Is The New World Trade Center All It Could Have Been? - Page 2

jd3189 · #21 Posted **Jul 24, 2012, 11:52 PM**

That "1624" symbolic height could be put into action if an architect wanted to resume building the Metlife North Building or any of the new projects popping up. However, yes, this new WTC could have suceeded the former in so many ways but it didn't, which is quite sad considering the history and importance of the site. If 9/11 never happened, I would have prefered the Twins.

MolsonExport · #22 Posted **Jul 25, 2012, 12:20 AM**

since it did not go into the army, no.

Roadcruiser1 · #23 Posted **Jul 25, 2012, 12:29 AM**

Actually the new World Trade Center plans are what Minoru Yamasaki the architect of the original World Trade Center wanted to avoid. During the design of the original World Trade Center he came up with three plans. One plan would have had been a 220 floor tower that would have been immense for the time, the other plans were a clutter of towers like the current new World Trade Center plan, and the original Twin Towers. Minoru Yamasaki was against the 220 floor tower because he didn't want to lose the human scale, he didn't want a clutter of towers like the current plan because it would look like a housing project and not a "World Trade Center" He picked the Twin Towers because they would clearly penetrate the sky and show that the location of these towers was at the World Trade Center. They weren't designed to be attractive, but to basically tell you that the towers mean that the location was the World Trade Center.

You guys also criticized the narrow windows and the lack of glass of the former Twin Towers, but that was because Minoru Yamasaki had a fear of heights. You could find out more about the design of the Twin Towers here.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...as-it-was.html

fountainhead · #24 Posted **Jul 25, 2012, 12:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ditnow

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.

An excellent appraisal and one that I agree with wholeheartedly.

I might add that for me part of their wonder and majesty, was their contrast to their surroundings. These two monoliths, so timeless and strange, were only further enhanced by the byzantine glory of lower Manhattan. They returned the favor, and seemed to bring out even more of the architectural fine grain of New York.

ThatOneGuy · #25 Posted **Jul 25, 2012, 12:32 AM**

Yamasaki didn't design them to be pretty, but he managed to make them so, for me.

Bill Ditnow · #26 Posted **Jul 25, 2012, 12:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fountainhead

An excellent appraisal and one that I agree with wholeheartedly.

I might add that for me part of their wonder and majesty, was their contrast to their surroundings. These two monoliths, so timeless and strange, were only further enhanced by the byzantine glory of lower Manhattan. They returned the favor, and seemed to bring out even more of the architectural fine grain of New York.

...two monoliths, so timeless and strange... Yes, I think you've captured something very nice here, putting into words what I was striving for. And the byzantine glory of lower Manhattan, that's just it exactly. Two monoliths presiding sentinal-like over a vibrant teeming labyrinth. Each giving back to the other. That was it, that was their glory. The interaction between the twins and lower Manhattan was like a Mondrian masterpiece. Now we get kitsch.

Dac150 · #27 Posted **Jul 25, 2012, 1:00 AM**

In reference to the original question: Measured by what exactly?... If by personal taste, then you're your own judge.

This finished product will provide a well integrated site-plan with the surrounding area, abundant mixed use space that will bring new life to the area, a state of the art transit center and some sharp looking architecture - seems like a good deal to me.

Bill Ditnow · #28 Posted **Jul 25, 2012, 1:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

Actually the new World Trade Center plans are what Minoru Yamasaki the architect of the original World Trade Center wanted to avoid. During the design of the original World Trade Center he came up with three plans. One plan would have had been a 220 floor tower that would have been immense for the time, the other plans were a clutter of towers like the current new World Trade Center plan, and the original Twin Towers. Minoru Yamasaki was against the 220 floor tower because he didn't want to lose the human scale, he didn't want a clutter of towers like the current plan because it would look like a housing project and not a "World Trade Center" He picked the Twin Towers because they would clearly penetrate the sky and show that the location of these towers was at the World Trade Center. They weren't designed to be attractive, but to basically tell you that the towers mean that the location was the World Trade Center.

You guys also criticized the narrow windows and the lack of glass of the former Twin Towers, but that was because Minoru Yamasaki had a fear of heights. You could find out more about the design of the Twin Towers here.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...as-it-was.html

Nicely said, and thanks for the link.

NewYorkDominates · #29 Posted **Jul 25, 2012, 3:04 AM**

^Yes,I try so hard to forget the twins and at times pretended to hate them,but in all honesty they were monoliths of epic proportions.

I still think they did a pretty good job with the new WTC

Silverfox · #30 Posted **Jul 25, 2012, 4:32 AM**

One thing that would have been amazing is if they would have built it to the size of the proposed NYSE tower, but with the profile of the new One World Trade Center rather than the tapered sides. Of course it would have looked ridiculous and out of place, but just imagine the views from an observation deck that high...

Amanita · #31 Posted **Jul 25, 2012, 4:54 AM**

I would have liked this plan a lot more if they had twinned the Freedom Tower. That would have been an acceptable compromise between those who wanted the WTC rebuilt, and those who wanted something new.

ThatOneGuy · #32 Posted **Jul 25, 2012, 1:31 PM**

Personally, I would either have wanted the twin towers rebuilt or the new WTC by itself. Not a hybrid of some sort.

chris123678 · #33 Posted **Jul 25, 2012, 3:01 PM**

I honestly think the Trade Center plan could have been better.
I would have liked it if they kept 1 wtc the way they had now and keep towers 2,3 and 4 with the sloped roofs like the orginal plan.
The bad thing Silverstine did was to get 3 different archtiects.
When you have a complex, the buildings should have a flow and a relationship to each other but they don't because they are by 3 different people designing these buildings.

Two Freedom Towers would have been great.

mt_climber13 · #34 Posted **Jul 25, 2012, 10:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson11

well considering it could have been either of the following:

... i'd say we lucked out

Egads!! Who let the children sit at the adult's table??

Ironically, 1 wtc is my least favorite building in the whole complex. It is painful to look at. The others are quite stunning. Especially the one shaped like a diamond. Very classy.

I always loved the twin towers. I never found them ugly. I wouldn't have minded them being rebuilt the same, but, I'm not a new Yorker and that could probably be traumatizing to a lot of people there.

Zapatan · #35 Posted **Jul 26, 2012, 4:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris123678

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

Well it's not completely finished yet so it will look better when it is for sure.

But also it could be that there is only one tower, not two, and the building narrows on the corners making it appear smaller up top from many angles.

I think the twin towers were better than this, but what we are getting now is better than a lot of the original plans. When all 4 towers are completed we'll talk.

ThatOneGuy · #36 Posted **Jul 26, 2012, 3:32 PM**

I've never hated Liebskinds's proposal for 1WTC, but what I didn't like there was the jumble of sloped-roofed towers next to it. Yuck.

-Filipe- · #37 Posted **Jul 26, 2012, 3:39 PM**

whether we like it or not thats what were getting so its time to stop complaining!

GeorgiaBoy24 · #38 Posted **Jul 26, 2012, 6:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYC GUY

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.

Then make the stayed cables meet at 1776 feet to show..... MORE SYMBOLISM!!! Seriously, the whole thing seems to be more about symbolic crap then about building a tower that is actually a height worthy of surpassing its predecessors.

DrNest · #39 Posted **Jul 26, 2012, 6:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

Personally, I would either have wanted the twin towers rebuilt or the new WTC by itself. Not a hybrid of some sort.

Whatever was designed, it would never have appeased everyone. I like the idea of a hybrid with a twin version of the new 1 WTC being constructed, but I am sure many others wouldn't.

Overall I think what is being constructed is a more than adequate replacement for something that, frankly, cannot be replaced.

plinko · #40 Posted **Jul 26, 2012, 9:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

I've never hated Liebskinds's proposal for 1WTC, but what I didn't like there was the jumble of sloped-roofed towers next to it. Yuck.

You realize that those were just place-holders that demonstrated an architectural concept and conformance to the site design guidelines right? It was just a basis for the final selected tower architects to work off of.