SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Never Built & Visionary Projects (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=342)
-   -   NEW JERSEY | Liberty World Trade Center -TTII| 1,515 FT / 462 M | 115 FLOORS | VISION (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=172731)

Aleks Aug 20, 2009 2:08 AM

Nobody said that there was something wrong with the NY skyline pre 9/11. And isn't broke? Really?

And wow, really, do you really think that redesigning the entire complex won't cost more than what's being done now? They're started building foundations, the towers and the PATH terminal. Do yout think they'll be able to use the cores of 1WTC and 4WTC for those "new" twin towers? What about all the new permits the developers will have to request? The millions of dollars to do land survey's and reorganize the entire masterplan?

The new WTC isn't being built because we want to stick it to the terrorists. Sure we're building a memorial and 1WTC is the height of the North Twin Tower. But this new plan is mainly business. Silverstein and the PA aren't out to say "fuck you for destroying my towers"

I guess you guys also believe that 9/11 was an inside job? Right? It only explains why the terrorist knew where to hit.

Where's NYGuy when you need him?

@KyleDavid13 Aug 20, 2009 2:09 AM

If you know buildings/skyscrapers/architecture then you know that every building has its story. The Twin Towers had a great story that every New Yorker grabbed and added too. America grew to love these two towers and use them as an icon of the American economic system...then to an American icon. They transformed New York and made a new standard for skyscrapers all across. The Twin Towers II plan must be built. The Freedom Tower (I refuse to call it 1 World Trade Center) is nice but doesn't fit into Lower Manhattan. I would love to see the building be built somewhere else besides Ground Zero. (Uptown, Brooklyn, Queens) New York can expand their buildings..they have 5 boroughs and Manhattan does have limited room.

Dac150 Aug 20, 2009 2:12 AM

This is turning into an invasion. There’s too many of them coming from all directions, somebody do something! :ahhh:

@KyleDavid13 Aug 20, 2009 2:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K (Post 4414325)
Do you really think that the Freedom Tower as it is now will be demolished to make way for the new twin towers?

Try having it built somewhere else in Manhattan, and perhaps give it a different color, a nice gold perhaps, or gold plated stripes would work also.

lol The Freedom Tower hasn't really started and why not demolish it when it will take 9 or so years to complete it anyway. The Twin Towers could be built a lot faster and with more effort/love.

Duffstuff129 Aug 20, 2009 2:13 AM

Isn't it funny how SO many new people signed up just to post a single comment deriding the new WTC just as this thread was made???

:uhh: Nothing odd here...

Dac150 Aug 20, 2009 2:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by @KyleDavid13 (Post 4414925)
lol The Freedom Tower hasn't really started and why not demolish it when it will take 9 or so years to complete it anyway. The Twin Towers could be built a lot faster and with more effort/love.

To be honest I think a talking rat wearing a bellhop outfit is more credible than what you just said.

theWatusi Aug 20, 2009 2:14 AM

It must be wacky Wednesday here at SSP!

John Hinds Aug 20, 2009 2:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by @KyleDavid13 (Post 4414917)
If you know buildings/skyscrapers/architecture then you know that every building has its story. The Twin Towers had a great story that every New Yorker grabbed and added too. America grew to love these two towers and use them as an icon of the American economic system...then to an American icon. They transformed New York and made a new standard for skyscrapers all across. The Twin Towers II plan must be built. The Freedom Tower (I refuse to call it 1 World Trade Center) is nice but doesn't fit into Lower Manhattan. I would love to see the building be built somewhere else besides Ground Zero. (Uptown, Brooklyn, Queens) New York can expand their buildings..they have 5 boroughs and Manhattan does have limited room.

:haha:

Your suggesting they build replicas of the Twin Towers in Uptown, Brooklyn or Queens? Are you out of your smegging mind?

Go away and do some basic research on the economics of such a proposal.

You don't build skyscrapers with dreams and wishes.

Duffstuff129 Aug 20, 2009 2:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dac150 (Post 4414931)
To be honest I think a talking rat wearing a bellhop outfit is more credible than what you just said.

:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:

CGII Aug 20, 2009 2:46 AM

Without entertaining some of the glaringly moronic posts in this thread (it is so tempting!) let's break this down a little bit.

As a piece of architecture a twin towers resurrection would be a failure. Yamasaki's design was hinged around a specific program dictated by the Port Authority nearly half century ago. Structural capabilities of the time influenced and shaped the design as well, leading to the famous 'exoskeleton' design we all knew and loved.
The exoskeleton made for famously dreary interiors, with only 18 inches of window for every 12 inch of steel. If the WTC were rebuilt according to Yamasaki's design, it would be a recreation of a dank and depressing office environment that prohibited the entry of natural light. If a reworked design using a steel cage or core system were employed to free the exoskeleton and open up windows, the famous exterior appearance would be lost as would the integrity of the design.
As well, Yamasaki's design reflected architectural philosophy at the middle of the century; that it is indeed appropriate to plunk monolithic and unwelcoming buildings into an enormous patch of cityscape with no reference to context. The WTC was actually a burden to the streetscape of Lower Manhattan, and only to the skyline was it a boon.
Finally the designs of the 'Twin Towers Alliance' are offensive not only in their bastardization of Yamasaki's buildings, but also in their thoughtless site layout and secondary building design. The memorial is shoved off to a cramped corner of the site and enveloped in shadow, and arranged to prevent easy pedestrian access from the street. In fact the whole plot is such a thoughtless hodgepodge of buildings that circulation throughout the block would perhaps become worse than Yamasaki's design! And what's more, the design of the low rise buildings are totally unacceptable budget buildings. Pure slosh.

Structurally this is impossible too. I don't know who this 'head engineer' is exactly, but my guess is either he is a massive idiot or somebody has misread him. In order for the TTA proposal to be built, the entire site would need to be cleared again for development. The existing infrastructure is designed for the current WTC redevelopment and would need to be entirely retooled to accommodate such a drastic plan change.

Pragmatically the twin towers plan is also a tremendous failure. It is terrible logic to assume that because current project leadership has hit a few roadbumps in an otherwise incredibly sophisticated, extremely expensive and hyper sensitive piece of work that it would be more reasonable to simply hand the reins off to some third party that would magically get everything done with their cute little faux-throwback design.

Finally, as a symbolic gesture, rebuilding the twins would be almost an insult to New York's and this country's history. Yes buildings have stories, but stories end at some point. And in fact the only value many storied buildings have is that their stories are ended. Do we rebuild the Colisseum? Do we rebuild the Parthenon? No, these buildings have taken their place in history and acquired value for it. Rebuilding the twin towers would strip the buildings of their only merit: their iconic stature. To rebuild the same would be to pretend it never happened. To pretend it never happened would be a lie to everyone.

And in the end we'd be stuck with ugly buildings that don't work on their own or in the context of the city but what do you care you don't live here anyway? You live out in Ohio or Missouri and admit you don't know anything about New York or what it means to live here but somehow you think it's appropriate to impose your silly pipe dreams on us?

MolsonExport Aug 20, 2009 3:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K (Post 4414487)
Worthy cause or lost cause?

I say build it elsewhere, so we can have both the Freedom Tower and new twins.


I say, build it in Poughkeepsie. :D

Mercedes Benzene Aug 20, 2009 3:00 AM

Okay. Let me start by saying that I love this site! I've been following it daily for a couple years now, but I've never posted.

I really hate to make this my first post, but I'm just completely shocked by this moronic tool. How has he not been banned for trolling? It's also funny that the "supporters" of the TT2 in this thread all have just 1 post.:rolleyes:

LOVING 1WTC! There's no way it's going anywhere. :tup:

MolsonExport Aug 20, 2009 3:04 AM

Christ, just when I started to pine for the old TalB days...I am reminded of how we are all better off without him and his pipe dream.

TwinTowersAlliance Aug 20, 2009 3:19 AM

The twin Tower ii design can be retro fitted to be built on what what is currently done.I've seen the blue prints of how its gonna be contructed.
the towers can be done by 2011.next month there will be summits for the TTII design that i will be participating in since afterall ive been a member of the TTII since its debute 5 years ago.

CGII Aug 20, 2009 3:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinTowersAlliance (Post 4415062)
The twin Tower ii design can be retro fitted to be built on what what is currently done.I've seen the blue prints of how its gonna be contructed.

Wrong. There currently exists no infrastructure to support where the twin towers would exist and in fact there is an entire train station in the way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinTowersAlliance
the towers can be done by 2011.

Not without slave labour or seriously cut corners design-wise.

Why is it a matter of speed? Do you want quality buildings that are safe and long lasting or do you want something second rate that pops up in the next two years?

BStyles Aug 20, 2009 3:28 AM

Good points made there, CGII. Let me also continue this.

You know, I loved watching the Twin Towers as I drove across the Brooklyn Bridge with my dad back in the 90's. I got to go up to Windows of the World, the memory is shabby, but I was there.

Truthfully, I'd love to have the World Trade Center rebuilt, still there in fact, but it wouldn't be the same, especially with new Twin Towers. The entire feel has been stripped, and it's purpose diminished. What once stood as an office complex became one of the world's largest retail and commercial centers, with the highest grossing restaurant in 2000. That's something you can't just replace like 9/11 never happened. Compare the terrorists to bullies. They pick on you, and all you do is pick up after yourself and move on. Those terrorists, like it or not, if the Twin Towers are rebuilt, will have won the war, and it will make the United States look like the type who ''pick up after themselves.''

All the naysayers about the new WTC have to learn this: we're not turning back because some people want the towers rebuilt. Have you took into consideration that the Freedom tower has raised FOUR of it's perimeter columns to record heights these few weeks? Have you took into consideration that the steel has been fabricated for the memorial, trees ready for planting in New Jersey, AND that the north pool has been squared off? Finally, have you took into consideration that the new towers jeopardize the placements of both the PATH and the 1 line? You can't just raze all of that away, both MTA and the Port Authority would raise hell before they agree to that.

Not to mention Silverstein Properties, the leaseholder of the site. Him the Port Authority and Daniel Libeskind can agree that they're not about to demolish progress, regardless of how long it took, IT'S STILL PROGRESS. The original twin towers weren't built in a day, much less from 2008-2011, and they would have probably would have been set back by the global recession as well. Clearing the site for them would put both the PA and SSP into debt, and money, unfortunately, plays a huge role when it comes to the World Trade Center.

Finally, the Slurry wall, the reinforced wall that held back the Hudson when the towers collapsed. Rebuilding the towers would mean extending the bathtub to reach the towers' needs, and since the land has already been excavated, would put it, although you don't think it's possible, years behind schedule.

The new site plan doesn't even consider any of these problems, it's just a failed attempt to appease people, and restore the skyline. I've studied the WTC site for years now, and when I saw this new plan, I knew it wasn't possible. You may hate the new WTC plan, even for the rest of your life, but it's a sign of dignity, hope, rebirth, of course, and showing terrorists around the globe that this is the United States, and you can't harm our freedom by taking down two of our landmarks. That's where the name ''Freedom Tower'' is derived from.

There's only so much you can do with this 16-acre site, and this isn't one of the smartest plans. You forget, that you have to run these plans by Larry Silverstein, and then the Port Authority. The plan isn't going to be put into consideration without their approval.

CudaAhBuda_NYC Aug 20, 2009 3:57 AM

What's done at the site could be used to continue the Twin Towers II. Just because you see steel high up where the Freedom Tower is doesn't mean anything, it could be converted to WTC 5 for the Twin Towers II.

Lecom Aug 20, 2009 4:17 AM

LOL @ this thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dac150 (Post 4414339)
Not to mention that this guys so called design is so conveniently similar in so many ways to the proposal of Donald Trump way back when. Hey, if I didn’t know any better I’d say it’s the same exact one. Please, take this nonsense elsewhere; what you see rising, like it or not, is what you’ll be getting. End of story.

It IS the same one. Gardner was also the designer of Trump's plan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by @KyleDavid13 (Post 4414917)
If you know The Freedom Tower (I refuse to call it 1 World Trade Center) is nice but doesn't fit into Lower Manhattan.

You think the Twin Towers fit into Lower Manhattan when they were first built?

CudaAhBuda_NYC Aug 20, 2009 4:18 AM

So lets just say the site was clear again. What plan would you want to have at Ground Zero - the Freedom Tower complex or Twin Towers II?

Lecom Aug 20, 2009 4:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CudaAhBuda_NYC (Post 4415140)
What's done at the site could be used to continue the Twin Towers II. Just because you see steel high up where the Freedom Tower is doesn't mean anything, it could be converted to WTC 5 for the Twin Towers II.

They invested too much money into the foundation to underuse it like that.

And where do you see them building the TTII, even if they were approved right now? Tme memorial is already in place, T4 is atstreet level...

The "if the site was clear" question is irrelevant. The site is NOT clear, and the TTII design is incredibly implausible.


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.