Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
...still no Twin Towers
- Thread starter Frohickey
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's also partly because the joint material they used was too stiff.iMeowbot said:
*praises case studies he had to read for a Mech. Engineering class*
Frohickey said:
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.
Chip NoVaMac said:
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.
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
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
macartistkel said:
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!!
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.
iGav said:
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?
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.
I feel that's exactly what they should do - it's the perfect memorial.Laser47 said: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.
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
Chip NoVaMac said:
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.
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!!!
IJ Reilly said:
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!!!
Chip NoVaMac said:
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.
IJ Reilly said:
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.
iGav said: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.
You're quite a quandry..
on the one hand there's your "not thinking " maxim and yet you can write this ...
on the one hand there's your "not thinking " maxim and yet you can write this ...
gwuMACaddict said:
^^??
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.
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.