assiduously. Nobody in America ever looks down on you for trying too hard - so long as you don't give up.