tyhis from the NY times...I think Childs is overcome with some sort of dementia as a result of all the negative publicity this project has got from day one. Anyone have any public comments fron Liebesking yet?
'Setting aside his publicly expressed enthusiasm for the first Freedom Tower, Mr. Childs said of the new one, "It is a rare moment when new is better." He added: "I feel better about this than the original. The building is simpler, architecturally. It is unique, yet it subtly recalls, in the sky, the tragedy that has happened here."'
caleb: so basically then, architecture has nothing more to contribute at the site of the politically motivated destruction of the world trade center, than simplicity that blends in with its surroundings?! i just can't believe that. there are enormous cultural issues throughout the world that are knotted together at this site, and the whole world's eye is on it. there's a rare opportunity to make a real difference here, to do some real good, and we can't let it pass us by.
how can you stomach just accepting that "a skyscraper will always be a place holder in the sky, a phalus of industry/capitalism"?
sorry to be singling you out, but you seem to be providing the lone dissenting opinion. :)
I actually like Child's NYSE scheme much better than the current 'Freedom' tower. Although Im not sure if its 1776' tall, it seems to be much better proportioned. Add the assymetrical spire and everyones happy. Seriously.
that's nothing new. the petronas towers were a pelli/thornton-tomasetti structural redo of a building planned in chicago to be the tallest in the world. all firms, especially corporate firms like SOM reuse ideas.
I don't know why everyone is so disappointed. This is what was expected. It's sad, though, looking through the competition entries and those unique visions in contrast to this new banal tower.
you know i don't know if this tread should be re-named "bash the un-inspiring designs of david childs" since we keep finding examples of what the "F" in FAIA stands for with this guy, if the tower weren't bad enough. Though I would have been less harsh on the NYSE scheme for the tower rather than the watered-down version we most likely will be stuck with.
who in their right mind would work in this building? it would be hilarious if they build this thing and it remains a vacant shell which would weirdly turn this new tower into an enormous grave marker.
John, Firms may reuse ideas hopefully expand on ideas but trying to pawn the same building off in NY as a site specific building with a symbolic liberty torch is taking post rationalization to a whole new level.
I guess the NY site dictated a less extreme pyramid form......or was that just that the upper floors rent at a higher rate.....better put more sqfootage up there.
John, Firms may reuse ideas hopefully expand on ideas but trying to pawn the same building off in NY as a site specific building with a symbolic liberty torch is taking post rationalization to a whole new level.
I guess the NY site dictated a less extreme pyramid form......or was that just that the upper floors rent at a higher rate.....better put more sqfootage up there.
heter, my comments were all rather making fun of the other posts, who make such trite and un thought out basic architectual critisisms...such as "does'nt fit on site", but i think our misunderstandings of the reading of this tower stem from what is expected...i don't see it as the building job to symbolize the tragedy, or be any type of memorial, there is to many readings of what took place to be encapsulated into one bohemouth of a building, and it would end up taking the spotlight, being more of a distraction, the empty footprints and vacant space are for this type of reflection. Now the fact that millions of square footage and office space were destroyed, pragmatically they need to be replaced....que the new "freedom tower"...it is unassuming/low key and off the footprints.
heterarchy, I'm so glad you're back , you as usual speak so thoughtfully about these heavy topics.
calebrichards, I think a lot of people aren't writing long considered psots on this topic because it's just too painful - it's so, so sad to see a once-in-an-eternity opportunity become so ... mediocre. I like arclem's take: "The only freedom this represents is the freedom of a developer and politicians to completely deny the public of architecture with any substance, quality, or meaning."
I'll fire off a quick email to SOM and Pataki, even with only the most miniscule hope that it could do any good. Good suggestion, guys.
"painfull" lets not pretend we are that passionate about design, for any better design to come out there has to be good thought out critisism, it is always easier said then done...but i see all types of cheap talk on this post and no critisisms that hold water...so think about why you hate this desgn so much instead of trying to be so cynically cool
and what the hell is danny doing at the unveiling? if it were me, i'd have nothing to do with it at this point. his only ownership is the 1776' mark at that is such a one liner. i fully understand that compromises will be and should be made, but danny has been humiliated.
caleb, i think the saddest part of the building is the 200' bunker at the base of the building. it is a solid, no pun intended, reminder that the terrorists are not losing. will this become the standard for all skyscrapers in the future? i'm with you in liking foster's proposal too.
Caleb, lots of us have to work during the day and don't really have time to spell out for you why we hate it. We think it's sad, we're disappointed, we expect more from our fellow professionals and we all seem to get that without having to go into some wordy bullshit diatribe.
And I tend to have more faith in my fellow archinecters than to think that everyone is trying to be cynically cool. We understand that Larry Silverstein wants to get his leaseable office space back up and running as soon as possible. But on behalf of those Americans who still believe in art, innovation, and the greater good, I submit that this design falls far short of what could be an outstanding symbol of the human spirit in the modern age. To put it simply.
And if you think that I'm not passionate about design, then you obviously don't know me and I would appreciate it if you don't presume to.
Am I the only one who actually appreciates the 'boringness' of the new proposal?
Twin square extrusions turns into one twisted square extrusion. Equal sized floorplans all the way up. Nice and comprehensible developer logic, as oposed to the artsy (and half-empty), symbolic, monumental, fcuk-finger from Liebeskind.
don't know that i even thought libeskind's original proposal was really all that great anyway, but did he have any part whatsoever in this latest design?
WonderK, i love the typical egotistical architects response that their design is for the "greater good" when most people can't afford to buy their "greater good"..thats the typical pretensouness that give architects a bad name and why we are so often overlooked in the building trade.
not everyone's "symbol of the human spirit in the modern age" will look alike....oh but we should all accept yours.
? what strategy is that? some type of heat sink? oh humor, that not very american we need a set of gun turrets and missle launchers and a sign that says "bring it!" thats american pre-emtive sustainablility.
Caleb, don't act trite, you lessen any argument you are trying to make. If you consider that to be good enough for what we as designers are capable of in the 21st century, then that's your prerogative. My point has absolutely nothing to do with what I want for it.....just the opposite exactly....my point is that if there ever were a time in all of humankind's history that we were going to try to express ourselves as a free society, this should be it. This should be our "don't give in, don't value engineer it" moment. This deserves every attention and every possibility that it can get.
What does "people can't afford to buy their "greater good" have to do with it, anyway? I, too, would like to see more of the sustainability features on it but you can't have it both ways. You can spend now and have a healthier building later, which is the way it should be.
well said, but i think silverstein has got to realize that the wtc site is'nt what it was when it was originally conceived in the 60's...right now it is not necessary for a huge trading center to be centrally located in lower manhatten...due to internet etc. and the current state of lower manhatten real estate reflects that...there are more leasable space in there then ever, so putting alot of time and money into this building just is'nt going to pay out, and so the architectual wonder we would all like is a pipe dream and argueing to the contrary is ignoring the issues we architects tend to ignore and leave to the developer, and later call insensetive and brutish. which is what childs is good at pleasing.
my comment "people can't afford to buy their "greater good"" is a trite remark that good design has never been made for anyone but for those that can afford it...ususally the very rich, everyone else buys their crap at wall mart (me included)
for those that say this exemplifies the discontinuity of the profession, i think it shows exactly how close minded and unimaginative the masses are. anything that can't be contained or immediately understood in someone’s head its immediately taken as being absurd or unnecessary. this design sucks (or blows) because of its regurgitation of the uninspired in the everyday without even a shy attempt at anything loftier than its height.
and if the public doesn't always understand the rational of something "different", then its good not everyone is an architect (though some that are, shouldn't be). i don't claim to support architecture for the sake of itself without taking into concern real issues like feasibility and cost. the difference is even a lot of architects START design with that as the only concern.
but then i guess i need to go back to the real world (and work) and not live in what i would like to imagine it (and the profession) to be.
Caleb, makes some interesting points. criticisms do need to be validated by real evidence or developed so as to not appear trite, yet he seems to fall victim to the "design is aesthetic embellishment" condundrum that many people labor within. The questions related to the freedom tower and its designs are not just of architectural correspondence to a previous design or of an "avante-garde" stand, but also deal with deeper questions related to the revelation of public space and the development of security vs. public access. The question here is of what validity is a tower of this nature if it's design is intrinsically about the sheltering of "freedoms" with a rampant disregard to democratic accessibility. how could these security concerns be mitigated without re-creating the walled cities of a previous age? the basic person within the public realm (and most architects) will see the new model and focus on the overall shape, the glassiness of the tower, etc....but we also need to be concerned for the effect at the ground. how do we allow a presence to the street that challenges the "run and hide" nature that security takes toward adversity. can freedom continue to exist in a society that shelters itself of conflict and adversity? in a way this is a crisis of our culture...for me this is just endemic of a larger shift towards the concept of empire and colonialist occupation. we shelter ourselves from the "other" out of fear and squash the very principles that we supposedly espouse...namely freedom. what is freedom in this modern age? does it exist? what will its status be in 10 years?
can we continue to espouse as we hold up icons such as this tower that intrinsically deny our own statements. an architectural double-speak of big brother proportions.
In compliment to our forum here, I just found a "super" forum on the NY Times web site. 4000+ posts strong, and some very well thought out critiques. Have a look.
Such a sad sight. The issue I have with it deals with the whole concept of building/designing a replacement for the WTC so soon. We as a country, and those of us who are newyorkers (me not inculded) need time to really think about what it is that we want. What we want to memorialize, what we want to project to the world, and what we want in place of what we had. Clearly it hasn't been long enough to address these issues if this is the best we can come up with. Lets wait a few more years, get rid of a few egos, and get over this bullshit dealing with "homeland security." If someone wants to attack us they will figure out a way. 2 feet 20 feet 1000 feet there is no diff the plan of attack will just be different. thats my 2 cents.
Such a damn power play. First a 'competition', then a 'collaboration', then, uh, where'd Libeskind go?? and now we have it. The key players got what they wanted and America suffers.
Blah. Turns my stomach just thinking about (let's not even start about the building design).
So if design is NOT "aesthetic embellishment" it has to do with something deeper, something that transcends attractiveness or symbolism - then the freedom tower as an example of deeper architecture would foster freedom (as a part of its program) through its spatial characteristics and spatial design, not through aesthetics and unfounded declarations of meaning. It fails because it focuses on the superficial, the "art", forgetting the basis of architecture as a solution to a human problem and the creator of better ways of living. You can't foster freedom with yet another commercial skyscraper, you have to do it on the ground, with well-designed spaces for people that encourage, somehow, freedom and reflection, not with another monolith that only serves to represent the american values that contributed to the destruction of the original WTC in the first place.
In addition, most of you are complaining about the freedom tower but don't give reasons as to why it is bad. I understand that it's heavy on the hit-you-in-the-face yet superficial symbolism (1776 ft?) that ends up being swallowed by the equally hit-you-in-the-face commercialism and lack of reverence, but does it work programmatically? What if the encouragement of "freedom" is included as part of the program? This would be completely at odds with the aforementined commercialism and crass money-grubbing, and thus results in architecture that doesn't provide a solution to a problem, that doesn't address the program.
Can freedom really be encouraged through architecture, spatially, and not just by layering on the symbolism? Can it be done perhaps by encouraging people to mix, by bringing in different cultures, by organizing the ground plan in some way? Shouldn't that bear thinking about when you're designing a monument to freedom?
If design really is just aesthetic embellishment, as so many people seem to think, then this is a moot point, the public is right and I'm going to go hang myself.
I think the idea of program has to be expanded. And whoever decided that just by making something 1776 feet tall makes it a fitting moument is mistaken, in my opinion, even if it was libeskind. What if you're blind? What's left of te freedom tower then? How is it diferent than if you were in a mall or any other parden-variety park?
The thing is this building looks like a million others. There is nothing to distinguish it, NOTHING, beyond typing '1776'. You can suggest a bright future, possibilities, something new and better, with architecture. So many of us have a problem with a regurgitated scheme from one of SOM's old sketch models.
I don't hate SOM. They've done a decent thing here and there. Even their Dubai tower looks interesting, but this is just banal, to say the least. There is nothing engaging about the design, the spire looks like it was taken directly off of countless buildings, most many decades old (I personally think of the Empire State building).
It's just a lousy attempt that any student could design in their sleep. This is supposed to be something special. It's anything but special.
The SOM "Freedom Tower" embarrassment
tyhis from the NY times...I think Childs is overcome with some sort of dementia as a result of all the negative publicity this project has got from day one. Anyone have any public comments fron Liebesking yet?
'Setting aside his publicly expressed enthusiasm for the first Freedom Tower, Mr. Childs said of the new one, "It is a rare moment when new is better." He added: "I feel better about this than the original. The building is simpler, architecturally. It is unique, yet it subtly recalls, in the sky, the tragedy that has happened here."'
jensenarch...that Fuckin' Brilliant! thats exactly what Childs needs to do with his "new is better" design.
caleb: so basically then, architecture has nothing more to contribute at the site of the politically motivated destruction of the world trade center, than simplicity that blends in with its surroundings?! i just can't believe that. there are enormous cultural issues throughout the world that are knotted together at this site, and the whole world's eye is on it. there's a rare opportunity to make a real difference here, to do some real good, and we can't let it pass us by.
how can you stomach just accepting that "a skyscraper will always be a place holder in the sky, a phalus of industry/capitalism"?
sorry to be singling you out, but you seem to be providing the lone dissenting opinion. :)
over at curbed they are highlighting the similarities between this deign and one of Child's unrealized proposals for the NYSE.
I actually like Child's NYSE scheme much better than the current 'Freedom' tower. Although Im not sure if its 1776' tall, it seems to be much better proportioned. Add the assymetrical spire and everyones happy. Seriously.
that's nothing new. the petronas towers were a pelli/thornton-tomasetti structural redo of a building planned in chicago to be the tallest in the world. all firms, especially corporate firms like SOM reuse ideas.
I don't know why everyone is so disappointed. This is what was expected. It's sad, though, looking through the competition entries and those unique visions in contrast to this new banal tower.
another case of Philly First?
http://phillyskyline.com/bldgs/cira/cira_0505.htm
you know i don't know if this tread should be re-named "bash the un-inspiring designs of david childs" since we keep finding examples of what the "F" in FAIA stands for with this guy, if the tower weren't bad enough. Though I would have been less harsh on the NYSE scheme for the tower rather than the watered-down version we most likely will be stuck with.
who in their right mind would work in this building? it would be hilarious if they build this thing and it remains a vacant shell which would weirdly turn this new tower into an enormous grave marker.
John, Firms may reuse ideas hopefully expand on ideas but trying to pawn the same building off in NY as a site specific building with a symbolic liberty torch is taking post rationalization to a whole new level.
I guess the NY site dictated a less extreme pyramid form......or was that just that the upper floors rent at a higher rate.....better put more sqfootage up there.
paint by number
Design by number
John, Firms may reuse ideas hopefully expand on ideas but trying to pawn the same building off in NY as a site specific building with a symbolic liberty torch is taking post rationalization to a whole new level.
I guess the NY site dictated a less extreme pyramid form......or was that just that the upper floors rent at a higher rate.....better put more sqfootage up there.
paint by number
Design by number
heter, my comments were all rather making fun of the other posts, who make such trite and un thought out basic architectual critisisms...such as "does'nt fit on site", but i think our misunderstandings of the reading of this tower stem from what is expected...i don't see it as the building job to symbolize the tragedy, or be any type of memorial, there is to many readings of what took place to be encapsulated into one bohemouth of a building, and it would end up taking the spotlight, being more of a distraction, the empty footprints and vacant space are for this type of reflection. Now the fact that millions of square footage and office space were destroyed, pragmatically they need to be replaced....que the new "freedom tower"...it is unassuming/low key and off the footprints.
heterarchy, I'm so glad you're back , you as usual speak so thoughtfully about these heavy topics.
calebrichards, I think a lot of people aren't writing long considered psots on this topic because it's just too painful - it's so, so sad to see a once-in-an-eternity opportunity become so ... mediocre. I like arclem's take: "The only freedom this represents is the freedom of a developer and politicians to completely deny the public of architecture with any substance, quality, or meaning."
I'll fire off a quick email to SOM and Pataki, even with only the most miniscule hope that it could do any good. Good suggestion, guys.
"painfull" lets not pretend we are that passionate about design, for any better design to come out there has to be good thought out critisism, it is always easier said then done...but i see all types of cheap talk on this post and no critisisms that hold water...so think about why you hate this desgn so much instead of trying to be so cynically cool
If we put a light in it they will love it
fyi. [email protected] does not work. haven't gotten anything back from the other address.
and what the hell is danny doing at the unveiling? if it were me, i'd have nothing to do with it at this point. his only ownership is the 1776' mark at that is such a one liner. i fully understand that compromises will be and should be made, but danny has been humiliated.
caleb, i think the saddest part of the building is the 200' bunker at the base of the building. it is a solid, no pun intended, reminder that the terrorists are not losing. will this become the standard for all skyscrapers in the future? i'm with you in liking foster's proposal too.
Caleb, lots of us have to work during the day and don't really have time to spell out for you why we hate it. We think it's sad, we're disappointed, we expect more from our fellow professionals and we all seem to get that without having to go into some wordy bullshit diatribe.
And I tend to have more faith in my fellow archinecters than to think that everyone is trying to be cynically cool. We understand that Larry Silverstein wants to get his leaseable office space back up and running as soon as possible. But on behalf of those Americans who still believe in art, innovation, and the greater good, I submit that this design falls far short of what could be an outstanding symbol of the human spirit in the modern age. To put it simply.
And if you think that I'm not passionate about design, then you obviously don't know me and I would appreciate it if you don't presume to.
Am I the only one who actually appreciates the 'boringness' of the new proposal?
Twin square extrusions turns into one twisted square extrusion. Equal sized floorplans all the way up. Nice and comprehensible developer logic, as oposed to the artsy (and half-empty), symbolic, monumental, fcuk-finger from Liebeskind.
ap
wow. this looks like a hundred other buildings som has done.
don't know that i even thought libeskind's original proposal was really all that great anyway, but did he have any part whatsoever in this latest design?
well, he was at the unveiling bossman.
bait & switch
makes a mockery out of the "inclusive, public process"
ah.
This is a survey on the front page of AOL:
Which design do you prefer?
The new one, right 80%
The old one, left 10%
I can't tell the difference 10%
Total Votes: 125,433
Fuck!ng sad!
WonderK, i love the typical egotistical architects response that their design is for the "greater good" when most people can't afford to buy their "greater good"..thats the typical pretensouness that give architects a bad name and why we are so often overlooked in the building trade.
not everyone's "symbol of the human spirit in the modern age" will look alike....oh but we should all accept yours.
j3, the average person likes the familar.
most architects will play their own designs over and over.
ah la koolhaas and the award winning porto concert hall, previousely designed as a house....scraped and reproportioned for a concert hall
my major crit is that it has scraped all attempts at some sort of sustainable design strategy...like the windmills, photovoltiacs etc.
actually, the sustainable design strategy is the 200' bunker of a base.
? what strategy is that? some type of heat sink? oh humor, that not very american we need a set of gun turrets and missle launchers and a sign that says "bring it!" thats american pre-emtive sustainablility.
Caleb, don't act trite, you lessen any argument you are trying to make. If you consider that to be good enough for what we as designers are capable of in the 21st century, then that's your prerogative. My point has absolutely nothing to do with what I want for it.....just the opposite exactly....my point is that if there ever were a time in all of humankind's history that we were going to try to express ourselves as a free society, this should be it. This should be our "don't give in, don't value engineer it" moment. This deserves every attention and every possibility that it can get.
What does "people can't afford to buy their "greater good" have to do with it, anyway? I, too, would like to see more of the sustainability features on it but you can't have it both ways. You can spend now and have a healthier building later, which is the way it should be.
Dont pick on caleb, he just has no taste.
well said, but i think silverstein has got to realize that the wtc site is'nt what it was when it was originally conceived in the 60's...right now it is not necessary for a huge trading center to be centrally located in lower manhatten...due to internet etc. and the current state of lower manhatten real estate reflects that...there are more leasable space in there then ever, so putting alot of time and money into this building just is'nt going to pay out, and so the architectual wonder we would all like is a pipe dream and argueing to the contrary is ignoring the issues we architects tend to ignore and leave to the developer, and later call insensetive and brutish. which is what childs is good at pleasing.
my comment "people can't afford to buy their "greater good"" is a trite remark that good design has never been made for anyone but for those that can afford it...ususally the very rich, everyone else buys their crap at wall mart (me included)
i have to agree that my main complaint is design to the lowest common denominator, then the public likes it, just take a look...
http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3672&page=139&pp=15
for those that say this exemplifies the discontinuity of the profession, i think it shows exactly how close minded and unimaginative the masses are. anything that can't be contained or immediately understood in someone’s head its immediately taken as being absurd or unnecessary. this design sucks (or blows) because of its regurgitation of the uninspired in the everyday without even a shy attempt at anything loftier than its height.
and if the public doesn't always understand the rational of something "different", then its good not everyone is an architect (though some that are, shouldn't be). i don't claim to support architecture for the sake of itself without taking into concern real issues like feasibility and cost. the difference is even a lot of architects START design with that as the only concern.
but then i guess i need to go back to the real world (and work) and not live in what i would like to imagine it (and the profession) to be.
Caleb, makes some interesting points. criticisms do need to be validated by real evidence or developed so as to not appear trite, yet he seems to fall victim to the "design is aesthetic embellishment" condundrum that many people labor within. The questions related to the freedom tower and its designs are not just of architectural correspondence to a previous design or of an "avante-garde" stand, but also deal with deeper questions related to the revelation of public space and the development of security vs. public access. The question here is of what validity is a tower of this nature if it's design is intrinsically about the sheltering of "freedoms" with a rampant disregard to democratic accessibility. how could these security concerns be mitigated without re-creating the walled cities of a previous age? the basic person within the public realm (and most architects) will see the new model and focus on the overall shape, the glassiness of the tower, etc....but we also need to be concerned for the effect at the ground. how do we allow a presence to the street that challenges the "run and hide" nature that security takes toward adversity. can freedom continue to exist in a society that shelters itself of conflict and adversity? in a way this is a crisis of our culture...for me this is just endemic of a larger shift towards the concept of empire and colonialist occupation. we shelter ourselves from the "other" out of fear and squash the very principles that we supposedly espouse...namely freedom. what is freedom in this modern age? does it exist? what will its status be in 10 years?
can we continue to espouse as we hold up icons such as this tower that intrinsically deny our own statements. an architectural double-speak of big brother proportions.
In compliment to our forum here, I just found a "super" forum on the NY Times web site. 4000+ posts strong, and some very well thought out critiques. Have a look.
NY Times Readers' Opinions
Hi
Is it an Eifel Tower that is put ontop ?
Such a sad sight. The issue I have with it deals with the whole concept of building/designing a replacement for the WTC so soon. We as a country, and those of us who are newyorkers (me not inculded) need time to really think about what it is that we want. What we want to memorialize, what we want to project to the world, and what we want in place of what we had. Clearly it hasn't been long enough to address these issues if this is the best we can come up with. Lets wait a few more years, get rid of a few egos, and get over this bullshit dealing with "homeland security." If someone wants to attack us they will figure out a way. 2 feet 20 feet 1000 feet there is no diff the plan of attack will just be different. thats my 2 cents.
Such a damn power play. First a 'competition', then a 'collaboration', then, uh, where'd Libeskind go?? and now we have it. The key players got what they wanted and America suffers.
Blah. Turns my stomach just thinking about (let's not even start about the building design).
I hope no one rents a damn room in that thing.
So if design is NOT "aesthetic embellishment" it has to do with something deeper, something that transcends attractiveness or symbolism - then the freedom tower as an example of deeper architecture would foster freedom (as a part of its program) through its spatial characteristics and spatial design, not through aesthetics and unfounded declarations of meaning. It fails because it focuses on the superficial, the "art", forgetting the basis of architecture as a solution to a human problem and the creator of better ways of living. You can't foster freedom with yet another commercial skyscraper, you have to do it on the ground, with well-designed spaces for people that encourage, somehow, freedom and reflection, not with another monolith that only serves to represent the american values that contributed to the destruction of the original WTC in the first place.
In addition, most of you are complaining about the freedom tower but don't give reasons as to why it is bad. I understand that it's heavy on the hit-you-in-the-face yet superficial symbolism (1776 ft?) that ends up being swallowed by the equally hit-you-in-the-face commercialism and lack of reverence, but does it work programmatically? What if the encouragement of "freedom" is included as part of the program? This would be completely at odds with the aforementined commercialism and crass money-grubbing, and thus results in architecture that doesn't provide a solution to a problem, that doesn't address the program.
Can freedom really be encouraged through architecture, spatially, and not just by layering on the symbolism? Can it be done perhaps by encouraging people to mix, by bringing in different cultures, by organizing the ground plan in some way? Shouldn't that bear thinking about when you're designing a monument to freedom?
If design really is just aesthetic embellishment, as so many people seem to think, then this is a moot point, the public is right and I'm going to go hang myself.
This tower verges on the generic. This is a successful office building and thats about it.
I think the idea of program has to be expanded. And whoever decided that just by making something 1776 feet tall makes it a fitting moument is mistaken, in my opinion, even if it was libeskind. What if you're blind? What's left of te freedom tower then? How is it diferent than if you were in a mall or any other parden-variety park?
it fails both on a programmatic level and an experiential, emoional level. Thus, the failure of everything that is architecture
The thing is this building looks like a million others. There is nothing to distinguish it, NOTHING, beyond typing '1776'. You can suggest a bright future, possibilities, something new and better, with architecture. So many of us have a problem with a regurgitated scheme from one of SOM's old sketch models.
I don't hate SOM. They've done a decent thing here and there. Even their Dubai tower looks interesting, but this is just banal, to say the least. There is nothing engaging about the design, the spire looks like it was taken directly off of countless buildings, most many decades old (I personally think of the Empire State building).
It's just a lousy attempt that any student could design in their sleep. This is supposed to be something special. It's anything but special.
i think a 3d honeycomb would be better than this...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.