NEW YORK | World Trade Center Memorial & Transit Hub

[urbanlife]

No good memorial has a practical use.....

[Traynor]

Like it, hate it or indifferent to it, it does not matter. The point is, it is not what the "people" wanted, it is what the developer wanted. By the "people" I mean the majority of family members, survivors, first responders and the general public. That is a documented fact that has been forgotten in the passing years. When this design was still just one of the possibilities, it was not the favourite of any of these people, by a long shot.

The developers wanted a white-washed and sterile memorial with practically no reference to the horror that transpired. This was important for the businessmen who own it. For their peace of mind, that no prospective tenant would be scared off by frightening or thought-provoking imagery.

Many people have come to like this design and even defend it by reiterating the jingoist jargon originally released by the developers to convince the general public that it was the best choice. And like all good sheep, the average Joe has fallen into lockstep and now tows the party line.

"This is the best design for a memorial because we said so."

Everyone should do themselves a favour and for their own edification, watch the half hour BS Penn and Teller episode on Ground Zero. It's a couple of years old but relevant none the less.

Link to part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sa1ucqponM

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Traynor

Like it, hate it or indifferent to it, it does not matter. The point is, it is not what the "people" wanted, it is what the developer wanted. By the "people" I mean the majority of family members, survivors, first responders and the general public. That is a documented fact that has been forgotten in the passing years. When this design was still just one of the possibilities, it was not the favourite of any of these people, by a long shot.

The developers wanted a white-washed and sterile memorial with practically no reference to the horror that transpired. This was important for the businessmen who own it. For their peace of mind, that no prospective tenant would be scared off by frightening or thought-provoking imagery.

Many people have come to like this design and even defend it by reiterating the jingoist jargon originally released by the developers to convince the general public that it was the best choice. And like all good sheep, the average Joe has fallen into lockstep and now tows the party line.

"This is the best design for a memorial because we said so."

Everyone should do themselves a favour and for their own edification, watch the half hour BS Penn and Teller episode on Ground Zero. It's a couple of years old but relevant none the less.

Link to part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sa1ucqponM

What should of happened is the area that is set to be the memorial for the WTC should of been given to the city of New York and separated from the WTC development, that way it could of gone through its own design that would of been more fitting for what would be a good memorial that better reflected what happened.

But that didn't happen and this is what we are getting. Though I honestly do not think there is a memorial that could actually capture the mass amount of horror everyone was able to witness first hand. It would of been like televising D-Day or Pearl Harbor across the world as it happened.

[Traynor]

A majority of people preferred this design for the memorial and museum. Ignore the idea of rebuilding the twins and just focus on the memorial and museum.

It is more in keeping with memorials around the world that honour a tragic history, like the Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbour, The Atomic Dome in Hiroshima or the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland. These memorials didn't remove their disturbing imagery, they memorialized it so that time would not let the horror slip away from memory.

A hundred years from now, will a passerby even understand why there are two square pools?

Could they pass by this idea without it provoking some thought?




(Images courtesy trioc from here: http://www.triroc.com/wtc/ )

1) It would have placed the museum (above ground) in a reconstructed North Tower lobby.

2) I would have added a large curved amphitheatre within the reconstructed South Tower facade.
- This would allow tour groups, visitors or students on a school trip, to sit while a museum employee could teach about the important history that happened at this site. The gravitas of the event would resonate more profoundly if the partial walls surrounded them.
- This would also provide a much-needed venue for 9/11 anniversary events to be held, where dignitaries and families could sit for the reading of the names. With the current design there is no space conducive for such important purposes.
- This would also supply a peaceful space to rest/meet friends/relax or quietly contemplate the surroundings.

3) I also would have returned "The Sphere" in the center between the two footprints. As it is now, Silverstein and the developers are trying to keep "The Sphere" away from the memorial plaza.

In my opinion, all in all, a better, more fitting memorial in keeping with what the families originally wanted.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Traynor

AIt is more in keeping with memorials around the world that honour a tragic history, like the Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbour, The Atomic Dome in Hiroshima or the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland. These memorials didn't remove their disturbing imagery, they memorialized it so that time would not let the horror slip away from memory.

A hundred years from now, will a passerby even understand why there are two square pools?

My main complaint with the sterilized reconstruction of the old WTC frames is that they are FAKE. Unlike the other memorials you mentioned. I don't think that taking the shattered remains and rebuilding them equally captures the horror. The others memorials are the untouched remains of an event, not replicas.

Once the pit was cleaned out, all ability to build a memorial in terms of the symbolism of the remains was lost.

The point about a gathering place for reading the names and conducting memorial services is a good one, isn't that what the Memorial Glade is intended for? Though it's size is probably too small.

[uaarkson]

All criticism of the new WTC will die the day it's opened. Some of you need to let go of this negativity and use your imagination to visualize how truly stunning it will end up being.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by uaarkson

All criticism of the new WTC will die the day it's opened. Some of you need to let go of this negativity and use your imagination to visualize how truly stunning it will end up being.

Personally I am fine with it overall from what I have seen so far. I understand the criticism that it has gotten because it is expected. Besides, I am not expecting anything to match what everyone witnessed that day, I am just expecting something hopefully peaceful.

[Traynor]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

...Once the pit was cleaned out, all ability to build a memorial in terms of the symbolism of the remains was lost...

Perhaps, but the memorial building subtly evokes this with new construction: With it's bent glass and angled framework, reminiscent of the tangled remains of the fallen towers. What I proposed is also new construction only more overt in its symbolism.


(Closeup of image posted in this thread by animatedmartian found here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...158432&page=67 )

Originally Posted by wong21fr

...The point about a gathering place for reading the names and conducting memorial services is a good one, isn't that what the Memorial Glade is intended for? Though it's size is probably too small.

This is the glaring omission from the whole plan as it's being built. The trees block clear views and inhibit larger gatherings during anniversaries.

[yankeesfan1000]

Every single thread on WTC turns into the same discussion. Whether it's this one, threads on towers 1, 2, 3 or 4.

We know some of you don't like the overall plan, but there's nothing that you can do about it so keep it to yourself. This thread is not about what some people think should have been built, but what is being built. If you can't stand the look of the new memorial, or other towers, why are you coming into these threads?

ANYWAYS....

Picture creds to subchat, from June 20th.

[JSsocal]

Concerning the plan Traynor has dug up: the museum would still be underground, you could not possibly fit everything into a replicated North Tower lobby, and so I give you this symbol: instead of taking the lobby elevators of the WTC up, you take them down, symbolically into hell. Also talk about eerie, walking into a replica of the lobby. The south tower shroud was completely dismantled and so it would have to be recreated. What makes the Arizona memorial and the Hiroshima dome so special is that it is the real mccoy. There's already a pair of tridents in the plan, which to me satisfies a literal connection to the tragedy.

The plaza itself will become a great place to convene each 9/11, there's no need to build an amphitheater for a group of spectators that come once a year, the plaza is more then sufficient.

Concerning the sphere, it would reside right in the intersection of fulton and greenwich, and so while I agree it should return to the site, it would not be in its original location regardless.

[Kanto]

Originally Posted by Incognito

The ancient Egyptians did not build the pyramids as tourist attractions. They became tourist attractions. How is this relevant to an office tower?

But now they are a tourist attraction. One where you need to pay to visit it. Because of their commercial function, they are in the same class as office towers. Both the pyramids and my proposed 1WTC and 6WTC have the same function - both memorial and commercial.

Btw, I would really like to see the old sphere somewhere on the WTC site. I think it's an important part of a 9/11 memorial, be it towers, rebuilt lobbies or pools.

[animatedmartian]

There is a thread for discussion about your views and opinions of the entire complex as well as what the other options were:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=166333


Meanwhile...
in.formed

[Traynor]

Originally Posted by JSsocal

... and so I give you this symbol: instead of taking the lobby elevators of the WTC up, you take them down, symbolically into hell...

The museum WILL BE underground and you will take an escalator "to hell" as you put it. How is what I proposed any different?

Originally Posted by JSsocal

... The plaza itself will become a great place to convene each 9/11, there's no need to build an amphitheater for a group of spectators that come once a year, the plaza is more then sufficient...

No it isn't. Logistically, a large group of people never gather in a stand of trees to hear a speaker, they would never see or hear them. They gather in open spaces.

Originally Posted by JSsocal

...Concerning the sphere, it would reside right in the intersection of fulton and greenwich, and so while I agree it should return to the site, it would not be in its original location regardless.

No one said it had to go at the exact geo-position it occupied before. Now you are just being obtuse. (And to be more accurate, it would sit in the middle of the yet-to-be re-opened Greenwich Street in front of the new PATH station being built.)

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

Every single thread on WTC turns into the same discussion. Whether it's this one, threads on towers 1, 2, 3 or 4.

We know some of you don't like the overall plan, but there's nothing that you can do about it so keep it to yourself...

If the forum administrator himself (KevinFromTexas) joins in this debate (as he did on the previous page) and participates with his comments and opinions about the alternative ideas, then I think it is not up to you to dictate what you want.

Furthermore, the first half of the pages of this forum contain alternative ideas, images and debates about the merits and drawbacks to this design. Including submissions by ALL of the top respected members of this site. Try looking back through the thread before telling everyone what you want.

Still further...The same could be said of you. If you don't like open and frank discussions, may I suggest you don't read those comments. Look at the pretty pictures and ignore the rest.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Kanto

Can you go on a tour, with a guide, through 1 WTC? Nope. But that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that money is generated in the function of these buildings.

Why would you want to take a tour of an office building?


Back on topic, I have to say seeing these construction photos are just amazing. It is mind boggling with how much construction is going on. It has to be similar to watching the Rockefeller Center going up back in the day. I am really curious how this will turn out, but I probably will only go to the museum once at least a year after it opens cause I hate lines and I hate crowds.

[Streamliner]

Now I don't know much about the dynamics of water, but I feel like there must be some way to mitigate that "going down the drain" look that we see in those photos. Couldn't they add a few drains at various points to break the natural flow of the water toward the center? Maybe it would be enough to disperse the white line of bubbles. I'm sure there is some kind of solution to this problem while retaining the artist's original idea.

[Don098]

I'm sorry, I thought this was supposed to be a thread about the development of the CURRENT design. I must be mistaken

[plinko]

Originally Posted by Kanto

Oh, and I'm sorry, I thought this was supposed to be a discussion forum, not only a place for posting photos and say "wow" about them.

Way to be a continual WTC thread killer.

Maybe someday you can join the grown-ups conversation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, Traynor, I'm wondering if there isn't a huge grand public gathering space because the designer felt that each person has their own personal connection to the site, rather than some shared experience?

Just guessing, but I could see that as a concept. (I'm not saying it's right).

BTW (because I don't feel like searching for it though pages and pages), who designed the actual museum building (not the memorial pools)?

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by plinko

BTW (because I don't feel like searching for it though pages and pages), who designed the actual museum building (not the memorial pools)?

http://www.911memorial.org/museum-architects

Snøhetta and Davis Brody Bond Aedas

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Kanto

This is all a misunderstanding. With pyramids I answered this statement by urbanlife. I never meant that the pyramids are office towers. I meant that they have a practical use. And earning money is a practical use. Both a paid tourist attraction and an office tower have a commercial, practical use.

And btw, I heared somebody asking for my age, well, if anybody doesn't know, I'm 21

Isn't there a museum apart of this memorial? Which is the building in between the two pools....so I am guessing that gives them this practical use you are talking about cause I would bet money the museum isn't going to be free.

Originally Posted by Kanto

I can imagine it. And I love it. I find the design of 1WTC to be a masterpiece. As to the other towers, I think they should have been made taller. I think the new second tallest building in NY shouldn't be shorter than the old second tallest building in NY. And as to the memorial, I hate it. Two holes aren't a memorial, they are a parody of a memorial.

I disagree, I think the planned heights of the towers will work well with Lower Manhattan and will actually work well with the WFC in that same stepping down format those towers have, as well as fit in much better with the skyline of Lower Manhattan. Also there is a certain feeling of height that you cannot experience in photos, you can't see a photo and tell me what the experience on top of the Rockefeller or Empire State Building is like.

And I disagree with you about the two pools. Those waterfalls are going to create a roaring noise when near them that will drown out the surrounding noise, it is a technique that was used at Paley Park in midtown Manhattan, which is an amazing tiny park, that again you have to actually visit to truly experience it. The waterfall at that park is used to drown out midtown Manhattan that you are basically in the middle of, and it give you a sense of peacefulness with its canopy of trees over head.


DSCF3118 by Dennis LaPrade, on Flickr

And trust me, you can stare at that photo all day long and never get the true experience of being there within that space. You will never understand the feeling of the stones you walk on, the enclosure of the trees and walls, the feeling of the chairs, the smell of the water as the noise drowns out the surroundings.

[Kanto]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Isn't there a museum apart of this memorial? Which is the building in between the two pools....so I am guessing that gives them this practical use you are talking about cause I would bet money the museum isn't going to be free.

So you see, even the memorial as it is now has also a practical use. I personally think such memorial museums should be free, but if the government won't fund it, they have no choice.