PDA

View Full Version : ...still no Twin Towers


Frohickey
May 18, 2004, 03:56 PM
WORLD TRADE SELLOUTS (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/24272.htm)
By NICOLE GELINAS

May 18, 2004 -- THE Republican National Convention hits New York in August - a tribute to the city that stood tall in the wake of 9/11. The problem: When it comes to rebuilding Downtown, New York is close to accepting defeat.

Osama bin Laden gave the order to destroy the World Trade Center - but Gov. Pataki & Co. are paying for the funeral. New York's leaders refuse to heal our city's mutilated skyline.

In Washington, the horror of 9/11 was met with resolve: The feds rebuilt the Pentagon within a year.

In New York, horror was met by bureaucratic flaccidity.

Two years have passed since workers cleared the rubble from the World Trade Center site. But Pataki squandered months holding architectural beauty pageants while the crater in the middle of Lower Manhattan sank into the permanent landscape.

What's Pataki's legacy to be, after all that wasted time?

The governor has chosen architect Daniel Libeskind to erect a "Freedom" Tower that will be a half-hollowed monument to cowardice.

The top floors of the Freedom Tower are designed for bin Laden. They'll be empty. The tower is to be built with just 70 occupied stories - 40 floors shy of each of the destroyed Twin Towers.

Pataki wants to break ground on the Freedom Tower on the Fourth of July - but all the fireworks in the world won't mask the fact that the Freedom Tower is no World Trade Center.

It is shocking - almost inconceivable - that we haven't snatched back from our enemies what belongs to us. Americans always understood the Twin Towers. They were us: stark capitalism, power and beauty without explanation or apology.

It's not too late to stand down fecklessness at Ground Zero.

Herbert Belton, an architect who worked on the original World Trade Center, has designed new, 112-story Twin Towers for Lower Manhattan. Belton's partner, structural engineer Ken Gardner, has created an exquisite 5-foot model of the proposed towers and memorial plaza.

Their challenge was to fit Downtown's tragic new history into the proud heritage of the World Trade Center. They've preserved the form and style of pre-9/11 Downtown while paying homage to what happened on that hallowed ground.

Belton and Gardner would set each of their Twin Towers on the acre opposite its fallen predecessor. The footprints of the old WTC buildings would thus serve as testaments to 9/11's dead.

The footprints would be framed by the skin of the fallen towers that survived on that morning. A glass floor over each footprint would allow visitors to peer down to bedrock.

Belton and Gardner's memorial plaza includes an elegant building to inter the unidentified remains of those killed. In the sky, the top floor of each of the new Twin Towers would serve as a separate memorial to the police officers and firefighters who lost their lives to rescue so many on that day.

The new WTC would include post-9/11 safety features: Each tower would be protected by a double exterior skin, and would feature six well-fireproofed stairwells.

In the shadow of Gardner's 5-foot model of what could be, Pataki's groundbreaking on July 4 will be an occasion to mark not triumph, but more tragedy.

To watch the steel structures of new Twin Towers pierce New York's skyline floor-by-floor - after all New York has been through - would be to experience one of the greatest moments in modern history. But Pataki and his Freedom Tower would rob New York - and America - of that moment.

This generation will be judged on its response to 9/11. "Rebuilding the World Trade Center shows that we will not be moved by these crazy, mad people," Gardner said.

The construction of the Freedom Tower won't do that - instead, it would desecrate our own dignity.

Worse, the Freedom Tower's abject mediocrity would lull New Yorkers - and Americans - into a false sense of complacency in the face of terror and tyranny. Erecting an empty tower of appeasement won't make us safe.

Pataki owes it to New York to take a look at the Belton- Gardner plan - or our skyline will be forever marred by a 1,776-foot gravestone that marks the death of New York's spirit.

=====

Team Twin Towers (http://archrecord.construction.com/news/wtc/archives/040310teamtwin.asp)
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/images/040310teamtwin1.jpg
Reasons for Team Twin Towers (http://www.teamtwintowers.org/rebuild.html)

=====

They make a good point that a rebuild of a similar structure is best from an economical standpoint since the foundation is already there, and is designed for the original structure.

King Cobra
May 18, 2004, 04:10 PM
Advisory: This post might be somewhat political, but is free from the name-calling bias bulls**t from the political forums.


The top floors of the Freedom Tower are designed for bin Laden. They'll be empty. The tower is to be built with just 70 occupied stories - 40 floors shy of each of the destroyed Twin Towers.
I'm confused...terrorist engineers figured out exactly what place to hit the trade center towers based on almost every little mechanical detail about each of the towers (correct??). So then unless the top floors are "in memory" somehow, if terrorist engineers decide to put a jet into the new tower, they would take into effect the empty floors as well in order to calculate where to hit. So then why are there empty floors being planned for the top of the tower?

krimson
May 18, 2004, 04:13 PM
a smart terrorist would aim for the lower floors trapping more people inside the building, or possibly knocking it over and cause more devastation in the surrounding buildings.

Sparky's
May 18, 2004, 04:28 PM
Advisory: This post might be somewhat political, but is free from the name-calling bias bulls**t from the political forums.

I have learned to stay away from the political forums, though I agree with this authors point of view. The Towers need to be re-constructed (better) and quickly. The fact that the Pentagon was rebuilt I think isn't really fair, that was a partially destroyed building that was only a few stories high and it was neccessary to maintain the military composure it represented. Not quite the words I'm looking for, but I think you get my meaning. I as an american would rather see the Towers return even bigger and better than before. (slight flag waving here)

Frohickey
May 18, 2004, 04:39 PM
Actually, I'm more of the "Lets build it again, bigger and better". And if there can be a design that reuses some of the old structure, the better. It makes it cheaper and also its a proven design instead of an untested one. There goes the engineer in me again. :eek:

Also, if its rebuilt, nothing says that the interior has to be exactly the same it was. And the interior has a lot more to say about the strength of the structure. So, terrorists might try and hit it at the same spot, and it might just keep on standing.

takao
May 18, 2004, 04:42 PM
hmmm i thought more about something in between...i mean look at other very important buildings getting destroyed in history... and getting modernized
for example the reichstag in berlin
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/322967.stm
http://www.bundesbaugesellschaft.de/en/rtg.htm

they changed the design to show a more 'open democracy' and they kept the old parts to show the turbulences the german democracy gone through... like the bullet holes from WW2 ...
and in viewing distance from the glass dome ...the 'holocaust mahnmal' gets constructed to remember visitors

i guess there are enough examples...

i hope americans _learned_ something from this catastrophical terror attack...to built just a stronger,same looking building there is wrong in my opinion...

Chip NoVaMac
May 18, 2004, 04:56 PM
Advisory: This post might be somewhat political, but is free from the name-calling bias bulls**t from the political forums.



I'm confused...terrorist engineers figured out exactly what place to hit the trade center towers based on almost every little mechanical detail about each of the towers (correct??). So then unless the top floors are "in memory" somehow, if terrorist engineers decide to put a jet into the new tower, they would take into effect the empty floors as well in order to calculate where to hit. So then why are there empty floors being planned for the top of the tower?

Lets hope people will stay within the topic.

Keep in mind that tapes from Bin Laden indicated "surprise" that the towers collapsed. But we are allowing fear to rule our decisions.

And that is why Team Twin Towers project doesn't stand a snowballs chance of coming to fruition.

And for me it is a shame. I have relatives in CT., and I go against my Dad's preference for the Tappen Zee Bridge, and take the GW Bridge - just so that I could look look at those towers in the early twilight.

Critics panned the WTC for its design. But I liked the simple, basic design of the towers. For me it was a powerful image; but the beauty was getting up close. It seemed to defy rational on how a building so simple, could reach to the clouds.

I had an opportunity almost a year to the day of 9-11-01, to stay at the Millennium Hilton across the street from the WTC for a few days or so in 2000. I spent hours in the workday morning (with warm Krispy Kreme donuts beside me - from the shop in one of the other smaller WTC buildings). Watching the people come and go. The shadow play of these two massive buildings. My lament that since my friends have a fear of heights I never had a chance to go to the top of the WTC.

Wish i had kept the picture, but shortly after 9-11 there was a picture of what should be built on that ground. Imagine five towers. The first one, a short one, the second the tallest (equal to the height of the orginal WTC tower), and the remaining towers as short as the first. If you need a visual, just look at a "one finger" salute.

Chip NoVaMac
May 18, 2004, 05:01 PM
I have learned to stay away from the political forums, though I agree with this authors point of view. The Towers need to be re-constructed (better) and quickly. The fact that the Pentagon was rebuilt I think isn't really fair, that was a partially destroyed building that was only a few stories high and it was neccessary to maintain the military composure it represented. Not quite the words I'm looking for, but I think you get my meaning. I as an american would rather see the Towers return even bigger and better than before. (slight flag waving here)

Being in the DC area, I will say that the rebuilding of the Pentagon was much more. It helped that it was Federal property. So no sticky real estate fingers to get in the way.

Also the lower loss of of life, and the need for the space played a part. i think that if the Pentagon had seen the devastation of 3000+ lives lost, and being totally reduced to rubble. I think that the debate on what should go into its place would be vastly different.

Frohickey
May 18, 2004, 05:14 PM
Wish i had kept the picture, but shortly after 9-11 there was a picture of what should be built on that ground. Imagine five towers. The first one, a short one, the second the tallest (equal to the height of the orginal WTC tower), and the remaining towers as short as the first. If you need a visual, just look at a "one finger" salute.

You mean, this one?
[url=http://www.wigmusings.com/images/NewWorldTradeCenter.jpg]
http://www.wigmusings.com/images/NewWorldTradeCenter.jpg

Frohickey
May 18, 2004, 05:17 PM
Being in the DC area, I will say that the rebuilding of the Pentagon was much more. It helped that it was Federal property. So no sticky real estate fingers to get in the way.

Also the lower loss of of life, and the need for the space played a part. i think that if the Pentagon had seen the devastation of 3000+ lives lost, and being totally reduced to rubble. I think that the debate on what should go into its place would be vastly different.

Maybe, maybe not.

I think that the Pentagon rebuilding had a lot going for it. One, as you say, was that it was Federal property. But another is that there was a *NEED* for it to be repaired as soon as possible.

For the WTC, we were in the midst of a recession, and office space was not in high demand, so, here we are.

Chip NoVaMac
May 18, 2004, 05:17 PM
You mean, this one?
[url=http://www.wigmusings.com/images/NewWorldTradeCenter.jpg]
http://www.wigmusings.com/images/NewWorldTradeCenter.jpg

Knew someone would have it or have it bookmarked....

many thanks....

MongoTheGeek
May 18, 2004, 05:43 PM
I like this design. Bigger brasher etc.

The 1 finger salute though is nice as well though.

On the making it more modern I am not sure what could be more modern that what was there.

Frohickey
May 18, 2004, 07:38 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/americas_enl_1071846345/img/laun.jpg
vs
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/images/040310teamtwin1.jpg

First one looks like something that escaped from the set of Superman: The Movie

MoparShaha
May 18, 2004, 07:50 PM
I too wish they would rebuild the towers as they were, or like the ones shown in the article. I think they were simply beautiful buildings. So simple, so elegant, yet so powerful. I also agree that it's a weakness on our part not to put them back the way they were. If someone knocks you down, you get back up and keep going. You don't act like a coward and find another way of getting to where you're going. Not a great analogy, but I hope my meaning is understood. Those towers are New York City.

quagmire
May 18, 2004, 08:10 PM
The towers will be standing today if the builders didn't keep on cutting corners, to try to keep it cheap. They used drywall to protect the core, Cheap fire protector, cheap garters. If we don't rebuild the towers, it would show Bin Laden that we are to afraid to rebuild the buildings fearing more losses in lives. I also liked the old design. Also, you can not get a jet that low to do enough damage to make the towers collapse immediately.

Chip NoVaMac
May 18, 2004, 08:16 PM
The towers will be standing today if the builders didn't keep on cutting corners, to try to keep it cheap. They used drywall to protect the core, Cheap fire protector, cheap garters. If we don't rebuild the towers, it would show Bin Laden that we are to afraid to rebuild the buildings fearing more losses in lives. I also liked the old design. Also, you can not get a jet that low to do enough damage to make the towers collapse immediately.

It begins with the politicians. The WTC was built according to the code at the time. And to be honest from a business standpoint it is hard to upgrade a building after the fact.

quagmire
May 18, 2004, 08:27 PM
It begins with the politicians. The WTC was built according to the code at the time. And to be honest from a business
standpoint it is hard to upgrade a building after the fact.

I know it was up to standard. I watched a show about the twin towers. They said they cut all of the corners possible. Like the Drywall. Drywall isn't an ideal core protector.

Frohickey
May 18, 2004, 08:45 PM
I know it was up to standard. I watched a show about the twin towers. They said they cut all of the corners possible. Like the Drywall. Drywall isn't an ideal core protector.

There were a few good documentaries about the Twin Towers, and there were also a lot of scuttlebutt about what could have been done. I think that the asbestos lawsuits might have discouraged the use of effective fireproofing materials. You would think that asbestos, a naturally-occurring material with a long history of use would be a good candidate with proper handling techniques and workplace safety filters, etc.

Sometimes, the 'devil' you know is better than the 'devil' you don't know.

Chip NoVaMac
May 18, 2004, 10:06 PM
I know it was up to standard. I watched a show about the twin towers. They said they cut all of the corners possible. Like the Drywall. Drywall isn't an ideal core protector.

But in the end will that be any different from a any building built today in the post 9-1 world. probably not. So don't cast stones just at them....

michaelrjohnson
May 18, 2004, 10:52 PM
living in wisconsin, i dont' exactly have any ties to NY, but I would think that using the original exterior appearance, with a modern inner-structure would be the ideal replacement.

so, i guess I agree with this post?

go team twin towers

MongoTheGeek
May 18, 2004, 11:15 PM
Cheap fire protector

On of the theories why #2 fell before #1 even though it was hit afterwards was the #1 was half asbestos, a far superior fire protectant. It was only half and #2 had none because it was no longer allowed to be used. Pricewise I think it might even have been cheaper than the replacement.

Waluigi
May 19, 2004, 01:35 AM
I'm a bit upset of the plan they choose, but whatever, it's supposed to look like this in 2009
http://www.renewnyc.com/images_WMS/freedom_tower/freedom_tower_night.jpg - 1.5MB

For more info, and a lot of really cool pictures of the memorial, and other designs that were much cooler, go to renewnyc.com (http://www.renewnyc.com)

--Waluigi

Waluigi
May 23, 2004, 09:59 PM
Reason: way too big of an image - let people decide if they want to download a 1.5MB file

Sorry about that! I just wanted everyone to see the new WTC site. Next time I'll just post a link!


--Waluigi

quagmire
May 23, 2004, 10:22 PM
On of the theories why #2 fell before #1 even though it was hit afterwards was the #1 was half asbestos, a far superior fire protectant. It was only half and #2 had none because it was no longer allowed to be used. Pricewise I think it might even have been cheaper than the replacement.

Another theory was because of the acward angle the plane hit, all of the papers were burning making the metal melt quicker and the gurters giving away. So it was an empty shell of a bug for what say with no support and a big human stepped on it and it collapsed with out restance.

jeffy.dee-lux
May 24, 2004, 12:27 AM
i hope americans _learned_ something from this catastrophical terror attack...to built just a stronger,same looking building there is wrong in my opinion...

you read my mind, buddy.
testosterone and pride are a combination that doesn't do too well with international relations.
I quite enjoyed my first time in new york, feb 2001, mainly because of the amazing landscape of the city. the buildings in that city are amazing, and i would've loved to have gone up to the top of the WTC (and ride those crazy fast elevators... man i LOVE fast elevators). But a lot of people saw those buildings as an ugly display of excess, and when some of those people go so far as to destroy them and everyone inside, i think we should try to get some kind of message out of that.

I believe something should definitely be built, but building replicas of the originals is just too provocative.

In fact, i think they should make an 112 story tall minaret. hahaha.
The other night, i was biking along, and some punk kid hanging out with a bunch of his friends called me a dirty name for no apparent reason, so i just said, hey, how's it going buddy? and he just sat silent, and i think his friends probably thought he was a bit of a moron too. if i had gotten off my bike and picked a fight or something, his friends woulda gotten all into it, i woulda gotten my ass kicked, and they'd all be happy. Not that i'm saying this is a perfect analogy at all, but sometimes, returning insult with kindness is the best revenge.

as far as the architecture... i think they were super impressive buildings, but if you took just one of them on its own, it would be pretty ugly, even if it was just as tall. I mean, compared to empire state, chrysler, and something like the new tapei 101, they were nothing special aside from being pretty big and there being two of em. Some people loved them for their plainness, like an apple pro mouse! ya! I dunno, in my opinion, you could make something much cooler looking, and perhaps some scary people would be a little less angry.

Kid Red
May 24, 2004, 08:47 AM
I never liked any of the designs I saw. I too think the same type of building s should have been put back. The skyline is scarred, and I think it would have served better to erect something maybe not identical but in the same spirit and definitely the same size and having 2 buildings. Going shorter and single is like a cop out. And I may be over analyzing but is the new building really going to be white? I hate that cutoff empty top section, just looks weird.

I think they gave in to the fear of a repeat strike by not doing twin towers again and going shorter. Therefore the terrorists won.

gwuMACaddict
May 24, 2004, 10:38 AM
The fact that the Pentagon was rebuilt I think isn't really fair, that was a partially destroyed building that was only a few stories high and it was neccessary to maintain the military composure it represented.

i'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. but watching the smoke from the pentagon, driving past the hole in the pentagon, seeing the workmen working to fix things... when that was finished it felt good! really good. and i wish that new yorkwould do the same thing. rebuild... not only for the economy- cause that was a heck of a lot of office space, but because it means a lot to a lot of people

gwuMACaddict
May 24, 2004, 10:40 AM
i hope americans _learned_ something from this catastrophical terror attack...to built just a stronger,same looking building there is wrong in my opinion...

what in the world does that mean? what were we supoposed to learn? that there a radical nutcases out there that are jealous of our liberties and freedoms?

we were supposed to learn not to build large buildings?

give me a freakin break...

rueyeet
May 24, 2004, 03:35 PM
Personally I always thought the WTC towers were pretty ugly....designed purely for function at the cost of aesthetics, and completely outsized in comparison to the surrounding buildings. They were like one of those over-the-top things the engineer-types do just because they can, despite common sense and good taste.

I was just in New York with friends this weekend, and we went to the WTC site. I never got the chance to see the Towers while they were standing, but looking at the gaping holes in the ground and comparing heights of the nearby buildings, they'd have been huge!! It's sobering to think of all those who didn't make it out, and even scarier to think how many more people would have been there even an hour later. :(

a smart terrorist would aim for the lower floors trapping more people inside the building, or possibly knocking it over and cause more devastation in the surrounding buildings.

Have you actually been to downtown Manhattan? Nearly all the buildings around the WTC were about a third to half their height--you wouldn't be able to fly a plane into the lower floors without plowing through those, or doing a very sudden nose dive.

I think that if the Pentagon had seen the devastation of 3000+ lives lost, and being totally reduced to rubble. I think that the debate on what should go into its place would be vastly different.I agree. Since only a portion of the Pentagon was destroyed, it's not a design question, it's just a matter of replacing the damaged portion, for which they already had recent renovation plans. And three rings of one side of the Pentagon is a lot less to rebuild than a whole block of downtown Manhattan.

I do wish they'd picked a better plan than the WTC redesign winner. The triangular angles and all-glass construction don't fit at all into the rest of the skyline, and that empty top portion is just stupid. I'd much rather see the Belton- Gardner Team Twin Towers built--essentially rebuilding the old WTC--than that stupid glass thing.

dopefiend
May 24, 2004, 03:39 PM
Personally I always thought the WTC towers were pretty ugly....designed purely for function at the cost of aesthetics, and completely outsized in comparison to the surrounding buildings. They were like one of those over-the-top things the engineer-types do just because they can, despite common sense and good taste.

I was just in New York with friends this weekend, and we went to the WTC site. I never got the chance to see the Towers while they were standing, but looking at the gaping holes in the ground and comparing heights of the nearby buildings, they'd have been huge!!

Now I wouldn't have said anything, but you mentioned you never saw them standing in person. When I visited New York, (i think it was 1999) I saw the towers. Now maybe it was just me, but they really looked great! I loved them! I feel lucky to have seen them in person before they fell. :(

rueyeet
May 24, 2004, 04:16 PM
True that I was never there, but I've seen lots of pictures. I didn't like the vertical-banding effect of the exteriors of the old towers, basically.

That said, the World Trade Center Phoenix Design (http://www.triroc.com/wtc/) that's at the center of the Team Twin Towers proposal actually looks better than the old Towers: the kind-of openwork effect (http://www.triroc.com/wtc/pix/pixright.htm) they've got going there is very cool-looking. I also like the plaza design. The old tower footprints being outlined in the same architectural elements as the lower portion of the new ones lets you know that the old towers are still equallly present in spirit, while the circle of international flags within each outline pays homage both to those from ALL countries who died there, and to all those of different nationality who come together in New York to conduct the world's business--and all those who have come to America to start a new life.

Good stuff. :cool:

Frohickey
May 24, 2004, 04:36 PM
Okay, after the collapse of the Charles DeGaule airport in France, who else besides me thinks that too much glass is not the way a building should be made? Like the Freedom Tower design is supposed to be.

mactastic
May 24, 2004, 05:35 PM
Okay, after the collapse of the Charles DeGaule airport in France, who else besides me thinks that too much glass is not the way a building should be made? Like the Freedom Tower design is supposed to be.

There's no problem with glass. Just don't use it as a structural material. Look at what I.M. Pei did with the Louvre.

Frohickey
May 24, 2004, 06:45 PM
There's no problem with glass. Just don't use it as a structural material. Look at what I.M. Pei did with the Louvre.

I was giving the French an out to the collapse of the building, now you have took that away from them. Okay, I'll say it, French buildings suck. :eek: :p

Seriously though, I'm sure we will get an explanation of what caused the CdG airport to collapse, hopefully, there will be lessons learned from that so it doesn't happen again.

As said in the website, the foundation of any building takes a lot of work and design resources to do right, and it has to fit the building that sits on top of it as well. It still makes sense to build a similar type of building on top of the WTC, unless you are going to tear up the foundation and really start from scratch. I think that a similar building, not an identical building would be a good use of limited resources. Plus, the plans are already there, the specifications are already there, we just need to do a little bit of tweaking and improvements to the existing specifications to come out with an improved WTC tower.

MongoTheGeek
May 24, 2004, 08:33 PM
I really love the phoenix design. One thing that I would add would be a bronze outline in the pavement of the original two towers. This would be extra cool if there was an intersection with the new building. It would show the new and old together. It would be a stark reminder of the past while showing the future goes on.

mactastic
May 25, 2004, 11:18 AM
I was giving the French an out to the collapse of the building, now you have took that away from them. Okay, I'll say it, French buildings suck. :eek: :p

You don't know what you're talking about. France has a long history of architectural prowess. Don't let your predjudice make you look foolish.

Seriously though, I'm sure we will get an explanation of what caused the CdG airport to collapse, hopefully, there will be lessons learned from that so it doesn't happen again.

As said in the website, the foundation of any building takes a lot of work and design resources to do right, and it has to fit the building that sits on top of it as well. It still makes sense to build a similar type of building on top of the WTC, unless you are going to tear up the foundation and really start from scratch. I think that a similar building, not an identical building would be a good use of limited resources. Plus, the plans are already there, the specifications are already there, we just need to do a little bit of tweaking and improvements to the existing specifications to come out with an improved WTC tower.

The 'little bit of tweaking" would amount to a near total redesign anyway. There's no way around it. All the engineering calcs would have to be done again, because materials would be different for one thing, and the idea of a solid structural core with a load bearing curtain wall exterior is probably past it's day. Ingress/egress paths would have to be redone. There's no way the old WTC meets today's building codes. And you can't just paint that stuff on. It's fundamental redesign stuff.

As far as the foundations go, I thought I heard that they were pretty tore up already? In any case, the new building is more than just a structure. It needs symbolic power as well in order to deserve to stand on the skyline like it will. Rebuilding the old isn't a good symbolic statement. The old WTC was so.... 1950's. The new one should say something about this time.

Sure you could rebuild something to look just like the old ones. But it wouldn't be the same inside. The cool thing about the old WTC was it's brutal expression of its structural system. If the new building has a different structural system with the cladding of the old one slapped on the outside, it's betraying the principle of that style of architecture. The building becomes a lie in effect.

Thanatoast
Feb 6, 2006, 02:03 PM
As far as the foundations go, I thought I heard that they were pretty tore up already? In any case, the new building is more than just a structure. It needs symbolic power as well in order to deserve to stand on the skyline like it will. Rebuilding the old isn't a good symbolic statement. The old WTC was so.... 1950's. The new one should say something about this time.

Sure you could rebuild something to look just like the old ones. But it wouldn't be the same inside. The cool thing about the old WTC was it's brutal expression of its structural system. If the new building has a different structural system with the cladding of the old one slapped on the outside, it's betraying the principle of that style of architecture. The building becomes a lie in effect.So, I read today in the NYTimes that the developer and the city are still fighting over who's responsible for what. Are there any New Yorkers here who can spread some light on the issue?

The only positive I can see coming of this is that the Freedom Fortress will not be built until we get over our victim mentality and someone actually comes up with a good design.

Any hope?

iMeowbot
Feb 6, 2006, 02:19 PM
There's no problem with glass. Just don't use it as a structural material. Look at what I.M. Pei did with the Louvre.
And look at what he did with the Hancock :p

al3000
Feb 6, 2006, 02:20 PM
What's the official word on the progress of things at the WTC site?

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 6, 2006, 02:22 PM
Interesting read (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/06/nyregion/06rebuild.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), sounds very convoluted. Pataki possibly seeking the US presidency, Silverstein trying to possibly profit from failure, and the public interest (financially and fiscally) as stake.

Having had my fill of MLB trying to hold DC hostage over the National's stadium, Silverstein would have much better stead with me if he agrees to sign over any profits if there is a default.

In any case after close to 5 years since 9-11; I would have wanted to see someone already breaking ground and the project nearing the 1/2 way mark by now. With completion of the total project by 9-11-2011.

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 6, 2006, 02:30 PM
And look at what he did with the Hancock :p

How is an engineering failure Silverstein's fault? IIRC it was not a cost cutting by Silverstein that lead to the blown out windows; but engineers not doing their "math" right. But today the Hancock tower is safe and sound. And a great view (just look for my shots in the "landmark" thread.

iMeowbot
Feb 6, 2006, 02:46 PM
How is an engineering failure Silverstein's fault?
Beats me, especially since IIRC he had nothing to do with the Hancock. It was a Pei and Cobb production.

IIRC it was not a cost cutting by Silverstein that lead to the blown out windows; but engineers not doing their "math" right.
It was down to a poor choice of glass. It was a double-paned variety with a rigid bond. It simply didn't scale to big panels like that and the joints disintegrated. The architects had choose a new glass, this time a single paned variety.

The swaying was unrelated to the glass failures. The building design was simply too weak. The entire core needed to have reinforcements retrofitted, and lead counterweights were installed in utility rooms on one of the upper floors.

But aside from all that, the point is that glass does matter even if it isn't "structural."

whocares
Feb 6, 2006, 03:00 PM
Critics panned the WTC for its design. But I liked the simple, basic design of the towers. For me it was a powerful image; but the beauty was getting up close. It seemed to defy rational on how a building so simple, could reach to the clouds.

I agree. The WTC was one of the best looking building(s) I've ever seen and been up. The design was simple yet effective. Standing and their feet was really impressive and one felt very small (sic). The perspective created by the simple shapes of the towers as well as their lineaments was a work of art. Truly beautiful buildings.

However I don't feel that rebuilding them the same is such a good idea. Too much of an "up yours" statement IMHO.

Chubypig
Feb 6, 2006, 03:44 PM
Holy thread revival batman!

i like the idea of something new and different going there. it signifies a new life, an improvement. change is good.

XNine
Feb 6, 2006, 04:10 PM
I disagree with re-building on the same location, instead make it a memorial.

Why? Because if another group of uptight religious extremists decide to take it down, they will. Unless of course someone gets smart and puts anti-aircraft guns that can fire in any direction, causing any aircraft coming within a mile and toward the structures of the building to explode to millions of little pieces.

The last thing we need to do is say "Hey dumbasses, we rebuilt this thing! What do you think of that?!" and then it gets taken out again, killing thousands more. Real smart.

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 6, 2006, 05:13 PM
I agree. The WTC was one of the best looking building(s) I've ever seen and been up. The design was simple yet effective. Standing and their feet was really impressive and one felt very small (sic). The perspective created by the simple shapes of the towers as well as their lineaments was a work of art. Truly beautiful buildings.

However I don't feel that rebuilding them the same is such a good idea. Too much of an "up yours" statement IMHO.

I am not so sure.

I have relatives in CT, and I planned my travels to them so as to catch the WTC at dawn. The feeling of majesty was reinforced by spend a weekend at the Hilton Millennium in the Spring of 2001.

I spent many a morning watching the people come and go, with a box of warm Krsipy Kreme donuts by my side. To this day I wonder what happened to those working at the Krispy Kreme, and the Borders Bookstore (IIRC).

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 6, 2006, 05:37 PM
I disagree with re-building on the same location, instead make it a memorial.

Why? Because if another group of uptight religious extremists decide to take it down, they will. Unless of course someone gets smart and puts anti-aircraft guns that can fire in any direction, causing any aircraft coming within a mile and toward the structures of the building to explode to millions of little pieces.

The last thing we need to do is say "Hey dumbasses, we rebuilt this thing! What do you think of that?!" and then it gets taken out again, killing thousands more. Real smart.

I respect your feelings; but the reality is that "extremists" will find another target. What it was like 9 years before the terrorist struck again after their first attack.

Yet we are supposed to feel "safe" five years later and 100's billions spent on our "safety". "No attack since 9-11" we are told. But if we don't rebuild, then "they" have won. For we live in fear of "what might happen".

I will be going to London at the end of this month. I do not live in fear of the Islamic protests. For if something bad happens, I want everyone to remember the joy I had in seeing something new in my life.

Keep in mind many of the deaths at the WTC were due to shortsightedness of the "powers that be". Many of these people were told to stay where they were.

If we are to be honest, everyone of us have been faced with what we felt was the "best choice" for us; and what was best to "save face" at work.

How many lives could have been saved if evacuation was done after the first plane hit. How many after the second plane hit?

Never-mind our "bosses" telling us it was safe to stay. You had the Port Authority that was in control of the buildings telling the workers to stay put.

We as workers have been taught to fear commonsense. I worked at a store that had "roofing concern" that caused us to be ill. Not to mention a real "safety" concern.

After an investigation, the employee that called the county, was "let go". Given we are a "at will" state - there was little they could do to save their job.

IJ Reilly
Feb 6, 2006, 06:13 PM
This editorial demolishes its own point. Seven million people and ten million opinions, of which this is only one. This rebuilding project was bound to take many years for all of the obvious political and economic reasons, not the least of which was reconciling many varied opinions. The design competition was absolutely the right way to go, my only reservation is that most of the designs submitted were pretty timid. In that context, Liebskind's scheme was clearly the most innovative -- so much so, that I was surprised that it was actually chosen. Also, a correction: the upper portions of the Liebskind towers are not floors, they are open volumes meant to represent the height of the World Trade towers.

Recreating the World Trade towers is a horrible idea, if only because the original towers were horrible buildings. Also, one of the driving forces behind the rebuilding plan is reestablishing some of the urban fabric of the lower West Side that was smashed for the Towers. New York City has the opportunity to do something much better, to apply some of the lessons in architecture and urbanism learned over the last 40 years since the Towers were planned. Duplicating retrograde architecture for purely symbolic purposes simply makes no sense. It's also a little creepy.

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 6, 2006, 07:38 PM
Recreating the World Trade towers is a horrible idea, if only because the original towers were horrible buildings. Also, one of the driving forces behind the rebuilding plan is reestablishing some of the urban fabric of the lower West Side that was smashed for the Towers. New York City has the opportunity to do something much better, to apply some of the lessons in architecture and urbanism learned over the last 40 years since the Towers were planned. Duplicating retrograde architecture for purely symbolic purposes simply makes no sense. It's also a little creepy.

I fully understand the need to redo the "fabric" of the area.

But the WTC was much more than a "piece of that fabric". The "Twin Towers" was a beacon to the world. Whether coming across the GW Bridge, or in t Newark, the WTC was a a sight that those coming in from the "south" of NYC - gave something.Much like Lady Liberty did so many years ago.

EricNau
Feb 6, 2006, 08:37 PM
Here's what I think they should do (It may be an "Eric original," or maybe not, in fact, someone else might have said the same thing in this thread already 'cuz I didn't have time to read through it all.) Anyway...


I feel that the Places where the Twin Towers once stood should become a park. There is no reason to build new buildings there, so why do it?

I feel in the center of each park should be a large beam of white light that extends towards the sky, and can be seen day or night. They should remain lit 24/7.
Every year, on September 11, the north light would turn red from 8:46 AM, to 10:28 AM, signifying the time in which the tower was under attack. Likewise, the South Light would turn red from 9:02 to 9:59 AM.

It seems so obvious to me.

Laser47
Feb 6, 2006, 10:04 PM
If they dont rebuild the towers, i wish they would atleast redo the "Tribute in light" to make it a permanent part of the memorial, so that way we will always be able to see what once stood there.
http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/original/911-tribute-in-light.jpg

Counterfit
Feb 7, 2006, 12:11 AM
It was down to a poor choice of glass. It was a double-paned variety with a rigid bond. It simply didn't scale to big panels like that and the joints disintegrated.
It's also partly because the joint material they used was too stiff.


*praises case studies he had to read for a Mech. Engineering class*

redAPPLE
Feb 7, 2006, 05:25 AM
Okay, after the collapse of the Charles DeGaule airport in France, who else besides me thinks that too much glass is not the way a building should be made? Like the Freedom Tower design is supposed to be.

imo, be it glass, wood or concrete. if something is destined to break, burn etc. (by the force of nature or something else) it will happen.

IJ Reilly
Feb 7, 2006, 10:20 AM
I fully understand the need to redo the "fabric" of the area.

But the WTC was much more than a "piece of that fabric". The "Twin Towers" was a beacon to the world. Whether coming across the GW Bridge, or in t Newark, the WTC was a a sight that those coming in from the "south" of NYC - gave something.Much like Lady Liberty did so many years ago.

I suppose it might be sacrilege to say so now, but the Towers were awful buildings that New Yorkers learned to tolerate, but they were never loved like any of the city's other architectural monuments, large or small. The skyline of the city was jolted, not improved, when they were built. The plaza around the towers was notoriously wind-swept and miserable, as is so often the case with buildings of that scale and bulk. The opportunity to do something much more humane was made possible by the 9-11 tragedy. I think seizing that opportunity does more credit to the city and better honors the memory of those who died there than recreating the towers for strictly symbolic purposes.

macartistkel
Feb 9, 2006, 12:47 PM
Well I understand what the towers stand for and everything, but personally--having been to the TOP of the North Tower a year after the first bombing---I thought they were just eerie and I only was up there for a max of 5 minutes! I am terrified of heights but for the most part I didn't think the buildings looked that cool----just a very serious uneasy feeling in my opinion. And now after the TRADEGY of 9/11, how could anyone look at those buildings without getting a sense of TERROR come over you??

Now I actually liked the first set of concepts by I think a British firm that still had 2 towers but with a swirling futuristc look to them! That would have been cooler than the new building they picked! JMO

iGav
Feb 9, 2006, 02:21 PM
I thought they were just eerie ---- just a very serious uneasy feeling in my opinion.

That's so odd you say that... when I was in NYC in Feb '01 I felt the same kind of thing, not any kind of 9/11 premonition or anything, just a general uneasiness about them. I can't put my finger on it though as to why I felt that way about them.

Yet I thought they were beautiful, magnificent and totally unapologetic in their form and stature.

macartistkel
Feb 9, 2006, 03:28 PM
That's so odd you say that... when I was in NYC in Feb '01 I felt the same kind of thing, not any kind of 9/11 premonition or anything, just a general uneasiness about them. I can't put my finger on it though as to why I felt that way about them.

Yet I thought they were beautiful, magnificent and totally unapologetic in their form and stature.

Yep, its hard to say exactly what came over me too! Like I said earlier, it was about a year after the first bombings and security was tight so that didn't help get rid of the uneasy feeling. After 5 minutes of feeling like I was going to throw up from being so high I headed down to the very bottom and shopped while waiting on some friends!

I really thought the buildings needed to be a little more decorative or something added to them in my opinion....I also thought they were just way TOO HIGH!!

IJ Reilly
Feb 9, 2006, 04:33 PM
I think the feeling you both experienced was a combination of acrophobia and the fact that buildings of great height sway in the wind. Looking straight down along the flat face of a building of that height is bound to induce anxieties in anyone who has even a small amount of fear of high places, and the swaying, thought subtle, can easily produce a slight case of motion sickness.

kwajo.com
Feb 9, 2006, 04:55 PM
http://www.renewnyc.com/News/mediaresources.asp

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 9, 2006, 09:50 PM
That's so odd you say that... when I was in NYC in Feb '01 I felt the same kind of thing, not any kind of 9/11 premonition or anything, just a general uneasiness about them. I can't put my finger on it though as to why I felt that way about them.

I was staying at the Millennium Hilton across the street in the Spring of 2001. I spent Thursday and Friday morning looking out over the plaza with my warm Krispy Kreme donuts, looking in wonder at the life that unfolded beneath me. Watching the sunrise, and the dance of shadows and light between the Sun and the WTC towers. I was "too busy" that trip to go up to the observation deck. I regret that.

But watching that ballet of people and light, with the comfort of my warm donuts is still a bit haunting to me. To this day I think of those that I watched those mornings and evenings - and wonder if they ever got home to their loved ones that fateful day. I wonder if those that worked in the shops at the WTC that I visited got home safe.

I personally love the views from these tall towers. Been up the PPG in Pittsburgh a couple of times. Made a point of going up the Hancock in Chicago this past Fall.

To address macartistkel's comments. They could have rebuilt the WTC towers with an opening tomorrow, and I might just move heaven and earth to be part of those that went to the top. And I would be equally as proud that they stood on the nearly the same ground, with their same look.

I am one of those that feels that the WTC stood for so much more than we can understand. For what if the Shanksville crash flight was headed for the Capitol Building, and successfully destroyed it? Would we as a nation not want that symbol rebuilt?

Yet I thought they were beautiful, magnificent and totally unapologetic in their form and stature.

And is that not sometimes a mark of a great piece of architecture?

I know with relatives in CT, I traveled via the GWB, just in order to see the WTC and the skyline. It would have been an "easier" trip in taking the Tappen Zee.

EricNau
Feb 9, 2006, 10:18 PM
If they dont rebuild the towers, i wish they would atleast redo the "Tribute in light" to make it a permanent part of the memorial, so that way we will always be able to see what once stood there.
http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/original/911-tribute-in-light.jpg
I feel that's exactly what they should do - it's the perfect memorial.

macartistkel
Feb 10, 2006, 12:26 AM
To address macartistkel's comments. They could have rebuilt the WTC towers with an opening tomorrow, and I might just move heaven and earth to be part of those that went to the top. And I would be equally as proud that they stood on the nearly the same ground, with their same look.

I am one of those that feels that the WTC stood for so much more than we can understand. For what if the Shanksville crash flight was headed for the Capitol Building, and successfully destroyed it? Would we as a nation not want that symbol rebuilt?

Very good point...I didn't think of it that way and I am sure the Capital would have been rebuilt exactly the same if it had been destroyed But the magnitude of the two planes hitting the towers and destroying everything was so huge. I will never forget how bad I felt when I saw the towers burning and still to this day I might catch one of those episodes on the History or Discovery channel about personal stories of the victims---just depressing and unfair. I also get physically ill when I see pictures of the people that jumped that day and fell in the sky. I just think its one of those situations where the new design might be a new start for everything again! JMO

IJ Reilly
Feb 10, 2006, 12:27 AM
I am one of those that feels that the WTC stood for so much more than we can understand. For what if the Shanksville crash flight was headed for the Capitol Building, and successfully destroyed it? Would we as a nation not want that symbol rebuilt?

Of course, because that building is literally a National Historic Landmark, not to mention, the seat of our nation's government. The WTC towers were poorly designed and conceived commercial office buildings that few people had developed much affection for during the time they actually existed. Sometimes, people are better off moving on. This is one of those times.

On a more practical note, I suspect that if two, 110-story towers were build in New York City today, that the top forty floors on both would be virtually unrentable. Hardly anyone would want to spend much time up there, for reasons that should be obvious.

macartistkel
Feb 10, 2006, 12:29 AM
I think the feeling you both experienced was a combination of acrophobia and the fact that buildings of great height sway in the wind. Looking straight down along the flat face of a building of that height is bound to induce anxieties in anyone who has even a small amount of fear of high places, and the swaying, thought subtle, can easily produce a slight case of motion sickness.

Yeah probably had a lot to do with the sickness part because I am a person terrified of heights!! The Effiel Tower at Paramount's Kings Dominion made me feel just as sick its not even as high as the Twin Towers!! Horrible feeling!!!

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 10, 2006, 12:46 AM
On a more practical note, I suspect that if two, 110-story towers were build in New York City today, that the top forty floors on both would be virtually unrentable. Hardly anyone would want to spend much time up there, for reasons that should be obvious.

If I could afford it, I would gladly take have a penthouse or office on a rebuilt WTC or similar structure in NYC! Damn it, make them 220 stories tall, and I would still love to live and work at the very top!

For if you give in to fear (as FDR said we have "nothing to fear, but fear itself), then the terrorists have won.

We all have to go sometime. I stand a greater chance at being run over by a fuel guzzling SUV with a driver on a damn cell phone than I am at the hands of some terrorist making threats!!!

IJ Reilly
Feb 10, 2006, 01:02 AM
If I could afford it, I would gladly take have a penthouse or office on a rebuilt WTC or similar structure in NYC! Damn it, make them 220 stories tall, and I would still love to live and work at the very top!

For if you give in to fear (as FDR said we have "nothing to fear, but fear itself), then the terrorists have won.

We all have to go sometime. I stand a greater chance at being run over by a fuel guzzling SUV with a driver on a damn cell phone than I am at the hands of some terrorist making threats!!!

You could probably have an entire floor to yourself. You know, the original WTC was never economically feasible. The project wouldn't even have been built without a huge infusion of public money. It's a different day now.

I don't think great architecture can come from either fear or defiance. It comes from hope. Great architecture is nothing if not an expression of hope for the future. If when we look at a building, especially an old building, and we feel deeply that it matters to us in some way we can hardly express, what we are experiencing is the sense that someone cared enough about future to build something truly great. Leaving a gift to future generations -- that's what the best architecture is about.

iGav
Feb 10, 2006, 10:08 AM
I think the feeling you both experienced was a combination of acrophobia and the fact that buildings of great height sway in the wind. Looking straight down along the flat face of a building of that height is bound to induce anxieties in anyone who has even a small amount of fear of high places, and the swaying, thought subtle, can easily produce a slight case of motion sickness.

I never went up them. ;)

Nope, the feeling was just a general uneasiness about them... (nothing to do with acrophobia or motion sickeness, of which neither affect me) perhaps it was just their size and the fact that there were two of them, I don't wish to use the term 'sinister' as such, but there was something uncomfortable and slightly unsettling about them, as I said though... it might have been something to do with their sheer size, and that there were two of them, which is odd in itself when one considers their scale and it was the first time I've ever encountered something of that scale.

I just can't pin point it, though I deeply regret not venturing inside and to the top of them. :(

IJ Reilly
Feb 10, 2006, 10:26 AM
I never went up them. ;)

Nope, the feeling was just a general uneasiness about them... (nothing to do with acrophobia or motion sickeness, of which neither affect me) perhaps it was just their size and the fact that there were two of them, I don't wish to use the term 'sinister' as such, but there was something uncomfortable and slightly unsettling about them, as I said though... it might have been something to do with their sheer size, and that there were two of them, which is odd in itself when one considers their scale and it was the first time I've ever encountered something of that scale.

I just can't pin point it, though I deeply regret not venturing inside and to the top of them. :(

The New York architectural critic Paul Goldberger wrote that the towers were unsettling to view in part because they didn't seem to be rooted to the ground so much as floated above the raised plaza and subbasements below. The affect was kind of eerie. He also wrote that trying to view the towers from the plaza would literally give a person a stiff neck. If the buildings worked as architecture at all, I think it was only at a great distance, when they took on a modern art sculptural form. They were good to look at from the New Jersey side of the river, especially in the evening when they would catch the last light of the day. This only proves that if you make a building big enough, that it will have an impact at some scale or distance.

Henri Gaudier
Feb 11, 2006, 04:26 AM
on the one hand there's your "not thinking " maxim and yet you can write this ...[QUOTE=gwuMACaddict]what in the world does that mean? what were we supoposed to learn? that there a radical nutcases out there that are jealous of our liberties and freedoms?

..which is herd chatter at its most base. No one is envious of your freedoms. It was a direct response to your judeo christian foreign policy. Do some research and find out how many people the US has killed since you were born. How many countries you have military bases in. Read about the political unrest/assasinations that your CIA has performed. Finally, who put Saddam Hussein in power - America. Who trained Osama and his cohorts - America. And as for free - didn't you notice the "homeland security" and "patriot"? Haven't you noticed the CCTV cameras with face recognition going up? Tracking your whereabouts through your mobile phone (cell) and biometrics, digital angel implants, RFID? Could go a lot further but what's the point. The same **** is happening here. Forget the twin towers they were monuments to greed anyway.

decksnap
Feb 11, 2006, 02:30 PM
^^??

Anyway, I really think that the sheer height of these things was extremely impractical. How long does it take to get from bottom to top?? They were built in a time where the whole idea was to go bigger than the last building. At a certain height, they begin to become impractical. I think they should do what they want with the offices, then build a seperate tourist lookout tower that is ridiculous in height and strength, perhaps without floors at all- just elevators going miles into the sky to the observation deck.