NEW YORK | What do you think of the new WTC? - Page 2

NYguy · #21 Posted **Mar 18, 2009, 12:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krases

I think a height of 2,750 feet would have been a bit better seeing as that represents another significant number and would have raised the height to something truly massive. It also seems like there is less total square footage than the previous WTC site.

The space is about the same, but not exactly the same. Tower 5 counts as WTC space but it's really replacing another office tower. I don't think 2,750 ft would have been realistic, unless it was a hybrid tower like David Child's 2,000 ft version of the Freedom Tower.

MolsonExport · #22 Posted **Mar 18, 2009, 5:22 PM**

Quote:

This was, by far, the most attractive design, in my opinion.

MolsonExport · #23 Posted **Mar 18, 2009, 5:25 PM**

I might add that I dislike the Freedom tower design. The best of the current project, surprise surprise is WTC2 (Foster's design)

Krases · #24 Posted **Mar 18, 2009, 11:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

The space is about the same, but not exactly the same. Tower 5 counts as WTC space but it's really replacing another office tower. I don't think 2,750 ft would have been realistic, unless it was a hybrid tower like David Child's 2,000 ft version of the Freedom Tower.

How is it not realistic? Al Burj is being taken pretty seriously over in Dubai and it might be 3280'. 2750' seems realistic enough and I think it would be a more worthy replacement for the original WTC seeing as it would stand out even more than the original.

Don't get me wrong, I just want it to be bigger and grander. I think the current idea looks very nice but I just wish it raised the bar a bit more.

Duffstuff129 · #25 Posted **Mar 19, 2009, 12:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

This was, by far, the most attractive design, in my opinion.

I never really understood the praise these towers got.

Sure, they were massive, but the design is really poor in my opinion.

Not only do they stick out terribly, but the design has other problems too.

I guarantee that nobody would feel safe in these towers. Seriously, one third of a mile tall, crooked, 'looks like they're going to fall over' towers? That is not the right idea for the World Trade Center. The only reason any company would want to work in the WTC was if they not only knew they were safe, but felt it as well. Silverstein would loose money,the towers would rape the skyline, and we would have uninhabited eyesores as the most prominent mark of our city.

I don't think so.

So what was it that all of you guys liked so much about it?

Aleks · #26 Posted **Mar 19, 2009, 12:50 AM**

I thought the same thing too! We all know that they're safe, but they don't feel safe. And they're just ugly imo.

nickkoto · #27 Posted **Mar 19, 2009, 1:38 AM**

Tower 1: Kind of ugly, though it's a huge huge improvement from any of the earlier proposals. It seems to be growing on me.

Tower 2: Awesome renders, love at first site. I think it would look even better if the 4 angled sides at the top of each quadrant were aligned to the same plane (the two taller quadrants need to be a little higher), but I like it either way.

Towers 3 & 4: The most unimaginative designs they possibly could've chosen. Couldn't care less if they never get built.

NYguy · #28 Posted **Mar 20, 2009, 2:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krases

How is it not realistic? Al Burj is being taken pretty seriously over in Dubai and it might be 3280'.

They're going to have offices that high? Regardless, you would have to combine 2 or 3 of the WTC towers to come close to that, and even then it would require too much service.

NYguy · #29 Posted **Mar 20, 2009, 2:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duffstuff129

I guarantee that nobody would feel safe in these towers. Seriously, one third of a mile tall, crooked, 'looks like they're going to fall over' towers?

You can't guarantee that. The fact is, it's the World Trade Center, the fear factor won't change according to design. Secondly, Foster's design was the favorite of that group, and it's not surprising. Anybody who was "afraid" the towers would fall down based on that design couldn't be taken seriously.

NYguy · #30 Posted **Mar 20, 2009, 4:33 AM**

Missing from the LMDC website, these were my two favorites after Foster's design - THINK's SKY PARK - the tallest of that plan being towers of 1,600 and 1,200 ft. The other was THINK'S GREAT ROOM, which featured an office/hotel/broadcast tower of 2,100 ft.

http://www.pbase.com/dogwolf/image/12740481

http://www.pbase.com/dogwolf/image/12740482

NYguy · #31 Posted **Mar 20, 2009, 5:01 AM**

Another GREAT ROOM image

http://www.renewnyc.com

Another SKY PARK image

http://www.renewnyc.com

NYguy · #32 Posted **Mar 20, 2009, 5:04 AM**

UNITED's plan topped out at 1,620 ft

renewnyc.com

NYguy · #33 Posted **Mar 20, 2009, 5:07 AM**

The Meier plan

renewnyc.com

NYguy · #34 Posted **Mar 20, 2009, 5:09 AM**

The chosen site plan in its original form, Libeskind's SKY GARDENS

renewnyc.com

MolsonExport · #35 Posted **Mar 20, 2009, 1:21 PM**

^horrid. what IS that revolting turret atop 1WTC? A sail mast? The remaining towers are simply International style blocks with angles shaved off. Nothing New Yorkish at all about Libeskind's original design. Would be more at home in Qatar or Dubai.

Aleks · #36 Posted **Mar 20, 2009, 4:14 PM**

Skypark and the towers around it are pretty neat. They would look pretty cool in another part of NY.

I like the current design of the WTC. It's neat, not too distracting [compared to those other proposals], the towers are elegant, they have different styles which don't make them look like a cheap complex. It's perfect imo!

CGII · #37 Posted **Mar 21, 2009, 5:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krases

How is it not realistic? Al Burj is being taken pretty seriously over in Dubai and it might be 3280'. 2750' seems realistic enough and I think it would be a more worthy replacement for the original WTC seeing as it would stand out even more than the original.

Don't get me wrong, I just want it to be bigger and grander. I think the current idea looks very nice but I just wish it raised the bar a bit more.

The only people who take Al Burj seriously are people without a clue. That project has been on hold.

kpexpress · #38 Posted **Mar 21, 2009, 10:48 PM**

I have always thought that the original WTC towers were so ugly times 2, but respected them cause of their shear size and bulk. The scale for those tiny streets of lower Manhattan was way off though. I think that the NWTC plans are great, for some reason I'm really drawn to the Maki building, but most excited about the Fosters building oh and the tranist center, I hope that cutting costs doesn't yield a lame transit center though.

NYguy · #39 Posted **Mar 22, 2009, 12:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpexpress

I hope that cutting costs doesn't yield a lame transit center though.

From what we've seen, the changes aren't really noticeable.

CoolCzech · #40 Posted **Mar 22, 2009, 6:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

This was, by far, the most attractive design, in my opinion.

I don't know, to my mind it looks too much like the original Twins, in a perpetual state of collapse... not exactly appropriate.