Rebuilding After Tragedy: Communities Grapple with the Fate of Mass Shooting Sites

Parkland, FL — In the wake of deadly mass shootings, communities across the United States are grappling with a complex, emotionally charged decision: should the buildings where these tragic events unfolded be demolished or preserved? Recently, Parkland witnessed the teardown of the very building at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School where 17 lives were tragically cut short in February 2018. For many affected, the removal marked a crucial step in the healing process.

Community members expressed a mix of relief and somber reflection as heavy machinery razed the site. Former student Bryan Lequerique shared the sentiment of many by acknowledging that the demolition was necessary to close a painful chapter, emphasizing the community’s need to move forward. Similarly, broadcasting and film teacher Eric Garner highlighted the structure as a stark reminder of the tragedy that has loomed over the campus for years.

This dilemma isn’t unique to Parkland. In Uvalde, Texas, following the heartbreaking loss of 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in May 2022, officials elected to demolish the site and lay plans for a new school and memorial. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, saw the Tree of Life synagogue rebuilt into a new spiritual center after being the scene of a devastating antisemitic attack in October 2018 that killed 11.

Contrastingly, some locations have taken a different path. Both the Tops Friendly Markets in Buffalo, New York, and the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, where racially motivated mass shootings occurred, reopened their doors.

In Littleton, Colorado, Columbine High School still stands despite being site of the 1999 massacre that claimed 15 lives. The school’s library, the principal locale of the carnage, was remodeled into a memorial, reflecting an attempt to balance everyday educational activities with the need for commemoration.

Decisions on whether to demolish or preserve such buildings are influenced by a multitude of factors beyond the immediate emotional response to tragedy. Economic constraints often weigh heavily; not all school districts can afford to rebuild. Further, there is concern about creating potential shrines for those with sinister motives.

Historian Daniel Fountain from Meredith College in North Carolina emphasizes the necessity sometimes to remove spaces that might otherwise serve as grim landmarks. Meanwhile, Timothy Recuber, a sociologist at Smith College in Massachusetts, notes an evolving recognition of the role of trauma and the need for closure, pushing communities toward the decision to demolish.

For some, maintaining these buildings represents a defiance against the acts of violence inflicted upon them. It symbolizes resilience and a refusal to be defined by tragedy. However, for others, the persistent visual reminder poses a risk of retraumatizing individuals, raising questions about the best way to honor memories while fostering healing.

Jennifer Talarico, a psychology professor at Lafayette College, underscores the complexity of these decisions. They not only involve navigating the sentiments of diverse community members but also require careful consideration of long-term psychological impacts.

As communities continue to confront these tough choices, the debate highlights a fundamental tension between remembering and moving forward, between places as sites of memory and as environments for everyday life. The resolution of these conflicts, while varied, is a poignant reflection of society’s broader struggle with how to process and heal from collective trauma.