oh, it's happening alright. as soon as friday. read. the memorial is ballooning in budget by the day. I think it's up to $800 million... The shopping mall, on the other hand, is all set to go.
how about a bigger shopping mall with a big memorial fountain (oval or some other creative shape with a syncronized water that changes color every minute?) near food court with a placket designed by an artist?
i want a new competition... i think everybody would have more matured ideas like the one above.
how about a bigger shopping mall with a big memorial fountain (oval or some other creative shape with a syncronized water that changes color every minute?) near food court with a placket designed by an artist?
i want a new competition... i think everybody would have more matured ideas like the one above.
plus libeskind had that design proposal for a shopping mall somewhere in switzerland... might as well use it here (after a child's revision of course) because i don't think there's anything that can unite this country more then old navy and baby gap... a 1776 square foot baby gap...
When you think about it reverse engineering is like with a car ; four forverd gears and just one reverse. This intire thing been at a stand still, and as soon it start to move ,then what direction Reverse ofcaurse, exactly as the architecture proposed. Sad when you think about it ,with all those options.
i've always thought the 1776' thing was the silliest part of the whole design. a foot for every year from when jesus was supposedly born until the declaration of independence was made...what sense does that make? why are they even bothering to build it that tall if they aren't trying to achieve the record for world's tallest? they can't even find tenants willing to lease space, except for government agencies who will force their peons to work there.
Agreed.... And because of tolerances in typical high-rise construction, the final as-built height of the building could be off by as much as a foot or so. "Oh shit, we made it 1777 feet tall. Now what?"
And needless to say, the vast majority of the industrialized world will measure it as 541.3 meters tall.
"a foot for every year from when jesus was supposedly born until the declaration of independence was made..."
I've never thought about it like that. i kind of liked the idea of a symbolic height, but when you realize that this is measured from Jesus' birth, it brings up notions of some of America's Christian values. When you think about it, i find this quite a powerful thing considering the sensitivity of the Site/Event.
The funny thing is, this is coming from Jewish Danny boy Libeskind who isn't meant to believe in Jesus. hehe.
I agree with trace's comment to leave the site empty for a while until a better time to rebuild. I know that's a vague goal, especially considering that Liebeskind's design seemed to have caught the public's imagination at the time (but now look what's happened). Nevertheless I believe that New York and America would be better-prepared to appropriately redesign the WTC site after some time after the attacks - at least 5 or 10 years even - to gain a little distance from 9-11 and to reflect on what that site and those attacks will REALLY mean to the US. The Athenians waited about 20 years after the Persians destroyed their Acropolis before rebuilding, by which time they had a new sense of the importance of the Persian wars to their history, and the rebuilt Acropolis stays true to the traditions of the site while paying homage to war and the seeming destiny of Athens fulfilled afterward.
Yes, the WTC site and New York of today are very different than the ancient Acropolis, and yet what so many people don't seem to have articulated is that this site is now a sacred space. It is not just some overblown economic symbol or questionable real-estate venture or secular "landmark"; the violence inflicted here cut into the soul of millions more people than just those victims who were tragically killed there, and 9-11 is a day that will prove to have profoundly affected America's outlook and history. Indeed it is sad to leave an empty hole, a kind of gaping wound, and it would not always be reassuring to contemplate a future building talking in part of the pain embodied in its site, but I think it would be a poignant and mature approach to what is more than a mere planning problem. The reconstruction process up till now, unfortunately, has been largely guided by greed, immaturity, political expediency and short-sightedness, presented as an exercise in optimism, in "proving that we won". I'm sorry, but rebuilding the WTC will NOT prove America won anything. Al Quaida "won" that battle on 9-11; it was unexpected, it was terrible, it should never have happened, but they "won" that time and nothing will change that. Neither bin Laden nor the rest of Al Quaida will care if the WTC is rebuilt or not; their original attacks were successful, and nothing will take that satisfaction from them.
America is trying to fill the pain Ground Zero represents with the most conventional and therefore convenient response, in part because it is still uncertain of what direction to take, of what hope and optimism it can pull from the ashes. It is only after some balance is regained and a new perspective on Ground Zero and the attacks begins to coalesce that a fare more satisfying form for its reconstruction can be arrived at, propelled by the common will to optimistically and authentically realize it. This new perspective is possible, but only with patience and the courage to be honest, NOT through floundering hubris.
"what if the japanese had left Hiroshima and Nagasaki as they were following the atomic bomb attacks? just empty wastelands forever? How would we think about the whole thing now?"
Well - all I come away with from reading this (rather long) thread is the lasting image of a bald headed David Child stroking (manneristically, at least) an erect and rather large internally lighted object. Thanks for that John Jourden!
Naturally, I got all worked up about it after the 'event' - missing and lamenting the loss of such great and majestic towers. - I got over it. Then I got all worked up about the architectural possibilities of creating a commercial building that symbolized all greatness that capitalism has brought the world. - I got over that one even faster!
I AM ALMOST GLAD IT (COULD BE) A LITTLE UGLY!!!!!!!!!
_ _ _ We are all somehow strangely uplifted by such a thing. Don't you think?
i think it's important to draw a distinction between the destruction of entire cities and of a single building complex. when a city is destroyed either by natural or manmade disaster it is rebuilt out of pure necessity. its residents need homes, institutions, places of business, and recreational areas. also, people generally don't view the ground under an entire city as hallowed in the way they do at a singular site like the wtc.
one of the most fundamental flaws of the wtc reconstruction is that it was essentially taken for granted that every square foot of leased space would be replaced on a one to one basis. this requirement is clearly not a result of pure necessity since lower manhattan has survived almost half a decade now without the retail and office space in the original wtc. more than anything, it was the result of meglomanical greed on the part of the developer.
If they rebuilt the WTC,the way it was, it would almost look like they were trying to say 9-11 never happened.
All the families that lost someone would become highly distraut.
I ,honestly, would become aggrivated.
i think it's important to draw a distinction between the destruction of entire cities and of a single building complex. when a city is destroyed either by natural or manmade disaster it is rebuilt out of pure necessity. its residents need homes, institutions, places of business, and recreational areas. also, people generally don't view the ground under an entire city as hallowed in the way they do at a singular site like the wtc. "
all the residents were gone. they don't need a place to live.
"one of the most fundamental flaws of the wtc reconstruction is that it was essentially taken for granted that every square foot of leased space would be replaced on a one to one basis. this requirement is clearly not a result of pure necessity since lower manhattan has survived almost half a decade now without the retail and office space in the original wtc. more than anything, it was the result of meglomanical greed on the part of the developer."
actually only about 25% of the population of either hiroshima or nagasaki were killed outright by the initial blasts. more died later as a result of injuries and radiation, but even that figure added up to less than 50% of the initial population. so the other 50% did in fact still need places to live.
there was a guy some time ago on msnbc.com named David Shuster was supporting the idea of rebuilding the old towers exactly as they were. he posted a bunch of letters on his blog about how much people wanted to see the old towers back, so i sent him a letter as well, but he didn't post mine.
While I sympathize with the general public and their own inability to
identify with the new freedom tower proposal [which is unfortunately
not the best possible solution], I'm not entirely convinced that
copying the old towers on the site is at all appropriate, or in good
taste. It seems to me that re-erecting the towers [which could be
easily done] signifies a lack of resolve, even potential
forgetfulness, in our collective conciousness.
The old WTC, one of architect Minoru Yamasaki's most famous designs, was hardly a celebrated building. It's a fact: it was not a pleasure to work in, it was unbelievably inefficient, and its plaza was an odd, wind-swept place that was barely recognized as an interesting public space in manhattan, despite the amount of real estate it consumed.
I am again amazed by how short our attention span can be, or how
quickly we can forget the past. We now celebrate a structure that,
despite its alluring presence on the Manhattan skyline [which I do
miss] was hardly thought of as a greatly successful work of
architecture or engineering, beyond its sheer scale and height.
Granted, this is because of the exceptional circumstances regarding
its demise. But what disturbs me the most is that there are those who
would choose to risk entirely forgetting the events of 9/11, or even
the potential for future generations to fully comprehend them, by
simply rebuilding the towers in their original condition. I think
that rebuilding the towers or copies of the towers, even if memorial
space is allotted at the base, is an ironic gesture solely based upon ignorant pride, and in no way based upon patriotism, respect for the deceased or the events of that day, or the promotion of progress in any of its forms, be it technological, cultural, or in some way resolute. We are a great country, with the some of the greatest architects and engineers the world has ever seen, and should posses the ability to conceive, design, and construct great ideas out of calamitous circumstances, and to do it better than we did before.
as opposed to what other skyscrapers? most high rise buildings i see going up in asia and dubai are just the same generic thing you see in the US, and for the most part designed by the same people. there are a couple interesting ones going up in europe, and that's about it from what i can see.
Perhaps SOM's proposal is an accurate codification of the US's collective conscience (if there is such a thing).
Does this mean that this country is: somewhat safe, mediochre, fascinated by the shiny, and predominantly ruled by economic interests, consumer patterns and the mighty dollar?
Does the response in this thread further suggest that architecture, as a profession and as a dialectic has somehow disconnected itself (or has been disconnected) from the broader populace? Like a head without a body?
For me this all brings into question our semi-aristocratic positioning, and the degree to which we are somehow out of touch with the populace we serve.
Ultimately, I think we should be wondering: why isn't the general populace outraged by this lost opportunity? And is there anything we professionals can do about it?
Also: Have we been performing our duties in a way that has pushed architectural dialog out of the everyday consideration of the general populace? Or that prevents that dialog from being generally accessed?
"Also: Have we been performing our duties in a way that has pushed architectural dialog out of the everyday consideration of the general populace? Or that prevents that dialog from being generally accessed?"
When an expected Icon is to solve the problems that only surface, case architecture forgot so Icons will not serve .yet architecture seem to have continued out of that dead-end , ---- rebuilding the worlds trade center is not to be about sparking a new architecture ,new building technikes or allow the vision to finaly realise the innovation all these hightech spataculars are all lookalikes of. Rebuilding can easily be done but itis just so easy to continue out the dead-end and just display another spetacular hghtech lookalike with forms breaking themself to reach what can't be reached with a cramped architectural attitude ---- if another chance come, make sure it this time will be somthing that spark innovation and new building technikes , look under the chlotches ask if it realy bring a new architecture and new thinking, ---- how else can architecture even try ,and when it can't then what about allowing engineering to deliver the new jobs, the new technikes the new design.
new symbol of American Architecture? make it taller cheaper ligher crappier..LEEEEEEEEEEEED CERTIFIED YAY!! and call it a FREEEEEEEDOM TOWERRRRR...YEY!! doesn't sound good -> where do you work? I work in the FREEEEEEDOM TOWERRRRRRR, huh? where is it? are you dumb or something, its the FREEEEDOM TOWERRRRRR, its in place of the 911 site! ohhh that tower! <<<---typical 90% conversation, so the point is -> the tower reflects the culture of our times....and right now this very culture is confused and messed up.
The taper while maybe not "daring" in high design terms, will however require special structural conciderations such as angled column conections at the floors and certainly some complexity to the curtian wall - however this was done in the John Hancock in Chicago possibly more daring a structural feat - in fact in bankrupted 2 contractors.
Should we design something for the site for the sake of just being different? Or should we use this as a chance to show our technological resolve? Even Liebskind's design was sort of decorated twist on a convential tower system - save for the massive loading of members.
I would much prefer to wait for a new technology, to allow the structures to be expressed in a new way.
As for a twisted revenge, Im glad SOM is dumping their 1990's designs on the cities of the mideast. Its possibly our best revenge for the destruction of the iconic NY skyline and the loss of the most simple symbol on any cityscape !!
It's so clearly an expression of the stark reality of our times. Let's make ourselves another NY icon to put on a stamp or a tshirt. Not even a particularly impressive one but still - what happened to some kind of sociological imperative? This site was wrought with possibility - not glazing over things with some god damned glass - the possibilites to create something with an ontological impetus even - Some kind of social space not to do with the iconographic tower - but to do with the actual pedestrian experience of this charged site.
But No, that's not the US today. It was so nauseating being at the site and seeing ppl posing in front of the hole smiling and taking pics. wtf?
Yeeesss... Freedom Tower. It looks like a 'freedom' fry. oh with an antenna. Bravo
1984 is here... Calling this the "Freedom Tower" is clearly doublespeak. How does a massive corporate box perched on a windowlless bunker symbolize freedom??? What a joke!
The SOM "Freedom Tower" embarrassment
I agree, trace.
oh, it's happening alright. as soon as friday. read. the memorial is ballooning in budget by the day. I think it's up to $800 million... The shopping mall, on the other hand, is all set to go.
disgusting...but i do like the way they refer to it as the "F-Tower"
how about a bigger shopping mall with a big memorial fountain (oval or some other creative shape with a syncronized water that changes color every minute?) near food court with a placket designed by an artist?
i want a new competition... i think everybody would have more matured ideas like the one above.
how about a bigger shopping mall with a big memorial fountain (oval or some other creative shape with a syncronized water that changes color every minute?) near food court with a placket designed by an artist?
i want a new competition... i think everybody would have more matured ideas like the one above.
because;
shopping=double happiness
double shopping=more freedomm
F&F
F&F=pataki$pataki
i am having a roll of matured ideas
plus libeskind had that design proposal for a shopping mall somewhere in switzerland... might as well use it here (after a child's revision of course) because i don't think there's anything that can unite this country more then old navy and baby gap... a 1776 square foot baby gap...
More brilliance! This will obviously show the world that America is a land of thinkers!!
When you think about it reverse engineering is like with a car ; four forverd gears and just one reverse. This intire thing been at a stand still, and as soon it start to move ,then what direction Reverse ofcaurse, exactly as the architecture proposed. Sad when you think about it ,with all those options.
i've always thought the 1776' thing was the silliest part of the whole design. a foot for every year from when jesus was supposedly born until the declaration of independence was made...what sense does that make? why are they even bothering to build it that tall if they aren't trying to achieve the record for world's tallest? they can't even find tenants willing to lease space, except for government agencies who will force their peons to work there.
Exactly, what is with the (1776).
Honestly I think the present design looks like the building in San Fran.
Agreed.... And because of tolerances in typical high-rise construction, the final as-built height of the building could be off by as much as a foot or so. "Oh shit, we made it 1777 feet tall. Now what?"
And needless to say, the vast majority of the industrialized world will measure it as 541.3 meters tall.
But it would carry a indoor waterfall , wasn't it so ?
Bryan4arch, you make an excellent point.
"a foot for every year from when jesus was supposedly born until the declaration of independence was made..."
I've never thought about it like that. i kind of liked the idea of a symbolic height, but when you realize that this is measured from Jesus' birth, it brings up notions of some of America's Christian values. When you think about it, i find this quite a powerful thing considering the sensitivity of the Site/Event.
The funny thing is, this is coming from Jewish Danny boy Libeskind who isn't meant to believe in Jesus. hehe.
i'd be impressed by 1776 meters, symbolism and megolomania, the best of both worlds....
I agree with trace's comment to leave the site empty for a while until a better time to rebuild. I know that's a vague goal, especially considering that Liebeskind's design seemed to have caught the public's imagination at the time (but now look what's happened). Nevertheless I believe that New York and America would be better-prepared to appropriately redesign the WTC site after some time after the attacks - at least 5 or 10 years even - to gain a little distance from 9-11 and to reflect on what that site and those attacks will REALLY mean to the US. The Athenians waited about 20 years after the Persians destroyed their Acropolis before rebuilding, by which time they had a new sense of the importance of the Persian wars to their history, and the rebuilt Acropolis stays true to the traditions of the site while paying homage to war and the seeming destiny of Athens fulfilled afterward.
Yes, the WTC site and New York of today are very different than the ancient Acropolis, and yet what so many people don't seem to have articulated is that this site is now a sacred space. It is not just some overblown economic symbol or questionable real-estate venture or secular "landmark"; the violence inflicted here cut into the soul of millions more people than just those victims who were tragically killed there, and 9-11 is a day that will prove to have profoundly affected America's outlook and history. Indeed it is sad to leave an empty hole, a kind of gaping wound, and it would not always be reassuring to contemplate a future building talking in part of the pain embodied in its site, but I think it would be a poignant and mature approach to what is more than a mere planning problem. The reconstruction process up till now, unfortunately, has been largely guided by greed, immaturity, political expediency and short-sightedness, presented as an exercise in optimism, in "proving that we won". I'm sorry, but rebuilding the WTC will NOT prove America won anything. Al Quaida "won" that battle on 9-11; it was unexpected, it was terrible, it should never have happened, but they "won" that time and nothing will change that. Neither bin Laden nor the rest of Al Quaida will care if the WTC is rebuilt or not; their original attacks were successful, and nothing will take that satisfaction from them.
America is trying to fill the pain Ground Zero represents with the most conventional and therefore convenient response, in part because it is still uncertain of what direction to take, of what hope and optimism it can pull from the ashes. It is only after some balance is regained and a new perspective on Ground Zero and the attacks begins to coalesce that a fare more satisfying form for its reconstruction can be arrived at, propelled by the common will to optimistically and authentically realize it. This new perspective is possible, but only with patience and the courage to be honest, NOT through floundering hubris.
Just some Canadian's opinion.
Well said, thehoule.
another canadian asks,
"what if the japanese had left Hiroshima and Nagasaki as they were following the atomic bomb attacks? just empty wastelands forever? How would we think about the whole thing now?"
Well - all I come away with from reading this (rather long) thread is the lasting image of a bald headed David Child stroking (manneristically, at least) an erect and rather large internally lighted object. Thanks for that John Jourden!
Naturally, I got all worked up about it after the 'event' - missing and lamenting the loss of such great and majestic towers. - I got over it. Then I got all worked up about the architectural possibilities of creating a commercial building that symbolized all greatness that capitalism has brought the world. - I got over that one even faster!
I AM ALMOST GLAD IT (COULD BE) A LITTLE UGLY!!!!!!!!!
_ _ _ We are all somehow strangely uplifted by such a thing. Don't you think?
PS - just make sure the people within are safe no matter what the damn thing looks like.
bob:
i think it's important to draw a distinction between the destruction of entire cities and of a single building complex. when a city is destroyed either by natural or manmade disaster it is rebuilt out of pure necessity. its residents need homes, institutions, places of business, and recreational areas. also, people generally don't view the ground under an entire city as hallowed in the way they do at a singular site like the wtc.
one of the most fundamental flaws of the wtc reconstruction is that it was essentially taken for granted that every square foot of leased space would be replaced on a one to one basis. this requirement is clearly not a result of pure necessity since lower manhattan has survived almost half a decade now without the retail and office space in the original wtc. more than anything, it was the result of meglomanical greed on the part of the developer.
looks like it could be too late....
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/27/wtc.site/index.html
bob_dobbalina,
I certainly don't mean that reconstruction should NEVER occur - unless, of course, that is a deliberate decision.
If they rebuilt the WTC,the way it was, it would almost look like they were trying to say 9-11 never happened.
All the families that lost someone would become highly distraut.
I ,honestly, would become aggrivated.
04/27/06 6:23
"bob:
i think it's important to draw a distinction between the destruction of entire cities and of a single building complex. when a city is destroyed either by natural or manmade disaster it is rebuilt out of pure necessity. its residents need homes, institutions, places of business, and recreational areas. also, people generally don't view the ground under an entire city as hallowed in the way they do at a singular site like the wtc. "
all the residents were gone. they don't need a place to live.
"one of the most fundamental flaws of the wtc reconstruction is that it was essentially taken for granted that every square foot of leased space would be replaced on a one to one basis. this requirement is clearly not a result of pure necessity since lower manhattan has survived almost half a decade now without the retail and office space in the original wtc. more than anything, it was the result of meglomanical greed on the part of the developer."
property rights. where would you be without them?
so, is this thing actually going to happen? i was under the impression that it fell through as well, but heard on the radio today that it was on.
so, is this thing actually going to happen? i was under the impression that it fell through as well, but heard on the radio today that it was on.
actually only about 25% of the population of either hiroshima or nagasaki were killed outright by the initial blasts. more died later as a result of injuries and radiation, but even that figure added up to less than 50% of the initial population. so the other 50% did in fact still need places to live.
there was a guy some time ago on msnbc.com named David Shuster was supporting the idea of rebuilding the old towers exactly as they were. he posted a bunch of letters on his blog about how much people wanted to see the old towers back, so i sent him a letter as well, but he didn't post mine.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7764695/#050509a
Mr. Shuster
While I sympathize with the general public and their own inability to
identify with the new freedom tower proposal [which is unfortunately
not the best possible solution], I'm not entirely convinced that
copying the old towers on the site is at all appropriate, or in good
taste. It seems to me that re-erecting the towers [which could be
easily done] signifies a lack of resolve, even potential
forgetfulness, in our collective conciousness.
The old WTC, one of architect Minoru Yamasaki's most famous designs, was hardly a celebrated building. It's a fact: it was not a pleasure to work in, it was unbelievably inefficient, and its plaza was an odd, wind-swept place that was barely recognized as an interesting public space in manhattan, despite the amount of real estate it consumed.
I am again amazed by how short our attention span can be, or how
quickly we can forget the past. We now celebrate a structure that,
despite its alluring presence on the Manhattan skyline [which I do
miss] was hardly thought of as a greatly successful work of
architecture or engineering, beyond its sheer scale and height.
Granted, this is because of the exceptional circumstances regarding
its demise. But what disturbs me the most is that there are those who
would choose to risk entirely forgetting the events of 9/11, or even
the potential for future generations to fully comprehend them, by
simply rebuilding the towers in their original condition. I think
that rebuilding the towers or copies of the towers, even if memorial
space is allotted at the base, is an ironic gesture solely based upon ignorant pride, and in no way based upon patriotism, respect for the deceased or the events of that day, or the promotion of progress in any of its forms, be it technological, cultural, or in some way resolute. We are a great country, with the some of the greatest architects and engineers the world has ever seen, and should posses the ability to conceive, design, and construct great ideas out of calamitous circumstances, and to do it better than we did before.
as opposed to what other skyscrapers? most high rise buildings i see going up in asia and dubai are just the same generic thing you see in the US, and for the most part designed by the same people. there are a couple interesting ones going up in europe, and that's about it from what i can see.
Perhaps SOM's proposal is an accurate codification of the US's collective conscience (if there is such a thing).
Does this mean that this country is: somewhat safe, mediochre, fascinated by the shiny, and predominantly ruled by economic interests, consumer patterns and the mighty dollar?
Does the response in this thread further suggest that architecture, as a profession and as a dialectic has somehow disconnected itself (or has been disconnected) from the broader populace? Like a head without a body?
For me this all brings into question our semi-aristocratic positioning, and the degree to which we are somehow out of touch with the populace we serve.
Ultimately, I think we should be wondering: why isn't the general populace outraged by this lost opportunity? And is there anything we professionals can do about it?
Also: Have we been performing our duties in a way that has pushed architectural dialog out of the everyday consideration of the general populace? Or that prevents that dialog from being generally accessed?
"Also: Have we been performing our duties in a way that has pushed architectural dialog out of the everyday consideration of the general populace? Or that prevents that dialog from being generally accessed?"
When an expected Icon is to solve the problems that only surface, case architecture forgot so Icons will not serve .yet architecture seem to have continued out of that dead-end , ---- rebuilding the worlds trade center is not to be about sparking a new architecture ,new building technikes or allow the vision to finaly realise the innovation all these hightech spataculars are all lookalikes of. Rebuilding can easily be done but itis just so easy to continue out the dead-end and just display another spetacular hghtech lookalike with forms breaking themself to reach what can't be reached with a cramped architectural attitude ---- if another chance come, make sure it this time will be somthing that spark innovation and new building technikes , look under the chlotches ask if it realy bring a new architecture and new thinking, ---- how else can architecture even try ,and when it can't then what about allowing engineering to deliver the new jobs, the new technikes the new design.
At this point, there is nothing that can be said or done about it now. Construction is already scheduled and underway.
Supposedly.
I honestly feel disheartened. The design could have been so much more…more…more brilliant, motivated, etc.
You get the point.
I find it insufferable.
I was hoping for it to be more monumental, somewhat sculptural, and give new perspective on how to design buildings.
Oh well.
At this point, there is nothing that can be said or done about it now. Construction is already scheduled and underway.
Supposedly.
I honestly feel disheartened. The design could have been so much more…more…more brilliant, motivated, etc.
You get the point.
I find it insufferable.
I was hoping for it to be more monumental, somewhat sculptural, and give new perspective on how to design buildings.
Oh well.
At this point, there is nothing that can be said or done about it now. Construction is already scheduled and underway.
Supposedly.
I honestly feel disheartened. The design could have been so much more…more…more brilliant, motivated, etc.
You get the point.
I find it insufferable.
I was hoping for it to be more monumental, somewhat sculptural, and give new perspective on how to design buildings.
Oh well.
new symbol of American Architecture? make it taller cheaper ligher crappier..LEEEEEEEEEEEED CERTIFIED YAY!! and call it a FREEEEEEEDOM TOWERRRRR...YEY!! doesn't sound good -> where do you work? I work in the FREEEEEEDOM TOWERRRRRRR, huh? where is it? are you dumb or something, its the FREEEEDOM TOWERRRRRR, its in place of the 911 site! ohhh that tower! <<<---typical 90% conversation, so the point is -> the tower reflects the culture of our times....and right now this very culture is confused and messed up.
make more offices get more $$$ in manhattan! YEY!!
I have no idea why it posted my message three times.
Sorry guys.
Hey, lets play name that reference:
David Childs = Raymond Hood
Daniel Libeskind = Eliel Saarinen
Shigeru Ban/Raphael Vinoly = Walter Gropius
Eisenman/Meier = Adolf Loos
World Trade Center = ________ ?
World Trade Center = Trader Joe's?*
*lets do it in jpeg du jour format
The taper while maybe not "daring" in high design terms, will however require special structural conciderations such as angled column conections at the floors and certainly some complexity to the curtian wall - however this was done in the John Hancock in Chicago possibly more daring a structural feat - in fact in bankrupted 2 contractors.
Should we design something for the site for the sake of just being different? Or should we use this as a chance to show our technological resolve? Even Liebskind's design was sort of decorated twist on a convential tower system - save for the massive loading of members.
I would much prefer to wait for a new technology, to allow the structures to be expressed in a new way.
As for a twisted revenge, Im glad SOM is dumping their 1990's designs on the cities of the mideast. Its possibly our best revenge for the destruction of the iconic NY skyline and the loss of the most simple symbol on any cityscape !!
90's revengestic buildings... mid-east loves to be dumped with. two dozens for baghdad please.
evilplatypus
Wouldn't it be great if they could do both: different design and new technology.
the freedom tower is a rip off
It's so clearly an expression of the stark reality of our times. Let's make ourselves another NY icon to put on a stamp or a tshirt. Not even a particularly impressive one but still - what happened to some kind of sociological imperative? This site was wrought with possibility - not glazing over things with some god damned glass - the possibilites to create something with an ontological impetus even - Some kind of social space not to do with the iconographic tower - but to do with the actual pedestrian experience of this charged site.
But No, that's not the US today. It was so nauseating being at the site and seeing ppl posing in front of the hole smiling and taking pics. wtf?
Yeeesss... Freedom Tower. It looks like a 'freedom' fry. oh with an antenna. Bravo
1984 is here... Calling this the "Freedom Tower" is clearly doublespeak. How does a massive corporate box perched on a windowlless bunker symbolize freedom??? What a joke!
The design of this is nothing ground-breaking but at least it fits nicely. I think they should just have taken Foster's from the beginning
It truly is a massive and inconsiderate joke.
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.