...still no Twin Towers

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Frohickey, May 18, 2004.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #1
    WORLD TRADE SELLOUTS
    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
    [​IMG]
    Reasons for Team Twin Towers

    =====

    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.
     
  2. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #2
    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?
     
  3. macrumors 65816

    krimson

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Location:
    Democratic People's Republic of Kalifornia
    #3
    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.
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    Sparky's

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    #4
    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)
     
  5. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #5
    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.
     
  6. macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #6
    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...
     
  7. macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #7
    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.
     
  8. macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #8
    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.
     
  9. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #9
    You mean, this one?

    [​IMG]
     
  10. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #10
    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.
     
  11. macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #11
  12. macrumors 68040

    MongoTheGeek

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Location:
    Its not so much where you are as when you are.
    #12
    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.
     
  13. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #13
    [​IMG]
    vs
    [​IMG]

    First one looks like something that escaped from the set of Superman: The Movie
     
  14. macrumors 68000

    MoparShaha

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #15
    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.
     
  16. macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #16
    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.
     
  17. macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #17
    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.
     
  18. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #18
    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.
     
  19. macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #19
    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....
     
  20. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2000
    Location:
    54140
    #20
    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
     
  21. macrumors 68040

    MongoTheGeek

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Location:
    Its not so much where you are as when you are.
    #21
    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.
     
  22. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #22
  23. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #23
    Sorry about that! I just wanted everyone to see the new WTC site. Next time I'll just post a link!


    --Waluigi
     
  24. macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #24
    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.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Location:
    montreal
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page