the crown of diamond shapes is extremely complicated . .
yeah,and interesting . . (& therefore very expensive) . .
that's why the diamonds had to go . .
But disagreeing with the, comment above, it was hardly
"the only thing special about it", [about Foster's final design] . .
Im not talking Foster's original WTC proposal here . .
(as seen just above, or on the previous page) which itself,
was definitely pretty fabulous . .
There is not a single square floor-plate anywhere in this Foster structure . .
All the angles & cut outs, lining up vertically, on every single level,
& angle the building's vertical side-planes, to one another . .
which gives the edifice beauty, in the diversity of light, top to bottom . .
Floor-plate complexity, also makes Foster's design for "2" very expensive . .
To be clear, that is why the Foster version was scrapped . . Money . .
not the bogus, devil's bargain, Fox-Silverstein-Ingles rationale . .
of News-floor sizing, that could've been configured into the Foster plan . .
Those floor cut-outs, that created the external upright notches,
rising uninterrupted from ground to sky, up through the middle of the sides,
may be easily ignored, by the casual observer . .
But they cut the broad bulk of the building visually . .
People may not consciously notice, but they'll catch the sophisticated vibe
of these upward indents, which look deceptively, sublimely simple . .
These deep, up & down grooves, give the building a powerful upward sky-
scraper-design thrust . .
I, personally, happen to like Foster's 2WTC best from the North,
the East . . & the on-axis North-East viewpoint especially . .
where the diamonds aren't even visible . .
Those viewpoints present the simple, verticality of the tower,
rising unadulterated into a clean pointed silhouette top-line . .
further accentuating its quintessential streamlined
skyscraper design . .
BTW, the crown of diamond shapes, of Foster's tower 2, respectfully defers
to the preeminent 1WTC crown by angling away from it . . allowing it space . .
In the Ingles version, the "crown" is, of course a mere pedestrian box . .
atop an ungainly jumble of other boxes, tumbling rudely, towards the
internationally famous crown & "spire" of David Child's tower 1 . .
the pinnacle of our downtown skyline . .
And only does the SW Corner of Ingles', otherwise horizontally appointed
version of 2WTC, have a skytscraper-enhansing vertical aspect . .
From the North and East, the Ingles version, is a cheaper composition of
egregiously sideways-thrusting lines, in a motif of wide, pancaked boxes . .
a 1300 ft. 'anti-skyscraper" configuration . .
Sorry Bjark, wrong skyline location, to play contrarian . .
There's the above comment that "Anyone who seriously thinks it
[the Foster] was a much better design is only fooling themselves."
Well to that, I'd NOT say . . the Foster concept, WAS a much better design . .
at this stage, I'd still unapologetically affirm, Foster's design IS far superior
. . Of the 2 massive proposals, it's the more worthy to be built . .
and it's alright, even important to say so . .