WTC rebuild concept & NY Times article !!!
LHCB
"Matthew S. Whiting" <whi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:3CF7F49D...@epix.net...
> Ted Johnston wrote:
> >
> > "Don Linsenbach" <dlins...@swfla.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:HlSJ8.35027$%J4.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Ted Johnston" <tjohn...@yahoo.c0m> wrote in message
> > > news:XuMJ8.30692$wj7.11...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > "NYC4ever" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:NMeJ8.47914$Db5.15...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> > > > > > >these structures can BE the memorial!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >2. A super tall structure NEED NOT contain office space to the
very
> > > > top,
> > > > > or
> > > > > > >at all!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How is a super-tall structure going to support itself
financially if
> > > > > > it doesn't have office space?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Who says it has to? Enough Federal funds are wasted in this
country
> > > > already.
> > > > > Why don't we put some to good use and put the towers back up. I'm
sure
> > > the
> > > > > money is already there.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why not design the replacement towers as 110 story buildings, but
cap
> > them
> > > > off at 40 or 50 stories. If or when the need arises for additional
> > space,
> > > > remove the temporary roof and finish the construction.
> > > >
> > > > Would this be possible?
> > >
> > > Anythings possible.
> > > How bout this : Pour 2 solid concrete columns, 200'w x 200'l x 2000'h
and
> > > paint windows all over the outside.
> > > Now, run into THAT with a jet, Mr Terrorist !
> >
> > The burning wreckage of the jet would bounce off the concrete tower and
> > destroy surrounding buildings, with thousands of gallons of flaming jet
fuel
> > raining down on nearby buildings, plus you'd have the possibility of
the
> > tower falling over on its side, doing even more damage.
>
> Falling over on its side? Ha, ha, ha... You obviously know nothing
> about physics. I can't even being to imagine the force it would take to
> knock over a solic concrete structure of that size. Even with no
> foundation anchors, the weight alone would make toppling it require a
> nuclear explosion, or maybe even more.
>
>
> Matt
Leverage?
Matthew S. Whiting
Leverage??
Matt
Don Linsenbach
A big crowbar, 8000 feet long.
Battleax
"Don Linsenbach" <dlins...@swfla.r-nospam-r.com> wrote in message
news:w49N8.100001$%J4.22...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Or a 1000 gallon hydraulic jack operated by a 1cc pistin.
B
Matthew S. Whiting
But how do you fit that in the jet?
Matt
RALPH HERTLE
>?
>??
>???
>????
>?????
Don Linsenbach wrote:
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" ?whi...@epix.net? wrote in message
> news:3D0515EF...@epix.net...
> ? LHCB wrote:
> ? ?
> ? ? "Matthew S. Whiting" ?whi...@epix.net? wrote in message
> ? ? news:3CF7F49D...@epix.net...
> ? ? ? Ted Johnston wrote:
> ? ? ? ?
> ? ? ? ? "Don Linsenbach" ?dlins...@swfla.rr.com? wrote in message
> ? ? ? ? news:HlSJ8.35027$%J4.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> ? ? ? ? ?
> ? ? ? ? ? "Ted Johnston" ?tjohn...@yahoo.c0m? wrote in message
> ? ? ? ? ? news:XuMJ8.30692$wj7.11...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ? ? ? ? ? ? "NYC4ever" ?n...@no.com? wrote in message
> ? ? ? ? ? ? news:NMeJ8.47914$Db5.15...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?these structures can BE the memorial!
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?2. A super tall structure NEED NOT contain office space to
> the
> ? ? very
> ? ? ? ? ? ? top,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? or
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?at all!
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? How is a super-tall structure going to support itself
> ? ? financially if
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? it doesn't have office space?
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Who says it has to? Enough Federal funds are wasted in this
> ? ? country
> ? ? ? ? ? ? already.
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Why don't we put some to good use and put the towers back up.
> I'm
> ? ? sure
> ? ? ? ? ? the
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? money is already there.
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ? ? ? ? ? ? Why not design the replacement towers as 110 story buildings,
> but
> ? ? cap
> ? ? ? ? them
> ? ? ? ? ? ? off at 40 or 50 stories. If or when the need arises for
> additional
> ? ? ? ? space,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? remove the temporary roof and finish the construction.
> ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ? ? ? ? ? ? Would this be possible?
> ? ? ? ? ?
> ? ? ? ? ? Anythings possible.
> ? ? ? ? ? How bout this : Pour 2 solid concrete columns, 200'w x 200'l x
> 2000'h
> ? ? and
> ? ? ? ? ? paint windows all over the outside.
> ? ? ? ? ? Now, run into THAT with a jet, Mr Terrorist !
> ? ? ? ?
> ? ? ? ? The burning wreckage of the jet would bounce off the concrete tower
> and
> ? ? ? ? destroy surrounding buildings, with thousands of gallons of flaming
> jet
> ? ? fuel
> ? ? ? ? raining down on nearby buildings, plus you'd have the possibility
> of
> ? ? the
> ? ? ? ? tower falling over on its side, doing even more damage.
> ? ? ?
> ? ? ? Falling over on its side? Ha, ha, ha... You obviously know nothing
> ? ? ? about physics. I can't even being to imagine the force it would take
> to
> ? ? ? knock over a solic concrete structure of that size. Even with no
> ? ? ? foundation anchors, the weight alone would make toppling it require a
> ? ? ? nuclear explosion, or maybe even more.
> ? ? ?
> ? ? ?
> ? ? ? Matt
> ? ?
> ? ? Leverage?
> ?
> ? Leverage??
Don Linsenbach
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention it's one of those Swiss Army crowbars,
collapses down to just 3" long.
Easily concealable in various cavities / orifices and available at any
WalMart.....
Dr-Hornet
the WTC...
Volkie71
Someone sent it to me as a joke!
It's hideous!
"Dr-Hornet" <try2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns923877B9F962F...@167.206.3.2...
Don Linsenbach
"Volkie71" <vol...@concentric.com> wrote in message
news:ihjS8.97263$Hn4.3...@news1.east.cox.net...
> Yea, I saw that.
> Someone sent it to me as a joke!
> It's hideous!
Why ?
Volkie71
The obscene scale?
The fact that it copies Petronas Towers?
And doesn't it look expensive (since that is such a big issue)?
I guess it's OK to blow a bunch of money on our nation's hurt pride, but not
a museum or a school.
The only thing I liked was the Memorial park .(look out, it's glob
architecture)
Actually, if you just take off the pyramid, it looks 100% better.
"Don Linsenbach" <dlins...@swfla.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rclS8.61671$db.10...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Don Linsenbach
I just compared it to what was there before.
Of the multitude of suggestions I've seen, this one was the most appealing.
Maybe a simple landscaped park with a fountain would be best....
"Volkie71" <vol...@concentric.com> wrote in message
news:d1nS8.97705$Hn4.3...@news1.east.cox.net...
Volkie71
a hot commodity in Manhattan. Even terrorist attacks can't justify letting
good land sit unleased.
"Don Linsenbach" <dlins...@swfla.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qeoS8.62151$db.10...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Rico dJour
any air traffic within five miles of Manhattan (isn't JFK within 5 miles?), and
have 50 elevators, etc. I'm sure that should be easy to accomplish and cost
effective...
I also like the idea of having helicopter landing pads in between the
buildings. Rotsa ruck to the soon-to-be-ex passengers and pilots. In between
those buildings will be an absolute nightmare of air turbulence.
The usual case of someone coming up with a design and then rationalizing out
the ying yang to "make it work".
Oh, and it's ugly.
R
Don Linsenbach
> Oh, and it's ugly.
No uglier than what was previously there.
Joe Barta
I thought the twin towers were simple and handsome. I'm from
Cleveland and have only been to NYC once. While I knew what the WTC
was and where it was at, I never gave it much thought. Now that
they're gone, I (like everyone I suppose) catch a shot of them in
movies every so often. NOW I notice how majestic they were and how
they so dominated the skyline. I hope in the end something equally
simple and majestic is built in their place. As far as I'm
concerned, another set of twin towers would be just dandy... as long
as they were just a fuzz taller than the old ones. Maybe they could
get the city's top graffitti artist to scrawl "Bite Me Bin Laden" on
the top floor or something.
As for the utopian biotubes... yuck. Gaudy. They pyramid reminded me
of the "pyramid power" craze from a while back. I was kinda hoping
that the tubes would at least rotate like the logo on the page. THAT
might be cool!
- Joe Barta
RALPH HERTLE
You ask a civil question. "Why?"
That is, why is the design "hideous"
as Volkie71 says it is?
There are two main types of esthetic content for
architectural works of art. (Pragmatists may exclude
themselves from the discussion because the philosophy
of Pragmatism has no ethics, and because esthetics is
based on ethics, Pragmatism has no esthetics. The
Pragmatists can have nothing to say, let alone anything
new to say. They most often endorse Surrealism, Nihilism
(destruction - a form of Surrealism), Post Modernism
(the Anything Goes form of Surrealism), and, more
recently Neo-Constructivism (the Dadaist precursor to
Surrealism that gives to random chance disorganized
heaps).)
1.
What does a work say? What concepts does it
portray, and which ideas govern the design?
Describe the work to get at the ideas that are integrated
into the design. And which cause the design. See what happens:
The generally wide mass is wider than surrounding buildings.
The older nearby Deco buildings of the 1930s are still taller
than the 5tube building for their widths. Moreover, they were
stylized to look taller. The 5tube building while measurably
taller actually looks stubbier.
The main mass emerges up from its base through a glass
spherical dome. It looks as though it were breaking through
a giant diaphragm of glass, and the multi- tube corpus of the
building, its shaftedness, pierces upward to its pyramidal top.
The four tubes that surround the central tube are a playback
or a conceptual reminder of the cause the 911. Islamic terrorism
was the root cause of 911, or, at least that's what the terrorists
have been saying. Indeed, we have no reason to doubt them.
A mosque has four cylindrical minaret towers that surround the
central round dome of the building. The 5tube scheme also has
four tubes that surround a central round feature. Is that not a
horrible reminder of the the evil which the terrorists loosed
on the WTC?
The pyramid roof is a mimicking of the illuminated golden
pyramids of at least two major NYC buildings that were built
by Zeckendorff. Can the designers of the 5tube scheme be said
to either continue the Zeckendorff motif? A motif that they
did not originate, and that is the symbol of Zeckendorff's
great building ventures in NYC? Or is the 5tube scheme's
upthrust aimed at the bottom of the pyramid? The pyramid has
the same overall proportions as the famed pyramids of Ancient
Egypt, that were said to have been built with a lot of labor
by Jewish peoples. Certainly, the 5tube scheme's pyramid is not
low and flat, nor is it tall and slender. The proportions,
we can describe are from the Egyptians. Now, combine what
we read and describe. There is a 5tube mass that has been
thrust up through the glass diaphragm to meet the bottom of an
ancient pyramid. The ideas are either pretty threatening, or
they are total non-sense.
Why were those concepts selected as causes for the design?
Who can say? It is either some type of warped political statement
in that the viewer is supposed to think certain thoughts,
or it is a smorgasbord of concepts that have only a surrealist's
nightmare as the basis for their combination.
2.
How is the content organized in terms of the materials
that have been selected? Several totally different and unrelated
shapes have been juxtaposed. The spherical glass dome. The five
vertical cylinders. The pyramid. There is no system of organization
or stylistic purposes for the design. The decorative qualities of
these primary elements are non-existent. It is not an embodiment
of a sculpturally inventive principle. The shapes selected are
arbitrary primary solids. No perceptible visual or stylistic
system justifies their placement in a design sense. The placement
of the primary elements is arbitrary, and it is not a visually
purposeful combination.
No stylistic, decorative, or ornamental system is evident.
There has been no use of dynamic proportions or of any other
system of a perceptible harmony of elements. Its a mishmash.
In that it is gargantuan in its size, it is way out of keeping in
the sense of harmonies with the scale of features of NYC. Its
size is massive. It looks as though one would have to take a
triangular shape of something in order to wedge the 5tube building
onto the site and into the space between the other buildings.
It is way too chubby.
Its massiveness strikes one as its central idea. That brings us back
to the matter of the concepts that make up the design, and especially
to what the artist is saying by means of the ideas in the design.
Is the artist using the massiveness that is out of scale with the
neighborhood to give us his central idea: that the design will
slam itself into our perceptual awareness?
In your face, I wish to say, that the central statement of the design
is arbitrary horrendous awful force. Force is the central idea - nothing
else matters, not life-centered ideas given shape, not the great spirit
of individual man, not beauty, and not refined scale, not stylized
proportions, and not elegant decoration.
"Why?" It is "hideous". Read the design for your self.
Ralph Hertle
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Don Linsenbach
"RALPH HERTLE" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D1ADDFD...@verizon.net...
To make a long story short, you don't like it.
The reasons why are irrelevent.
If you *over analyze* any structure, you will indeed find similarities to
previous structures that have bad reputations.
In a post-modernist trend, I found the proposed concept appealing,
futuristic, inventive and novel.
That is not to say that I support the effort in any way.
Those with opinions on the topic generally fall in to 3 groups, rebuild the
old 2001 monoliths, create a park, or create an advante gard statement on
obscure, unfounded *beliefs*.
Personally I don't care what happens on that site but believe this episode
will haunt us all our days........
Rico dJour
>"Rico dJour"> wrote
>> Oh, and it's ugly.
>
>No uglier than what was previously there.
Au contraire, mon ferret! The towers were simple monoliths not concerned with
style. That new thing looks like a first year design studio regurgitation,
designed by committee. Each component has some merit, but as a whole, it
fails. I'd love to see a wind tunnel analysis of it. I would imagine that the
vortices coming off the thing would create hurricane winds in the streets
below.
I think it was the Earth and Planetary Sciences building at MIT (you know, the
one with the golf ball on top), that would have sequenced window/rooms light up
and giant games of Tetris would be played. Joe's idea of the "Bite Me Bin
Laden" could be taken to the next level and have scrolling animation to
illustrate the point. I'd definitely pay to see that!
R
Don Linsenbach
> >From: "Don Linsenbach"
> >"Rico dJour"> wrote
> >> Oh, and it's ugly.
> >
> >No uglier than what was previously there.
>
> Au contraire, mon ferret! The towers were simple monoliths not concerned
with
> style.
Nothing *ugly* about plain-jane black towers, eh Rico ? LOL
Interestingly they resembled the monolith in 2001 Space Odysey (complete
with all the chimps clamoring about), and that was the very year they
fell......
<dee-dee, dee-dee, dee-dee, dee-dee.... (twilight zone music) >
Harvey V
wrote:
>> From: "Don Linsenbach" dlins...@swfla.rr.com
>>
>> "Rico dJour"> wrote
>>> Oh, and it's ugly.
>>
>> No uglier than what was previously there.
>
> Au contraire, mon ferret! The towers were simple monoliths not
> concerned with style.
Ummmm...."simple monolith" with no ornamentation is hardly "not
concerned with style" -- it's a huge stylistic statement. To say that
any designed artefact is "not concerned with style" is, for me, a
conceptual oxymoron.
(I seem to recall Richard Rogers held that the Pompidou Centre and the
Lloyd's building were designed functionally and logically rather than
stylistically. Hanging services on the outside of a building, though,
doesn't avoid style -- it's as much a stylistic decision as cladding
steel with stone.)
--
Cheers,
Harvey
That style thingie -- ya' can't avoid it....
Rico dJour
>I espied that on 27 Jun 2002, rico...@aol.computer (Rico dJour)
>wrote:
>
>>> From: "Don Linsenbach" dlins...@swfla.rr.com
>>>
>>> "Rico dJour"> wrote
>>>> Oh, and it's ugly.
>>>
>>> No uglier than what was previously there.
>>
>> Au contraire, mon ferret! The towers were simple monoliths not
>> concerned with style.
>
>Ummmm...."simple monolith" with no ornamentation is hardly "not
>concerned with style" -- it's a huge stylistic statement.
OK, (sorry, Joe) have it your way, Harvey. What style were the towers?
R
RALPH HERTLE
>>
> [ TEXT OMITTED ]
> To make a long story short, you don't like it.
> The reasons why are irrelevent.
Thank you Imanuel Kant. Who promoted the notion
that ideas, specifically, universals, logic and
reason, are irrelevant in any discussion of any
intellectual, philosophical, moral or esthetic
matters. He said, in effect, that all ideas
that purport to identify the facts of reality are
irrelevant. Kant is a Platonist, and his ideas are
at the base of Dadaism, Surrealism, Pragmatism,
Post Modernism and Nihilism, for example.
> If you *over analyze* any structure, you will indeed find similarities to
> previous structures that have bad reputations.
That's an example of unspecifiable dismalism.
> In a post-modernist trend, I found the proposed concept appealing,
> futuristic, inventive and novel.
Not too inventive. Stylistically, it is simply a vertical version of
recent German convention center designs, which are far more exotic
and interesting. The 5tube architects should get some ideas of their
own. Post Modernists architects rarely read the content of what they say
in their works, and the conceptual meanings conveyed are often ludicrous.
Some of them, due to their own enhanced psychologies have actually
learned to prefer ugliness to beauty - for example, because a skyscraper
design has a barn-like structure on the top.
> That is not to say that I support the effort in any way.
A legal disclaimer? If so you've been talking to too many Pragmatist
lawyers.
> Those with opinions on the topic generally fall in to 3 groups,
> rebuild the old 2001 monoliths,
The WTC Towers? That's boring enough.
> create a park,
What's so great about a park? I think that the socialist Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey should sell the land to private enterprise.
The creativity of private individuals creating new product values for
the marketplace would yield far more exciting and profitable results.
> or create an advante gard statement on obscure, unfounded *beliefs*.
Sounds like a contradiction in terms. Do you mean that beliefs such as
beauty, logic, practicality, profitability, value, drama, or facts
should not be the basis of a new stylistic creation?
What do you define as "unfounded"?
> Personally I don't care what happens on that site but believe this episode
> will haunt us all our days........
That would be true if you didn't know what else to do. Use reason and a
celebration of life as a purpose instead of faith and its corollary,
the obsession with bio-physicality, and you will no longer be haunted.
Ralph Hertle
Don Linsenbach
"RALPH HERTLE"> wrote
> Don Linsenbach
>
> > [ TEXT OMITTED ]
> > To make a long story short, you don't like it.
> > The reasons why are irrelevent.
>
> Thank you Imanuel Kant. Who promoted the notion
> that ideas, specifically, universals, logic and
> reason, are irrelevant in any discussion of any
> intellectual, philosophical, moral or esthetic
> matters. He said, in effect, that all ideas
> that purport to identify the facts of reality are
> irrelevant. Kant is a Platonist, and his ideas are
> at the base of Dadaism, Surrealism, Pragmatism,
> Post Modernism and Nihilism, for example.
I think you are making this bigger than what it is.
If the stark towers appeals to ones sensibilities, then it is expected that
anything of a more complex nature, will be construed as offensive.
At least, that is what I garnered from Ricos response.
> > If you *over analyze* any structure, you will indeed find similarities
to
> > previous structures that have bad reputations.
>
> That's an example of unspecifiable dismalism.
It's also an example of truth.
There is very little, in 20th century building design, that hasn't been done
before.
Geometric shapes assembled in varied patterns.
I think Per Corels ideas may change that, if he can get a foothold.
It will allow one to break out of the *LEGO* mold. LOL
> > In a post-modernist trend, I found the proposed concept appealing,
> > futuristic, inventive and novel.
>
> Not too inventive.
Surely more inventive than what was there before.
Stylistically, it is simply a vertical version of
> recent German convention center designs, which are far more exotic
> and interesting. The 5tube architects should get some ideas of their
> own. Post Modernists architects rarely read the content of what they say
> in their works, and the conceptual meanings conveyed are often ludicrous.
> Some of them, due to their own enhanced psychologies have actually
> learned to prefer ugliness to beauty - for example, because a skyscraper
> design has a barn-like structure on the top.
Do I sense FOG ? ;-)
> > That is not to say that I support the effort in any way.
>
>
>
>
> A legal disclaimer? If so you've been talking to too many Pragmatist
> lawyers.
I avoid them like the plaque.
However I am reluctant to side with anything anymore.
> > Those with opinions on the topic generally fall in to 3 groups,
>
> > rebuild the old 2001 monoliths,
>
>
>
>
> The WTC Towers? That's boring enough.
We agree.
> > create a park,
>
> What's so great about a park?
A park can be a good thing.
And I doubt a terrorist would find it a worthy target.
I think that the socialist Port Authority
> of New York and New Jersey should sell the land to private enterprise.
> The creativity of private individuals creating new product values for
> the marketplace would yield far more exciting and profitable results.
Now you're going somewhere !
But I'm sure you're aware that the mob mentality of late won't let that
happen.
> > or create an advante gard statement on obscure, unfounded *beliefs*.
>
> Sounds like a contradiction in terms. Do you mean that beliefs such as
> beauty, logic, practicality, profitability, value, drama, or facts
> should not be the basis of a new stylistic creation?
>
> What do you define as "unfounded"?
Maybe I should have used the word *imaginary* instead.
The VN *wall* comes to mind.
> > Personally I don't care what happens on that site but believe this
episode
> > will haunt us all our days........
>
>
>
> That would be true if you didn't know what else to do. Use reason and a
> celebration of life as a purpose instead of faith and its corollary,
> the obsession with bio-physicality, and you will no longer be haunted.
Well Ralph, unless we become hermits in a cave, the mass media will surely
find us.
As long as a buck can be made from the misery of others, count on Rather and
company to be there.
Possibly though, haunting was the wrong word.
Maybe *shape* would be more appropriate.
Time will tell.....
Harvey V
wrote:
-snip-
>> Ummmm...."simple monolith" with no ornamentation is hardly "not
>> concerned with style" -- it's a huge stylistic statement.
>
> OK, (sorry, Joe) have it your way, Harvey. What style were the
> towers?
1970s' corporate modern. Gave out messages along the line of
"commercial/efficient/landmark/power". [Early 2000s' corporate modern
goes for the same messages, but throws "whizz-bang computer-generated
curves and glass canopies to show we're hip" into the mix.... ;)]
Seriously, I've rethought this a bit: the towers weren't actually
"simple" monoliths: the exteriors were visually articulated by the
gathering-together of the vertical elements at the bases and the
intermediate and top horizontal bands.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Rico dJour
>> OK, (sorry, Joe) have it your way, Harvey. What style were the
>> towers?
>
>1970s' corporate modern. Gave out messages along the line of
>"commercial/efficient/landmark/power". [Early 2000s' corporate modern
>goes for the same messages, but throws "whizz-bang computer-generated
>curves and glass canopies to show we're hip" into the mix.... ;)]
>
>Seriously, I've rethought this a bit: the towers weren't actually
>"simple" monoliths: the exteriors were visually articulated by the
>gathering-together of the vertical elements at the bases and the
>intermediate and top horizontal bands.
Modern just means now. Wants the alternative to corporate? In the middle ages
and renaissance was it ecclesiastical modern? Did the towers look out of date?
They were thirty years old. They wouldn't have looked out of date a hundred
years from now either. There were no concessions to style. There also was no
articulation - that was the structure. There was no choice in the matter. It
was actually a huge problem because the "vertical elements" created tiny slices
of windows and _everybody_ wants the view.
I'll agree they were a simple statement. Powerful things usually are.
R
Harvey V
wrote:
>> From: Harvey V harve...@REMOVETHISntlworld.com
>>
>>> OK, (sorry, Joe) have it your way, Harvey. What style were the
>>> towers?
>>
>> 1970s' corporate modern.
-snip-
>> Seriously, I've rethought this a bit: the towers weren't
>> actually "simple" monoliths: the exteriors were visually
>> articulated by the gathering-together of the vertical elements at
>> the bases and the intermediate and top horizontal bands.
>
> Modern just means now. Wants the alternative to corporate?
Domestic. Retail. Religious.
> In the middle ages and renaissance was it ecclesiastical modern?
Yes, if you wish to put it that way, it was.
The Italians coined the derogatory and dismissive term "gothic" to
describe the pointed-arch-and-encrusted-finials features of mediaeval
buildings which they viewed as barbaric, outdated and not modern in the
way that the re-discovered classic style which they were using was
modern.
To my knowledge, contemporaries didn't describe the design of the
centrally-planned St Peter's in Rome as "ecclesiastical modern", but
that's precisely what it was.
> Did the towers look out of date? They were thirty years old.
They certainly looked of their period: that is, they didn't look like
buildings that were built 30 years before that, or those which are
being built now.
So, yes, stylistically they looked 30 years old. Why wouldn't they?
> They wouldn't have looked out of date a hundred years from now
> either.
If I lived that long and they'd survived that long, they'd have looked
like hundred-year-old buildings.
> There were no concessions to style.
I'd have no problem with that statement if it read "there were no
concessions to historical style". It's the equating of "style" with
"something that existed previously" that I strongly disagree with.
It's a truism, to me, that an attempt to design with "no concessions to
style" is *itself* a stylistic approach. Having the structure dictate
the form doesn't eliminate form: it merely replaces one form-generator
-- historical styling -- with another -- structurally-generated
styling.
One cannot design *anything* and not have a style: anti-style is as
much a "style" as gothic/classic/arts-and-crafts or anything else.
> There also was no articulation - that was the structure. There
> was no choice in the matter.
I disagree with this: there were lots of choices, and no inevitability
about the solution. For example: no structural reason prohibited the
designers from continuing the verticals down to the ground in the same
form that appeared further up. Spreading them out at the base
certainly created a more solid looking building -- column on a base --
and produced attractive cathedral-like windows in the internal lobby,
but the structure didn't force this on them -- these were stylistic
decisions.
> It was actually a huge problem because the "vertical elements"
> created tiny slices of windows and _everybody_ wants the view.
> I'll agree they were a simple statement. Powerful things usually
> are.
I don't dispute the power and simplicity of the statement -- but the
"statement" which you mention is a stylistic one as well as an
engineering one.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Don Linsenbach
"Harvey V" <harve...@REMOVETHISntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns923BAF5B...@194.168.222.8...
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
n.p.-- *Freewill*
Harvey V
<dlins...@swfla.rr.com> wrote:
-snip of my long explanation which comes down to:
> "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
> n.p.-- *Freewill*
>
Much more succinct than my version. Ta' very much!
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Rico dJour
>
>> "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
>> n.p.-- *Freewill*
>>
>
>Much more succinct than my version. Ta' very much!
>
>--
>Cheers,
>Harvey
Don can be pithy. He's pithied me off before! ;)
You've stated that everything is a style, Harvey, even things that aren't a
style. I understand your point, but you missed my meaning. My view is the
towers were a simple form and not a style. Are all pyramids Egyptian style?
It's the form people relate to, not who designed it or when.
BTW, had you ever visited the towers?
R
Don Linsenbach
"Rico dJour" <rico...@aol.computer> wrote in message
news:20020629144005...@mb-bk.aol.com...
> >-snip of my long explanation which comes down to:
> >
> >> "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
> >> n.p.-- *Freewill*
> >>
> >
> >Much more succinct than my version. Ta' very much!
> >
> >--
> >Cheers,
> >Harvey
>
> Don can be pithy. He's pithied me off before! ;)
>
> You've stated that everything is a style, Harvey, even things that aren't
a
> style. I understand your point, but you missed my meaning. My view is
the
> towers were a simple form and not a style.
No style, is STILL a style.
> Are all pyramids Egyptian style?
Yep.
> It's the form people relate to, not who designed it or when.
Who designed a given building is irrelevent.
> BTW, had you ever visited the towers?
Clue : Harveys been doing this stuff for a looong time.
Harvey V
wrote:
>>
>>> "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
>>> n.p.-- *Freewill*
>> Much more succinct than my version. Ta' very much!
> Don can be pithy. He's pithied me off before! ;)
<grin>
> You've stated that everything is a style, Harvey, even things that
> aren't a style. I understand your point, but you missed my
> meaning. My view is the towers were a simple form and not a
> style. Are all pyramids Egyptian style? It's the form people
> relate to, not who designed it or when.
I would have said that the towers were different to the pyramids, in
that the surface of the towers was structured and patterned, whereas
the pyramids were -- or, more precisely, have become -- pure form.
(The qualification in that sentence is because nowadays -- as I
understand it -- what we see is the sub-surface rather than the
finished surface of the pyramids; we're not familiar with their
surficial finishes, just with the structure below those finishes.)
We clearly differ in our use of the term "style". I'd still maintain
that to design a building which creates a simple form -- be that a
slab, a cone, or a pyramid -- is very much a stylistic decision. (If I
built a house in the form of a cube -- even an undifferentiated steel
cube with no windows -- it would still be a stylistic decision, not
something that stood apart from style.)
The towers, for me, were not simple monolithic forms: I was always
aware of the fact that they had surface patterns and that they were
clearly built up from modular parts. Decisions inevitably had to be
made about the placing of those parts, and that made them the
equivalent of constructed sculpture, not pure form. (In other words,
they were modular, patterned buildings which mimicked the form of
monoliths, but for me they could only work as such if one could ignore
the surface patterns. I never could do that.)
> BTW, had you ever visited the towers?
Yes, indeed -- they were most impressive. As an aside, to remind
myself of certain things in my previous post I pulled out the 8 or 10
building-specific slides -- I also took the usual skyline shots -- that
I took in 1980; it was the slides that reminded me of both the
"cathedral window" effect of the lobby space and the horizontal banding
on the exterior.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Harvey V
<dlins...@swfla.rr.com> wrote:
> "Rico dJour" <rico...@aol.computer> wrote in message
> news:20020629144005...@mb-bk.aol.com...
-snip-
>> BTW, had you ever visited the towers?
>
> Clue : Harveys been doing this stuff for a looong time.
Hey: I'm not *that* old.
(OK, you win: maybe I'm gettin' there...... ) ;)
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Rico dJour
the first round!
It's obvious from your posts that if the built form isn't your profession you
wish it were. It's also obvious that you analyze things way more than typical,
and that you haven't lived in NY, at least since the towers went up.
I live within sight of the towers - errr, did. Now there's a noticeable gap.
It's funny how something 15 miles away can become a part of the landscape and
you take it for granted until it's gone.
The articulation became less and less noticeable the further away from the
towers one went. Relatively few people saw the towers from close up on any
sort of regular basis. You can still see the outline of the Empire State
building and Chrysler and see the "style" and infer the scale. The towers were
scaleless and had no discernible style. At any sort of distance the
"striations" disappeared. They had a form, they had shape, which is quite
different. Isn't style just the articulation of a form?
Maybe we're talking at cross purposes due to our different perceptions of where
one was in relation to the towers. It's also possible that your perceptions
came more from the views you saw on your visit(s) and from pictures and movies.
To many (and we're talking viewing man-hours which has to count for
something!) they were simple monoliths that we'd catch glimpses of throughout
the day. They'd catch the sun at certain times of the day and remind us how
far away we were and how big the towers must be. At that distance they are
not recognizable as buildings. They were monuments - which if you _have_ to
stick a style classification on them, monumental is probably the best.
R
Harvey V
wrote:
> Hey Harvey. You keep ending your posts with "cheers" but I'm
> still waiting for the first round!
I've finished mine -- it's your round now....
>
> It's obvious from your posts that if the built form isn't your
> profession you wish it were. It's also obvious that you analyze
> things way more than typical, and that you haven't lived in NY, at
> least since the towers went up.
I consult to architects on topographical and architectural history, and
my background is in urban design. Analysing built form -- Looking at
the way that buildings were and are designed, why they appear as they
do, and the way that people interact with them -- is part of what I do
for a living.
> I live within sight of the towers - errr, did. Now there's a
> noticeable gap. It's funny how something 15 miles away can become
> a part of the landscape and you take it for granted until it's
> gone.
Perhaps this is why those of us who didn't leave near to them noticed
the detail of their attributes: familiarity doesn't really breed
contempt, but it does breed, um, familiarity....
I live in England, and travel into London two or threee times a week
for client or site visits. There are lots of monuments that I don't
really notice on a day-to-day basis -- they're just there -- but when I
*do* look at them, I probably see them differently than does a "non-
architectural" tourist on the same streeet.
> The articulation became less and less noticeable the further away
> from the towers one went. Relatively few people saw the towers
> from close up on any sort of regular basis. You can still see the
> outline of the Empire State building and Chrysler and see the
> "style" and infer the scale. The towers were scaleless and had no
> discernible style. At any sort of distance the "striations"
> disappeared. They had a form, they had shape, which is quite
> different. Isn't style just the articulation of a form?
This is where we differ fundamentally in our use of the word; style
doesn't equate to "form", although form is an element of style.
But even within your definition, "the articulation of a form" can mean
that one produces a simple form: that a building is formed in a way
that is not complex doesn't make it any less "formed". The simple form
of the towers was as much an element of the style of those buildings as
the ziggurat head-dress of the Chrysler building is part of its style.
The towers had a form; it was a simple form; that was part of its
style.
> Maybe we're talking at cross purposes due to our different
> perceptions of where one was in relation to the towers. It's also
> possible that your perceptions came more from the views you saw on
> your visit(s) and from pictures and movies.
I think it's more that we're talking at cross purposes due to our
different use of the term "style", and that my perceptions come from my
approach to viewing buildings. (I've been aware for years that when I
walk down a street, I tend to see different things than people who
don't work in the same field as I do.)
> To many (and we're talking viewing man-hours which has to count
> for something!) they were simple monoliths that we'd catch
> glimpses of throughout the day. They'd catch the sun at certain
> times of the day and remind us how far away we were and how big
> the towers must be. At that distance they are not recognizable
> as buildings. They were monuments - which if you _have_ to stick a
> style classification on them, monumental is probably the best.
I don't have any burning desire to stick a style "classification" on
them, but I *would* maintain very strongly that they had a style --
they did not stand aside from the existence of style (whether or not
one leaves the style un-named).
"Monumental" will do, as it acknowledges that they had a style -- which
I'd still maintain was typical of the 1970s -- rather than maintaining
that one can design a thing and wind up with something that stands
apart from "style".
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Dr-Hornet
Ok!
I think I got it....
Instead of a pyramid how about a Muslim Mosque...
Then I think the building would be safe...
Actually, we should put it in the basement or 1st floor...
That way Allah! is not above us but below us...
Tom
> > > Those with opinions on the topic generally fall in to 3 groups,
> >
> > > rebuild the old 2001 monoliths,
>
> > > create a park,
> >
> > What's so great about a park?
>
> A park can be a good thing.
> And I doubt a terrorist would find it a worthy target.
>
> I think that the socialist Port Authority
> > of New York and New Jersey should sell the land to private enterprise.
> > The creativity of private individuals creating new product values for
> > the marketplace would yield far more exciting and profitable results.
>
> Now you're going somewhere !
> But I'm sure you're aware that the mob mentality of late won't let that
> happen.
Thank you. Your perspective shows excellent patience and foresight.
Rebuilding the WTC would only focus the terrorist's attention toward
repeating 9-11.
I like parks and museums. They are two of my favorite passtimes. But isn't
the land privately owned? Are the owners likely to donate the property to
the public? Should the government be allowed to seize the land just to
build a park?
A new creation built by private enterprise seems to be the only reasonable
approach.
> > > or create an advante gard statement on obscure, unfounded *beliefs*.
> >
> > Sounds like a contradiction in terms. Do you mean that beliefs such as
> > beauty, logic, practicality, profitability, value, drama, or facts
> > should not be the basis of a new stylistic creation?
> >
> > What do you define as "unfounded"?
>
All beliefs are true beliefs. An "unfounded belief" is just an opinion.
Don Linsenbach
> A few short comments:
>
> > > > Those with opinions on the topic generally fall in to 3 groups,
> > >
> > > > rebuild the old 2001 monoliths,
> >
> > > > create a park,
> > >
> > > What's so great about a park?
> >
> > A park can be a good thing.
> > And I doubt a terrorist would find it a worthy target.
> >
> > I think that the socialist Port Authority
> > > of New York and New Jersey should sell the land to private enterprise.
> > > The creativity of private individuals creating new product values for
> > > the marketplace would yield far more exciting and profitable results.
> >
> > Now you're going somewhere !
> > But I'm sure you're aware that the mob mentality of late won't let that
> > happen.
>
> Thank you. Your perspective shows excellent patience and foresight.
>
> Rebuilding the WTC would only focus the terrorist's attention toward
> repeating 9-11.
>
> I like parks and museums. They are two of my favorite passtimes. But
isn't
> the land privately owned?
I heard the *Port Authority* owns it.
Are the owners likely to donate the property to
> the public? Should the government be allowed to seize the land just to
> build a park?
I don't believe the gov't should be *allowed* to do much of anything.
But this is now a nation of cowards and the gov't does what it wants.
> A new creation built by private enterprise seems to be the only reasonable
> approach.
*Reason* is in the eye of the beholder. ;-)
> > > > or create an advante gard statement on obscure, unfounded *beliefs*.
> > >
> > > Sounds like a contradiction in terms. Do you mean that beliefs such as
> > > beauty, logic, practicality, profitability, value, drama, or facts
> > > should not be the basis of a new stylistic creation?
> > >
> > > What do you define as "unfounded"?
> >
>
> All beliefs are true beliefs. An "unfounded belief" is just an opinion.
Ahhhh...the ol' jethro klintin tactic :
*It's not a lie, if you really believe it.*
(or was that George Castanza?)
Where are you at Tom, I noticed the rr address ?
Yours has *twister* in it, mine has *typhoon* in it, strange, no ?
Tom
> Where are you at Tom, I noticed the rr address ?
> Yours has *twister* in it, mine has *typhoon* in it, strange, no ?
>
Strange, yes.
I live in Charlotte, NC; born in Chicago.
Tom
Tammany Ring. It is a public agency which is operated as a commercial
enterprise. It was created to settle territorial disputes between NY & NJ
after a gunfight broke out between their police departments in the middle of
the harbor.
Somehow they not only have authority over the harbor but every
transportation and transit system in the region. They have authority over
all the airports, the ferries, the bus system, bridges, tunnels, waterfront
development, and publicly owned land. On top of this, they also have
authority over "international office buildings".
???
I don't know if a glorified harbor patrol has the expertise to regulate
"international office buildings", but my check of their budget records shows
that the yearly expenses of operating the WTC were about equal to the yearly
revenues from the rent. The only conclusion I could come to is that the
tenants were paying only for the maintenance and operation of the building,
not for its construction. It appears the construction costs were paid for
with revenue from ticket sales at the airports, ferries, road tolls, land
sales, etc.
It spooks me to see government in action.
RALPH HERTLE
Your post made for interesting reading.
The PA web site is at:
You might also be spooked when you consider the passivity
of the U.S. Presidency who fails to lead a conversion of
these socialist quasi-governments and pseudo-business
enterprises to free-enterprise and private ownership.
The President claims to be an economic conservative, and, in
fact, he is leaning strongly towards socialism. (ref: the PRC,
AMTRAK, and the PAONY&NJ, to name a few of his favorite
socialist organizations.)
The upper New York harbor is controlled by, and a huge number
of the bordering properties are owned by, the PA. I think that the
land beneath the rivers and harbors is owned by the PA. It is a
horrible place, with respect to the creation of valuable businesses
and profitable enterprises all along the water fronts of
Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, Staten Island, Long Island
and New Jersey.
Esthetically, it is a lost region.
I say that all the PA properties and quasi-business enterprises
should be sold to individuals and privately owned stock corporations.
I say, then turn us construction companies, architects, designers,
real estate developers, and private owners loose on the properties
formerly owned by the PA, and watch the biggest construction,
architectural, and value creation revolution in history happen.
Ralph Hertle
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::