NEW YORK | Twin Towers of the WTC | 1368/1362 feet | 110 FLOORS | 1972/1973-2001 - Page 3

Romanwtc · #41 Posted **Nov 18, 2010, 1:25 AM**

I love the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center!
im so sad that i will never have a chance to see them in person!
god bless the lost souls!
and i know the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center are resting in heaven!

NYguy · #42 Posted **Nov 18, 2010, 6:32 AM**

Windows on the World

ogmueller

Amanita · #43 Posted **Nov 19, 2010, 10:05 PM**

^Holy crap. Took me a minute to see that that was a panorama. A freaking cool one!
And an interesting fact- 55 Water st, also visible in that pic, is related to the WTC towers, by way of Emery Roth and sons. The Roth firm designed or consulted on literally hundreds of NYC buildings, great and small.

NYC4Life · #44 Posted **Nov 20, 2010, 8:09 PM**

Damn, that panorama speaks for itself. The views from the original WTC will never again be duplicated. It gave a perspective of the city and surrounding areas that not even the new WTC1 will offer.

sw5710 · #45 Posted **Nov 22, 2010, 6:23 AM**

Yes though I can't wait to go up and see that view.I will miss the roof. But It will bring me back to the many times i stood up there looking down. It will be nice to see that in person

again!.

STR · #46 Posted **Nov 22, 2010, 10:02 AM**

Nice pano. Really shows that, towards the end, the aluminum panels really needed a cleaning. From what I can tell, that was planned for 2002-2003, along with the mall/plaza rehab.

Chicago103 · #47 Posted **Nov 22, 2010, 10:52 AM**

They truly were amazing buildings. The rooftop observatory was probably the most unique ever built because it was the only place on top of a super-tall open to the public where there was nothing but air above you. Other outdoor decks such as on the Burj Khalifa, Taipei101 or even the ESB all have part of the building above them. If we in Chicago opened a deck on the roof of the Aon Center it would be the closest thing to imitating what the WTC rooftop deck had.

elysium · #48 Posted **Nov 24, 2010, 3:06 AM**

People will hate me for saying this, but the twin towers were twin monstrosities. I of course mourned the loss of lives the same as everyone else, and if I could turn history back, I would obviously save the lives as well as the buildings that housed them. Desperate, ignorant people did violence to those buildings, but their architect did violence to art.

Amanita · #49 Posted **Nov 24, 2010, 3:50 AM**

I beg to differ. From what I've read, Yamasaki did the best he could, to fit the requirements of the Port Authority's "program"- 10 million square feet of space in 16 acres of land. Yamasaki was used to much smaller, daintier buildings, and the WTC project pushed him waaay out of his comfort zone. However, he really did try, coming up with countless mock-ups before drawing a single page of blueprints. One single 150 story tower was simply too overwhelming. A cluster of shorter towers looked too much like a housing project. Two seemed to be the best fit, not being as overwhelming as the single tower, and leaving the site far less crowded than a cluster of short towers. As for their architectural styling, the architectural world was in a state of change at the time, and as I said, Yamasaki had never done anything remotely close to the scale of the WTC before. It's said that he may have been inspired by the Kaaba (sp?) in Mecca- the cube-in-open square concept, and the Twin Tower's pointed arches and roofline traceries have been likened to Islamic or moorish architecture as well as Gothic. He originally planned an even more elaborate design for the tower's facades, but scaled it back in response to critics enamoured of the stripped-down modernist style, who lambasted his use of ornament.

As for the Roth firm, they were not known for an aesthetic approach to architecture, focusing on efficiency- efficiency of floorplan, mechanical systems, elevators, and so forth, to make buildings that were economically successful. Richard Roth admitted as much in an essay "High-rise down to earth", where he stated that his firm produced functional, profitable buildings, not "monuments to posterity".

elysium · #50 Posted **Nov 24, 2010, 4:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amanita

I beg to differ. From what I've read, Yamasaki did the best he could, to fit the requirements of the Port Authority's "program"- 10 million square feet of space in 16 acres of land. Yamasaki was used to much smaller, daintier buildings, and the WTC project pushed him waaay out of his comfort zone. However, he really did try, coming up with countless mock-ups before drawing a single page of blueprints. One single 150 story tower was simply too overwhelming. A cluster of shorter towers looked too much like a housing project. Two seemed to be the best fit, not being as overwhelming as the single tower, and leaving the site far less crowded than a cluster of short towers. As for their architectural styling, the architectural world was in a state of change at the time, and as I said, Yamasaki had never done anything remotely close to the scale of the WTC before. It's said that he may have been inspired by the Kaaba (sp?) in Mecca- the cube-in-open square concept, and the Twin Tower's pointed arches and roofline traceries have been likened to Islamic or moorish architecture as well as Gothic. He originally planned an even more elaborate design for the tower's facades, but scaled it back in response to critics enamoured of the stripped-down modernist style, who lambasted his use of ornament.

As for the Roth firm, they were not known for an aesthetic approach to architecture, focusing on efficiency- efficiency of floorplan, mechanical systems, elevators, and so forth, to make buildings that were economically successful. Richard Roth admitted as much in an essay "High-rise down to earth", where he stated that his firm produced functional, profitable buildings, not "monuments to posterity".

That's all very interesting, but I think it just confirms my point.

MolsonExport · #51 Posted **Nov 24, 2010, 6:04 PM**

that is the pano to end all

sw5710 · #52 Posted **Nov 25, 2010, 9:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago103

They truly were amazing buildings. The rooftop observatory was probably the most unique ever built because it was the only place on top of a super-tall open to the public where there was nothing but air above you. Other outdoor decks such as on the Burj Khalifa, Taipei101 or even the ESB all have part of the building above them. If we in Chicago opened a deck on the roof of the Aon Center it would be the closest thing to imitating what the WTC rooftop deck had.

The rooftop deck was 1377 feet. I am waiting for a deck at 2000 feet.

MolsonExport · #53 Posted **Nov 25, 2010, 2:01 PM**

I recall my last trip to the WTC outdoor observatory, in 1994. The only problem was trying to get a good shot of the downtown cluster (which has always been my favorite collection of buildings anywhere, even trumping midtown). Still, it was a very vast space (perimeter walk open all around)...you could get quite close to the corners (there was, I think, a setback of a few feet to discourage jumpers).

RCDC · #54 Posted **Nov 25, 2010, 2:32 PM**

One of the things unique and amazing was that you could, in effect, see the building you were standing on.

Flamesrule · #55 Posted **Nov 25, 2010, 3:05 PM**

Great Pano! Anyway's even though they were just plain boxes I really liked the facade. But now we have even better Trade Centers that are under construction.

Amanita · #56 Posted **Nov 25, 2010, 6:22 PM**

Elysium, I disagree. You make it sound like the architects were intending to do something bad, or didn't care. Where I believe the architects were trying to do the best they could, under circumstances and demand of a "program" that probably would have been overwhelming to just about any architect, no matter how vaunted. After all, look at the Pan Am building. The developers thought they would have a winner- Get two of the most prominent modernist architects working for them, with a local firm who specialized in efficiency and economy of design. Walter Gropius and Pietro Belluschi worked together with Emery Roth and sons to design the Pan Am Building. The two "starchitects" would determine the building's looks, while the Roth firm made the insides functional and efficient.
We all know what the critics said of the Pan Am building, despite the pedigree of the architects who designed its face.

STR · #57 Posted **Nov 25, 2010, 9:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

(there was, I think, a setback of a few feet to discourage jumpers).

No, the setback was for the window washing robots. The razor wire was to discourage the jumpers.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #58 Posted **Dec 5, 2010, 1:33 AM**

just found this and apparently HK copied NY

http://www.laserist.org/Laserist/WTC...Faction_bi.jpg

some more

Obey · #59 Posted **Dec 5, 2010, 4:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

That style seems relatively recent. Does anyone know if that was there on 9/11?

STR · #60 Posted **Dec 5, 2010, 4:39 AM**

^The "Peace on Earth" sculpture was put up during the holiday season every year after the 1993 bombing. Presumably, the sign was stored on-site from Januarary-November and destroyed in the collapse, but I don't have any concrete info. The mountain-like sculpture (Cloud Fortress by Masayuki Nagare) behind it did survive the collapse, but was torn down during the recovery because there was extra structural support built into the plaza in order to hold up the 5-ton steel and stone art piece, which made it a good place to site a crane.