the multimedia links on the right have the proposals - they are
more conceptual so it's tough to get a straight comparison...but
the simplicity of oma's scheme to turn a typical buiding on it's
head radiates more hope than the current freedom tower project.
it is interesting to not SOM's proposal for the replacement of WTC building 7...much more dynamic...i think the current version is definatley the result of the fears of politicians and the police
puddles you are right on in your analysis of the real estate and insurance money, with its stake in this latest reincarnation
i can't get over Foster's proposal...just awsome, not to differant and not too new...just right...i also like United Architects proposal...but maybe not as ambitouse as their initial proposal I love the idea of seperate footprints of buildings merging into some super structure above the ground and around the site, both visually and metaphorically beautiful
"not too different and not too new" --- heaven forbid we do something new and different / progressive and visionary at the most emotionally and politically charged site in our lifetime! NO, instead let's ignore the potential to define America as a leader in the world (of design -- all other areas we simply conquer through force) and put someting up that really does reflect our position that design is secondary to all other social, political and public concerns -- though of course, we will still give lip service to the fact that design is central to all of those but in the end pretend not to care .........
and by the way -- what exactly does TOO NEW mean? NEW means something that we haven't seen or thought of before, so what could it possible mean to be TOO new? I assume it means someting people aren't ready for or willing to accept? such as the attacks themselves? THOSE were TRULY TOO NEW! The idea that ideas and proposals would be beyond us at this place and time is unconcionable. It in fact REQUIRES someting that hasn't been done before as a defiant counterpoint to THAT which hadn't been done before. To do anything less is to LOOSE. And Childs has tanked it for all of us!
db
sorry i think the fact that it is "the most emotionally and politically charged site in our lifetime" requires some restraint, and i guess i don't buy into the novalty of new for new's sake, i love inovation but new for news sake more often then not is just eye candy and looses all relevance in a very short time, turns architecture into fashion and lacks any sort of timelessness. but thas me
but WOW, what if it were BOTH (innovative AND socially cognicient)
as it is -- IT'S NEITHER
surely we should (at least) shoot ahead of us rather than behind or to the side. Otherwise it's death by friendly fire. Something even the military frowns on.
simply put: where there is not innovation or desire to do so there is DEATH.
i agree that the project is a failure, but the initial proposals didn't resolve any social concerns either. in fact, there is so little architecture that does.
granted...i'm by no means defending this current proposal i just require more in depth thougth out critisism then the flaming attacks most often posted here (refer to futureboys on prevouse page) you are also falling into the "aesthetic embellishment" problem, and you need to further define inovation beyond your very general def. ...according to a article i read this building is the most innovative building in terms of saftey...obvoisely saftey trumps other concerns such as openess but your program for the building is very differant from that of silverstein's/pataki's....
well, I think you point to it: safety trumps openness. AND THAT'S A BIG THING! America was led to beileve that this was a democratic process -- an open design competition -- and it is ending up not so. It is being shaped and manipulated by outside forces completely aborent of the goals of the competition to design a monument to freedom. Frankly, America should be offended by the process here. Instead we are offended by JJ's boob. I'll say again, perhaps what we are getting is what we deserve. But it shouldn't be so.
i think/fear if this competition were truly a democratic process as you wish for, we would have something much worse than what som has produced. the average person's taste is not a refined as the average person here.
i hope u are not implying we got what we deserved on 9-11, for it was our openess as a society that made it that much more open to attack. and perhaps the freedom we lost on that day was our freedom from responsibility, as the worlds sole superpower we need to acknowledge some responsibility and throw away any notion of isolationism...
although i'm not a fan of towers, i'll agree with calebrichers and the few others who have mentioned the foster scheme. if we have to have to have a skyscraper, i feel that old sir norman would have produced the best result. he has experience with mega projects and i am certain that his firm could have delivered an environmentally and technically innovative solution that we could respect from at least one perspective rather than this sillyness of a 1776 foot tall monument.
#1. What the hell is that white thing spewing out at the top?! Is it me, or is the freedom tower EJACULATING...
#2. What the HELL is that old guy in the photo above doing to his glowing ejaculating freedom tower?!
Greeat... Ya lets put a giant ejaculating penis ontop of a 200 foot pedestal and make it the symbol of our city... That will show those terrorists... COME ON!! Um... I was considering moving to New York, but somehow I don't want to live in the penis capital of the world...
k... just my 2 cents but this design is going to make the U.S. the laughingstock of the world.
i just can't believe that they got rid of the asymmetrical spire. when all is said and done, this thing is going to be some sort of flashy glass tower, but the simple move of putting a tapering spire off-center really did evoke the strong and hopeful gesture of the statue of liberty raising her torch. personally, i think that it was a subtle but powerful design that actually did what it said it was supposed to do.
the whole 1776 thing was bullshit to begin with. it's probably going to actually end up being like 1775' or 1777'... in which case, will we americans begin to have doubts about when our declaration of independence was signed? no, because we're not machines, we can't tell if a building is 1300' high or 1600' high, much less 1776' high. why don't they make sure that they use the same number of square feet of glass in the building as the number of days in george washington's life? etcetera.
the worst thing of all, the absolute worst... is how the lmdc says that the new building still references the torch of the statue of liberty. NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T! i can't BELIEVE that they would still pay lip service to the only truly poetic architectural statement in Libeskind's design when they have completely stripped the "freedom tower" of every last ounce of architectural merit. if that piece of shit building references the torch of the statue of liberty, then every single object in the world that is taller than it is wide references the statue of liberty. i think a quote from above was pretty apt, about how this building is real estate, not architecture. those assholes at the lmdc, and every single person involved in this process that has any power whatsoever, should be ashamed of themselves. absolutely shameful. this is pathetic.
It is obvious that the pure architectural vision looks to be lost at the hands of commercial and political forces. This is a great shame but there are many other factors to consider including the pretext that economic viability will be the driving force in any market economy. The naivety of the majority of posts reflects the theoretical dislocation many of you have with real word practice. The real skill of grand design is to choose your architectural battles wisely en-route, and not in laying claim to some higher architectural authority in order to berate a successful corporate practice like SOM.
BOTS, this is not your average project, c'mon! If we , as architects, don't try to find another meaning to such an event through architecture, who will do it. Our job is to build stuff inside economic and security constraint, blahblah, but that the freakin' ground zero site you know? I mean, I'm not american, but I feel concerned as an architect. You should get real.
Following in the footsteps of what others have already said ....
The Freedom Tower is anything but. It is not only a terrible design, but the way that particular structure was erected is a perfect metaphor for many of the ways in which our current governmental institutions are apt to operate. A project predicated on "freedom," symbolic of and suggesting the government that our foes are apparently "jealous" of, the Tower is emblematic of our leaders deciding how best to exemplify the mores of this nation ... just because they, and they alone, know best.
In the words of the New York Times, "If there are people still clinging to the expectation that the Freedom Tower will become a monument to the highest American ideals, the current design should finally shake them out of that delusion. Somber, oppressive and clumsily conceived, the project suggests a monument to a society that has turned its back on any notion of cultural openness. It is exactly the kind of nightmare that government officials repeatedly asserted would never happen here: an impregnable tower braced against the outside world ... The Freedom Tower embodies, in its way, a world shaped by fear [...] an ideal symbol for an empire enthralled with its own power."
So obviously the term "Freedom" is misleading. The latest confirmation of what Bush calls "the ownership society" is the contentious Kelo v. City of New London case, which states that local governments can use eminent domain to seize land for commercial reasons. There are nuances in the case, of course, that deal with issues of Federal jurisdiction and whatnot ... but the message behind the Kelo case and the Freedom Tower fiasco are clear: freedom resides in those who can exercise and wield power. It is not the idyllic version of freedom that our leaders evoke when we drop daisy-cutter bombs and "advise" countries on how to create governments.
Our country knows best because we are literally and figuratively in the democracy business.
Brightside...
I would have invented a much more creative solution to the problems that make up the design of this very important bldg.
It is our responsiblity to show those who have no clue about good architecture, what a good piece of arch. is. Childs has not done this. He has created one of the most mediocre responses to this problem that I could ever fathom. He has truely forged his legacy on NYC and no one will look back on it with interest or admiration.
Architects.....is there anything we can do to stop this atrocity? I thought there were some action groups out there.....how can we latch onto these and help prevent this fallic monstroncity to arise?
brightside - because he took the job doesn't mean he had to make it ugly. SOM has a decent project or two here and there. This should be one of them.
BOTS - again, SOM does some decent projects (their Dubai tower ain't too shabby), so why not here? This really does look like they went to their storage closet and grabbed a cheap ass design from 30 years ago and slapped it down, and a bad one at that! I believe Childs is even capable of something more distinguished, if not more progressive.
The terrorists have won the war. They have instilled fear into the hearts of Americans from which we will never recover. The new design evokes the same feeling as a prison, and perhaps it is one. From this building design it is evident that the true tragedy is that the nation cannot move on, but will always be trapped in a prison of our own fear, always looking backward to 9/11. With all the new and costly government programs which promise American safety, are all these extra precautions really necessary? The new design is a heavy traditional skyscraper with an awkward antenna on top, probably an afterthought. The new design is a disgrace to the American value of freedom.
anymore it seems all buildings, whether produced by a huge office like som or by our darling starchitects, are eyesores. does anyone remember beauty. oh and this goes for anything produced at my office.
I don't think working within economic and political constraints means that a building has to be dumb...
Don't get me wrong, it all great that the building is very safe. Its also great that they were able to make it safe and have plenty of office space to rent... So, yeah, I guess they've met some important criteria that makes the project somewhat more economically sustainable given this context...
That is probably the bottom line in this project. But here, the bottom line just doesnt cut it. This project has a major political and cultural significance for New York City and for America.
This is about expression, about a reaction. About something that actually MEANS something to a great many people (oooh... quite shocking right that in our day and age that REPRESENTATION in urban space has not yet died...) The problem with SOM's scheme is not that it doesnt meet the bottom line... It's that it chooses to meet it dumbly, doesn't go beyond a thoughtless solution that meets this line... The problem is a lack of creativity... It misses an opportunity. To create something that inspires people. That REALLY succeeds in lifting people up in the face of a catastrophe. Let's be realistic. Architectural design does have economic value.
The terribly powerful damage of the 9/11 catastrophe was its impact on the national psyche: the repeated image of the towers going down... The very real power of those images, engrained in the nation's mind sent ripples through the economy, and this is not something that has just gone away, or will somply disappear... In short, the dumbness of the current design proposal is that it fails to take seriously the REAL VALUE that inventing a new form of civic representation could have for the greater economy. Economic well-being here is not a micro issue. It doesn't just concerning the amount of rentable space that can help fill this particular developer's pocket.
This project is also a symbol. The larger economy is ultimately dependent on the emotional wellbeing of the individual, and there is a potential for an architecture that says something, to create an equally inspiring experience as the 9/11 catastrophe was disheartening. This is not a simple building context that has the luxury or convenience of a simple, dumb response.
This scheme quite simply does a job (assuming that they are able to rent out this space)... but nothing else. It's LAME. We're not talking about the minors okay? We're talking about the world series here... The world is watching, the crowd is on its feet... It's the bottom of the ninth, bases loaded. Just showing up to the plate and not hitting the ball just doesn't cut it...
I am a student, currently studying Architecture. I'm extremely disappointed in the lack of inspiration for the ''Freedom Tower''. I have become so flustered that I started coming up some of my own designs. I collaborated with my mother and have drafted a near perfect design that combines classic 40s NY elegance, a Star and stripes theme, and tribute to the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. It features an open court that is perfect to further tribute the protection and law enforcement of NY.
I still believe there is time change the proposal. I know they have already laid the cornerstone. Anyone have any ideas?!?!?!
Im serious about this!
This design my mother and I have created is genius.
I don't mean to be bitter , but do you think NY is going to roll-over, say "oooh, shiiiiny!", and be happy. FAH!
archi: the thing about the sad state of the freedom tower is that it *is* a new symbol of american architecture. it's a symbol of the "fortress america" mentality that seems to be taking over, it's a symbol how we're consistently content to accept the mediocre and banal as the best or only solution, and it's a symbol that most of us don't give a shit that america is quickly losing its respect as an innovator in both technology and ideas. we'd rather bury our heads in the sand and flip the rest of the world the bird...and that's exactly what the freedom tower is...a huge middle finger sticking out of manhattan.
rose: don't take this personally, but it sounds like if you threw in a couple bald eagles you design would be something they'd put on one of those cheesy comemorative plates sold on late night tv. if your ideas are so great stop telling us that and just show us some images.
Concidering some of the repeating ideas here such as the tower should be an inovative design right down to it's structural solution, it should'nt appear as monolithic and fortress like, should be symbolic of a new era, I think its obvious the only solution is 3d-honeycomb.
My design is honeycomb-like, except it has positive and negative space. That is what allows the court to be featured. It has the possibility to be either a 5 or 9 building structure. It all depends on weather the city wants the symbol depicted to also face Brooklyn as well as the Hudson River.
As much as I would like to give you a visual, I don't my idea stolen. My drafts and 3D renderings are not lawfully secured as mine.
Sorry but from the start the rebuild been about new jobs, a new architecture --- but I have to regret that after these years I would happily see just a rebuild of twin towers realy.
Ofcaurse it would be nice if this challance had been responded with a true vision , was this just about a rebuild then ofcaurse this also would make an impac on any other new highrise structure but, think about it what options it could have madem if the right thing was build ; if somthing that is a real vision a true new architecture would be the result. If suddenly it was possible to deliver new cheap safe houses ,at a third the cost and with a brand new technology, emagine the new jobs the new materials ,what will be possible when computers finaly start working producing calculated building parts, ---- I still find that option more promising than just a rebuild.
My biggest problem with the new deisng is that it doesn't form a group of towers like Daniels original design did. the 2 or 3 smaller towers around the site all had a relationship to the larger tower, and made the space between and around them. This new tower destroys all of that, and you end up with a series of spaces which just don't make sense.
I have a growing confidence that this will never happen, or if it does, it will be at least a decade away. I mean, there is even talk of stopping the memorial! Too many people with too much to gain/lose in this mess for anything to happen, I think. My money is on scrapping the entire project, then revisiting much later with a new competition.
That's my optimistic attitude. There are some nice buildings that Danny is putting up around the world (some questionable, but some nice) and many other decent high rise buildings going up all over Manhattan.
Personally, I would rather have a blank spot until we can have another competition than have the old towers rebuilt. I'd take almost anything over rebuilding the past, particular an unattractive (albeit iconic) past.
The SOM "Freedom Tower" embarrassment
the multimedia links on the right have the proposals - they are
more conceptual so it's tough to get a straight comparison...but
the simplicity of oma's scheme to turn a typical buiding on it's
head radiates more hope than the current freedom tower project.
WORTHLESS!
Childs has renewed the mediocrity of the SOM reputation!
it is interesting to not SOM's proposal for the replacement of WTC building 7...much more dynamic...i think the current version is definatley the result of the fears of politicians and the police
puddles you are right on in your analysis of the real estate and insurance money, with its stake in this latest reincarnation
i can't get over Foster's proposal...just awsome, not to differant and not too new...just right...i also like United Architects proposal...but maybe not as ambitouse as their initial proposal I love the idea of seperate footprints of buildings merging into some super structure above the ground and around the site, both visually and metaphorically beautiful
thanks for the links rayray
"not too different and not too new" --- heaven forbid we do something new and different / progressive and visionary at the most emotionally and politically charged site in our lifetime! NO, instead let's ignore the potential to define America as a leader in the world (of design -- all other areas we simply conquer through force) and put someting up that really does reflect our position that design is secondary to all other social, political and public concerns -- though of course, we will still give lip service to the fact that design is central to all of those but in the end pretend not to care .........
and by the way -- what exactly does TOO NEW mean? NEW means something that we haven't seen or thought of before, so what could it possible mean to be TOO new? I assume it means someting people aren't ready for or willing to accept? such as the attacks themselves? THOSE were TRULY TOO NEW! The idea that ideas and proposals would be beyond us at this place and time is unconcionable. It in fact REQUIRES someting that hasn't been done before as a defiant counterpoint to THAT which hadn't been done before. To do anything less is to LOOSE. And Childs has tanked it for all of us!
db
sorry i think the fact that it is "the most emotionally and politically charged site in our lifetime" requires some restraint, and i guess i don't buy into the novalty of new for new's sake, i love inovation but new for news sake more often then not is just eye candy and looses all relevance in a very short time, turns architecture into fashion and lacks any sort of timelessness. but thas me
and i would take resolving a social concern/issue over a new building any day.
The current proposal is certainly timeless. You can't tell whether it was designed in the 70's, 80's, or 90's. Bravo!
but WOW, what if it were BOTH (innovative AND socially cognicient)
as it is -- IT'S NEITHER
surely we should (at least) shoot ahead of us rather than behind or to the side. Otherwise it's death by friendly fire. Something even the military frowns on.
simply put: where there is not innovation or desire to do so there is DEATH.
maybe it IS what is appropriate here.
i agree that the project is a failure, but the initial proposals didn't resolve any social concerns either. in fact, there is so little architecture that does.
granted...i'm by no means defending this current proposal i just require more in depth thougth out critisism then the flaming attacks most often posted here (refer to futureboys on prevouse page) you are also falling into the "aesthetic embellishment" problem, and you need to further define inovation beyond your very general def. ...according to a article i read this building is the most innovative building in terms of saftey...obvoisely saftey trumps other concerns such as openess but your program for the building is very differant from that of silverstein's/pataki's....
well, I think you point to it: safety trumps openness. AND THAT'S A BIG THING! America was led to beileve that this was a democratic process -- an open design competition -- and it is ending up not so. It is being shaped and manipulated by outside forces completely aborent of the goals of the competition to design a monument to freedom. Frankly, America should be offended by the process here. Instead we are offended by JJ's boob. I'll say again, perhaps what we are getting is what we deserve. But it shouldn't be so.
i think/fear if this competition were truly a democratic process as you wish for, we would have something much worse than what som has produced. the average person's taste is not a refined as the average person here.
i hope u are not implying we got what we deserved on 9-11, for it was our openess as a society that made it that much more open to attack. and perhaps the freedom we lost on that day was our freedom from responsibility, as the worlds sole superpower we need to acknowledge some responsibility and throw away any notion of isolationism...
although i'm not a fan of towers, i'll agree with calebrichers and the few others who have mentioned the foster scheme. if we have to have to have a skyscraper, i feel that old sir norman would have produced the best result. he has experience with mega projects and i am certain that his firm could have delivered an environmentally and technically innovative solution that we could respect from at least one perspective rather than this sillyness of a 1776 foot tall monument.
#1. What the hell is that white thing spewing out at the top?! Is it me, or is the freedom tower EJACULATING...
#2. What the HELL is that old guy in the photo above doing to his glowing ejaculating freedom tower?!
Greeat... Ya lets put a giant ejaculating penis ontop of a 200 foot pedestal and make it the symbol of our city... That will show those terrorists... COME ON!! Um... I was considering moving to New York, but somehow I don't want to live in the penis capital of the world...
k... just my 2 cents but this design is going to make the U.S. the laughingstock of the world.
i just can't believe that they got rid of the asymmetrical spire. when all is said and done, this thing is going to be some sort of flashy glass tower, but the simple move of putting a tapering spire off-center really did evoke the strong and hopeful gesture of the statue of liberty raising her torch. personally, i think that it was a subtle but powerful design that actually did what it said it was supposed to do.
the whole 1776 thing was bullshit to begin with. it's probably going to actually end up being like 1775' or 1777'... in which case, will we americans begin to have doubts about when our declaration of independence was signed? no, because we're not machines, we can't tell if a building is 1300' high or 1600' high, much less 1776' high. why don't they make sure that they use the same number of square feet of glass in the building as the number of days in george washington's life? etcetera.
the worst thing of all, the absolute worst... is how the lmdc says that the new building still references the torch of the statue of liberty. NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T! i can't BELIEVE that they would still pay lip service to the only truly poetic architectural statement in Libeskind's design when they have completely stripped the "freedom tower" of every last ounce of architectural merit. if that piece of shit building references the torch of the statue of liberty, then every single object in the world that is taller than it is wide references the statue of liberty. i think a quote from above was pretty apt, about how this building is real estate, not architecture. those assholes at the lmdc, and every single person involved in this process that has any power whatsoever, should be ashamed of themselves. absolutely shameful. this is pathetic.
It is obvious that the pure architectural vision looks to be lost at the hands of commercial and political forces. This is a great shame but there are many other factors to consider including the pretext that economic viability will be the driving force in any market economy. The naivety of the majority of posts reflects the theoretical dislocation many of you have with real word practice. The real skill of grand design is to choose your architectural battles wisely en-route, and not in laying claim to some higher architectural authority in order to berate a successful corporate practice like SOM.
Get learning and get real!
BOTS, this is not your average project, c'mon! If we , as architects, don't try to find another meaning to such an event through architecture, who will do it. Our job is to build stuff inside economic and security constraint, blahblah, but that the freakin' ground zero site you know? I mean, I'm not american, but I feel concerned as an architect. You should get real.
Following in the footsteps of what others have already said ....
The Freedom Tower is anything but. It is not only a terrible design, but the way that particular structure was erected is a perfect metaphor for many of the ways in which our current governmental institutions are apt to operate. A project predicated on "freedom," symbolic of and suggesting the government that our foes are apparently "jealous" of, the Tower is emblematic of our leaders deciding how best to exemplify the mores of this nation ... just because they, and they alone, know best.
In the words of the New York Times, "If there are people still clinging to the expectation that the Freedom Tower will become a monument to the highest American ideals, the current design should finally shake them out of that delusion. Somber, oppressive and clumsily conceived, the project suggests a monument to a society that has turned its back on any notion of cultural openness. It is exactly the kind of nightmare that government officials repeatedly asserted would never happen here: an impregnable tower braced against the outside world ... The Freedom Tower embodies, in its way, a world shaped by fear [...] an ideal symbol for an empire enthralled with its own power."
So obviously the term "Freedom" is misleading. The latest confirmation of what Bush calls "the ownership society" is the contentious Kelo v. City of New London case, which states that local governments can use eminent domain to seize land for commercial reasons. There are nuances in the case, of course, that deal with issues of Federal jurisdiction and whatnot ... but the message behind the Kelo case and the Freedom Tower fiasco are clear: freedom resides in those who can exercise and wield power. It is not the idyllic version of freedom that our leaders evoke when we drop daisy-cutter bombs and "advise" countries on how to create governments.
Our country knows best because we are literally and figuratively in the democracy business.
right on smoke. well composed, compiled and delivered.
French - don't get me wrong, I find the whole thing depressing. It happens all to often with large projects.
Brightside...
I would have invented a much more creative solution to the problems that make up the design of this very important bldg.
It is our responsiblity to show those who have no clue about good architecture, what a good piece of arch. is. Childs has not done this. He has created one of the most mediocre responses to this problem that I could ever fathom. He has truely forged his legacy on NYC and no one will look back on it with interest or admiration.
Architects.....is there anything we can do to stop this atrocity? I thought there were some action groups out there.....how can we latch onto these and help prevent this fallic monstroncity to arise?
brightside - because he took the job doesn't mean he had to make it ugly. SOM has a decent project or two here and there. This should be one of them.
BOTS - again, SOM does some decent projects (their Dubai tower ain't too shabby), so why not here? This really does look like they went to their storage closet and grabbed a cheap ass design from 30 years ago and slapped it down, and a bad one at that! I believe Childs is even capable of something more distinguished, if not more progressive.
The terrorists have won the war. They have instilled fear into the hearts of Americans from which we will never recover. The new design evokes the same feeling as a prison, and perhaps it is one. From this building design it is evident that the true tragedy is that the nation cannot move on, but will always be trapped in a prison of our own fear, always looking backward to 9/11. With all the new and costly government programs which promise American safety, are all these extra precautions really necessary? The new design is a heavy traditional skyscraper with an awkward antenna on top, probably an afterthought. The new design is a disgrace to the American value of freedom.
Correction: Bush have instilled fear into the hearts of Americans, not the terrorist.
The initial schemes from a while back (the ones that were curated by the Max Protetch gallery) --
http://www.maxprotetch.com/SITE/PREVIOUS/ANEWWTC/
anymore it seems all buildings, whether produced by a huge office like som or by our darling starchitects, are eyesores. does anyone remember beauty. oh and this goes for anything produced at my office.
I don't think working within economic and political constraints means that a building has to be dumb...
Don't get me wrong, it all great that the building is very safe. Its also great that they were able to make it safe and have plenty of office space to rent... So, yeah, I guess they've met some important criteria that makes the project somewhat more economically sustainable given this context...
That is probably the bottom line in this project. But here, the bottom line just doesnt cut it. This project has a major political and cultural significance for New York City and for America.
This is about expression, about a reaction. About something that actually MEANS something to a great many people (oooh... quite shocking right that in our day and age that REPRESENTATION in urban space has not yet died...) The problem with SOM's scheme is not that it doesnt meet the bottom line... It's that it chooses to meet it dumbly, doesn't go beyond a thoughtless solution that meets this line... The problem is a lack of creativity... It misses an opportunity. To create something that inspires people. That REALLY succeeds in lifting people up in the face of a catastrophe. Let's be realistic. Architectural design does have economic value.
The terribly powerful damage of the 9/11 catastrophe was its impact on the national psyche: the repeated image of the towers going down... The very real power of those images, engrained in the nation's mind sent ripples through the economy, and this is not something that has just gone away, or will somply disappear... In short, the dumbness of the current design proposal is that it fails to take seriously the REAL VALUE that inventing a new form of civic representation could have for the greater economy. Economic well-being here is not a micro issue. It doesn't just concerning the amount of rentable space that can help fill this particular developer's pocket.
This project is also a symbol. The larger economy is ultimately dependent on the emotional wellbeing of the individual, and there is a potential for an architecture that says something, to create an equally inspiring experience as the 9/11 catastrophe was disheartening. This is not a simple building context that has the luxury or convenience of a simple, dumb response.
This scheme quite simply does a job (assuming that they are able to rent out this space)... but nothing else. It's LAME. We're not talking about the minors okay? We're talking about the world series here... The world is watching, the crowd is on its feet... It's the bottom of the ninth, bases loaded. Just showing up to the plate and not hitting the ball just doesn't cut it...
this is what I was afraid of but hoped would not happen, it's a sad, sad day for us all. I feel almost like I did on 9/11...
Did you all see this?
NY Times article about SOM's tower redesign "marathon"
It was on the news blurb but I didn't think anyone would catch it.
not surprisingly the freedom tower (or should i say freedumb tower) scored the title of "eyesore of the month"
http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore.html
congratulations!
why did they (kunstler) pick on Caltrans?
I am a student, currently studying Architecture. I'm extremely disappointed in the lack of inspiration for the ''Freedom Tower''. I have become so flustered that I started coming up some of my own designs. I collaborated with my mother and have drafted a near perfect design that combines classic 40s NY elegance, a Star and stripes theme, and tribute to the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. It features an open court that is perfect to further tribute the protection and law enforcement of NY.
I still believe there is time change the proposal. I know they have already laid the cornerstone. Anyone have any ideas?!?!?!
Email: abba_zoe_rose@hotmail.com
i like it.
you are all just bitter.
looks like addict's just trying to pick a fight
Im serious about this!
This design my mother and I have created is genius.
I don't mean to be bitter , but do you think NY is going to roll-over, say "oooh, shiiiiny!", and be happy. FAH!
can you please post your sexy designs, roselink, we all would like to take some inspirations from your work...
archi: the thing about the sad state of the freedom tower is that it *is* a new symbol of american architecture. it's a symbol of the "fortress america" mentality that seems to be taking over, it's a symbol how we're consistently content to accept the mediocre and banal as the best or only solution, and it's a symbol that most of us don't give a shit that america is quickly losing its respect as an innovator in both technology and ideas. we'd rather bury our heads in the sand and flip the rest of the world the bird...and that's exactly what the freedom tower is...a huge middle finger sticking out of manhattan.
rose: don't take this personally, but it sounds like if you threw in a couple bald eagles you design would be something they'd put on one of those cheesy comemorative plates sold on late night tv. if your ideas are so great stop telling us that and just show us some images.
dammson, that is the "bring it on" design.
Concidering some of the repeating ideas here such as the tower should be an inovative design right down to it's structural solution, it should'nt appear as monolithic and fortress like, should be symbolic of a new era, I think its obvious the only solution is 3d-honeycomb.
well, of course!
My design is honeycomb-like, except it has positive and negative space. That is what allows the court to be featured. It has the possibility to be either a 5 or 9 building structure. It all depends on weather the city wants the symbol depicted to also face Brooklyn as well as the Hudson River.
As much as I would like to give you a visual, I don't my idea stolen. My drafts and 3D renderings are not lawfully secured as mine.
Sorry but from the start the rebuild been about new jobs, a new architecture --- but I have to regret that after these years I would happily see just a rebuild of twin towers realy.
Ofcaurse it would be nice if this challance had been responded with a true vision , was this just about a rebuild then ofcaurse this also would make an impac on any other new highrise structure but, think about it what options it could have madem if the right thing was build ; if somthing that is a real vision a true new architecture would be the result. If suddenly it was possible to deliver new cheap safe houses ,at a third the cost and with a brand new technology, emagine the new jobs the new materials ,what will be possible when computers finaly start working producing calculated building parts, ---- I still find that option more promising than just a rebuild.
Per?
My biggest problem with the new deisng is that it doesn't form a group of towers like Daniels original design did. the 2 or 3 smaller towers around the site all had a relationship to the larger tower, and made the space between and around them. This new tower destroys all of that, and you end up with a series of spaces which just don't make sense.
roselink = vinpust = per???
I have a growing confidence that this will never happen, or if it does, it will be at least a decade away. I mean, there is even talk of stopping the memorial! Too many people with too much to gain/lose in this mess for anything to happen, I think. My money is on scrapping the entire project, then revisiting much later with a new competition.
That's my optimistic attitude. There are some nice buildings that Danny is putting up around the world (some questionable, but some nice) and many other decent high rise buildings going up all over Manhattan.
Personally, I would rather have a blank spot until we can have another competition than have the old towers rebuilt. I'd take almost anything over rebuilding the past, particular an unattractive (albeit iconic) past.
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.