Replacements For WTC Towers Are Ugly As Sin
Steven Litvintchouk
seven competing revised designs for replacing the World Trade Center
towers.
I think that most of the proposals are ugly as sin--much uglier than the
Twin Towers they're intended to replace.
Meier & Eisenmann: came up with what looks like a 1,000 foot tall
bookshelf:
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/slide20.asp
United Architects: came up with crooked slanted buildings that looks
like a scene from the sci-fi movie "Blade Runner":
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/slide26.asp
THINK Design: came up with twin metal framework towers (like the Eiffel
Tower), in which offices and museums are scattered at widely separated
levels:
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/slide39.asp
SOM & SANAA: came up with something so hideous that I can't even
describe it:
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_c/slides/slide18.asp
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlink.net
John R. Rybock
>Last Wednesday, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation unveiled the
>seven competing revised designs for replacing the World Trade Center
>towers.
>
>I think that most of the proposals are ugly as sin--much uglier than the
>Twin Towers they're intended to replace.
>
Bear in mind, however, most New Yorkers hated the WTC buildings when they were first proposed and
went up. Only time made the buildings grow on people. So immediate dislike of the look doesn't mean
that 10 years down the line, people will really like them.
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
> Last Wednesday, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation unveiled the
> seven competing revised designs for replacing the World Trade Center
> towers.
Nine, actually, with Think having 3 proposals (see below).
Since you left off Foster & Partners, Peterson/Littenberg,
and Daniel Libeskind ... ___________ ?
>
> I think that most of the proposals are ugly as sin--much uglier than the
> Twin Towers they're intended to replace.
>
> Meier & Eisenmann: came up with what looks like a 1,000 foot tall
> bookshelf:
>
> http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/slide20.asp
>
Yep. Some have called it a tic-tac-toe piece of work. For some
reason, it reminds me of "projects", as in tall structures the gov-
ernment tended to build in the '60s to house low income folks.
It's 5 conservative rectangular towers, with horizontal connec-
tions. Why they thought that horizontal connections would be
a difference maker in an otherwise dull plan? I don't know.
Their presentation reflects that they think of their design as a
pair of hands. If they were going for interconnecting hands,
they should have made it a curved structure, with the elements
actually interlocking, rather than having the gap between the
2-building _ 3-building arrangement.
>
> United Architects: came up with crooked slanted buildings that looks
> like a scene from the sci-fi movie "Blade Runner":
>
> http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/slide26.asp
>
That is one unusual design. Claims great safety, an important
consideration. As to aesthetics, I'm hard-pressed to say any-
thing positive about it. It sure could have benefited, if from
nothing else, by an idea of symmetry, form, and focus on a
pinnacle of merit rather than a rectangle at the top of the tallest
tower. I don't understand the lack of symmetry or meaningful
form in the buildings. It just looks like something thrown to-
gether with an ad hoc piece of architectural software (kind of
like a Picasso, but without artistic merit).
On the other hand, maybe there's something there that I'm
missing (and if there is, it would behoove those who favor
the plan to explain it in a meaningful way, as I just don't get
it, yet).
>
> THINK Design: came up with twin metal framework towers (like the Eiffel
> Tower), in which offices and museums are scattered at widely separated
> levels:
>
> http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/slide39.asp
>
Actually, Think came up with 3 distinct proposals:
(1) the twin 1,665 foot tall lattice structures (that you mentioned),
(2) a circular 2,100 foot tower with offices at the lower section
-- a hotel in the center -- and the remaining height being the
broadcast tower section,
and
(3) a triad of office buildings, the 3rd of which is undefined
(in height and structure, except that the height has been speci-
fied as the "tallest building in the world", thereby making oppo-
sition to it only valid if one objects to an undefined tallest office
building in the world).
Of course, the attention is focused on the tallest buildings in
each plan, but the scope of each plan reaches beyond that.
With Think, for example, their 2,100 foot tower is a counter-
point to a 30-story glass covered 13-acre domain, and their
"world's tallest building (undefined)" is a mere adjunct to
their ideas regarding a large park for the site.
>
> SOM & SANAA: came up with something so hideous that I can't even
> describe it:
>
> http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_c/slides/slide18.asp
>
A "vertical city", with the idea being density/functionality over
aesthetics. 'Tis why most polls (if not all) show the SOM pro-
posal in last place, thus far. That was a really weird idea. As
to why the buildings are conglomerated and slanted, that's
a mystery. Seems they may have been using the same ad
hoc piece of architectural software that United Artists utilized.
A dense conglomeration of 9 slanted-looking buildings is the
*last* thing most folks would want for the site.
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
(Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive Liberty,
Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
http://www.ghg.net/phf
~~~
Dave Zero
> Last Wednesday, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation unveiled
> the seven competing revised designs for replacing the World Trade
> Center towers.
>
> I think that most of the proposals are ugly as sin--much uglier than
> the Twin Towers they're intended to replace.
>
> Meier & Eisenmann: came up with what looks like a 1,000 foot tall
> bookshelf:
>
>
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_g/sl
ides/slide20.asp
Looks like somebody spent too much time playing with Legos and Erector
Sets to me!
> United Architects: came up with crooked slanted buildings that looks
> like a scene from the sci-fi movie "Blade Runner":
>
>
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_f/sl
ides/slide26.asp
Good call, Blade Runner! I like the look of those, they're incredible.
> THINK Design: came up with twin metal framework towers (like the
> Eiffel Tower), in which offices and museums are scattered at widely
> separated levels:
>
>
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_e/sl
ides/slide39.asp
I like it because it's tall - I like the way they seem concerned with
making it into something more than just another expensive office
building. But real estate there ain't cheap and I don't think it's
feasible to have mostly-empty structures with museums scattered widely.
At least the Blade Runner design could be packed with tenants.
>
> SOM & SANAA: came up with something so hideous that I can't even
> describe it:
>
>
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_c/sl
ides/slide18.asp
Yeah, thatis hideous. Looks like they tried to cram a bunch of tall
odd-looking buildings into too small a space.
I'll go with Blade Runner if I have a choice.
ANYTHING other than purely utile, "terrorist-safe" moderate-height
office buildings that in no way alter the skyline. Anybody's design that
doesn't incorporate an element of "fuck you, terrorists!" in it loses my
support.
--
Dave Zero - dave...@mindspring.com jesusofth...@hotmail.com
The Encyclopedia Tetrica: http://davezero.home.mindspring.com/
"And I don't care about making an ass of myself because most
people already realize I am one." - Dr. Kary B. Mullis
"It is not the critic that counts; not the man who points out how
the strong man stumbles or the doer of deeds could have them
better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the
arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood;
who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again,
because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but he
who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great
devotion; who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the
best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and
who at the worst, if he fails while daring greatly, knows that his
place shall never be with those cold and timid souls, who know
neither victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt
"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not
gather with me scatters." - Jesus Christ
Geo
do not work, I think one needs take the simplistic approach by merely
stepping back, looking at the designs, and seeing that they are just
plain ol' ugly.
Strabo
That's true. It is clear that given time, New Yorkers will accept any
condition.
Steven Litvintchouk
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
>
> "Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3E035D17...@earthlink.net...
> > Last Wednesday, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation unveiled the
> > seven competing revised designs for replacing the World Trade Center
> > towers.
>
> Nine, actually, with Think having 3 proposals (see below).
>
> Since you left off Foster & Partners, Peterson/Littenberg,
> and Daniel Libeskind ... ___________ ?
The Foster & Partners "Twin Towers" I could live with. They're novel
without being too hideous. (Ordinarily that would be damning with faint
praise, but given their "competition," I'm actually paying them a
compliment.) And they thought a lot about the transportation hub.
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_a/indv_elements.asp
I like the Daniel Libeskind design of the WTC site. Beautiful
architecture. But I do *NOT* like Mr. Libeskind's main idea--a 1,000
foot tall botanical garden. What a total white elephant. It will never
generate any revenue and will require lots of maintenance. And New York
City already has the wonderful New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx
New York, so we don't need another one. Maybe they could talk Mr.
Libeskind into replacing that botanical garden with a REAL office tower.
There really isn't much "meat" to the Peterson/Littenberg proposal.
They spent 90% of their time talking about the "New York Garden" on the
ground, and put those two slim "Twin Towers" in as a passing thought and
didn't say anything about their design. They seem more focused on the
garden than on the office buildings. They like all that vast empty
space. I do not. It's depressing rather than inspiring.
> > I think that most of the proposals are ugly as sin--much uglier than the
> > Twin Towers they're intended to replace.
> >
> > Meier & Eisenmann: came up with what looks like a 1,000 foot tall
> > bookshelf:
> >
> > http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/slide20.asp
> >
>
> Yep. Some have called it a tic-tac-toe piece of work. For some
> reason, it reminds me of "projects", as in tall structures the gov-
> ernment tended to build in the '60s to house low income folks.
>
> It's 5 conservative rectangular towers, with horizontal connec-
> tions. Why they thought that horizontal connections would be
> a difference maker in an otherwise dull plan? I don't know.
In this round of competition, the LMDC included a requirement that the
towers be able to withstand an impact of a fully fueled Boeing 767
jetliner (guess why). And that the top floors of the towers can be
evacuated even if entire floors are on fire (guess why).
Those thick horizontal tie-corridors are intended as fire escapes. If
you can't get down to the ground floor because there's a fire on an
upper floor, then you dash thru one of the horizontal tie-corridors to
another building and escape from there.
> Their presentation reflects that they think of their design as a
> pair of hands. If they were going for interconnecting hands,
> they should have made it a curved structure, with the elements
> actually interlocking, rather than having the gap between the
> 2-building _ 3-building arrangement.
Yes.
Also, the fingers of my hands are of different lengths and widths. They
could have made those horizontal tie-corridors of different lengths and
widths to vary the monotony.
> > United Architects: came up with crooked slanted buildings that looks
> > like a scene from the sci-fi movie "Blade Runner":
> >
> > http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/slide26.asp
> >
>
> That is one unusual design. Claims great safety, an important
> consideration.
That's partly due to its sheer massiveness. You've got those half dozen
crooked towers that touch each other and extend a good deal of the way
around the WTC site, "protecting" the memorial park beneath.
> As to aesthetics, I'm hard-pressed to say any-
> thing positive about it. It sure could have benefited, if from
> nothing else, by an idea of symmetry, form, and focus on a
> pinnacle of merit rather than a rectangle at the top of the tallest
> tower. I don't understand the lack of symmetry or meaningful
> form in the buildings. It just looks like something thrown to-
> gether with an ad hoc piece of architectural software (kind of
> like a Picasso, but without artistic merit).
Look at this view of it:
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/slide17.asp
The tallest building actually looks like a stylized figure of a woman
(wide hips) standing on two legs (her right leg is bent at the knee).
Like those "Venus figurines" the archaeologists found.
And this woman has her three "children" (the other three buildings)
close to her: one on her right, two on her left. The "child" on her
left has her legs crossed (as kids sometimes do while standing).
So maybe they were going for an "organic" feel, to get away from the
sleek "glass box" monotony of places like Sixth Avenue and 48th Street.
> > THINK Design: came up with twin metal framework towers (like the Eiffel
> > Tower), in which offices and museums are scattered at widely separated
> > levels:
> >
> > http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/slide39.asp
> >
>
> Actually, Think came up with 3 distinct proposals:
>
> (1) the twin 1,665 foot tall lattice structures (that you mentioned),
>
> (2) a circular 2,100 foot tower with offices at the lower section
> -- a hotel in the center -- and the remaining height being the
> broadcast tower section,
>
> and
>
> (3) a triad of office buildings, the 3rd of which is undefined
> (in height and structure, except that the height has been speci-
> fied as the "tallest building in the world", thereby making oppo-
> sition to it only valid if one objects to an undefined tallest office
> building in the world).
>
> Of course, the attention is focused on the tallest buildings in
> each plan, but the scope of each plan reaches beyond that.
> With Think, for example, their 2,100 foot tower is a counter-
> point to a 30-story glass covered 13-acre domain, and their
> "world's tallest building (undefined)" is a mere adjunct to
> their ideas regarding a large park for the site.
I could live with the THINK proposal in any of its 3 configurations. At
least it's daring without being weird or hideous. And in this
competition, that's a warm compliment indeed.
> > SOM & SANAA: came up with something so hideous that I can't even
> > describe it:
> >
> > http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_c/slides/slide18.asp
> >
>
> A "vertical city", with the idea being density/functionality over
> aesthetics. 'Tis why most polls (if not all) show the SOM pro-
> posal in last place, thus far. That was a really weird idea. As
> to why the buildings are conglomerated and slanted, that's
> a mystery.
Their rationale is that they want the tops of the buildings to all be
connected together to form some kind of "rooftop garden".
Post-and-lintel with entire skyscrapers as the "posts." Hideous.
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
> Short of trying to read any real meaning in to why these designs do or
> do not work, I think one needs take the simplistic approach by merely
> stepping back, looking at the designs, and seeing that they are just
> plain ol' ugly.
Actually, there are 9 designs, so each should be eval-
uated on its own merit. One of the Think designs is a
slot for the future tallest building in the world, so by def-
inition, it could only be called "ugly" by a guess, as it
hasn't been specified. Another is a 2,100 foot tall cone,
exterior undefined, so it could only be called "ugly" if
one has something against 2,100 foot tall cones.
The Foster & Partners design is beautiful and artistic
(twin kissing towers with exterior triangular impressions
giving the illusion of separate triangular sections which
are, in fact, spacious interconnects), unless one is put
off by the challenge in symmetry it presents. I think that
design offers much more via 3-D circling of the build-
ings, and therein resides its beauty and appreciation
for its illusory symmetry.
The Peterson/Littenberg design is standard Empire
State Building architecture, symmetrical and (if one likes
that style of architecture) beautiful.
So, there are 4 designs not "ugly", although "ugly" is a
subjective statement that might be assigned to anything,
based on one's personal views.
A design with potential, the Think twin towers, depending
on lighting, could be very beautiful, but I can understand
how a lattice-structure might be perceived as "ugly" by
some. As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
As for the 4 other designs, Daniel Libeskind's Garden
Spire is beautiful aesthetically, mating to the reaching
for the sky and appreciation for life concepts, in my
view. The 70 story building in his design is somewhat
standard, except for the sloped roof.
SOM's design has been roundly rejected as "ugly". The
tic-tac-toe design of Meier has not been well-received.
The United Architects design is, well, as with all efforts
at art, arguably, akin to SOM's shortcomings, aesthetic-
ally, although apart from SOM's density problem, and
with claimed advantages in trying to present itself as
a forest and a cathedral - I'm not convinced they accom-
plished those goals, though they certainly made quite
a modernistic go of it.
TellTheTruth
All of them.
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E035D17...@earthlink.net...
Geo
designs (at least the 7 I saw) are ugly. I have not seen the 2100 foot
cone. Something that large would be quite awesome, though.
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
>
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
> >
> > "Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:3E035D17...@earthlink.net...
> > > Last Wednesday, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation unveiled the
> > > seven competing revised designs for replacing the World Trade Center
> > > towers.
> >
> > Nine, actually, with Think having 3 proposals (see below).
> >
> > Since you left off Foster & Partners, Peterson/Littenberg,
> > and Daniel Libeskind ... ___________ ?
>
> The Foster & Partners "Twin Towers" I could live with. They're novel
> without being too hideous. (Ordinarily that would be damning with faint
> praise, but given their "competition," I'm actually paying them a
> compliment.) And they thought a lot about the transportation hub.
Something about that work, its appearance of non-symmetry while
being, in actuality, totally symmetrical, and what it would look like
throughout the day, with the passing of the sun hitting the slanted
surfaces at different angles, and at night, if lit up ... and the con-
nections between buildings, and the naturalist flow-through ... and
the appearance of being different buildings based on viewing
angle ... all are very compelling ... a worthy remembrance of the
old WTC, commemorating those who were killed, while at the
same time moving forward and providing inspiration and improve-
ment over the former WTC design.
>
> http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_a/indv_elements.asp
>
> I like the Daniel Libeskind design of the WTC site. Beautiful
> architecture. But I do *NOT* like Mr. Libeskind's main idea--a 1,000
> foot tall botanical garden. What a total white elephant. It will never
> generate any revenue and will require lots of maintenance. And New York
> City already has the wonderful New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx
> New York, so we don't need another one. Maybe they could talk Mr.
> Libeskind into replacing that botanical garden with a REAL office tower.
You may be right, economically speaking, but the botanical tower
really doesn't take up that much real estate, and certainly it would
get a lot of visitors due to its locale and the publicity associated
with such a building.
>
> There really isn't much "meat" to the Peterson/Littenberg proposal.
> They spent 90% of their time talking about the "New York Garden" on the
> ground, and put those two slim "Twin Towers" in as a passing thought and
> didn't say anything about their design. They seem more focused on the
> garden than on the office buildings. They like all that vast empty
> space. I do not. It's depressing rather than inspiring.
I wonder if they really have an "in" (as reported via an article at MSNBC)
as the chosen design. If so, it would be a decision to go conservative
and look to the past, rather than the future.
Thanks for that description. Yes, I can picture the tallest building
as a headless Venus figurine and the other buildings as children.
I wonder if that's what they were going for and if so, why they
didn't offer that in their proposal. Maybe it's obviously an artistic
expression as you described, to those with artistic proclivities,
especially in art communities in New York. Still, even though
their presentation was very lengthy, it would have been nice if
they had a slide of their building next to some objects of art,
like a Venus figurine, to help us non-artistic types to make that
connection to their buildings being a 1,600 foot tall work of art.
Now that you've pointed out that correlation, I have a greater ap-
preciation for their effort.
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
(Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive Liberty,
Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
http://www.ghg.net/phf
~~~
>
Lu
>seven competing revised designs for replacing the World Trade Center
>towers.
>
>I think that most of the proposals are ugly as sin--much uglier than the
>Twin Towers they're intended to replace.
>
>Meier & Eisenmann: came up with what looks like a 1,000 foot tall
>bookshelf:
>
Steven Litvintchouk
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
>
> "Geo" <G...@sdf.com> wrote in message news:3E0377B...@sdf.com...
> > Short of trying to read any real meaning in to why these designs do or
> > do not work, I think one needs take the simplistic approach by merely
> > stepping back, looking at the designs, and seeing that they are just
> > plain ol' ugly.
>
> Actually, there are 9 designs, so each should be eval-
> uated on its own merit. One of the Think designs is a
> slot for the future tallest building in the world, so by def-
> inition, it could only be called "ugly" by a guess, as it
> hasn't been specified. Another is a 2,100 foot tall cone,
> exterior undefined, so it could only be called "ugly" if
> one has something against 2,100 foot tall cones.
>
> The Foster & Partners design is beautiful and artistic
> (twin kissing towers with exterior triangular impressions
> giving the illusion of separate triangular sections which
> are, in fact, spacious interconnects), unless one is put
> off by the challenge in symmetry it presents. I think that
> design offers much more via 3-D circling of the build-
> ings, and therein resides its beauty and appreciation
> for its illusory symmetry.
I could definitely live with that one. Looks even better at night.
> A design with potential, the Think twin towers, depending
> on lighting, could be very beautiful, but I can understand
> how a lattice-structure might be perceived as "ugly" by
> some.
That was the initial reaction of the French to the Eiffel Tower too.
They got used to it.
But the "ugliness" in the THINK Towers comes in the asymmetry of diverse
sub-buildings of all different designs and colors (and architects)
embedded in the framework. It's like taking the Eiffel Tower and
daubing multi-colored graffiti on it--spoils the symmetry.
The THINK "Twin Towers" could work if they could come up with
*guidelines* for the styles of the embedded sub-buildings (like the
museum), so that there is some uniformity and symmetry to these. At
least the sub-buildings should look like they belong together in the one
framework.
> As for the 4 other designs, Daniel Libeskind's Garden
> Spire is beautiful aesthetically, mating to the reaching
> for the sky and appreciation for life concepts, in my
> view. The 70 story building in his design is somewhat
> standard, except for the sloped roof.
The Garden Spire is still a white elephant. A super-tall skyscraper
dedicated to nothing but botanical gardens. In New York City, which
already has a world-class New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx and
doesn't need another.
Lower Manhattan real estate is too valuable to waste on such
affectations.
Don Linsenbach
Steven Litvintchouk
Yes. Especially at night, the vision of the architects does come out.
So I think New Yorkers could not only grow to accept the design, but to
like it.
> > Look at this view of it:
> >
> > http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/slide17.asp
> >
> > The tallest building actually looks like a stylized figure of a woman
> > (wide hips) standing on two legs (her right leg is bent at the knee).
I wonder how they can get an express elevator to run diagonally all the
way up her bent right "leg."
> > Like those "Venus figurines" the archaeologists found.
> >
> > And this woman has her three "children" (the other three buildings)
> > close to her: one on her right, two on her left. The "child" on her
> > left has her legs crossed (as kids sometimes do while standing).
> >
> > So maybe they were going for an "organic" feel, to get away from the
> > sleek "glass box" monotony of places like Sixth Avenue and 48th Street.
>
> Thanks for that description. Yes, I can picture the tallest building
> as a headless Venus figurine and the other buildings as children.
> I wonder if that's what they were going for and if so, why they
> didn't offer that in their proposal.
They just barely allude to it--when they mention "protectiveness":
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/slide6.asp
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/slide19.asp
What the 4 buildings may symbolize is the "protectiveness" of a nuclear
family unit and the fact that the 4 buildings are touching (i.e.,
shoulder-to-shoulder). So that on the ground, you feel like your
"family" is watching over you??
And look at THIS view (left-hand picture only):
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/slide4.asp
When you're looking up at the buildings, that's like a newborn baby
looking up from his crib at the adults and grown children staring down
at him. In this view, the buildings really do look like giant Venus
figurines, and we have a baby's perspective on the "family" we're born
into.
Maybe the architects themselves weren't even conscious of this "organic"
orientation. This "nuclear family" of four buildings might have bubbled
up from their subconscious onto their drawing boards. It's subliminal.
The question is, is it deliberately subliminal on their part?
Docky Wocky
from Democrat architectural groups.
When things get serious, the conservative elements will make the final
decision.
gruhn
bookshelf:
But... but... but... it has lots of pages of justification and generation
and stuff. It must be good.
> like a scene from the sci-fi movie "Blade Runner":
First glance - agree.
Yup, that seems to be the feel they wanted. Anybody look at this one close
enough to figure out it if it would stand up? It's at least "fun". A lot of
effort spent on the non-tower spaces. Suppose that's appropriate as it is
how most people will experience it.
> THINK Design: came up with twin metal framework towers (like the Eiffel
Was there any usable space in that one?
> SOM & SANAA: came up with something so hideous that I can't even
Idaknow, it might be fun. I'd like more intertwining though. ;-)
Seems to be a lot of reuse of original towers, but this is 2002 so they can
wiggle and stuff. And some Band-Aid/Petronas/Hitchhikers' Guide Building
(sorry, forget name) stuff with bridges.
creosote
> Last Wednesday, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation unveiled the
> seven competing revised designs for replacing the World Trade Center
> towers.
>
> I think that most of the proposals are ugly as sin--much uglier than the
> Twin Towers they're intended to replace.
>
> Meier & Eisenmann: came up with what looks like a 1,000 foot tall
> bookshelf:
No shit. Two or three of the original designs were alright,
particularly the one where the buildings themselves looked like a
memorial. All of the original designs alotted plenty of office space.
What we are going to see, apparently, is yet another illustration of
how the capitalist system is unable to place anything above the
almighty dollar, not even the lives of 3000 people.
King Pineapple
message news:3E035D17...@earthlink.net...
> I think that most of the proposals are ugly as sin--much uglier than the
> Twin Towers they're intended to replace.
Probably so. I haven't looked at the designs, but will comment further when
I have had the chance.
It should be noted that many New Yorkers thought the *original* WTC towers
were ugly and a blight on the lower Manhattan skyline. My family was
stationed for 3 years on Governors Island, just off the tip of lower
Manhattan in the harbor (where Reagan and Gorby had their summit), and that
island has perhaps the best view around of lower Manhattan's skyline.
Prior to the construction of the WTC, lower Manhattan's skyscrapers, when
viewed from the harbor to the south, (those of you who have ever taken the
Staten Island Ferry will know what I refer to here) had a roughly
"symmetrical" appearance, with the highest towers all in the middle. The WTC
threw this whole rhythm off balance. Many of the residents of "The Rock"
commented on this as we watched the towers rise in the late 60s. Many of us
thought the same thing-they looked out of place.
I personally favor a shorter series of towers-maybe in the 30 to 50 story
range-rather than a tall set like before.
Speaking of Governors Island, one of the early post-9/11 proposals was to
erect a new 1,000' transmission tower to replace the lost TV towers on the
north WTC tower right in the middle of the island. I saw a picture of this,
it was UGLY...
Just so you can be prepared for it: Bush is toast"
DNC Laughingstock John LaVoy, July 11, 2002
King Pineapple
news:hro60vo3t0354a0mb...@4ax.com...
> Bear in mind, however, most New Yorkers hated the WTC buildings when they
were first proposed and
> went up.
I mentioned this to Steve also, do you have a reliable cite to back this up?
Was there some sort of poll done back then where "66 percent of New Yorkers"
or something like that said they hated how they looked?
As I told Steve, I lived on Governors Island while the original towers were
being built, and all of us there hated them...
"This conservation crap has gone a little too far" - Al Bundy
Wordblind
> went up.
And they were right to. Most large architecture is pig-ugly and it
stays pig-ugly. You just have to stand back a minute and think about
how nice it would be if a lot of these monstrosities were not there.
But wouldn't it be nice if something nice went up for a change.
wordblind
Steven Litvintchouk
King Pineapple wrote:
>
> Paid Republican Thug "Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> message news:3E035D17...@earthlink.net...
>
> > I think that most of the proposals are ugly as sin--much uglier than the
> > Twin Towers they're intended to replace.
>
> Probably so. I haven't looked at the designs, but will comment further when
> I have had the chance.
>
> It should be noted that many New Yorkers thought the *original* WTC towers
> were ugly and a blight on the lower Manhattan skyline. My family was
> stationed for 3 years on Governors Island, just off the tip of lower
> Manhattan in the harbor (where Reagan and Gorby had their summit), and that
> island has perhaps the best view around of lower Manhattan's skyline.
>
> Prior to the construction of the WTC, lower Manhattan's skyscrapers, when
> viewed from the harbor to the south, (those of you who have ever taken the
> Staten Island Ferry will know what I refer to here) had a roughly
> "symmetrical" appearance, with the highest towers all in the middle. The WTC
> threw this whole rhythm off balance. Many of the residents of "The Rock"
> commented on this as we watched the towers rise in the late 60s. Many of us
> thought the same thing-they looked out of place.
>
> I personally favor a shorter series of towers-maybe in the 30 to 50 story
> range-rather than a tall set like before.
You'll probably get your wish or something close to it.
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" clued me in to an MSNBC report that basically
says that the whole "competition" may be a political fake anyway.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/849339.asp?0cv=CB21
The Port Authority's own in-house architect team, Peterson/Littenberg,
simply dusted off the modest, unassuming design that New Yorkers had
already rejected earlier this year. (A big garden where we can go to
mourn and weep, and two modest-looking towers.)
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_b/slides/slide20.asp
And the Lower Manhattan Development Commission deliberately surrounded
this with those six other architectural teams in this "competition," as
strawmen to be rejected so that the Peterson/Littenberg design will win
by default. Which is probably what the Port Authority wanted all along,
and was trying to ram down New Yorkers' throats.
Steven Litvintchouk
creosote wrote:
>
> Steven Litvintchouk <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3E035D17...@earthlink.net>...
> > Last Wednesday, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation unveiled the
> > seven competing revised designs for replacing the World Trade Center
> > towers.
> >
> > I think that most of the proposals are ugly as sin--much uglier than the
> > Twin Towers they're intended to replace.
> >
> > Meier & Eisenmann: came up with what looks like a 1,000 foot tall
> > bookshelf:
>
> No shit. Two or three of the original designs were alright,
> particularly the one where the buildings themselves looked like a
> memorial. All of the original designs alotted plenty of office space.
Many New Yorkers, and other Americans like myself, wanted something
bolder and more spectacular as a statement that neither New York nor
America is going to be intimidated by what the terrorists did. Rather,
we'll replace the WTC with something much better.
> What we are going to see, apparently, is yet another illustration of
> how the capitalist system is unable to place anything above the
> almighty dollar, not even the lives of 3000 people.
Unfortunately, the LMDC is listening to apologists for America like you,
who want something modest and unassuming as your political statement
against your own country.
Dave Simpson
architecture was more offended than Prince Charles was over London's
architectural shortcomings.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> Bear in mind, however, most New Yorkers hated the WTC buildings when they
> were first proposed and went up. Only time made the buildings grow on people.
> So immediate dislike of the look doesn't mean that 10 years down the line,
> people will really like them.
The World Trade Center twin towers were ugly all the way until
September 11, 2001. They were nothing but huge boxes -- ugly.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> No shit. Two or three of the original designs were alright,
> particularly the one where the buildings themselves looked like a
> memorial. All of the original designs alotted plenty of office space.
> What we are going to see, apparently, is yet another illustration of
> how the capitalist system is unable to place anything above the
> almighty dollar, not even the lives of 3000 people.
Actually, the projects are likely to fail from a capitalistic
(market) standpoint. My friend in DC who was outraged at these dorky
design proposals is very liberal, at times truly radical, but she's
not disconnected from the real world. Does anybody seriously think
that, given both the present kinds of conditions in New York City, and
the economy, and the trends toward moving businesses out to the
suburbs, decentralization, and out-sourcing, that any gargantuan new
addition of downtown office space is going to be fully occupied?
A more modest project, with more attention paid to the effect on the
rest of the community not restricted only to office space but also
including such things as the transportation systems of that area
(re-opening streets, for example) makes a lot more sense. (I told my
friend that no huge monument to the terrorist victims is needed; a
discreet, small, elegant flower garden with perhaps a small model of
the original Twin Towers would be classier and wouldn't take up a lot
of space that could be put to other uses.)
For those who are curious, my liberal friend's idea was this:
...
"Anyway, I tried to come up with something that would be more
appropriate to the period when the lost buildings were built. That
period probably produced the ugliest buildings this country has ever
seen, but there were a few good elements from back then. We'll start
with the one good design element of the WTC towers--the tall, narrow
gothic arches on their skin. The builders of the monument could use
the original drawings for the buildings to produce exact replicas of
the arches, and these could be placed around the original footprints
of the building (by the way, I've learned that apparently the
buildings' foundation, known colloquially as the "bathtub," has to
stay because it keeps out the water from the Hudson River). This would
evoke images of ruined medieval cathedrals, but it would look more
modern because of the different material and proportion. The area
inside the arches would primarily be grassy, with tables, benches, and
trees, but at the center would be rectangular ponds with goldfish and
water plants, like the ones at the National Arboretum's main building,
which was built in the late 1960s. Buildings from
that period often had fountains that shot up a stream of water, so
some of those could go in the ponds. This monument would be pretty
and would evoke the
appearance of the lost buildings, the feel of the period when they
were built, and the mournful feel of old ruins. The fish and plants
would enliven it. Oh,
and the sides of the ponds would slope so that if ducks wanted to
raise their babies there, they'd be able to climb out (that's been a
problem with straight-sided ponds and fountains in DC)."
...
Dave Simpson
Mike Wilcox
The one I looked at would be a real target for terrorists ( The tic, tac
toe one), from the right angle it looks like a giant # 1.
Mike Wilcox
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
>
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <p...@ghg.net> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Thanks for that description. Yes, I can picture the tallest building
> > as a headless Venus figurine and the other buildings as children.
> > I wonder if that's what they were going for and if so, why they
> > didn't offer that in their proposal.
>
> They just barely allude to it--when they mention "protectiveness":
>
> http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/slide6.asp
> http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/slide19.asp
>
> What the 4 buildings may symbolize is the "protectiveness" of
> a nuclear family unit and the fact that the 4 buildings are touching
> (i.e., shoulder-to-shoulder). So that on the ground, you feel like
> your "family" is watching over you??
>
> And look at THIS view (left-hand picture only):
>
> http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/slide4.asp
>
> When you're looking up at the buildings, that's like a newborn baby
> looking up from his crib at the adults and grown children staring down
> at him. In this view, the buildings really do look like giant Venus
> figurines, and we have a baby's perspective on the "family" we're born
> into.
>
> Maybe the architects themselves weren't even conscious of this "organic"
> orientation. This "nuclear family" of four buildings might have bubbled
> up from their subconscious onto their drawing boards. It's subliminal.
> The question is, is it deliberately subliminal on their part?
One would think so, and once again, thanks for the perspec-
tives on the United Architects design -- very informative and
helpful.
A good recent article with opinions on the new designs:
---
December 21, 2002
Trade center plans glow with potential
Blueprints not just for N.Y., but for urban life
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/12/21/MN217762.DTL
---
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I recently posted a subjective ranking on the designs, with the
United Architects design ranked 5th. Thanks to your insight,
I've changed my mind on that design and moved it up to 3rd,
as I really like the concept of "buildings as sculpture -- buildings
as overseers-protectors -- connected buildings with a common
area of public domain on the 60th floor -- buildings as a cathe-
dral". I would still prefer, however, a more distinct element at
the top of the tallest tower in that design. Perhaps a sphere at
the top would be a good idea.
Two of the three Think designs (Sky Park and Great Room)
are great as far as they go, but since they didn't go into detail
on actual detailed models for the tallest building in those par-
ticular designs, I ranked those at 4th and 6th, respectively.
Ranked in order of import/significance/potential, per subjec-
tive assessment (updated as of Dec 21, 2002) ...
Excerpts are from information at
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/19/3WTC.TMP
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/4770121.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2587707.stm
- - - - - - - - - - - -
1. Foster and Partners - Twin Towers - 1,764 feet
... We propose to celebrate New York's positive spirit with
a unique twinned tower-the most secure, the greenest and
the tallest in the world. This is a huge responsibility because
human safety must be paramount. Immediately following
September 11th Foster and Partners commissioned an
expert multidisciplinary task force to conduct an in-depth
study into safety in tall buildings. Their findings inform the
design of this new structure.
The crystalline tower is based on triangular geometries-cross-
cultural symbols of harmony, wisdom, purity, unity and strength.
Its two halves kiss at three points, creating public observation
platforms, exhibits, cafes and other amenities. These links also
have a safety benefit, as escape routes from one tower to the
other. They will break down the tower's scale into village-like
clusters, each with its own atrium.
These tree-filled spaces-parks in the sky-will purify the natural
air that will ventilate the building. A state-of-the-art multi-layered
facade will enable the towers to avoid energy-wasting air condi-
tioning for up to 80% of the year. The building's raking corners
offer the opportunity for funiculars to transport the public vertic-
ally up the building.
... Foster, who designed Europe's tallest tower, marks the sky-
line with a pair of 1,568-foot towers that angle in and out to, in
his words, "kiss and touch and become one" at several spots.
Elevators would ride the exterior; the rooftops would be framed
public spaces, with the skin of the building rising another 200
feet.
Foster and Partners - Twin Towers - Highlights
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_a/slides/images/Slide33.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_a/slides/images/Slide36.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_a/slides/images/Slide37.jpg
- - - - - - - - - - - -
2. Think Design - Towers of Culture - Twin 1,665-foot
high lattice-work structures
The World Cultural Center, The World Trade Center is reborn
as the World Cultural Center. Built above and around the foot-
prints of the World Trade Center towers, but without touching
them, two open latticework structures create a "site" for devel-
opment of the Towers of Culture.
Within these soaring structures, distinctive buildings designed
by different architects are phased to complete a program of
innovative cultural facilities: the Memorial (from the footprints
of the original towers to the top of the highest platform in the
world), the 9/11 Interpretative Museum, a Performing Arts
Center, an International Conference Center, an open Amphi-
theater, viewing platforms and public facilities for education Arts
and Sciences reconstruct the skyline of the City with the icons
of the Public Realm.
The Towers emerge from large glass reflecting pools that bring
natural light to the retail and transit concourse. Two large-scale
turbines harvest wind to power the elevators of the Center that
will serve 8.5 million visitors a year. ...
Think Design - Towers of Culture - Highlights
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide39.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide40.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide41.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide53.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide54.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide55.jpg
- - - - - - - - - - - -
3. United Architects - United Towers - 1,620 feet
United Towers encompasses over 10.5 million square feet
in a single contiguous building to be built in phases, the high-
est tower measuring 1620 feet, approximately 112 floors.
The interconnection of the five towers provides for unique
commercial and public space. For example, at 800 feet in
the air, approximately the 60th floor, a multi-level "City in the
Sky" connects the towers with gardens, educational centers,
shopping, cafes, a sports center, a broadcast center and a
conference center.
... This single building built in five phases will not only be the
tallest building in the world, it will also be one of the safest.
Each of the sloping towers contains multiple independent
stairways, connected every 30 floors by areas of refuge. From
any point in every building there are many ways for people to
exit, having the option of going down, and of moving horizont-
ally into an adjacent building.
United Architects - United Towers - Highlights
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/images/Slide11.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/images/Slide12.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/images/Slide18.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/images/Slide21.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/images/Slide22.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/images/Slide24.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/images/Slide26.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/images/Slide29.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/images/Slide61.jpg
- - - - - - - - - - - -
4. Think Designs - The Great Room - Single Tower - 2,100 feet
The Great Room is a vast, covered Public Plaza connecting
all the elements of the program under an enormous free-span
glass ceiling. A soaring living memorial, encompassing 13
acres (in a 30-story-high glass box, framing it with buildings),
serves as the Gateway to the City and as the Great Hall of the
Transportation Center-an unprecedented place for arrival, cel-
ebration, memory, and civic events.
Two glass cylinders protect the footprints of the WTC Towers
as they surround and articulate the Memorial site and the en-
trance to a 9/11 Interpretative Museum.
The tallest structure in the world (2,100 ft), including offices,
hotel and a transmission tower, completes the program, is a
counterpoint to the Great Room, and redefines the skyline of
the City.
Think Design - The Great Room - Highlights
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/images/plan_des_images/firme_sig1.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide24.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide25.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide26.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide35.jpg
- - - - - - - - - - - -
5. Daniel Libeskind - 1,776-foot-high Garden Spire
Those who were lost have become heroes. To commemorate
those lost lives, I created two large public places, the Park of
Heroes and the Wedge of Light. Each year on September 11th
between the hours of 8:46 a.m., when the first airplane hit and
10:28 a.m., when the second tower collapsed, the sun will shine
without shadow, in perpetual tribute to altruism and courage.
... The sky will be home again to a towering spire of 1776 feet
high, the "Gardens of the World". Why gardens? Because
gardens are a constant affirmation of life. A skyscraper rises
above its predecessors, reasserting the pre-eminence of free-
dom and beauty, restoring the spiritual peak to the city, creating
an icon that speaks of our vitality in the face of danger and our
optimism in the aftermath of tragedy. Life victorious.
... Libeskind's proposal would keep the west edge of the site
as it now is, a pit framed by the concrete slurry wall that keeps
water from seeping in. This area would serve as the memorial
and includes the location of the original 110-story towers. But
on the west, an angular office tower would jut up 70 stories.
Next to it, a slender shaft would rise roughly 1,500 feet, turning
into a triangular greenhouse -- topped by a 1,776-foot-high spire.
Daniel Libeskind - Garden Spire - Highlights
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_d/slides/images/Slide2.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_d/slides/images/Slide8.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_d/slides/images/Slide13.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_d/slides/images/Slide18.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_d/slides/images/Slide21.jpg
- - - - - - - - - - - -
6. Think Design - Sky Park - World's Tallest Building (height to
be determined)
A ten block, 16-acre rooftop Public Park is a living memorial that
floats above the familiar scale of the New York City street grid.
... The Park includes groves of trees, an amphitheater, cafes,
an ice-skating rink, fountains, community gardens and multiple
sites for additional Memorials. Ramps, pedestrian bridges
(including one to the Winter Garden), escalators, and a "verti-
cal pocket park" elevator provide convenient connections within
the Park and to the street.
... On the Park's perimeter, three large office towers (including
the world's tallest) complete the program in subsequent phases.
The towers are designed as independent buildings and rise high
above the Park to redefine the skyline of the City.
Think Design - Sky Park - Highlights
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide3.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide4.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide15.jpg
- - - - - - - - - - - -
7. Peterson/Littenberg - Twin Towers - 1,400 feet
... This design features twin 1,400 ft towers with a large memor-
ial park in the middle.
This plan creates a whole new city district with many different
places and experiences. The heart of the district is a special
Public Garden, whose shape and geometry are generated by
the WTC tower footprints.
... The garden is sunken below the streets and located behind
the adjacent blocks. It serves as an inner courtyard for the whole
city, a place of refuge.
Peterson/Littenberg - Twin Towers - Highlights
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/images/plan_des_images/firmb_sig2.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/images/plan_des_images/firmb_sig3.jpg
- - - - - - - - - - - -
8. Richard Meier & Partners - Memorial Square - 1,111 feet
Memorial Square is defined on the east and north sides with
hybrid buildings that rise 1,111 feet ... The essence of the
ground plan reappears in the composition of the buildings,
which only occupy 27 percent of the site, leaving the re-
maining twelve acres to be developed as public space. The
two buildings comprised of five vertical sections and inter-
connecting horizontal floors, represent a new typology in
the tradition of innovative skyscraper design.
Richard Meier & Partners - Memorial Square - Highlights
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/images/Slide2.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/images/Slide15.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/images/Slide20.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/images/Slide21.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/images/Slide24.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/images/Slide26.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/images/Slide29.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/images/Slide39.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/images/Slide40.jpg
- - - - - - - - - - - -
9. Skidmore Owings and Merrill - Vertical City - 80 storeys
Our proposal is to reconnect the city by creating a dense grid
of vertical structures that support multiple strata of public and
cultural spaces. Our vision is one that moves beyond the
historical drive to build high only in order to maximize the lim-
ited resource of land, it is one that builds to multiply that very
resource for the greater public. Our proposal covers 16 acres,
and in turn, returns those 16 acres twice, by providing within its
various horizontal strata, 16 acres of sky gardens and an addi-
tional 16 acres of cultural space.
We believe that the future of the global city must provide sub-
stantive solutions for increasingly densified space ... Our pro-
posal reaches beyond the historical exchange of equal com-
merce for equal land. It doubles the return in our quest for
quality of environment. And in turn gives Lower Manhattan a
larger expanse of square footage dedicated to cultural activity
than the sum of all the city's existing cultural spaces.
Skidmore Owings and Merrill - Vertical City - Highlights
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_c/slides/images/Slide4.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_c/slides/images/Slide10.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_c/slides/images/Slide15.jpg
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_c/slides/images/Slide18.jpg
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Steven Litvintchouk
Look at it from this angle:
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/slide40.asp
It doesn't blend into the skyline even at night. Looks like some kind
of Grade B movie monster has emerged from the sea to attack New York.
Geo
But, it would be cool to fly through those openings in Flight Simulator.
> Mike Wilcox
>
>
Wordblind
>
> THINK Design: came up with twin metal framework towers (like the Eiffel
> levels:
>
Think Team's design is not really for the towers at all, but for the
grounds at the base. Their rather silly and inconsequential "towers"
can be dispensed with, and some better towers, such as the Norman
Foster, can be substituted to good effect, while retaining Think
team's concepts about the grounds.
wordblind
Gocha Once
Leave it alone.. flat with some Trees
NYC does not have to build on every square foot of space.
Time to take it out of the City area and start developing
that wonderful country side.
Move those 50000 people into a less crowded area.
Maybe time to create a NEW City...
Q
"Wordblind" <wordbl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a371691c.02122...@posting.google.com...
Steven Litvintchouk
Gocha Once wrote:
>
> They should make it a Free Space...Public Space...
> Leave it alone.. flat with some Trees
Manhattan already has Central Park.
And the WTC site generated a significant part of the revenue for New
York State. In this economy, nobody has the surplus wealth to create a
big empty space that generates no income.
Don Linsenbach
> Gocha Once wrote:
> >
> > They should make it a Free Space...Public Space...
> > Leave it alone.. flat with some Trees
>
> Manhattan already has Central Park.
I thought *green space* was a good thing.
I mean, you can't have too many tree covered parks, right ?
> And the WTC site generated a significant part of the revenue for New
> York State. In this economy, nobody has the surplus wealth to create a
> big empty space that generates no income.
Nobody has the surplus wealth to build a hulking monolith derived from grief
that will never be leased.
"Let it be"
-- Paul McCartney
Steven Litvintchouk
Don Linsenbach wrote:
>
> "Steven Litvintchouk"> wrote
> > Gocha Once wrote:
> > >
> > > They should make it a Free Space...Public Space...
> > > Leave it alone.. flat with some Trees
> >
> > Manhattan already has Central Park.
>
> I thought *green space* was a good thing.
> I mean, you can't have too many tree covered parks, right ?
If you're trying to make money, then you can certainly have too many
parks and not enough income-generating real estate.
> > And the WTC site generated a significant part of the revenue for New
> > York State. In this economy, nobody has the surplus wealth to create a
> > big empty space that generates no income.
>
> Nobody has the surplus wealth to build a hulking monolith derived from grief
> that will never be leased.
The original WTC was nearly fully leased.
A new WTC that is "derived from grief" will not work.
But a new WTC that is derived from pride and aspiration, will work.
That is why it should be bold towers with a modest memorial, not a huge
memorial with unassuming buildings.
It's time to bury our dead and get past our grief, and continue on with
our responsibilities.
Don Linsenbach
> Don Linsenbach wrote:
> > Nobody has the surplus wealth to build a hulking monolith derived from
grief
> > that will never be leased.
>
Face reality, that's what you have to work with.
Do you really believe anyone can occupy the new monolith without reflecting
on those that are forsaken ?
Wordblind
> Face reality, that's what you have to work with.
If it's Linsenbach telling you to do this, it is better not to face it.
wordblind