Let's be real here, it's a simple question, I decided to make a poll.

Should we rebuild the Towers?

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/500/2404wtcskylinesun.jpg

Why or why not?

No. We should build Gardner and Belton's towers.

:)

So I generally mean yes, but technically mean no.

Sure! Freedom tower sucks

I would love to see them rise again!

If I could decide, I would say yes

Yes.

No, at least not without some obvious modifications.

If they would original rebuild the towers it would let me feel a bit like the time before the attacks and that nothing ever was happened to the place. But there must be some changes so that is visible that "something was happened" and changed...

Well, I agree with the recommendation by that one group to build the new towers opposite of the original footprints, which still allows for the existance of a memorial.

And I also would have loved to see a new pair of towers slightly taller than the original ones. Even one story more would get the message across in my eyes.

No, at least not without some obvious modifications.

If they would original rebuild the towers it would let me feel a bit like the time before the attacks and that nothing ever was happened to the towers. But there must be some changes so that is visible that "something was happened"...
Exactly what I'm talking about.

http://www.makenynyagain.com

Close enough to satisfy and changed enough to differentiate.

NO.
I don't like the Freedom tower(the name is bad enough), but I'm no big fan of the Twins either.
They did have an effect on the skyline, and something still looks as missing when I see it, but as towers, I didn't like them.
What I really want however is a big world-renowned park, with a world-class monument to the tragedy of 9/11. For the office space, let them have 7WTC, and expand the downtown area by building new towers, knock down some old ugly buildings, etc.
And that's what I don't like, they don't care about the attacks, what they mostly want is office space. :rant:

Yes

Identical, only taller.

no, i don't think that a great idea, beside, who would want to work there anyways... i wouldn't

No, I think its better to let go of the past, and build a new future.

Yes they sould build towers, but they should improve on the old ones. I say use the Belton-Gardner footplan, but change the towers. Widen the windows, more like the Aon Center in Chicago. Change the external colums' facade to suit this settup as this arrangement would require larger colums and the shouldn't be large boxy colums.

Change the facade by either A) using a brighter aluminum facade or B) Use a stone facing that changes color depanding on the light.

Put the Antenna on the south tower, there should be no mistake that these are new building not the old ones.

Make them thinner. Manhattan doesn't need 10Msqft of glut. Narrow the towers to reduce the footage per tower to about 3MSqft each.

Make them taller. I don't care how much, just don't cheat (windmills,spires), and don't make so tall they look disproportionate with the narrower floorplate.

Use most if not all of the rest of the ground space as a memorial. North of Fulton should be a park, separe from the meorial and more lively. Include many, many trees. Have the towers in the middle of a vast expanse. Though a museum and cultural center would be acceptable on the property, they shouldn't be placed near the towers.

Image standing on Vessey and Greenwhich looking up and seeing nothing by the massive presence of a new World Trade Center. Familiar, but different. Imagine that and tell me my idea sucks or that the Freedom Tower is better. The buildings themselves don't matter anyway, what I propose is to rebuild an icon, the restore the skyline, the rough shape of the wonder, they do not, and should not, need to be exact replicas.

^I still dislike the old ones, no matter what ideas you came up with, though not as much as the new project.
But the new ones have a dumb name that makes them pure SH*T

YES! rebuild the twins!

but reduce the number of vertical mullion columns in them so that they won't look as windowless when seen far away. also, modernize the towers' interior to make it reflect the future more, and add green technology and all that good stuff. in other words, two hi-tech twin towers in the originals' skins (with some modifications of course).

but if i have to choose between freedom tower or a buildingless 16-acre memorial, i'll choose the latter. the last thing i want is a fraud and corruption tower polluting the atmosphere of remembrance and hope in the wtc site.

i don't think thinning the towers is really good. we gotta keep the bulk to let them continue to reign as skyscraper kings over lower manhattan. and the antenna changing idea is sorta weird, no offense. besides, ppl already associate the antenna twin with the north tower, no point changing that.

the last thing i want is a fraud and corruption tower
How can anyone allow the WTC to go down as the worst cheat known to man?

Nope.

I'd like to see 2 equally tall scrapers on the site though.
I dont like the idea of rebuilding them the same.

www.makenynyagain.com

Exactly. :)

Yes rebuild them !

How many that voted no, saw, visited, went up or went inside the Towers?

Just wondering, since what I've found is that if you saw them, went to the top, visited them then chances are you'd like to see them back.

if you saw them, went to the top, visited them then chances are you'd like to see them back.
:yes:

http://www.hipsteria.com/fwheaton/images/wtc_images/wtc_brochure.jpg

How many that voted no, saw, visited, went up or went inside the Towers?

Just wondering, since what I've found is that if you saw them, went to the top, visited them then chances are you'd like to see them back.

i said no, n i never visit it, i admit that, n i think its a great towers one of the worlds best, but common, if u rebuit it, it wouldn't be the same, it would just be too sad to be in it, just bring back lots of bad memory.

How many that voted no, saw, visited, went up or went inside the Towers?

Just wondering, since what I've found is that if you saw them, went to the top, visited them then chances are you'd like to see them back.

as someone who most definitely wants to see them rebuilt, i can understand why there are those who don't. my mother feels that if they were rebuilt, it would be like 'erasing' what took place and pretend nothing ever happened. i disagreed but i still can understand.

i think it's human nature to rebuild.

i don't think thinning the towers is really good.

Well considering I think they should be about 115 stories, I doubt you'd be able to thin them up by much more than 20 ft/side before they'd start to look wierd. So they'd still be very bulky, but thin enough to reduce footage and to reinforce the fact these are not the same buildings. The point is to assume the iconic role of twin towers, but the buildings themselves must be different. It should be obvious enough that someone who knows nothing of the Twin could pick up a photo of both old and new and be able to tell which was which. That is the goal.

I voted NO, and I've been on top of the towers. And it was in July 2001! Almost missed it! :D
and can you believe I still haven't gone on the ESB? :D
anyway, I liked the views, I had a great time up there, and it re-inforced my interest towards skyscrapers, I began visiting afterwards the old "world skyscraper", or whatever its name was. I really loved the detailed manhattan skyline that was up in the tower, and it's too bad I didn't have a digital camera by that time, because the day was sunny and clear. It's something I will never forget, but rebuilding them, it won't have the same feeling, it won't be like the real WTC. And the Freedom tower won't bring anything new, we need a monument, and nothing more, and the whole green space will be more people friendly than the ugly corporate towers that will overshadow the monument. I understand NYC needs a broadcasting antenna, but build it over in Brooklyn, or somewhere north of the financial district, with a new begining, without erasing the past.
Just like Penn's station, we'll be erasing history. I read a book about what NYC looked like in the 19th century, there were amazing houses, mansions, churches, castles, that got blown up for some skyscrapers or other ugly developments that could have easily been built around the corner.

Yes.... re-build... without WTC, NYC skyline is not so impressive...

Yes.... re-build... without WTC, NYC skyline is not so impressive...

well lower manhattan is a mess right now, but midtown is still one of the greatest skylines, ESB and Chrysler beats everything :)

NO.... But please bare with me, as i understand it the original idea or concept behind the original WTC, was a place to conduct world buisness, the complex large enough to house a world host of banking, trading, shipping,and manufacturing firms from around the globe, just becouse it happened to be located in New York City does not in my opinion mean that it belonged to just NYC, it belonged to me too, and i've lived in Los Angeles, most of my life (born here) my first and as it turn's out, only visit to the WTC was in 1984. my first sight at ground level, was as i exited the south tower's east side, until i walked north into Austin Tobin Plaza (toward 'the globe') did tower north come into view, i was struck with one thought, scale, this was a HUGE , office complex, tall, huge floor plates, but open, much sun light in the plaza. in a word 'awsume'. now as a construction worker in LA i worked on some of our largest office towers . none compared. I don't think that the original porpose of the WTC should be lost, nor should the tragedy of 9/11. this can be done without rebuilding the towers as they were. like most, i'm not totaly sold on the freedom tower, lose the lattice, bring it up to 120 floors, put the lattice on top of that, and shoot the antenna complex up to 2'354 feet. (beat that saudi tower for sure!) the memorial, more sunlight maybe skylights or light wells, the concept in question is more like a grotto than a place of reflection, keep the trees it suggests life, transit terminal......perfect don't touch it. three other towers (forget tower 5 he's already out of money) my plan, tower two, 68 floors, 1'185, 2.5 million sq. ft. tower three, 58 floors, 1'085, 2.2 million sq. ft. tower four, 48 floors, 985', 1.9 million sq. ft. last three floors on all towers 20' executive floors, enterance lobbeys super elevated (80 to 100 feet) but simple and clean as not to detract from transit terminal, minimal green, no cultural center , no visitors center, and no artifacts on site from 9/11( bad taste i think) another location for these things i think. other than that plaza flat unobstructed, no clutter. as soon as i finish my concept drawings for tower's 2, 3, 4, i'll post them

Piece from the post...

NY POST

REBUILD THE TOWERS

By NICOLE GELINAS

April 7, 2005 -- MORE New Yorkers are emerging from their 9/11 numbness to say: The Twin Towers should be rebuilt.

Six weeks after 9/11, I wrote on these pages: "The World Trade Center was perfect the way it was. To build anything that is not as good or better will always mean that the thousands who work around, and eventually within, the complex will always recall the original with longing. To fail would be the saddest memorial to all that was destroyed."

Since then, we've come close to failing the fallen, failing ourselves and failing our city.

The World Trade Center site has become Ground Zero for every-thing wrong with New York.

When Gotham was in need, Gov. Pataki responded by doing what Albany does best: He created yet another opaque, unaccountable public corporation, the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. His political appointees there picked a plan for Ground Zero that nobody wants.

Showboating architect Daniel Libeskind treated Ground Zero like his personal p.r. backdrop. His 1,776-foot piece of concept art would've erased Downtown's modern heritage, eternally marring the skyline. He's mostly out of the picture now - but David Childs, WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein's architect, still can't make the Freedom Tower fit Downtown.

"We're in a vacuum with regards to" the proposed tower's top 400 feet, Silverstein recently told The New York Times. Bankers won't finance the tower's broadcast antenna because the engineering design for the top of the building is unproven.

But in the end, Libeskind may have unwittingly bought the city the time it needed to think rationally about Downtown's future: Since Ground Zero is still an empty pit, New York retains the option to rebuild our towers.

For two years, accomplished engineering/architectural team Ken Gardner and Herbert Belton have been doggedly perfecting their own vision of a restored World Trade Center. They want to build 115-story twin towers - with offices, apartments and a hotel to fit into the new, 24-hour Downtown. The towers would each feature six internal stairwells, not the old Twin Towers' four - and the stairs would be reinforced with superior fireproofing technology.

Each new tower would be set opposite one fallen tower's footprint - and a memorial built from the fragmented remains of each fallen tower would ensure that New York would memorialize the past without sacrificing Ground Zero's future. (See the plan at TwinTowersII.com.)

I'm afraid to hope that New York can prove it deserves its reputation for resilience. But finally, more people are speaking out. Last month, MSNBC reporter David Shuster wrote on his blog: "The question is how much damage does Gov. Pataki and the LMDC want to inflict upon themselves before they wake up to reality? Americans, and especially New Yorkers, want their beloved city back." Shuster did a poll on the MSNBC Web site: 80 percent of the 3,483 respondents voted to rebuild the Twin Towers.

In mid-March, New York Sun columnist John P. Avlon wrote, in an article titled "Bring Back the Twin Towers": "New York City may finally be ready to begin a dialogue that we were unable to face in the months after the attack. . . . perhaps it is time to ask whether the Twin Towers should be rebuilt and our proud skyline restored."

Two weeks ago, the New Criterion's James Panero wrote: "The question of whether the World Trade Center towers should be rebuilt is probably one more of us should have asked 31/2 years ago. . . . Libeskind's plans have been met with an unenthusiastic response because there was always only one true option for what to do with Ground Zero." Syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock wrote recently that Pataki should abandon "the star-crossed, patently unloved Freedom Tower."

But to rebuild the towers, New Yorkers need a leader with guts.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani - who loves the city so much - has stood by as business-as-usual state politics have festered at Ground Zero. He must renew the pledge he made to New Yorkers after 9/11: That New York will heal its broken skyline.

Developer Donald Trump has said he hates the Freedom Tower. "I was never a huge fan of the World Trade Center. . . . Then, [the towers] came down. Now, I see pictures and say, 'they were great.' . . . How could they replace [them] with this monstrosity of garbled nonsense?" Trump said in late 2003. But he has yet to put the weight of his new national fame behind rebuilding the towers.

Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer must probe the LMDC to find out how Libeskind's architectural embarrassment was chosen in the first place - just as Spitzer has investigated shenanigans at other unaccountable cesspools, public and private.

And finally: Here is the chance for Pataki himself to do the right thing. The governor's approval ratings are the lowest they've ever been. Citizens have forgotten the fine things Pataki did for New York during his first two terms in office.

Pataki can erase the futility of Albany's past three years. He can hold a press conference downtown to say: New York is scrapping the Freedom Tower.

Pataki can turn back the emerging legacy of defeatism and hopelessness downtown. He can tell New Yorkers we're rebuilding the Twin Towers in the space that's been reserved for them since 9/11.

E-mail: ngelinas@nypost.com

The first time I visited the Twin Towers was in 2000. I remember thinking the next time I was going to be in New York, I would have to visit the towers again. The whole complex was so awesome. Well, as it turns out, the next time I was in NYC was in June 2002.

In their extreme simplicity, the towers were something unbelievable. So, I would like the new plans to be much more like the original WTC. Not necessarily identical buildings, but twin towers of some sort. Tall and relatively simple design.

Freedom Tower just isn't good enough for the site.

no

Question: Does anyone have that picture of the twins being 1,776 feet tall?

Question: Does anyone have that picture of the twins being 1,776 feet tall?
sorry havnt a clue what youre talking about but i say rebuild them taller

^ Someone made a rendering of the Twins being 1,776 feet tall. A really awesome picture.

no, I'm for twin towers though. Foster's plan for rebuilding was mine, and it seems, many people's favorite.

no

More than 75% (3/4) are in support, not bad.

I think something even greater than the old twins is fitting for the site. The old towers are the past. Something that symbolizes the future should be the best monument for New York.