NY Times : They Rise, but Do They Soar?
Yap Yok Foo
20 December 2002
They Rise, but Do They Soar?
By WITOLD RYBCZNSKI
HILADELPHIA — It is a relief that the new proposals for the World
Trade Center site represent a radical departure from the six projects
presented last July. This time architecture is very much in the
forefront, and great urban places are always a function of great
buildings. That was the problem with the earlier projects — assuming a
generic architecture, the planners produced mediocre places.
The new "study projects" are intended only to help the Lower Manhattan
Development Corporation in creating a land-use plan; this is not a
competition intended to produce a winner. Still, we will each have our
own favorite. I've already found a Web site, operated by the BBC,
where the public can cast its vote. I clicked on the Foster & Partners
entry. I particularly like the memorial park in which the footprints
of the original towers are treated as two open-air rooms sitting on
the bedrock.
At the same time, I clicked without enthusiasm. It seems to me that
this latest round of designs has produced answers — sometimes
extremely complicated answers — to the wrong question.
The challenge put to the designers was not simply, "What does Sept. 11
represent?" The original aim of the development corporation was to
entirely rebuild the destroyed office space, hotel and shopping mall.
After the July debacle, the corporation relaxed the requirements —
very slightly. The original 11 million square feet of office space was
reduced to 6.5 million to 10 million on the site, along with up to 3.5
million at the perimeter. The shopping mall and hotel stayed.
These requirements were greatly complicated by the consensus that, as
part of any memorial, the footprints of the twin towers should not be
built over. This means leaving the western portion open and building
all that office space only on the northern and eastern edges. The
result: huge buildings.
Thus the five linked towers of Richard Meier & Partners, a subtle
visual trope of the jagged ruins of the World Trade Center facade, are
almost as high as the Empire State Building. Five teams proposed
buildings taller than the original twin towers, in four cases taller
than the 1,483-foot Petronas Towers in Malaysia, currently the world's
tallest.
The problem is that while these skyscrapers bring a broad range of
innovation — some appear to bend and sway as if made of gelatin,
others use crystalline forms echoing 1920's European expressionism —
none seems quite appropriate to the purposes of the site, or to the
new direction in the city's development.
Repairing the Manhattan skyline should certainly be a part of any
regeneration at ground zero. Yet the most successful New York
skyscrapers are those that draw the eye upward, to their spires and
beyond. They may be commercial office buildings, but they are also
cultural icons. When we look at the the Chrysler Building or the
General Electric building at Rockefeller Center, we don't think of
cars or refrigerators, we think of the city itself.
I'm not sure that any of these proposals quite fits the bill. They are
tall, but instead of soaring they all give the impression of great
bulk. Although some of the architects referred to them as "cities in
the sky," these are really offices in the sky. Like the original twin
towers, they seem more like Brobdingnagian intruders than lofty but
friendly neighbors.
Thus I'm relieved that we don't have to take these ambitious plans too
seriously. Given the city's real estate values and rents, the economic
limit for high-rise office buildings is thought to be in the range of
60 floors, or about 900 feet. Even after the destruction of the twin
towers, there are still 17 million square feet of vacant office space
downtown. Building the tallest building in the world might seem a bold
gesture in the face of terrorism, but it makes little economic sense
(unless it is heavily subsidized).
Last week Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg offered a compelling vision for
the future that would transform the financial district into a "global
hub of culture and commerce, a live-and-work-and-visit community for
the world." This involves creating new neighborhoods, building
thousands of housing units, as well as schools and libraries, and
investing in transportation projects. Ten million square feet of
office space, even in eye-popping buildings, would be a very large
bull in this delicate china shop.
Witold Rybczynski is professor of urbanism at the University of
Pennsylvania.
================================+++++++++++
Public Views Plans for World Trade Center Site
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
eplacing the fallen World Trade Center with larger, hulking
skyscrapers is like building another target for terrorists, said
people who work and live in the area as they viewed the nine proposed
plans put on display Friday.
Five of the plans presented Wednesday by seven teams of architects
call for buildings that would be the tallest in the world, looming
higher than Malaysia's 1,483-foot Petronas Twin Towers.
"It just says 'hit me,"' said Kurt Weiss, gesturing to a model of two
"kissing" glass towers that would stand 1,764 feet high. "Building
things tall like that is just asking for trouble."
That design was presented by Norman Foster, of Foster and Partners,
and includes creating two "voids" by lining the footprints of the
original 1,350-foot-high trade center towers with walls of steel and
stone.
Weiss, 37, who works in finance at the World Financial Center, went to
see the display in an atrium across from the trade center site while
on a lunch break.
He said he worked on the north tower's 69th floor for about six years,
and would never again work so high in a skyscraper. He was
disappointed with the proposed designs and thought developers should
design recreational space, like a stadium, for the 16-acre site.
Marc Wood, 29, also would avoid working in many of the buildings
proposed by the seven teams.
"The ego of having buildings that tall is kind of dumb," said Wood, as
he stopped in front of a design that called for a row of connected
buildings 1,111 feet tall along the east and north borders of the
site. "It looks like a big target. I would not want to be in that
building."
Wood added that he would not work in a skyscraper anywhere, but
especially on the trade center site, he said, because the idea is
"sort of creepy, on such hallowed ground."
He did point to two open latticework structures proposed by the THINK
team as somewhat appealing, because their shape is similar to the twin
towers, but without the office space all the way to the top.
"This one looks a little more like you have the memory of the towers,
like the shadow skeleton of it," Wood said.
Dede Plummer, 32, walked over from her Battery Park City home with her
eight-month-old son to see the designs, which she said seemed to
overemphasize office space. The mother of three favors plans that
include large parks and recreational areas.
"I sort of like the idea of not having big skyscrapers," Plummer said.
"I'm more a fan of lots of green space, where we can go and try to
find some peace and calm."
The nine plans are a second round of designs, after the first six
proposals were criticized as unimaginative. This time, architects were
told to include "a tall structure that would be recognized around the
world." The tallest structure in the first group of designs was 85
stories, and most were 60 to 70.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Friday that the seven teams "want New
York's skyline to be stronger and taller than ever, and that's an
admirable thing. I'd like to say to the terrorists, 'Stick it, you
can't beat us."'
Bloomberg acknowledged that skyscrapers don't appeal to many people --
some of whom are afraid to work that high and others who find long
elevator rides to be inconvenient.
"There are different views here," he said. "In the end, I think the
views that will prevail will be the views that are represented by
those that want to actually live and work there."
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the trade
center site, and the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., which has been
charged with redeveloping it, will choose a final plan by Jan. 31.
Pan
wrote:
>From The New York Times
>20 December 2002
>
> They Rise, but Do They Soar?
>By WITOLD RYBCZNSKI
[snip]
The proposed replacements for the World Trade Center are very ugly in
my opinion, worse than the World Trade Center was (and those Twin
Towers were never a favorite of mine). You can see them here:
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/default.asp
Click on each of the links to the 7 proposed designs and then click on
"Individual Elements" for a quick tour of them.
I hope that these 7 ugly duds aren't the last word in this process. :(
Michael
ck_in_sf1
>
> The proposed replacements for the World Trade Center are very ugly in
> my opinion, worse than the World Trade Center was (and those Twin
> Towers were never a favorite of mine). You can see them here:
>
> http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/default.asp
>
> Click on each of the links to the 7 proposed designs and then click on
> "Individual Elements" for a quick tour of them.
>
> I hope that these 7 ugly duds aren't the last word in this process. :(
>
NYC needs to get over this horrible tragedy ... and I think the best
way of doing it is to rebuild and reclaim the tragedy - thats the
american way ... dwell too not much on the past - remember but live it
not.
CKSF
NaughtyGirl
For your info Americans are not dwelling on the WTC and New Yorkers
aren't sitting back taking the Bullshit from SCUM like you...AND IF YOU
DON'T LIKE THE USA or AMERICANS GO THE FUCK BACK TO YOUR COUNTRY where
you belong we don't need SCUM like you here !!!!
ignoramus
On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 11:07:23 -0500 (EST), Vibran...@webtv.net
(NaughtyGirl) wrote:
>CKSF
>
>For your info Americans are not dwelling on the WTC and New Yorkers
>aren't sitting back taking the Bullshit from SCUM like you...AND IF YOU
>DON'T LIKE THE USA or AMERICANS GO THE **** BACK TO YOUR COUNTRY where
NaughtyGirl
Me Cranky do ya think? Where does being nice get me huh?
If CKSF wants respect then maybe she/he whatever the hell IT is should
treat me with respect or am i wrong?
Pan
wrote:
>panNO...@musician.org (Pan) wrote in message news:<3e040e3e...@news.rcn.com>...
>>
>> The proposed replacements for the World Trade Center are very ugly in
>> my opinion, worse than the World Trade Center was (and those Twin
>> Towers were never a favorite of mine). You can see them here:
>>
>> http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/default.asp
>>
>> Click on each of the links to the 7 proposed designs and then click on
>> "Individual Elements" for a quick tour of them.
>>
>> I hope that these 7 ugly duds aren't the last word in this process. :(
>>
>Well, the WTC was deemed ugly and horrible when it was first built ...
I never loved it. I was talking with a couple of other musicians about
it today while coming back from a gig. The problem with the Twin
Towers is that they didn't fit into the rest of the New York skyline.
Whatever is built to replace them, I would hope that it could fit
better into a skyline that features beautiful skyscrapers like the
nearby Woolworth Building, the Chrysler Building, the Flatiron
Building, and even the Empire State Building (which, while hulking and
not as beautiful as the others I mentioned, does give a nice shape to
the skyline).
>NYC needs to get over this horrible tragedy ... and I think the best
>way of doing it is to rebuild and reclaim the tragedy - thats the
>american way ... dwell too not much on the past - remember but live it
>not.
I want rebuilding. I just think that the proposed replacements are all
ugly. Sadly, most current architecture is like that, in my opinion.
Michael
ck_in_sf1
> >>
> >Well, the WTC was deemed ugly and horrible when it was first built ...
>
> I never loved it.
Thats your perogative ... I love the Towers, and have visited many a
times, and held many a meetings there.
> I was talking with a couple of other musicians about
> it today while coming back from a gig. The problem with the Twin
> Towers is that they didn't fit into the rest of the New York skyline.
Well, I guess many high rises in NYC will fit that criteria too. The
skyline is what makes NYC unique and memorable.
> Whatever is built to replace them, I would hope that it could fit
> better into a skyline that features beautiful skyscrapers like the
> nearby Woolworth Building, the Chrysler Building, the Flatiron
> Building, and even the Empire State Building (which, while hulking and
> not as beautiful as the others I mentioned, does give a nice shape to
> the skyline).
Ah ... you prefer Art Deco-early modernist buildings. Well, once
again, to each his/her own.
Btw ... the proposed buildings are all neo-post-modernist ... with
arches and less well defined lines ... perhaps you might find them
"nice".
>
> >NYC needs to get over this horrible tragedy ... and I think the best
> >way of doing it is to rebuild and reclaim the tragedy - thats the
> >american way ... dwell too not much on the past - remember but live it
> >not.
>
> I want rebuilding. I just think that the proposed replacements are all
> ugly. Sadly, most current architecture is like that, in my opinion.
>
Alas, that is your opinion, and like many had said, beauty is in the
eye of the beholder ... for me, I love the post-war modernism
movement, and if you care to think more about the issue, the movement
is antithetical to fundamentalism and bigotry.
CKSF
ck_in_sf1
Get fucked, Cuntina ... and maybe, just maybe you might want to learn
how to read with care.
CKSF
>^.^<VIBRANT ORCHID>^.^<
You get fucked YOU SON OF A BITCH!!!
you learn how to read with care i've tried to respect you and you are
just a totatly unreasonable...you want respect earn it
BASTARD!!!
~ Naughty Girl ~
Intruder l
>On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 12:01:24 +0800, Yap Yok Foo <yf...@pop.jaring.my>
>wrote:
>
>>From The New York Times
>>20 December 2002
>>
>> They Rise, but Do They Soar?
>>By WITOLD RYBCZNSKI
>[snip]
>
>The proposed replacements for the World Trade Center are very ugly in
>my opinion, worse than the World Trade Center was (and those Twin
>Towers were never a favorite of mine).
That is because you got used to that site and may even been up there.
New architecture is commonly not easy to get used to.
------------------------------------------------------
Intruder
Frankfurt am Main
<The surest way to remain poor is to be an honest man>.
Intruder l
Wow, naughty girl. I know that this CKFS is a phony scientist and lying and misquoting, but
please let the INS take of that.
Intruder l
No she does not want respect, just to get fucked.
Intruder l
>I never loved it. I was talking with a couple of other musicians about
>it today while coming back from a gig. The problem with the Twin
>Towers is that they didn't fit into the rest of the New York skyline.
it awesome to see the sky line with the missing twins. Just like the Eifel Tower in Paris,
people at first found it awesome and does not fit into Paris, the Twin Towers found
there home in New York.
Intruder l
Naught Girl, please do not get tempered with this self-proclaimed scientist. You are beginning to
sound like Jay. CKFS is gonna enjoy that, like I enjoy those infantile remakrs of Jay. Have you
been with him (it) frequently?
Intruder l
>
>Thats your perogative ... I love the Towers, and have visited many a
>times, and held many a meetings there.
bio-techonology is done in Msia, being in Budapest.....
Stop those lies, and at least be honest with Michael.
ignoramus
from SCuM. :)
Anyway, I think you are reading more than there really is in CKSF's
comments.
Pan
l ) wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 06:48:54 GMT, panNO...@musician.org (Pan) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 12:01:24 +0800, Yap Yok Foo <yf...@pop.jaring.my>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>From The New York Times
>>>20 December 2002
>>>
>>> They Rise, but Do They Soar?
>>>By WITOLD RYBCZNSKI
>>[snip]
>>
>>The proposed replacements for the World Trade Center are very ugly in
>>my opinion, worse than the World Trade Center was (and those Twin
>>Towers were never a favorite of mine).
>That is because you got used to that site and may even been up there.
> New architecture is commonly not easy to get used to.
I went to the Twin Towers many times. I grew up with them, and I had a
certain appreciation for them but, as I said, I never loved them. They
were big rectangles, and they represented the power of the
Rockefellers. I would be happy if they were replaced by something that
fits more naturally into the rest of the Manhattan skyline and is more
integrated into the community, with street-level storefronts instead
of underground malls only.
Michael
Pan
l ) wrote:
>
>>I never loved it. I was talking with a couple of other musicians about
>>it today while coming back from a gig. The problem with the Twin
>>Towers is that they didn't fit into the rest of the New York skyline.
>What are the criteria for fitting in the skyline. I have many people who find
>it awesome to see the sky line with the missing twins. Just like the Eifel Tower in Paris,
>people at first found it awesome and does not fit into Paris, the Twin Towers found
>there home in New York.
We got used to them, and there's now a hole in the skyline where they
used to be, but they were there all by themselves and unlike the more
harmonious (in my opinion) combination of skyscrapers in Midtown. So
my criteria have to do with both the shapes of the buildings and their
locations.
I happen to love the Eiffel Tower, and I know that it was
controversial when it was first built.
But I dislike the Tour de Montparnasse, and that may be a better
comparison with the Twin Towers.
Michael
>^.^<Vibrant Orchid>^.^<
Bah Hum Bug !
Santa isn't bringing me your rubber duckie...so i can be cranky if i
want to ;-P
His comments are always nasty to me.
he had it coming...imho
~ Naughty Girl ~
ck_in_sf1
*yawns*
Is this the best you can cum up with ... Cuntina?
CKSF
>^.^<Vibrant Orchid>^.^<
This so called self-proclaimed scientist CKSF is a JERK how and the
hell can anyone trust this man to be a scientist i'd like to know Good
Golly we're in trouble ;-))
BTW...i haven't spent anytime with Jay never met the man.
~ Naughty Girl ~
>^.^<Vibrant Orchid>^.^<
ARGGGHHHH....you are annoying ;-P
~ Naughty Girl ~
Intruder l
>On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:38:11 GMT, ma...@hotmail.com (Intruder l )
>wrote:
>
>>Wow, naughty girl. I know that this CKFS is a phony scientist and lying and misquoting, but
>>please let the INS take of that.
>
>No, he is the real deal, a proper scientist. From what I can see, a good one
>too.
Why do you think that CKSF is a man. ?She may be a proper scientist to you, (I would not argue about
that) but she is a woman, although sometimes not very feminie. That OK.
Intruder l
>On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:41:33 GMT, ma...@hotmail.com (Intruder
>l ) wrote:
>>What are the criteria for fitting in the skyline. I have many people who find
>>it awesome to see the sky line with the missing twins. Just like the Eifel Tower in Paris,
>>people at first found it awesome and does not fit into Paris, the Twin Towers found
>>there home in New York.
>
>We got used to them, and there's now a hole in the skyline where they
>used to be, but they were there all by themselves and unlike the more
>harmonious (in my opinion) combination of skyscrapers in Midtown. So
>my criteria have to do with both the shapes of the buildings and their
>locations.
I envy you living in New York. Great City with or without the twins.
>
>I happen to love the Eiffel Tower, and I know that it was
>controversial when it was first built.
>
>But I dislike the Tour de Montparnasse, and that may be a better
>comparison with the Twin Towers.
Yes, I absolutely agree with you. That is what absolutely does not fit in Paris, maybe in the suburb
of La Defense.
Cheers
>
>Michael
Pan
l ) wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:32:27 GMT, panNO...@musician.org (Pan) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:41:33 GMT, ma...@hotmail.com (Intruder
>>l ) wrote:
>
>>>What are the criteria for fitting in the skyline. I have many people who find
>>>it awesome to see the sky line with the missing twins. Just like the Eifel Tower in Paris,
>>>people at first found it awesome and does not fit into Paris, the Twin Towers found
>>>there home in New York.
>>
>>We got used to them, and there's now a hole in the skyline where they
>>used to be, but they were there all by themselves and unlike the more
>>harmonious (in my opinion) combination of skyscrapers in Midtown. So
>>my criteria have to do with both the shapes of the buildings and their
>>locations.
>I envy you living in New York. Great City with or without the twins.
I love New York, but I'm a little nervous now.
Remind me: What city do you live in?
>>I happen to love the Eiffel Tower, and I know that it was
>>controversial when it was first built.
>>
>>But I dislike the Tour de Montparnasse, and that may be a better
>>comparison with the Twin Towers.
>Yes, I absolutely agree with you. That is what absolutely does not fit in Paris, maybe in the suburb
>of La Defense.
Yeah, I do think it would fit in there.
Anyway, you know why they say that the best view of Paris is from the
Tour de Montparnasse. :-)
Michael
ck_in_sf1
> CKSF
>
> ARGGGHHHH....you are annoying ;-P
>
CKSF