NEW YORK | What do you think of the new WTC? - Page 6

meh_cd · #**101** Posted **Sep 29, 2009, 2:24 AM**

If we can get the buildings in the latest set of dbox renders built in the next 10 years I can die happy.

Krases · #**102** Posted **Sep 29, 2009, 5:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleks

The only lot that looks bit enough to fit another 1WTC is where Tower 3 would be. But if 2 1WTC's were built that far from each other it would be stupid and would off-balance the whole skyline.

I'm not really sure why people keep complaining, every tower 'serves' a purpose and they all compliment each other. I could find many ways in which the towers compliment each other and how it's better than getting rid of Tower 1, 2, 3 or 4.

The only thing I wish they would've changed is the height of all the towers. Two or three hundred feet on each one could've been better, but the extra space would probably be unnecessary and it would tale longer to build. Plus the symbolic heights are good too, even though they 'limit' how tall each tower can be.

Well personally I embrace the idea of a super block, especially with the new memorial actually providing something to gather around instead of an empty square. Removing the extra roads would provide enough room for the second tower to fit in next to the first.

I should really open up sketchup and start playing around with concepts.

Aleks · #**103** Posted **Sep 29, 2009, 5:43 AM**

^^Yes but then the FT's would be parallel from each other, not diagonal and it would completely ruin the mood, the skyline and the ora of the original twin towers.

TwinTowersForever · #**104** Posted **Sep 29, 2009, 2:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duffstuff129

Hmm.. You're right! We could place that second 1WTC right over the memorial! Thanks bro!

>.< I was talking for picture purposes not the actual site.

JDRCRASH · #**105** Posted **Sep 29, 2009, 2:30 PM**

Yeah, if there was a chance to build the Twin Freedom Towers, I would.

But thats not gonna happen...

Bootstrap Bill · #**106** Posted **Sep 29, 2009, 6:12 PM**

My only complaint with the current plan is that it has far less office space than the original WTC site.

I realize demand for office space is down, but what are they going to do when this depression is over?

Bootstrap Bill · #**107** Posted **Sep 29, 2009, 6:16 PM**

It appears that some people are still pushing for a rebuild of the WTC.

Is this even remotely possible? I thought it was too late for that.

Sight-Seer · #**108** Posted **Sep 30, 2009, 1:23 AM**

I remember the excitement of the design contest. The final design doesn't look anything like the winner. Does it resemble any of the entries? It's too bad we ended up a such an ordinary-looking building.

RockMont · #**109** Posted **Sep 30, 2009, 1:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sight-Seer

I remember the excitement of the design contest. The final design doesn't look anything like the winner. Does it resemble any of the entries? It's too bad we ended up a such an ordinary-looking building.

That original design was absolutely disgusting. It looked like a great big bird cage, the final third of the way up, with nothing but wasted space. The final design is excellent, mainly because the very top floors are usable for the observation decks and the restaurants. The height of it only matters when there are usable floors, that were the same height as the originals. Now as far as it being , just an "ordinary" looking building, that's all it should be. Just as the twin towers were. They weren't the most spectacular buildings around, as far as character was concerned, but they were icons. This one, along with the others will be because of their size and I'm sure the designs and shapes will grow on people. Liebeskind's style is not what fits skyscrapers. His is more for short rises like the new art museum, here in Denver. Even that is kind of a bizarre looking edifice, but interesting. Not the type of architecture that works for skyscrapers, that's for sure.

Monsanto21 · #**110** Posted **Sep 30, 2009, 5:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crush_Buds

The evolution of the Freedom Tower. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...S_GRAPHIC.html

I have to say that the final (and current) design is fitting. The others look hideous on paper (aside from the monstrous height they would have provided). It would have been nice to see some sort of wind turbine used in the final plan, but that will have to wait for another time.

car2004 · #**111** Posted **Oct 1, 2009, 3:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crush_Buds

The evolution of the Freedom Tower. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...S_GRAPHIC.html

I reallly like the one from Aug. 2003. Only, I would not have had just open space, enclose it and that is a great building! Nonetheless, I love the current design and I am very happy with it. I just wish they would build this in chicago time frames. They build like there is no tomorrow!

kenc · #**112** Posted **Oct 1, 2009, 9:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGII

Without Tower 3 the complex will not fulfill the square footage the PA is contractually obliged to give Silverstein.

Sorry if this is explained in a previous post....but why is it contracturally necessary to replace all four million ( or whatever ) feet of office space ? Smart developers build what the market calls for. Why can't one of the towers be a hotel or residential or whatever is needed. Does lower Manhattan need that much office space ?

CGII · #**113** Posted **Oct 2, 2009, 1:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenc

Sorry if this is explained in a previous post....but why is it contracturally necessary to replace all four million ( or whatever ) feet of office space ?

The Port Authority owned and operated the WTC. Silverstein signed a lease on the complex. The buildings were destroyed. The PA is now obliged, by contract, to give Silverstein back his investment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenc

Smart developers build what the market calls for. Why can't one of the towers be a hotel or residential or whatever is needed. Does lower Manhattan need that much office space ?

This is not a matter of 'developing.' It is a matter of replacing.

Bootstrap Bill · #**114** Posted **Oct 2, 2009, 1:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenc

Sorry if this is explained in a previous post....but why is it contracturally necessary to replace all four million ( or whatever ) feet of office space ? Smart developers build what the market calls for. Why can't one of the towers be a hotel or residential or whatever is needed. Does lower Manhattan need that much office space ?

Maybe not today, but what about the next few decades? The need for office space could double in the next 20 years, but if they replace the WTC with smaller buildings, where will they put the office space they need? Lower Manhattan doesn't have tons of empty acreage laying around waiting to be developed....

Would they build in the other burroughs? New Jersey? How about a man-made island?

westmc9th · #**115** Posted **Oct 18, 2009, 12:15 PM**

i am in love with the new design i wish constructio would start on 2 and 3 soon stupid port authority this proves that people r forgetting about 9/11 so what if there isnt anyone to rent the freaking rooms its to honor the victims dumbasses

Buckeye Native 001 · #**116** Posted **Oct 19, 2009, 10:08 PM**

Q: What do I love about the new WTC?

A: How much it pisses off the "BUILD THE TWINS" fringe that its getting built.

uaarkson · #**117** Posted **Oct 22, 2009, 3:49 AM**

Okay now, don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the current WTC design. But I think rebuilding the twins with WTC7's facade would have looked amazing.

The building as it looks now is strongly reminiscent of the old towers, only glassier.

Stratosphere · #**118** Posted **Mar 2, 2010, 7:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucktown718

It should have been something like this. Just two identical towers. No complication sh*t that they have been throwing at each other for 9 years.

What a mess.

photoLith · #**119** Posted **Mar 2, 2010, 8:43 PM**

^^^
Isnt that from Click?

M.K. · #**120** Posted **Mar 2, 2010, 9:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stratosphere

It should have been something like this. Just two identical towers. No complication sh*t that they have been throwing at each other for 9 years.

What a mess.

agreed, really nicier, even if still had the 2 big holes water fountaines aside for the remember, because some other smaller 2 towers are

ok then 2 freedoms twins - 2 holes, the biggest contrast of negative and positive redone step further in future again, IMO, only, none 4 of now.