such a democratic process this wtc ground zero thing. and to boot- this is the most highly critical city (IMO) in terms of architectural exposure.
and its true - anything built will be criticized and torn apart by someone, the point in all of this is - the LEAST amount of people tearing something down with the ratio outweighed by people PRAISING the given design, the more successful the design. obviously.
I don't think that the only alternative to it being a private project is it being a government project. Putting the two in stark opposition sounds like polarised American politics to me. There are plenty of middle-ground alternatives which have worked in other places.
At least the Freedom Tower echoing the Statue of Liberty, the Foster tower echoing the Hearst Building, the Rogers building echoing the Port Authority Terminal, and the last one echoing... 7WTC of course. And the Calatrava one will echo with whatever next building Calatrava is going to put in NYC. And of course the whole plan looks like part of downtown or midtown. So the new WTC is quintessentially New York! Fabulous!
The thing that gets me is how massive the towers all are. They may be tall, but they're not exactly slender. They must have staggering amounts of floor area. And in the middle of the floors, you must be pretty much half a city block from the nearest window!
these towers are pa-fuckin-thetic,
and the saddest thing is all these firms have been/are doing so much better work everywhere else but here...it could be worse only if they put retro post-modern hats on em -- actually the Freedom Fries Tower kind of has a little one at the base of the spire!
yeah, that part is a shame. I don't like SOM in general, but they've got a few pretty decent designs going up. I don't understand how Childs became their poster boy for design when he so obviously sucks.
I can think of high rises going up in almost ANY us city that put these to shame. There's some nice ones going up in NY, too.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the memorial, I would probably never visit that site again because the design is so bad.
SOM has a few decent designs going up, but in China, not in the US. Makes me wonder why a firm of such stature and power could not design something worthwhile for such an important monument.
Not just in China, anywhere the designs of all of these guys (SOM rather than Childs specifically that is) are typically much better than this crap at the WTC site.
I think the SOM mindset is more about pouring over the performance of their 401K plan while lifting design details from HdM. Most, not all, but most work for SOM for the better than average paycheck, not to the dedication that is involved in creating better than average architecture.
SOM lost whatever groove it had when it cozed up to PoMo. Couple that with bumping naughty bits with the likes of Silverstein, and you end up with what is now going in "the hole". There are good people at SOM, but for a project as loaded as this and all that it entails, you have to do better. It is a shame that Libeskind and SOM couldn't hook up, because despite the language of Libeskind, he brought the public interest into architecture...and that is very tough to do. If Foster's plan was chosen, then maybe the the credability and respect would have been more equal and work could have progressed easier. SOM's back room dealings with Libeskind is simply standard operating procedure.
Either way, I think this is the same SOM schlock but with a sexier skin. Tower 7 is a box of quite sexy curtain wall. Time Warner "reads the oblique" and is also a sexy curtain wall above...but the ground level is pure SOM in all its corporate crappiness. Until SOM convinces us of the genuine urbanism that is created around these glassy dbox-ed representations...I for one, will continue being skeptical.
yes, there was. It was a horrible idea. Mostly because the old buildings did not function well and people hated working in them. Then there's the notion that you should not rebuild the past, but build for now and the future.
Thanks, trace, but on a search all I found were a couple threads full of the 'bad hair greedy corporate bastard blankety blank' commentary. Anything smarter?
yes, there was, but it was ages ago and I'd guess you would have to dig deep to find the posts.
Trump was not the only one advocating a rebuild. There were some before him, if I recall correctly.
There were a few significant reasons, of which I mentioned. To elaborate:
1. The buildings stunk, both from an infrastructure and functional aspect. They were severely hated when they were opened, both from the architecture press and the prospective workers. The buildings barely filled, and that was because the govn't bodies that helped fund the construction moved into them (good specials on lately).
From a workers point of view, the buildings were very dark. Moving the structure to the outside made for very tiny windows. Stupid design decision. Not to mention that was a significant factor in the steel weakening and failing (smaller/thinner members melt faster).
From the exterior one critic noted that they were "the largest aluminum siding job in the world". Probably still true.
They became iconic, but they were damn ugly. New one is much better than the old, even though I think the new design is one of the most banal designs I've seen for a large skyscraper in recent memory.
2. Why rebuild the past? We are not living in the late 60s/early 70s, so why build like we are? Architecture is about our current time and reaching for the future.
To rebuild, in my opinion, would be like covering up a wound with a cheap bandage - the wound can't be seen, but it'll never heal.
Building new, and acknoledging the scar, let's us become strong without forgetting.
The problem is that the towers do not even acknowledge each other's presence! Granted that the Freedom Tower is at the top of the heirarchy, at least Maki's angled top floors appear to reflect the chamfered corners of the Freedom Tower. The two towers in the middle do not look like they are part of any masterplan. They also make Calatrava's structure look like a small exotic pet.
"But transparency is not just about openness. It’s about voyeurism, exhibitionism and surveillance, the last of which is probably more relevant than “freedom†at ground zero."
this is appauling!!!!!!!!!!! That complex is an abomination of development....an absolute insult to those whose lost their lives that day. Please, NYC, build the memorial, and shine the towers of light as a tribute...those are the most powerful display of architecture I've seen from anyone on that site. This new scheme makes me just sick.
The squandered opportunities to achieve greatness in rebuilding the WTC in my view reflect, at least symbolically, the nation's overall failure to seize upon the outpouring of unity and goodwill expressed by most of the international community in the immediate wake of the attacks.
Freedom Tower? More like slave to money. What a wasted opportunity. But who is to blame? The developer? The owner? The NY local authority? The government?
Surely one of these parties must have realised this was a shame and a prime example of selling out.
The victims and brave of 9/11 deserved better. Ideally a canadian redwood for each life lost in 9/11 and for every life lost in the pointless wars in Afghanistan and Palenstine. Or alternatively, Bin Laden's head on a pole...
Any chance we could stop the pointless rants and all the "evil developers" crap?
If you're going to say the buildings suck at least say why. And what's your proposed solution?
Foster's first proposal is nice and probably the best from the earlier designs. If this one was chosen it would probably have been half way up by now. It does look awkward from some angles though.
What I like about the current plan are the different designs within the project. The old WTC was much too monolithic and is one of the reasons they were hated. Towers 2, 3 and 4 are great I think, freedom tower needs a redesign, especially that jetsons-like spire with the ring, also the masterplan is shit. Why? Look at how Calatrava's structure is squeezed between the 2 towers.
Also I think most people (the general public) like this plan. The people from NYC that I know would like to see the skyline rebuilt, a memorial, park and such at ground level and this plan does that.
I think most people don't want to see some weird yoke towering above everything like what the first proposals originally consisted of. Imagine this thing in the NYC skyline for example:
it just would have been nice to see that it was more than just typicaly buildings. These, imo, look like average buildings, at best.
I also think that it would have been better to have some consistency between them. Something that you could look at and realize it was a singular moment, a grand gesture of rebuilding NY. Instead, no one will know when or why any of these went up, beyond 'hey, we must have needed more office space'.
it just would have been nice to see that it was more than just typicaly buildings. These, imo, look like average buildings, at best.
I also think that it would have been better to have some consistency between them. Something that you could look at and realize it was a singular moment, a grand gesture of rebuilding NY. Instead, no one will know when or why any of these went up, beyond 'hey, we must have needed more office space'.
about how high-rise architecture in America is entering a bold, imaginative era. Everything's different after 9/11. The destruction of the World Trade Center is part of the reason American architecture is more brash and experimental than ever before. Sine the hopes of ground zero were eroded by politics and greed, the public has been prepared for an approaching a wave of high-rise buildings unlike any America has ever seen. They twist and turn. They bob and weave. They do everything except look like what we've been taught to accept…
hmmm....I am really glad WTC doesn't look like that Louisville building! That's got to be one of the most unattractive, high profile buildings I've seen in sometime.
I fear that the general public only wants ANYTHING built there....thus accepting mediocrity.
All 4 towers are so unbelievably banal it's sad....NY should be embarrased
i don't think the majority of people have the ability to appreciate and value the difference between architecture that is banal and one that is exceptional.
like some guy I was talking to here in Denver who hates the new Libleskind museum...he thought it should be like the library across the street (the Graves public library >shudder<)
WTC: The Final Masterplan
such a democratic process this wtc ground zero thing. and to boot- this is the most highly critical city (IMO) in terms of architectural exposure.
and its true - anything built will be criticized and torn apart by someone, the point in all of this is - the LEAST amount of people tearing something down with the ratio outweighed by people PRAISING the given design, the more successful the design. obviously.
and this one is definitely not the latter.
"...I think it's far preferable than some libertarian free-for-all a la Houston."
I don't.
Now have a beer, darn ya.
okay
touch it.... go on, you know you want to.
I don't think that the only alternative to it being a private project is it being a government project. Putting the two in stark opposition sounds like polarised American politics to me. There are plenty of middle-ground alternatives which have worked in other places.
Agreed... Public-private partnerships are very common. It's just a shame that this one was botched so badly.
At least the Freedom Tower echoing the Statue of Liberty, the Foster tower echoing the Hearst Building, the Rogers building echoing the Port Authority Terminal, and the last one echoing... 7WTC of course. And the Calatrava one will echo with whatever next building Calatrava is going to put in NYC. And of course the whole plan looks like part of downtown or midtown. So the new WTC is quintessentially New York! Fabulous!
i might get shot for saying that, but the Hearst Tower is surprisingly underwhelming. Looks good in pictures. Short, fat and stubby.
The thing that gets me is how massive the towers all are. They may be tall, but they're not exactly slender. They must have staggering amounts of floor area. And in the middle of the floors, you must be pretty much half a city block from the nearest window!
Is the reason to cause so many chaos caused by the fact that the master plan architect Libeskind is out decided by the developer?
Partly. But mostly just because this was an opportunity for some really good architecture that seems to have been missed.
opportunities for some really good architecture are usually missed.
these towers are pa-fuckin-thetic,
and the saddest thing is all these firms have been/are doing so much better work everywhere else but here...it could be worse only if they put retro post-modern hats on em -- actually the Freedom Fries Tower kind of has a little one at the base of the spire!
yeah, that part is a shame. I don't like SOM in general, but they've got a few pretty decent designs going up. I don't understand how Childs became their poster boy for design when he so obviously sucks.
I can think of high rises going up in almost ANY us city that put these to shame. There's some nice ones going up in NY, too.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the memorial, I would probably never visit that site again because the design is so bad.
SOM has a few decent designs going up, but in China, not in the US. Makes me wonder why a firm of such stature and power could not design something worthwhile for such an important monument.
Not just in China, anywhere the designs of all of these guys (SOM rather than Childs specifically that is) are typically much better than this crap at the WTC site.
Not to defend SOM, but do you think the mindset was something like:
"We're gonna have the peanut gallery dumb this down no matter what we do, so why bother? We haven't used this shape yet, at least on this continent."
I think the SOM mindset is more about pouring over the performance of their 401K plan while lifting design details from HdM. Most, not all, but most work for SOM for the better than average paycheck, not to the dedication that is involved in creating better than average architecture.
SOM lost whatever groove it had when it cozed up to PoMo. Couple that with bumping naughty bits with the likes of Silverstein, and you end up with what is now going in "the hole". There are good people at SOM, but for a project as loaded as this and all that it entails, you have to do better. It is a shame that Libeskind and SOM couldn't hook up, because despite the language of Libeskind, he brought the public interest into architecture...and that is very tough to do. If Foster's plan was chosen, then maybe the the credability and respect would have been more equal and work could have progressed easier. SOM's back room dealings with Libeskind is simply standard operating procedure.
Either way, I think this is the same SOM schlock but with a sexier skin. Tower 7 is a box of quite sexy curtain wall. Time Warner "reads the oblique" and is also a sexy curtain wall above...but the ground level is pure SOM in all its corporate crappiness. Until SOM convinces us of the genuine urbanism that is created around these glassy dbox-ed representations...I for one, will continue being skeptical.
Was there a discussion on these boards about rebuilding the original design, which right now I guess Trump is credited with proposing?
yes, there was. It was a horrible idea. Mostly because the old buildings did not function well and people hated working in them. Then there's the notion that you should not rebuild the past, but build for now and the future.
Thanks, trace, but on a search all I found were a couple threads full of the 'bad hair greedy corporate bastard blankety blank' commentary. Anything smarter?
yes, there was, but it was ages ago and I'd guess you would have to dig deep to find the posts.
Trump was not the only one advocating a rebuild. There were some before him, if I recall correctly.
There were a few significant reasons, of which I mentioned. To elaborate:
1. The buildings stunk, both from an infrastructure and functional aspect. They were severely hated when they were opened, both from the architecture press and the prospective workers. The buildings barely filled, and that was because the govn't bodies that helped fund the construction moved into them (good specials on lately).
From a workers point of view, the buildings were very dark. Moving the structure to the outside made for very tiny windows. Stupid design decision. Not to mention that was a significant factor in the steel weakening and failing (smaller/thinner members melt faster).
From the exterior one critic noted that they were "the largest aluminum siding job in the world". Probably still true.
They became iconic, but they were damn ugly. New one is much better than the old, even though I think the new design is one of the most banal designs I've seen for a large skyscraper in recent memory.
2. Why rebuild the past? We are not living in the late 60s/early 70s, so why build like we are? Architecture is about our current time and reaching for the future.
To rebuild, in my opinion, would be like covering up a wound with a cheap bandage - the wound can't be seen, but it'll never heal.
Building new, and acknoledging the scar, let's us become strong without forgetting.
The problem is that the towers do not even acknowledge each other's presence! Granted that the Freedom Tower is at the top of the heirarchy, at least Maki's angled top floors appear to reflect the chamfered corners of the Freedom Tower. The two towers in the middle do not look like they are part of any masterplan. They also make Calatrava's structure look like a small exotic pet.
Thinking may it is a small exotic pet....come to papa!
Thinking maybe it is a small exotic pet.....come to papa!
"But transparency is not just about openness. It’s about voyeurism, exhibitionism and surveillance, the last of which is probably more relevant than “freedom†at ground zero."
(from above article)
this is appauling!!!!!!!!!!! That complex is an abomination of development....an absolute insult to those whose lost their lives that day. Please, NYC, build the memorial, and shine the towers of light as a tribute...those are the most powerful display of architecture I've seen from anyone on that site. This new scheme makes me just sick.
when i look at the "towers of light" i just see light pollution and wasted energy...i sure wouldn't want that to be a "tribute" to my memory
The foster building concept is nice with the quandrangle at the top facing memorial square.
His first design. Elegant in comparison. Too big, but so much nicer than the crap above!!
I'd be pretty happy if they just went back to this.
yeah, good point about the wasted energy.....speaking of wasted energy, this whole project up to this point has been wasted energy....
I cannot believe we have circled back to the orig. design of BBL...unreal.
That old Foster proposal is def. much much better than the new one. The Rogers and Maki proposal are horrific. God save the WTC
The squandered opportunities to achieve greatness in rebuilding the WTC in my view reflect, at least symbolically, the nation's overall failure to seize upon the outpouring of unity and goodwill expressed by most of the international community in the immediate wake of the attacks.
I have nothing constructive to say.
people, we cannot let this bullshit happen!!! what can we do to stop this!!!
cf - i think the problem is neither does this building.
When I see the towers of light, I think of Speer's Cathedral of Light at Nuremburg.
Freedom Tower? More like slave to money. What a wasted opportunity. But who is to blame? The developer? The owner? The NY local authority? The government?
Surely one of these parties must have realised this was a shame and a prime example of selling out.
The victims and brave of 9/11 deserved better. Ideally a canadian redwood for each life lost in 9/11 and for every life lost in the pointless wars in Afghanistan and Palenstine. Or alternatively, Bin Laden's head on a pole...
Any chance we could stop the pointless rants and all the "evil developers" crap?
If you're going to say the buildings suck at least say why. And what's your proposed solution?
Foster's first proposal is nice and probably the best from the earlier designs. If this one was chosen it would probably have been half way up by now. It does look awkward from some angles though.
What I like about the current plan are the different designs within the project. The old WTC was much too monolithic and is one of the reasons they were hated. Towers 2, 3 and 4 are great I think, freedom tower needs a redesign, especially that jetsons-like spire with the ring, also the masterplan is shit. Why? Look at how Calatrava's structure is squeezed between the 2 towers.
Also I think most people (the general public) like this plan. The people from NYC that I know would like to see the skyline rebuilt, a memorial, park and such at ground level and this plan does that.
I think most people don't want to see some weird yoke towering above everything like what the first proposals originally consisted of. Imagine this thing in the NYC skyline for example:
I wonder how the elevators work in this, lol :-D
it just would have been nice to see that it was more than just typicaly buildings. These, imo, look like average buildings, at best.
I also think that it would have been better to have some consistency between them. Something that you could look at and realize it was a singular moment, a grand gesture of rebuilding NY. Instead, no one will know when or why any of these went up, beyond 'hey, we must have needed more office space'.
it just would have been nice to see that it was more than just typicaly buildings. These, imo, look like average buildings, at best.
I also think that it would have been better to have some consistency between them. Something that you could look at and realize it was a singular moment, a grand gesture of rebuilding NY. Instead, no one will know when or why any of these went up, beyond 'hey, we must have needed more office space'.
about how high-rise architecture in America is entering a bold, imaginative era. Everything's different after 9/11. The destruction of the World Trade Center is part of the reason American architecture is more brash and experimental than ever before. Sine the hopes of ground zero were eroded by politics and greed, the public has been prepared for an approaching a wave of high-rise buildings unlike any America has ever seen. They twist and turn. They bob and weave. They do everything except look like what we've been taught to accept…
Louisville, KY
Chicago, IL
hmmm....I am really glad WTC doesn't look like that Louisville building! That's got to be one of the most unattractive, high profile buildings I've seen in sometime.
Don't tell me about the process. Shlock house architects all over the world force that process every day, and I emphasize the word force.
I fear that the general public only wants ANYTHING built there....thus accepting mediocrity.
All 4 towers are so unbelievably banal it's sad....NY should be embarrased
i don't think the majority of people have the ability to appreciate and value the difference between architecture that is banal and one that is exceptional.
totally agree e
like some guy I was talking to here in Denver who hates the new Libleskind museum...he thought it should be like the library across the street (the Graves public library >shudder<)
It's funny how freaking Kentuky can get good architecture but the capital of the western world get typical stuff you'd fing anywhere.
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.