Is The New World Trade Center All It Could Have Been?

chris123678 · #1 Posted **Jul 23, 2012, 10:58 PM**

After the numerous arguement at the One World Trade Center Thread, between many users, including myself, here's a question. Do You Think One World Trade Center Is All It Could Be?

Is The New World Trade Center All It Could Have Been?

vid · #2 Posted **Jul 23, 2012, 11:15 PM**

It could have had all sorts of crazy bells and whistles. A 70 storey exterior waterfall; some wind turbines and solar panels; balconies; a classically-inspired cornice made of marble; LED light shows; an airstrip. All sorts of crazy bells and whistles.

Bill Ditnow · #3 Posted **Jul 23, 2012, 11:29 PM**

It could have been great, important, meaningful and innovative architecture. That would have been nice, especially at a site so charged with meaning and history.

Zapatan · #4 Posted **Jul 24, 2012, 12:35 AM**

I think the obvious answer is no, but once the other two towers are completed it won't be that bad

Luckily other projects are rising in the city

Hudson11 · #5 Posted **Jul 24, 2012, 1:23 AM**

well considering it could have been either of the following:

... i'd say we lucked out

GeorgiaBoy24 · #6 Posted **Jul 24, 2012, 1:41 AM**

Had the last one had floors right up to the spire, it would have been epic.

But the current design is very good too, just wish SOM wouldn't have chickened out about another attack that won't happen and built taller floors.

Silverfox · #7 Posted **Jul 24, 2012, 1:44 AM**

I guess my long post yesterday in the construction thread was off-topic, or too inappropriate.

Anyway, I still remember first seeing Childs's design in an issue of Popular Science back when I thought we were getting Liebskind's tower. Something about the shape and proportions of this tower made me instantly like it. Now that it's finally being built, it feels like it almost belongs in the city. As much as I used to wish the building would have been built with larger proportions, the size has grown on me and I actually think it's better that it was built with the same proportions as the north tower. It now feels to me that it wouldn't blend as well with its surroundings if it were larger. In a sense, it pays respect to Minoru Yamasaki's wish for his original complex not to lose the human scale. To me, it gives the entire new complex a feeling of modesty.

Roadcruiser1 · #8 Posted **Jul 24, 2012, 1:52 AM**

It could have had been this. It would have had made me really happy.

Guiltyspark · #9 Posted **Jul 24, 2012, 2:06 AM**

[QUOTE=Roadcruiser1;5775163]It could have had been this. It would have had made me really happy.

But rebuilding a fairly ugly 1970's design would have made most people very sad. Thank God they didn't.

ThatOneGuy · #10 Posted **Jul 24, 2012, 2:23 AM**

Rebuilding the twin towers would have made me so happy. They were some of the most beautiful and stunning buildings on Earth, and nothing built now can replace their former splendor. I'm a huge fan of minimalism, so it's no surprise that I loved having two massive, rectangular supertalls right next to each other. Also, I don't think that the all-glass facade of the new WTC suits NYC very well.

That being said, I can understand the horrible memories that having the twin towers rebuilt would give people. Nobody would want to work there, and it would be a daily reminder of 9/11, so in the end, I can see why they chose an entirely new design.
I love the new WTC, but I think the twin towers were much more beautiful.

Silverfox · #11 Posted **Jul 24, 2012, 3:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

Rebuilding the twin towers would have made me so happy. They were some of the most beautiful and stunning buildings on Earth, and nothing built now can replace their former splendor. I'm a huge fan of minimalism, so it's no surprise that I loved having two massive, rectangular supertalls right next to each other. Also, I don't think that the all-glass facade of the new WTC suits NYC very well.

That being said, I can understand the horrible memories that having the twin towers rebuilt would give people. Nobody would want to work there, and it would be a daily reminder of 9/11, so in the end, I can see why they chose an entirely new design.
I love the new WTC, but I think the twin towers were much more beautiful.

The twin towers were icons for the city, and a testament to the engineering capabilities of mankind. That being said, what happened to them was tragic and made them irreplaceable. The way I see it, the bad memories of the tragedy, combined with people that suffer from post traumatic stress may have caused many people to feel uneasy about seeing them rebuilt. I think what's there now is equally as beautiful, and because of the LEED standards it wouldn't be feasible to rebuild the towers as they were. What I think is great is that the new 1WTC is essentially a modernized version of the old one. It pays a lot of respect to the original architects and, as opposed to Libeskind's proposal, is a sort of compromise for the people that want the twins rebuilt. I'd say that in time it'll grow on people that don't quite like it yet.

chris123678 · #12 Posted **Jul 24, 2012, 4:32 AM**

The Twins by far weren't the most beautiful buildings on earth, but I loved them. They were simple elegant buildings that became an icon.
The one thing I hate about the New Trade center is the floor spans. We're only getting 40 feet between the facade and core. The Twins had 60 feet.

Something about the new 1wtc doesn't evoke height. It doesn't look as tall as the twins.

While I do love the new site, the twins were great.

Roadcruiser1 · #13 Posted **Jul 24, 2012, 4:53 AM**

The problem with the original Twin Towers were the narrow windows. The Twin Towers II concept would have had wider windows negating the effect of the aluminum panels.

JDRCRASH · #14 Posted **Jul 24, 2012, 5:09 AM**

Most definitely not:

hunser · #15 Posted **Jul 24, 2012, 12:14 PM**

^ Although I like the new WTC, those 2 FT would have been great.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris123678

Something about the new 1wtc doesn't evoke height. It doesn't look as tall as the twins.

1. Wait till the building is fully cladded and the antenna goes up.
2. Wait till the base is finally cladded.
3. 1WTC is surrounded by new 200m+ towers, whereas the former WTC was pretty much alone (except for the WFC which joined the show later).
4. 1WTC as it is stand alone, just wait for 2WTC to go up.
5. The facade of the former WTC had a "stretching effect".

marvelfannumber1 · #16 Posted **Jul 24, 2012, 9:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

Also, I don't think that the all-glass facade of the new WTC suits NYC very well.

Oh you mean like this:

undrcrwn.com

On topic though, i personally think the site plan for the new WTC works excellently with the street grid, but i'd say the buildings could probably be a little bit more balanced.
I would rather have 1 or 2 tall towers and 3 smaller buildings rather than 5 tall ones. But eh that's just me.

Ch.G, Ch.G · #17 Posted **Jul 24, 2012, 10:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ditnow

It could have been great, important, meaningful and innovative architecture. That would have been nice, especially at a site so charged with meaning and history.

I agree. The current design is such a letdown. It would have been good (not great) had the spire and base been realized as initially planned; but the changes to the cladding of both and the new shape of the base take away some of the building's (potentially) most interesting features.

IMO, Childs' design makes no reference to the history of the site other than its "symbolic" height (gag me) and the (unintentional) bunker-like quality of the base (an inelegant solution to the new demand for a perception of security and solidity). It's a faint echo of the Empire State Building and not much more.

It also looks squat, a dubious achievement for a supertall.

Bill Ditnow · #18 Posted **Jul 24, 2012, 10:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I agree. The current design is such a letdown. It would have been good (not great) had the spire and base been realized as initially planned; but the changes to the cladding of both and the new shape of the base take away some of the building's (potentially) most interesting features.

IMO, Childs' design makes no reference to the history of the site other than its "symbolic" height (gag me) and the (unintentional) bunker-like quality of the base (an inelegant solution to the new demand for a perception of security and solidity). It's a faint echo of the Empire State Building and not much more.

It also looks squat, a dubious achievement for a supertall.

It is painful to look at those images of the lost twins, especially that iconic photo of the twins providing a backdrop to the Empire State Building.

To me, what was so powerful about the twins is that they were an exercise in minimalist colossalism, to coin a term. They were absolutely minimalist in architecture, a perfectly valid idea, but colossal in their height and size and in the fact that there were two of them. "Pillars holding up the world" always came to my mind, and in their commercial function as exemplars of world trade, they could be read as the pillars of world trade. I think this sort of symbolism was so striking and emphatic that this is precisely why they were targeted.

The new complex takes four or five disjointed and jagged and rather pretentious towers to try to mimic what the twins so elegantly and concisely stated with two. As I believe you correctly note, the only nod to the site, its history and what happened on 9/11, is the kitsch idea of making the height of the tower echo the year America was born, which is nothing more than an exercise in cheap architectural numerology. But it's consistent with the original kitsch idea of Liebskind. Thankfully the off-center spire mimicking the torch of the Statue of Liberty was lost.

The new One World Trade is cold and forbidding and soulless, with its bunker base and what will become its cheap antenna instead of the more sculptural spire that had been planned. The other towers are just a generic jumble. Foster's slanted rooftop I guess was intended to point downward in homage to the memorial, and is consistent with renderings from the site plan. It does nothing for me. Probably the best of the lot, to me, is tower 4.

I think Childs was also trying to suggest something like an obelisk or a monument with the design of tower 1, but if so obelisks should not be blown up to monumental heights that suggest bombast rather than remembrance.

ThatOneGuy · #19 Posted **Jul 24, 2012, 11:02 PM**

^^ The concrete base was mandatory, they had no choice.

NYC GUY · #20 Posted **Jul 24, 2012, 11:31 PM**

I would of made one building 1624 feet tall to signify the founding of NYC then a spire going up to 2001 feet then a beam of light going straight up to show that NYC is moving forward. However I do like the current design a lot.