...still no Twin Towers

[Kid Red]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 that's at the center of the Team Twin Towers proposal actually looks better than the old Towers: the kind-of openwork effect 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.

 

[Frohickey]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[al3000]

What's the official word on the progress of things at the WTC site?

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

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]

And look at what he did with the Hancock

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.