World Trade Center

[Jasoncw 11,840]

What are your thoughts on wtc and freedom tower and stuff?

I personally can't stand the Freedom Tower, but I'm not much of a fan of the old building either. The windows are shaped funny for the people who have to use the building, and they are just boxes without anything interesting about them other than towards the bottom (I really love how the columns merge together though).

[louisville327 0]

Okay, I'll bite. Gotta start this conversation somewhere.

First, some photos:






Let me begin by saying that I find the latest design for the building to be far more tolerable than Daniel Libeskind's giant switchblade in the sky. That design was ridiculous, awkward, and generally ugly as far as I'm concerned. But Danny and I don't get along well anyway, so consider me a biased commentator.

As for the current design, there are a number of things that really burn me up. First is the name. Freedom Tower? What are we, little children? Do we really need to name a giant office building after some abstract concept we can't even really get right anyway? It would be more appropriate to name it the Machismo Tower or the Blatant Arrogance Tower. Those names would be far more fitting for a project dictated by our eternally-wounded pride as a nation.

Now, as for the height---many people have complained that it should be taller, that the US should once again make a serious competition out of the race to build the tallest building in the world. Some say the Freedom Tower should be taller than the Burj Dubai, as if the United States has something to prove---and the best way to prove whatever that is is by building an even bigger target-in-the-sky. Probably not a good plan.

Regardless of that argument, the agreed-upon height is even worse: 1776 feet. Are you serious? Not only does the name have to be a horribly juvenile cliche, but the height too? Do we have to build a giant glass memorial to our national history right smack dab in the middle of downtown Manhattan? There's no better way to mark our (eroding) democratic tradition?

My biggest pet peeve is not the overall design. I prefer the current design's triangular lines much better than Libeskind's asymmetry---when it comes to giant glass towers, the Freedom Tower isn't bad. As the rendering above shows, it fits in to the Manhattan skyline as well as can be expected for a building of its height.



What I don't like is the bottom. The giant fortress of stone they want to build totally destroys the overall aesthetic of the building. It makes the whole structure look like a giant pencil---eraser on the bottom.

And as for truck bombs, why don't they concentrate on securing the street (not to mention diffusing terrorist motivations through a totally different foreign policy) instead of turning all of our future buildings into unlivable fortresses? What better way to say hey, evil phantom terrorists, you win than by changing the fundamentals of building design out of fear?

It just goes to show that we haven't won any war on terrorism and even worse, we all know that kind of war can't ever be won. Instead, we build giant steel and glass effigies to our abstract ideas we don't even really believe in any more anyway.

Sorry this ended up so long. You asked for it.

[storms991 0]

Personally, I think that both designed suked. The old one had a hollow top, and the new one looks like a shiny box with the sides cut out plus it looks horrible, just like the original WTC. If you really want to see a great building, search for one bryant park or go here

amazing
yes, and I also think they should at least make it a bit taller. Don't want china getting in the way.

[Jerebannus XVI 7]

I have been against this project ever since plans were unveiled, that design is bizarre, the Uruguayan architect's design (can't remember his name) should have won.

[GAT-X105 3]

The new design is alright, a million times better than the previous, half-hollow, weirdly twisted design. It actually looks like a building instead of a pile of girders. And making the base a 30 foot tall windowless stone wall, no. Like louisville said, that's just because of fear, and it's as if we want to say we're losing the war on terror

But the name...freedom tower just sounds insulting. Call it One Manhattan Tower, or something...hey, how about calling it the WORLD TRADE CENTER. That would work. Making the official height 1776 feet just seems arrogant, too. Why not make it 2001 feet, or 1945 feet, or 1974 feet, or 1492 feet? And I don't think it would ever hold the World's Tallest title. then again, I also think Burj Dubai is never going to be finished.

[vidioman 21]

I think they should have just gone with two square reflecting pools, and made it an International Peace Park, like the countless ones along the Canada/US border. Have every country contribute a small part in the name of freedom and make it a space to sit and reflect. Sort of like Central Park, but in Downtown instead of Uptown, and only an acre.

This new design would be better as shorter twin towers, about half the hieght, and no spire on top. Scrap the stone fortress, its rediculous.

[toxicpiano 125]

Date: 12/7/2005 4:17:19 PM Author: vidioman

I think they should have just gone with two square reflecting pools, and made it an International Peace Park, like the countless ones along the Canada/US border. Have every country contribute a small part in the name of 'freedom' and make it a space to sit and reflect. Sort of like Central Park, but in Downtown instead of Uptown, and only an acre.

This new design would be better as shorter twin towers, about half the hieght, and no spire on top. Scrap the stone fortress, its rediculous.

quote>

i think a real forest would have been better, a tree for every person that died.

[GMT 389]

yep.

just leave the skyscrapers to those crazy architects in the middle east and in india, china and whatever...

i didn't like the old wtc building, but i did like what it stood for.
so why building another skyscraper in new york that stands for economic power?
you could even paint a bulls eye on every nyc citizen.

i suggest tranforming the land in a memorial park, maybe on 2,3 or 4 levels, with nice fountains, lots of green spaces, maybe some artificial waterfalls... whatever human minds could create.
but not another skyscraper. nyc has plenty of them.

and, to be honest, the empire state building has to be the tallest in nyc because of its age and its name

[storms991 0]

No offence to you and those who died that day, but why the heck would you build a forest in the middle of manhattan in the midst of the busiest place in the US or maybe the world(dunno). If you were to not redevelop the land, you would be wasting a peice of prime real estate Its a good idea ToxicPiano, but I believe that the land should not be put to waste.

[GAT-X105 3]

Problem is, a whole LOT of office space was destroyed, and it has to be replaced somehow.

[Duke87 1,070]

Date: 12/7/2005 4:17:19 PM Author: vidioman

I think they should have just gone with two square reflecting pools, and made it an International Peace Park, like the countless ones along the Canada/US border. Have every country contribute a small part in the name of 'freedom' and make it a space to sit and reflect. Sort of like Central Park, but in Downtown instead of Uptown, and only an acre.

This new design would be better as shorter twin towers, about half the hieght, and no spire on top. Scrap the stone fortress, its rediculous.

quote>

The World Trade Cneter Site is sveral acres, and the land is just too valuable to throw it all away to a park or a memorial. And honestly, the best thing is to just rebuild the site bigger and better and move on. Now if they ever get around to building it, that's what we'll be doing. And the new Fort Zero looks better than the old Freedom Tower Design. I do believe this has been suggested beofre, but it would look better if you built two of them, the second one without an antenna.

[storms991 0]

People can;t get over the fact that terrorists are just giving up on the US because they think bush is pathetic. NYC will not be the target of the next large terrorist attack. That's what I believe


^^^what he said^^^

[MayorTim 16]

I would be happy if they would just rebuild a safer version of the origionals. Put twice as much fire protective coating on the supports as is required (The origional WTC severily lacked fire and heat coating on its main supports, a key reason it fell.) And add an internal structure as well as the outside shell structure.

That would make it much stronger than a glass shard with a couple floors of solid rock at the base IMO, and look better too. Instead of having smaller buildings around the twins like in the origional, have only one medium sized tower, and use the rest of the land as a memorial.

That would be my dream come true, and the dream of 90% of other New Yorkers I have talked to.

*sigh*

[louisville327 0]

Date: 12/7/2005 6:00:42 PM
Author: Duke87
I do believe this has been suggested beofre, but it would look better if you built two of them, the second one without an antenna.

quote>


Something like this?




I think I might have to agree with you, Duke. The design of the buildings is more modern and sleek, but the overall feel of the site is consistent with the original WTC. I like it.

[diablo_del_bano 3]

i think the entire site should be the base for a building that could be taller that burj dubai could ever be. oh and then, cover it in targets. maybe target would sponsor it...

[louisville327 0]

Date: 12/7/2005 6:34:23 PM
Author: diablo_del_bano
i think the entire site should be the base for a building that could be taller that burj dubai could ever be. oh and then, cover it in targets. maybe target would sponsor it...

quote>

Think how much in construction costs could be repaid just by covering the entire building with Target logos? Target could pay $2 billion or so for the honor.

Corporate America would be happy, Mayor Bloomberg would be happy, and angry Islamic jihadists would be happy.

Everybody wins!

[storms991 0]

The pic that louisville327 posted makes me actually think that the new design look ok! It doesn't look that bad when there are two tower. I believe they should really consider building 2 towers

[blaze 0]

How many threads are we going to have dealing with this subject!?

AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

 

[louisville327 0]

Date: 12/7/2005 6:47:52 PM
Author: blaze
How many threads are we going to have dealing with this subject!?

AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

quote>


Actually, this is the only WTC thread in the Architecture, Urbanism and Planning forum---where the subject really belongs anyway.

But I feel your pain, since you were FORCED to click on this thread and read it. You poor thing!

[diablo_del_bano 3]

i think, if that is the design, they should redo the smaller towers to match the big one. thy just look to odd the way they are. they need to match

[storms991 0]

lol





p.s. some guy stole my avatar i think his name is numaboy. Why do people do this?!

[BIWDC 2,296]

Date: 12/7/2005 6:13:43 PM Author: MayorTim I would be happy if they would just rebuild a safer version of the origionals

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this is what i think they should do to.

[gofeedthebears 0]

I hate the building, although I kinda liked the little ones that were to be alongside it. Are those still to be built?

With just one tall building sticking up in the Downtown skyline, especially a glass non-rectangular one, it looks so weird. I wish the tower itself was not so tall or unique. The Twin Towers, there were two of them, so from a distance it kind of made the image much less monolithic. In retrospect, the original towers look like gazillion carat diamonds compared to the Freedom Tower.

Don't get me started on the name, it sounds like George W. Bush thought it up all by himself. Something like 8 World Trade Center would be appropriate, but kinda creepy. If they named the area like, Liberty Plaza after the nearby street, maybe like One Liberty Plaza would sound less kitschy because it makes sense in context of the city, and the world Liberty just in general sounds so much less propaganda-ish than Freedom. It was Give me Liberty or give me death, not Give me Freedom... and Statue of Liberty, not Statue of Freedom. Get over it Americans, we're not the only free country in the world.

[mpetryni 0]

Haha, louisville, that actually looks familiar... and strangely, not half bad. There's a couple things I don't like about the Freedom Tower. Obviously, I concur on the name. It's horrible. It's almost like they named it that to shield the design from criticism: You just have to love the Freedom Tower design!! What are you saying? You don't love freedom?!! Traitor!!

Or something. I don't know. New Yorkers, however, are more sensible than that, which could explain the massive controversy following the proposed design. I think the World Trade Center is a much better name for almost the exact same symbolic reasons you would name it something like the Freedom Tower. Naming it after its predecessor is like, not retreating to some cliche nonsense. On top of that, what is the building? I believe that it isn't the headquarters of freedom, whatever that means. Maybe one could argue that's the Capitol. Regardless, the structure did and will in the future exist for the purpose of international trade. A major world trading hub has existed on this site since the city was founded as a dinky Dutch trading outpost in 1620... I think that's something that should be recognized.

 

Then there's the building itself. Which is actually more important. It's got this fortified lower story, making it look like we're scared of something and solidifying this thought in a building. On top of that, it and its predecessor lacked the transparency with the street and interconnectivity of traffic that are so essential to city diversity.

 

Furthermore, both buildings are/were single-use - a huge problem historically in downtown Manhattan. Now, obviously, there's going to be a ton of political controversy stemming from a suggestion that people should be allowed to live in the World Trade Center. So maybe this isn't realistic. But something will have to be done in downtown Manhattan to promote diversity of uses if there's any hope to actually improve the city planning problems in the financial district.

 

In agreement with a previous comment, I think the Bank of America Tower is much more appealing. This could be related to all the political baggage that the World Trade Center, I mean Freedom Tower design hauls around, but its most likely because it just looks better. It's not all phallic and mechanical-looking. Granted, I didn't like Libeskind's Switchblade either, with that skeleton spire, but something should be done to make the building look less like a symbol and more like a place for people to work, live, travel, and do business with one another.

 

Trump has recently attacked the official Freedom Tower plan for rebuilding the World Trade Center , claiming the plan to be a pile of crap, and claims that most New Yorkers want the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center rebuilt, with a symbolic 111 stories, one story taller than the original predecessors (the Twin Towers II plan). He claims they would be taller, better, stronger, cheaper and safer than the proposed Freedom Tower ; however, there is skepticism that the Twin Towers II proposal will actually replace the Freedom Tower plan and be built. In a recent CNN poll over 63% of voters wanted to see Trump's plan go into action. -wikipedia on Donald Trump

[mpetryni 0]

In 1613 , the Dutch established a trading post at the west shores of lower Manhattan Island in the area of present Church Street where the World Trade Center was located, this is the beginning of what centuries later would become the so called financial capital of the world, obtaining thus a commercial spirit from its very humble beginnings. --History of New York City (I thought it was kinda relevant)

[BIWDC 2,296]

i don't care much for that freedom tower name ether,i mean

if there gonna go with the new change for the site at least

give it a better name,i also agree they should just use the

original name world trade center.

[storms991 0]

scrap the current project and build new buildings there. that's my thought. If they were to build a glass building, then they should build one like one bryant park, pic shown in my first post.

[Duke87 1,070]

Date: 12/7/2005 6:13:43 PM Author: MayorTim I would be happy if they would just rebuild a safer version of the origionals. Put twice as much fire protective coating on the supports as is required (The origional WTC severily lacked fire and heat coating on its main supports, a key reason it fell.) And add an internal structure as well as the outside shell structure. That would make it much stronger than a glass shard with a couple floors of solid rock at the base IMO, and look better too. Instead of having smaller buildings around the twins like in the origional, have only one medium sized tower, and use the rest of the land as a memorial. That would be my dream come true, and the dream of 90% of other New Yorkers I have talked to. *sigh*

quote>

There's one key thing you're forgetting here:

 

They're not attempting to design the building to be more resistant to a jet aircraft impact. Frankly, that's been done, and it just won't ever happen again, since if a group of psychopaths somehow sneaks weapons onboard and tries to hijack a plane, you'd get people flying out oif their seats and tackling them. And the pilot sure as hell wouldn't let them into the cockpit no matter how many passengers they killed. The idea of a solid rock style base is to make it resistant to car bombs and the like.

 

gofeedthebears: Actually, there already is a building in Lower Manhattan called One Liberty Plaza. In the days immediately following 9/11 there was some concern it might collapse, though ultimately the only buildings destroyed were the seven members of the world trade center. One building immediately south of the site was heavily damaged by falling debris from the south tower, and currently stands there abandoned with a sort of temporary frame built into the giant gash in the side of the building. Whether or not they'll repair it or just tear it down and build something else has yet to be decided.

 

storms991: It certainly would seem that terrorists have for the time given up on the US, but I don't think George Bush's presidency has anything to do with it. The terrorists are just all busy causing havoc in Iraq instead, now.

[louisville327 0]

Date: 12/7/2005 8:48:28 PM
Author: Duke87

storms991: It certainly would seem that terrorists have for the time given up on the US, but I don't think George Bush's presidency has anything to do with it. The terrorists are just all busy causing havoc in Iraq instead, now.

quote>

I'd say George Bush's presidency has a LOT to do with terrorists causing havoc in Iraq.

But let's stay on topic, shall we?


The WTC site is still mired in political wrangling at the current time, so who knows how long before we actually get to see the Freedom Tower high above Manhattan? I doubt anything will be completed on the site before 2009.

[sendarrow 3]

How about building the WTC, making an exact copy of them? With all of the little buildings around and the hotels? It would be a big Deja vu, but I think it will be a... how should I called it? It would be a one-on-the-history-event, building an exact copy of the beloved, fabulous, explendorous, World Trade Center.

This Message goes to the WTC that was demolished on 9/11: We miss you!!