I very, very much prefer the Libeskind proposal. I think it is far and away the superior design. I honestly don't think there could be a finer addition to NYC than this brilliant piece of architecture. I hope it gets built.
I like the stoic look of buildings like the Empire State building. If the new structure is half as classy as that, I would love it. Norman's proposal is not half bad either. But none of them strike me as 'awesome'.
this is the one that feels the most right when i see it against the skyline.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What a pile of crap. But I guess I'm the only one who thinks a redesign of the original WTC (with some changes for a memorial) would be neccesary.
All the latest designs are not a reflection of what Americans are...bold, tough and defiant. These pathetic designs lack the boldness of the original and the forward thinking we have (had). The design should have these and the capability to memorialize 9|11. Without looking like a tissue box.
I saw a few that had it and these aren't it. Maybe I'll try to find them...
I am kind of leaning towards the Studio Daniel Libeskind design now...maybe because the other is a farce.
<strong>The idea that a new building would be a "magnet for future attacks" and therefore the "last thing that New York needs" is just stupid.
What would Mr. Will UK suggest we do? Just leave it as an empty space?
der Kopf:
Keep fighting the good fight, I suggest Prozac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i disagee. noone is going to want to work in this tall of building, at least that's how i seem to recall people feeling shortly after the attack. maybe people's minds have changed. i wouldn't want to work in one
[quote]The idea that a new building would be a "magnet for future attacks" and therefore the "last thing that New York needs" is just stupid.<hr></blockquote>Not as stupid as you think happy boy.
How about this inflammatory quote:
[quote]"It is not practical to build super-tall office buildings in the post-9/11 world. The occupied portion of any building" on the site should be "no more than 65 to 70 stories (900 to 1,000 feet) in height."<hr></blockquote>Larry Silverstein, current leaseholder of WTC site.
The previous WTC towers were only built because as a governmental org, the Port Authority could set its own standards for fire and life safety. Those buildings were not evacuable under the least trying of circumstances. It was only after the bombing in the WTC basement and evac procedures were put in place that any semblance of safety was present. If you spend any time in tall office buildings you quickly realize that most of them are very bad places if there is a fire.
[quote]But I guess I'm the only one who thinks a redesign of the original WTC (with some changes for a memorial) would be neccesary.<hr></blockquote>It's wonderful how post-9/11 the WTC buildings suddenly became an important piece of America. Up until that most people in NYC hated those buildings and hated being in that area. They were the most inhumane buildings in NYC.
Everyone probably knows what I think of the original towers, and what I think of the idea of rebuilding them as-they-were. To me, we shouldn't be grieving about the damn buildings, raising them to the realm of the sacred when it's the people who we miss and remember. Who cares about the twin towers or even their footprints?
Let's make this an opportunity to improve on the site, the memorial, the city, the people of NYC and America.
While I still think the THINK team's proposal is a silly decorated diagram, I must say the model they made of it is very seductive in person. I can see why it was chosen as a finalist. The biggest problem I have with it is how it deals with the city at a human scale -- its base. It lacks a real interactive presence at street level. However, what it sacrifices at the street it improves for the underground since the reflecting pools are glass-bottomed and bring light to the transport hub.
My favorite scheme has always been the Libeskind, though when I saw its model in person, I kind of wondered if hanging gardens are the metaphor we want. Garden = life, but hanging gardens make me think of the hanging gardens of Babylon. Still, it basically devotes itself to a memeorial, a dn a very poignant one with its exposed slurry wall, memorial pormenade and the wedge of light on the anniversary of 9/11. The museum and promedade are far more engaging and the whole complex ties itself back into the street grid and activity of the city, as well as engaging the transport hub and siting it respecfully relative to the memorial. The buildings are more reaonably sized -- at least in terms of their height. The only really tall building is the hanging gardens. The bulk of the commericals space is on the east side of Greenwich St. and ties in with the financial district rather discretely while its facades are deferential to the memorial site. In general, I just think it's far less bombastic and far more intimate as a memorial.
PS: the library thing hanging between the two towers in the THINK scheme looks like a salamander in plan.
If either of those are built I'm moving to Canada. Disgraceful. I'm sorry to those who live in NY and will have to look at these "things." Why the hell can't they just build a huge office building and/or hotel, make it a little taller then the old WTC and call it a day?
The idea of shying away from doing something because some undefined enemy might do something in retaliation is just silly. You've got to do *something* with it.
And it's not even a matter of "letting the terrorists win", it's a matter of practicality. What do you put there if not a "glass-and-steel monstrosity"?
I thought Norman Foster's design "The Kissing Towers" as they have been called in the past was the best looking concept submitted. Too bad it wasn't chosen as a finalist.
Hehe, you are truly a minus habens, young groverat. Have you and the tribe of primates from which you spring ever stopped to wonder that this good man was only uttering his opinion? What could possible be wrong with that? HE doesn't need to bash anyone. What makes you think that you, of all people, member of the one clan, the one state that thinks itself better than the others, the one state that actually has given meaning to the phrase 'Republic of Texas', that your opinion would be better?
You live about equidistant to NY as this UK-ian, and there's a good chance he goes there more often than you. Also, if all of a sudden intellectual protectionism is your cup of tea, maybe you should get two American groups to design the new WTC, and tell the ones that are winning now that they will be withheld on account of your fascism.
Moreover, though you may very well be equipped with a low brow and flat head to go along with that, you might already have stopped and thought about the intricacies of communication. You may have realised that someone, when writing, does not communicate with his mouth. So, whatever that pseudo-witticism of yours, this 'cakehole' pun, stands for, I'll take it you mean a mouth. I'm sorry to have to point out to you that this mouth was not active, and if it was, only irrelevantly so, while good Will jotted down his opinion. Of course, you probably need more time to tell apart basic body parts and their functions. By all means, take your time. You stupid, stupid boy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's such a load of BS. When an architect comes forward and explains his design without using a load of silly buzzwords and terms, I will respect him, but I haven't seen this yet. I am no less of a designer and I have had no tutorials. . . . Yes, people have told me time and time again that I should have pursued art rather that engineering, but regardless, I am not impressed with any of the entries.
Give me several months and I will come up with a better solution. . . Yes, I'm drunk off my rocker, but I'm to some extent serious. . . It's part of my regret for not shooting for a degree in architecture, which as I've found out is much closer to my nature than is electrical engineering.
And I'll even pump it out in FormZ. . . <hr></blockquote>
Oh, it's not too late for you...there's always grad school. PM me for "buzzwords" and I'll get you started.
[quote]And it's not even a matter of "letting the terrorists win", it's a matter of practicality. What do you put there if not a "glass-and-steel monstrosity"?<hr></blockquote>If its a matter of practicality then you do nothing right now. The Master Plan calls for 10 million square feet of office space. Last time I was in NYC (late January) I believe occupancy rates in that area were 10% (that is without the 13 million square feet of WTC). Many businesses are only occupying half space they had previously and sub-leasing the rest.
If I recall correctly, the original WTC towers in 1996 were only 75% full, only achieving a "full" 99% occupancy in late 2000.
Read the previous post. Tall buildings aren't very safe--and this doesn't even take acts of terrorism into account.
Everyone probably knows what I think of the original towers, and what I think of the idea of rebuilding them as-they-were. To me, we shouldn't be grieving about the damn buildings, raising them to the realm of the sacred when it's the people who we miss and remember. Who cares about the twin towers or even their footprints?
Let's make this an opportunity to improve on the site, the memorial, the city, the people of NYC and America.
While I still think the THINK team's proposal is a silly decorated diagram, I must say the model they made of it is very seductive in person. I can see why it was chosen as a finalist. The biggest problem I have with it is how it deals with the city at a human scale -- its base. It lacks a real interactive presence at street level. However, what it sacrifices at the street it improves for the underground since the reflecting pools are glass-bottomed and bring light to the transport hub.
My favorite scheme has always been the Libeskind, though when I saw its model in person, I kind of wondered if hanging gardens are the metaphor we want. Garden = life, but hanging gardens make me think of the hanging gardens of Babylon. Still, it basically devotes itself to a memeorial, a dn a very poignant one with its exposed slurry wall, memorial pormenade and the wedge of light on the anniversary of 9/11. The museum and promedade are far more engaging and the whole complex ties itself back into the street grid and activity of the city, as well as engaging the transport hub and siting it respecfully relative to the memorial. The buildings are more reaonably sized -- at least in terms of their height. The only really tall building is the hanging gardens. The bulk of the commericals space is on the east side of Greenwich St. and ties in with the financial district rather discretely while its facades are deferential to the memorial site. In general, I just think it's far less bombastic and far more intimate as a memorial.
PS: the library thing hanging between the two towers in the THINK scheme looks like a salamander in plan. <hr></blockquote>
I just wanted to highlight this excellent post, and not just because I've heard about BuonRotto's taste in architecture books.
Despite my previous apathy to Lebeskind's work, I think his scheme is strong, though after seeing the models in person, I hope much of what's envisioned for the lower buildings are significantly reworked. Nevertheless, the emphasis on the bathtub, the gardens, the light -- he's got the right pulse.
THINK's is totally different. I don't usually care for the filligreed architeture, that is, stuff without a strong profile or shadow. But OTOH the team solved the problem of errecting a marker in the sky and it not being mundane office space very well. If the proposal could move from jungle-gym towards some kind of elegant, elemental pair of light towers (more akin to its inspiration), I might even prefer it to Lebeskind's formmaking.
Still, if either project were built with its ideas more or less intact I'd be happy. The real debate to my mind is not between the entries but between any of the entries and the developers (the throw-back entry excluded).
<strong>It's wonderful how post-9/11 the WTC buildings suddenly became an important piece of America. Up until that most people in NYC hated those buildings and hated being in that area. They were the most inhumane buildings in NYC.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Though many in NYC hated the WTC in it's beginning...that changed when it became an icon of NYC as far as it's boldness and visual impact. All of NYC (& the World) cried out in pain 9|11 when lives were lost yet I believe some cried for the buildings that became such a symbol for NYC in the latter half of the 20th century.
The new design doesn't need to be taller or similar. And most of all it shouldn't unbalance the skyline like the two POS glass/beamed structures do. They look like water fountains for a shopping mall.
I thinks the Egyptians had it right with the Pyramid. 10 Jumbo Jets could fly into a Pyramid and they still wouldn't fall down.
I think if they turned the entire Block into a single pyramid like base ( not a flat pyramid like the one in Las Vegas ) with a huge three of four story enclosed courtyard at ground level. It could have most of the 10 million square feet of office space in less than 20 stories, making it extremely safe logistically, and the building would be incredibly stable to build towers on.
Comments
Now that that's out of the way...
That white thing in the middle looks like a Jetliner.
<strong>
i really want this to be the one.
it's down to just 2 designs.
this is the one that feels the most right when i see it against the skyline.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What a pile of crap. But I guess I'm the only one who thinks a redesign of the original WTC (with some changes for a memorial) would be neccesary.
All the latest designs are not a reflection of what Americans are...bold, tough and defiant. These pathetic designs lack the boldness of the original and the forward thinking we have (had). The design should have these and the capability to memorialize 9|11. Without looking like a tissue box.
I saw a few that had it and these aren't it. Maybe I'll try to find them...
I am kind of leaning towards the Studio Daniel Libeskind design now...maybe because the other is a farce.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: Artman @_@ ]</p>
<strong>...bold, tough and defiant</strong><hr></blockquote>
they're me ? cool !
What would Mr. Will UK suggest we do? Just leave it as an empty space?
der Kopf:
Keep fighting the good fight, I suggest Prozac.
<strong>The idea that a new building would be a "magnet for future attacks" and therefore the "last thing that New York needs" is just stupid.
What would Mr. Will UK suggest we do? Just leave it as an empty space?
der Kopf:
Keep fighting the good fight, I suggest Prozac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i disagee. noone is going to want to work in this tall of building, at least that's how i seem to recall people feeling shortly after the attack. maybe people's minds have changed. i wouldn't want to work in one
yes, i noticed this too..
How about this inflammatory quote:
[quote]"It is not practical to build super-tall office buildings in the post-9/11 world. The occupied portion of any building" on the site should be "no more than 65 to 70 stories (900 to 1,000 feet) in height."<hr></blockquote>Larry Silverstein, current leaseholder of WTC site.
The previous WTC towers were only built because as a governmental org, the Port Authority could set its own standards for fire and life safety. Those buildings were not evacuable under the least trying of circumstances. It was only after the bombing in the WTC basement and evac procedures were put in place that any semblance of safety was present. If you spend any time in tall office buildings you quickly realize that most of them are very bad places if there is a fire.
[quote]But I guess I'm the only one who thinks a redesign of the original WTC (with some changes for a memorial) would be neccesary.<hr></blockquote>It's wonderful how post-9/11 the WTC buildings suddenly became an important piece of America. Up until that most people in NYC hated those buildings and hated being in that area. They were the most inhumane buildings in NYC.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
Let's make this an opportunity to improve on the site, the memorial, the city, the people of NYC and America.
While I still think the THINK team's proposal is a silly decorated diagram, I must say the model they made of it is very seductive in person. I can see why it was chosen as a finalist. The biggest problem I have with it is how it deals with the city at a human scale -- its base. It lacks a real interactive presence at street level. However, what it sacrifices at the street it improves for the underground since the reflecting pools are glass-bottomed and bring light to the transport hub.
My favorite scheme has always been the Libeskind, though when I saw its model in person, I kind of wondered if hanging gardens are the metaphor we want. Garden = life, but hanging gardens make me think of the hanging gardens of Babylon.
PS: the library thing hanging between the two towers in the THINK scheme looks like a salamander in plan.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
And it's not even a matter of "letting the terrorists win", it's a matter of practicality. What do you put there if not a "glass-and-steel monstrosity"?
<strong>
Hehe, you are truly a minus habens, young groverat. Have you and the tribe of primates from which you spring ever stopped to wonder that this good man was only uttering his opinion? What could possible be wrong with that? HE doesn't need to bash anyone. What makes you think that you, of all people, member of the one clan, the one state that thinks itself better than the others, the one state that actually has given meaning to the phrase 'Republic of Texas', that your opinion would be better?
You live about equidistant to NY as this UK-ian, and there's a good chance he goes there more often than you. Also, if all of a sudden intellectual protectionism is your cup of tea, maybe you should get two American groups to design the new WTC, and tell the ones that are winning now that they will be withheld on account of your fascism.
Moreover, though you may very well be equipped with a low brow and flat head to go along with that, you might already have stopped and thought about the intricacies of communication. You may have realised that someone, when writing, does not communicate with his mouth. So, whatever that pseudo-witticism of yours, this 'cakehole' pun, stands for, I'll take it you mean a mouth. I'm sorry to have to point out to you that this mouth was not active, and if it was, only irrelevantly so, while good Will jotted down his opinion. Of course, you probably need more time to tell apart basic body parts and their functions. By all means, take your time. You stupid, stupid boy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> that was hilarious!
This reminds me why I didn't become an architect.
It's such a load of BS. When an architect comes forward and explains his design without using a load of silly buzzwords and terms, I will respect him, but I haven't seen this yet. I am no less of a designer and I have had no tutorials. . . . Yes, people have told me time and time again that I should have pursued art rather that engineering, but regardless, I am not impressed with any of the entries.
Give me several months and I will come up with a better solution. . . Yes, I'm drunk off my rocker, but I'm to some extent serious. . . It's part of my regret for not shooting for a degree in architecture, which as I've found out is much closer to my nature than is electrical engineering.
And I'll even pump it out in FormZ. . .
Oh, it's not too late for you...there's always grad school. PM me for "buzzwords" and I'll get you started.
If I recall correctly, the original WTC towers in 1996 were only 75% full, only achieving a "full" 99% occupancy in late 2000.
Read the previous post. Tall buildings aren't very safe--and this doesn't even take acts of terrorism into account.
Everyone probably knows what I think of the original towers, and what I think of the idea of rebuilding them as-they-were. To me, we shouldn't be grieving about the damn buildings, raising them to the realm of the sacred when it's the people who we miss and remember. Who cares about the twin towers or even their footprints?
Let's make this an opportunity to improve on the site, the memorial, the city, the people of NYC and America.
While I still think the THINK team's proposal is a silly decorated diagram, I must say the model they made of it is very seductive in person. I can see why it was chosen as a finalist. The biggest problem I have with it is how it deals with the city at a human scale -- its base. It lacks a real interactive presence at street level. However, what it sacrifices at the street it improves for the underground since the reflecting pools are glass-bottomed and bring light to the transport hub.
My favorite scheme has always been the Libeskind, though when I saw its model in person, I kind of wondered if hanging gardens are the metaphor we want. Garden = life, but hanging gardens make me think of the hanging gardens of Babylon.
PS: the library thing hanging between the two towers in the THINK scheme looks like a salamander in plan.
I just wanted to highlight this excellent post, and not just because I've heard about BuonRotto's taste in architecture books.
Despite my previous apathy to Lebeskind's work, I think his scheme is strong, though after seeing the models in person, I hope much of what's envisioned for the lower buildings are significantly reworked. Nevertheless, the emphasis on the bathtub, the gardens, the light -- he's got the right pulse.
THINK's is totally different. I don't usually care for the filligreed architeture, that is, stuff without a strong profile or shadow. But OTOH the team solved the problem of errecting a marker in the sky and it not being mundane office space very well. If the proposal could move from jungle-gym towards some kind of elegant, elemental pair of light towers (more akin to its inspiration), I might even prefer it to Lebeskind's formmaking.
Still, if either project were built with its ideas more or less intact I'd be happy. The real debate to my mind is not between the entries but between any of the entries and the developers (the throw-back entry excluded).
<strong>It's wonderful how post-9/11 the WTC buildings suddenly became an important piece of America. Up until that most people in NYC hated those buildings and hated being in that area. They were the most inhumane buildings in NYC.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Though many in NYC hated the WTC in it's beginning...that changed when it became an icon of NYC as far as it's boldness and visual impact. All of NYC (& the World) cried out in pain 9|11 when lives were lost yet I believe some cried for the buildings that became such a symbol for NYC in the latter half of the 20th century.
The new design doesn't need to be taller or similar. And most of all it shouldn't unbalance the skyline like the two POS glass/beamed structures do. They look like water fountains for a shopping mall.
They'll have to put NOW OPEN signs all over them so people know they are done!
flick.
I think if they turned the entire Block into a single pyramid like base ( not a flat pyramid like the one in Las Vegas ) with a huge three of four story enclosed courtyard at ground level. It could have most of the 10 million square feet of office space in less than 20 stories, making it extremely safe logistically, and the building would be incredibly stable to build towers on.