Courtesy of the BBC i like the Think one best, Sir Norman Foster who designs one of the entries is from my very own city :)

there is also a poll to vote on your favourite design on this site, so far sir Norman Foster is winning with 35%

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2587707.stm

heres the pics:

Richard Meier and partners
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38606000/jpg/_38606695_one_300ap.jpg
This design features an L-shaped series of towers intersected by three walkways

Foster and partners
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38606000/jpg/_38606693_two_foster_300ap.jpg
Sir Norman Foster's concept features two interlocking buildings, much taller than the twin towers

Skidmore Owings and Merrill group
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38606000/jpg/_38606915_three_ap300.jpg
This proposal features a group of nine buildings, each about 80 storeys high

Think team
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38607000/jpg/_38607041_four_300ap.jpg
The international Think team's design features two decorative steel towers

United Architects
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38607000/jpg/_38607589_united_2_300_ap.jpg
This design features five towers surrounding a memorial space

Studio Libeskind
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38607000/jpg/_38607329_libeskind_2_300ap.jpg
This plan features a 1,776 ft high tower overlooking several smaller steel towers

Peterson Littenberg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38607000/jpg/_38607279_peterson_littenberg_300ap.jpg
This design features twin 1,400 ft towers with a large memorial park in the middle

foster foster foster foster foster!!! is the best!Irish blood english heart, have you seen the web page? it has so many information!

the foster design is by far, superior to the other. It is practical unlike some of the others and attractive. Also it's shape keeps the memory of the original towers alive.
The only design I hate is the one from Peterson Lindbergh. The New York times architecture seems to be suggesting that they will be chosen because they are the design team of the agency in charge of rebuilding the site. Personally I find their design totally uncreative and a cheap knock off of New York's classic art deco scrapers. They were also responsible for some of the hated proposals that came out earlier this year .
FOSTER 100%

I think that Foster or Some will be chosen. That are two of the most imporant Architect offices in the world, and I think that the Port Authority will prefer to chose a very famous and with a lot of prestige team.

:guns1: FOSTER OWNS !! :guns1:


:D

:eek2: FOSTER! :eek2:

While I concur that Foster is the likely frontrunner, my personal prefrence is the United proposal. The verticality and the fully connected 800" level are awesome, though the massing doesn't seem to work from any distance but close up seams to work (the ground-up view rendering is simply amazing).

I like the Think team design best as it means NYC gets twin towers back on its skyline (and i think they look amazing) yet it also means that the graves of 3000 people isnt disrespected by being turned into an office again, also a tower like that wouldnt be as much of a terrorist attack as it would only kill a few tourists not 1000's of Workers.

Its a beautiful monument to 9/11 and will restore NYC's skyline.

i hate the 1st design though it just looks like a waffle!

I'd have to say United architects. That picture doesn't do it justice but these do! :D


(from Newsday)

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2002-12/5908667.jpg

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2002-12/5908659.jpg

Anyone know how tall it is?


Also anyone know how tall the Foster design is?

they are very Frank Lloyd Wright arent they (those pics)?

I like the fosters design. studio libeskind looks good to

after looking at all the sites in detail and on Newsday ive decided that only Foster or Liebeskind have the right to be built as they are the most imaginative and the only ones that will pay enough respect to the original site.

For some reason my post didn't go through before

I think they all pretty much suck. I feel like they aren't taking this serioulsy or being realistic. If i had to pick on, it would be Foster, or maybe the think team. Why can't they design a building like the new Trump in chicago, or Union Station in Hong Kong. I don't like Hong Kong buildings, but all of them beat these pices of ass. This is almost laughable!!!!! And the resto of them besides foser and the think team are sooooo terrible, and to think that millions of dollars and lots of time went into these proposals.....geezz

mmmm you are right, despite i still prefer foster's i thing that UNited architets project is not bad.

i have visited the page of united architects and i love it too!!!! I don't know if it even better than foster's!

:eek:
Finally some Decent proposals! I like the memorial part of the Foster idea though. Also, the height of the thing :dizzy: and the incorporation of greenery into the building.

I've taken some time to think about these proposals some more, that first post was my immediate reaction.

I now think foster's design is incredible. Very futuristic, very forward thinking. I still like the Think teams proposals.

Studio Libeskind isn't bad either, but SOM's is down right terrible, and that first Meir waffle house is terrible. If they are chosen, I'm moving out of the tri state area.

My vote goes for Foster. For height, mass, symbolism, and forward thinking. It is so out there that it is genious, which is why i think that the conservitive Port Authority will not choose it, which will be a shame.

I think I just realised what the Meier design is supposed to be. They look like the pieces of the old WTC - the steel facade sections that stuck up out of the ground.

http://www.conservationtech.com/MAIN-TOPICS/5-NYC-World-Trade/NEWS-photos/Debris-w-figure.jpg http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38606000/jpg/_38606695_one_300ap.jpg.

Too blunt on the symbolism...bad idea.

I love the Foster design! Very tall, and a WTB by a long shot. However, who will work in some of these giant buildings? The vacancy rate will be enourmous.

The Meier proposal looks like a picket fence more than the rubble of the twin towers. How ugly.

Studio Libeskind gets my vote. Very futuristic but not off the deep end like United. I also like the single climax point rather than the twin tower concept. And does anyone notice the striking similarities between the Littenberg towers and the Quigley Insurance Tower in SC3K?

The SOM proposal needs some steroids to get serious consideration.

These buildings are beautiful, but some of them totally dwarf the lower manhatten skyline, like previous towers did. I would rather have multiple buildings only slightly sticking out of the skyline than one (or two) doubling the height of the surrounding buildings.

littenberg is the only one with a "normal" design. the others all seem guilty of every fault that we once attributed to WTC. impersonal ziggurats that dominate and oppress the urban fabric, rather than complementing it. none of the other proposals appear to give any spatial consideration to downtown as a neighborhood. even littenberg is restricting themselves with a silly "twin" theme. it seems like they are all more concerned with making the biggest statement, than actually rebuilding a city. (probably as a result of the public's hatred of the massing proposals)

of course, i find it quite appropriate that these proposals seem like a giant dick-measuring contest, as the foster proposal looks like an enormous metal & glass vagina. :) !!!!!

i like them...
http://www.thefunnypage.com/wtc/wtc.jpg
http://www.september11news.com/WorldTradeCenterNight1.jpg

How come none of the renderings have the new 7 WTC in the picture. I mean it is going to be there, and we know what it will look like. It would be nice to see how it fits in with everthing else.

I saw three votes for that peterson design. How terrible and unimaginative. My guess is that it will be chosen, for that reason. Only reason it is tall is becasue of those stupid looking spire things. Looks like two of those frankfurt towers side by side. Not enough mass and to conservative. Go with Foster

Peterson Littenberg and Foster look great. I just hope occupancy would be decent. It would be so great though for NYC to have a world's tallest after 28 years without the title!:cool:

I like the united architects one.

But I like the foster one more.

Foster for its simplicity, mass and sheer height.

Leaves lots of public space below.

Libeskind looks very soaring as well.

I also like THINK's 2100 ft proposal.

United has a massive design but requires revision for my tastes. Good height as well.

I hope SOM has a surprise backup hand ready to be dropped after the public's trashing of their terrible proposal. Same thing goes for Meier.

Peterson/Littenberg needs towers to be 200 ft higher with a bit more mass concentrated up high.

At the end, however, I believe NYC will get the World's Tallest Building.:)

Think gets my vote, the rest are either too small, out of place or just plain hideous.

I don't know if you have visited United Architect page, but there is a very unfortunatly render that shows the building trhrough a street and it seems like it is a picture of the old WTC when it was falling down! That is a bad point for that project.

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by Ersh </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>I think I just realised what the Meier design is supposed to be. They look like the pieces of the old WTC - the steel facade sections that stuck up out of the ground.

http://www.conservationtech.com/MAIN-TOPICS/5-NYC-World-Trade/NEWS-photos/Debris-w-figure.jpg http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38606000/jpg/_38606695_one_300ap.jpg.

Too blunt on the symbolism...bad idea.</td></tr>
</table>






I can't believe that it took this long for someone to finally see what Meier was doing with his design. The symbolism is so thick, that it quite literally smacks you in the face. How can someone NOT see that the massing emulates the proportions of the mullions and spandrels of the old WTC's facade?

And many of you claim to be knowledgable about architecture? The only other person here who "got it" was a guy who has enough schooling to be an architect (Ersh). Concepts don't get much simpler than this folks... Man, I just lost ALOT of respect for so many of the forumers here... "waffle house" my ass...:|






And I'm not saying that I "like" the design, because I don't. Rather, I am simply appalled at the woeful ignorance and impulsive commentary of so many people on this issue. It almost makes me want to avoid this WTC discussion all together...

I was just reading about the THINK proposal.

the towers that you see that look like the twin towers are not office space. They are just a lattice work of glass and steel. That is the memorial. there are three office buildings around the site, still tall, but not visible in that rendering.

There proposal is very ambitious. I think all of these proposals will cost over 10 billion dollars to pull off....i'm probably underestimating even.

you can tell by this picture.. not office, space, its a memorial

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide55.jpg

i think they all suck......just build some taller boxes identical to the old towers.

sheesh, let's not get too tacky here.

I like the Foster one most, I think it is very clever and well designed there are some renderings on the website which make it look wondeful IMO. It just seems to be very well thought out, planned and considered.

okay, the foster proposal isn't terrible. it has vision. and i like the height and the attempt to reconstruct the old skyline without being too blatent... but from some angles the effect of all of those triangular surfaces just looks wrong... like the surfaces are twisting and buckeling... and give the nature of the project i don't think that that's the best look for the building.

Can you say TEMPTING FATE! (A case of collective amnesia?)

Given the recent history of the site you would imagine the last thing that would be proposed is a repeat of the twin towers theme, or an iconic world's tallest at this very place. The design proposals individually do include some interesting ideas, Foster's design is particularly striking (perhaps it will be built somewhere), but none of the schemes, perhaps Libeskind's being the exception, appears to lend itself to the organic regeneration of Manhattan's scarred downtown cityscape over time - all appear somewhat overscaled - even by NYC standards - more akin to a design for an Asiatic city trying to put itself on the map.

IMO there will be a round 3 competition for the site next Summer, perhaps with some better defined ground rules such as mixed use development. The idea of a new Grand Union type transport terminus at the heart of the project is exciting.

The meier design is kinda weird. Its a great idea though. I like the way ppl can walk from tower to tower. A lot of office space, Thats good. It will look cool looking at it from different angles. But i just cant find the word for this....these towers. "koo", I guess.

The think idea is ok. The "skybridge" thingy kiils the design, imo. But I KIND OF like it.......kind of.....

I like Foster and Liebeskind ones, for I think it's the best for the composition of the New York skyline, but the Think team proposal has a good urban layout with the park. I haven't voted yet.

Here are some images from the proposals:

THINK's

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide17.jpg

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide23.jpg

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide26.jpg

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide36.jpg

---oooOooo---

Norman Foster

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_a/slides/images/Slide33.jpg

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_a/slides/images/Slide34.jpg

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_a/slides/images/Slide35.jpg

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_a/slides/images/Slide36.jpg

---oooOooo---

Daniel Liebeskind

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_d/slides/images/Slide21.jpg

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_d/slides/images/Slide24.jpg

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_d/slides/images/Slide28.jpg

---oooOooo---

UN Studio (United)

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/images/Slide10.jpg

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/images/Slide11.jpg

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/images/Slide12.jpg[/b]

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/images/Slide26.jpg

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/images/Slide27.jpg

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/images/Slide29.jpg

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/images/Slide47.jpg

http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_f/slides/images/Slide61.jpg

---oooOooo---

SOM

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_c/slides/images/Slide7.jpg

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_c/slides/images/Slide15.jpg

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_c/slides/images/Slide16.jpg

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_c/slides/images/Slide17.jpg

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_c/slides/images/Slide19.jpg

---oooOooo---

Richard Meier

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/images/Slide3.jpg

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/images/Slide20.jpg

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/images/Slide21.jpg

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/images/Slide25.jpg

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/images/Slide28.jpg

---oooOooo---

Peterson/Littenberg Architecture and Urban Design

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_b/slides/images/Slide3.jpg

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_b/slides/images/Slide12.jpg

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_b/slides/images/Slide13.jpg

SOM proposal is so massive! as well as I think nearly impossible to build because of that extrange form of the buildings. I think foster is the best one, but I start to think that United Architects and the SkyPark are cool too.

Foster's is winning!

Eeeeexcellent.

At the risk of offending Jasonhouse with my decidedly non-professional opinion ;) (j/k Jason), I'd like to see Studio Liebeskind's design built somewhere, even if it doesn't make it to NYC. Foster's is so enormous that, as others put it, it may be hard to find tenants willing to locate to the 100-umpteenth floor 1600+ feet up. UN Studio's just annoys me. If there is some symbolism to the seemingly random angles that I don't grasp, please enlighten me. Otherwise, it's just too "bold" for my taste. SOMs is horrid. It reminds me of cartoon drawings of run-down rickety old buildings that are only missing some sticks to prop them up.

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_c/slides/images/Slide17.jpg

Thinks and Fosters are the best to me now. Those of you having problems with the fact that they will be to tall in the skyline, gotta remember that 7wt will probably be 737 ft. tall and a 90 story proposal in Broadway will hopefully blend these mothers in the skyline.
If they are built.
The one im having a problem with is SOM. The original wtc architct had a proposal where 4 towers would be bunched up against eachother. SOMs proposal makes me remember this. In my opinion its awful. I dont really see the appeal.
Why dont they have towers like the ones in Hong Kong being proposed for the WTC???!!

It would be cool to see 2ifc and his lil bro on the wtc site. Or Union square. Either most of these proposals suck....or its just that our excpectations are too high....:cheers:

hey, newsday now has video excerpts of the proposals--check'em out for new views.

Newsday (http://www.newsday.com)

Click "Interactive: The Finalists" under the pics of the proposals.


Think's twin tower proposal has a staircase going all the way up the outside!!

Foster looks better than the rest by infinity.

But some other buildings look better than foster's:D

I like this combination

Foster Towers
http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_a/slides/images/Slide33.jpg

Think's Site Plans
http://lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide17.jpg

Som's and Think's Transit Hub and make it the largest in the world with underground mall and stuff.
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_c/slides/images/Slide7.jpg

And will find some space on the site to build these around the preimiter
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/firm_g/slides/images/Slide21.jpg


Put them all together and you got my vision.

keep on voting guys i want to see which project comes out on top :)

I don;t like them, but if I could choose one I would say Foster..


+++Richard Meier one looks like a kitchen appliance ( the brand new cookie maker World Trade Center by Richar Meier):D :D

I was under the impression that the think team had submitted 3 designs, the one shown above was their most revolting... the other two were quite interesting... how can we vote correctly if these are not included above?

Actually, I've grwon to like Foster's ALOT! I think his design is beautiful and creative, also stunning and elegant, the changing profile is also another plus.:)

i think they should go with the fosters plan, if they shorten the tower more. i don't really like the size of it to much.

the united one is a very interesting looking proposal, but i jsut can't picture it in the new york skyline, even with it being shown how it is here.

i hope UA could win

that's really an ultra design!

dont hesitated.. foster is the best! the building is so unicque ..

Sorry..... back to the drawing board!

What are these guys on! :ohno:

But Fosters is the best, it has some good features... just needs some 'tweaking'.

I am happy to see that the people prefer Foster's design:D

Like I mentioned elsewhere, I am all but CERTAIN that if people didn't know who designed what (didn't know that was "Foster" who did it), that another design would be considered the best... I get the impression that many people are bandwagoning and voting with a knee-jerk reaction to the name, not the design.

mmmm, jason, your are completly right! In my case, I've vote to Foster's because I think is the best, is the one that I understood easily, then, after I was looking at another pictures of another projects and more and more graphics, I started to like another ones, but the Foster's one is which causes me a better impression.

Like I mentioned elsewhere, I am all but CERTAIN that if people didn't know who designed what (didn't know that was "Foster" who did it), that another design would be considered the best... I get the impression that many people are bandwagoning and voting with a knee-jerk reaction to the name, not the design.

I can tell you that this isn't the case. Because I liked the design when I first saw it. I was not very familiar with architects, not even foster, and I only became familiar with him after seeing his design then going to his website.

I think you are just tad angry that the most liked plan so far isn't your personal favorite.

BTW, I think the other proposals are trash, especially the 2100 ft think tower. If you look at the diagram, it get its 2100 ft with a ~600 ft. spire. And I hate the pyramidal shape of it as well.

This ahs turned into nothing but foster talk. What about the other ones? Ppl are neglecting the other proposals. Especially, Littenburgs proposal.
I think ppl are taking much notice to his proposals because his pictures arent, "all that and a bag of chips" like other proposal pics. I like it, but if it had better pics and angles, it would have a bigger influence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38607000/jpg/_38607279_peterson_littenberg_300ap.jpg

See?>( :cheers:

I don't like the Fosters design myself because #1 the structural integrity looks a bit weak, #2 IMO it doesn't fit into NYC's skyline, and it just looks un newyorkish, #3 From certain angles it looks too wierd, #4 How the heck is it going to be made suitable for office space???

I doubt that they would offer something that was structurally weak. What exactly is it that "fits" into the NY skyline??? I think they look beautiful, on that token the original World Trade Center didn't fit into the skyline either but who cares. The only thing that would fit into the skyline would be something that mimics its surroundings which = BORING. This is my favorite design of the bunch because it is the most imaginative and has some serious height, not to mention that I find it beautiful in an understated way, its not too overpowering but definately gets your attention.

I understand that 9 towers would offer alot of office space, but look at it!!! Its horryfying!(<is that spelled right?)
Ppl would also feel more comfortable working in a complex with tall buildings all around them, but.......just look at the mon........nevermind.
Only 1 person voted for meier, and imo its better then SOM.

3! ppl voted for SOM!!:eek: :ohno: :nono:
Show your faces you evil bastards!!;) ;) :D :D

I don't like any of the designs. I like it as it was before 9-11. They should make them taller though with a memorial, so people will not forget 9-11.

The Fosters building IMO looks like Origami :D

I think that the one of meier's really suck:bash::bash: :mad: :laugh:
it looks like my mom's old ugly bookcase!!! anyway, i fId United Architect's good, bud I think LITTENBURG'S IS THE BEST OF ALL THEM
PLUS IT GOT ANOUGH SPACE FOR THE MEMORIAL AND I THINK THATS IMPORTANT TO

:guns1: :guns1: :guns1: :nono: NO TERROR MAN !!!!


TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF
MUCH:love:LOVE:love: AND MERRY CRISTMAS
CRAZYHORSE_88 (William from Belguim)

in my opinon Littemburg's proposal is so classical, it is no time to rebuild a new Empire State.

United architects from the tower base IMO...

The aerial rendering of Littenburg's design appears the most tasteful and dignified....

But the most famous (postcard) shot is always from across the hudson river, and foster's design prevails in that regard.

__________

I have chosen the least horrible one...but I still don't like it much..

I have chosen it only because it is the teallest tower project...

Maybe we'll get used to those ugly and huge piles of glass after some time...

I agree with Ptarmigan...

Maybe the best choice is rebuilding the towers just like they used to be...

the first design is simply pathetic...

how dare they present such crap like that ??? aren't they ashamed of showing to the public such bullshit? NYC is not a Legoland...

not me Jayhouse...(hope you don't mind I adapt your name a little bit). I have never heard of these famous architects (archictects often aren't famous creatures...)

Also, about your post criticizing people's ignorance on Meier's design, okay, even if it's a symbolism what they were trying to provide their proposal with, what's the use of this? the final project became so awkward and weird that most people will reject it...

At first on meier's project I had the impression that they weren't willing to win this dispute for the rebuilding of the former wtc's site, hence proposing a project that they knew in advance that it wouldn't win...I thought they could be worried about taking this huge responsibility...well, naive or not...



<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by Jasonhouse </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>Like I mentioned elsewhere, I am all but CERTAIN that if people didn't know who designed what (didn't know that was "Foster" who did it), that another design would be considered the best... I get the impression that many people are bandwagoning and voting with a knee-jerk reaction to the name, not the design.</td></tr>
</table>

This must be the most difficult brief any architect has ever been given.......

1. Design a building to replace one that was once the tallest in the world, though of no outstanding architectural merit.

2. Design a building that is a memorial to 3000 people who died as the result of a terrorist atrocity.

3. Design a building that provides the maximum amount of lettable office space to satisfy your client.

4. Design a building that makes the statement that America will not give in to terrorists.

5. Design a building that will not have the vulnerabilities of the original building so that people will feel safe to work in it and to live in its shadow.

Is it any wonder that such weird designs are emerging and that people are getting so excited about them? The designers of the original WTC had it so much easier.

Just suppose that the WTC had never been built, what buildings would be considered appropriate for the site now? Perhaps that should be the starting point for evaluating these designs.

The idea of making the whole building a memorial seems wrong to me. Why not recreate the walls of photographs that emerged spontaneously in the days after September 11th? Would that not have far more meaning both to friends and relatives of the victims and to the casual tourist alike?

I like NYC a lot and I would not like to see it disfigured by some over-reaction to the events of September 2001.

All of the 7 designs are, at the least, creative in their own way. I can't really decide which one I like the best now.

Libeskind- a well balanced concept that gets the world's tallest (although cheaply), great at the ground level, and is a sensible memorial without reminding visitors of the former WTC. However, it feels too random at times, and the signature tower is too thin

Foster- a solid approach that is creative and shows the strength of New York, although it appears awkward in the skyline. The simplicity of the garden and footprints only as a memorial can be a good thing as memorials don't need to be overdone.

Meier, etc.- the "waffle" is certainly a creative design, but reminds visitors too much of the former WTC, or at least to those who think about it. It really depends on if you want to be reminded of the tragedy, versus not being reminded of it.

THINK- they actually have 3 designs, although there's not much details on the other two. The main design of 2 crystal towers is a classic that could be the best design, although they do remind visitors of the tragedy too much, but it'll probably be popular with locals who want a recreation.

United Architects- it has height, and the fused buildings symbolize unity, a subtle reminder of New York's determination to rebuild. It's a great concept, although I need more details on what it will have on the ground level besides the buildings.

Peterson/ Littenburg- although overlooked, I think it's an overall solid design, doesn't have the dynamic creativity of the others but solves the major needs: twinness, height, a park, and the preservation of the footprints.

SOM- a wacky design that I don't really get. It won't reach the height of the original WTC, and seems like just another skyscraper complex, with distorted buildings. Perhaps a detailed look into the world's most famous architectural firm's design will reveal a better reasoning behind it.

United Architect is my fovorite.

I agree with Martin, now the people that is designing the new WTC have a lot of preasures and a lot of thinks to study before be able to take a desicission, and it is for sure that this desicission will not be accepted for all the people.

Foster's proposal looks like it's already been hit by several planes.

I think that all projects have a little of that kind direct image with the 11-S events.

I like the Foster proposal but I sympathise with people who say that it isn't suited to New York but is more suited to somewhere like Hong Kong or Singapore.

I have a feeling that New Yorkers would prefer something with the confident verticality of the Empire State Building rather than a building that doesn't seem to be sure which way is up.

All of the designs kinda blow... they should just build something very similer to the original towers with a few tweaks.

They should not rebuild the towers!!!
Whats the point of remembering 9/11 if the Twin Towers are there all over again?? Sure, it would be a message to the terrorists, but it wont do any good.
I would love to see the Twin Towers there as much as the next person, but it would be like 9/11 never happened. It would bew like a fairy tale.
with the twin towers there, the skyline is basically saying,"9/11, I dont see 9/11."

Build bigger and better and make up for the mistakes the original WTC had. Twin Towers are dead. All we can do know is remember.

Proposals like these are how we look towards the future no matter how unappealing they are.At least the architects try (except for SOM). Its the thought that counts.:D :D

Well... Fosters design is just screaming "Hit me!!! Why won't you hit me?!... c'mon and hit me!!"

well, I disagree with X-seed...

Foster's design seems the most reasonable to meand I'd like to see it there quite imposing in Manhattan's former glorious skyline..., restoring NYC's importance on the skyscraper scene...

I am very happy that most projects for the rebuilding of the site are considering tall structures as it should be...

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by Ersh </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>I think I just realised what the Meier design is supposed to be. They look like the pieces of the old WTC - the steel facade sections that stuck up out of the ground.

http://www.conservationtech.com/MAIN-TOPICS/5-NYC-World-Trade/NEWS-photos/Debris-w-figure.jpg http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38606000/jpg/_38606695_one_300ap.jpg.

Too blunt on the symbolism...bad idea.</td></tr>
</table>


Brilliant dedcution!!!

You are a very observant person

It didn't hit me till after I saw your post. If this suggestions hits the masses it will defenitly sink this plan.

These proposals are terrible.Why aren't they submitting proposals that look realistic?

I wish foster's buildings could be boxier and wider... I only like it because it's tall, but its' ugly...too heterodox...

the world financial center buildings are infinitely more beautiful and better than any of these new designs...

oh my, and to think that they are the best archictects in the world...:? :rant:

once again beig the best means being the most hated and least appreciated one, just like top models and foods..

I'm not completely satisfied with any of them, so that's how I voted. There are bits and pieces that I like, but none of them flow together completely for me...

Think's Sky Park and Peterson Littenberg both provide very nice parks, IMO, and so does Think's Great Room.

Several of the plans provide airy, open interiors, which would be very nice - they do a good job of using glass to advantage, though I wonder about energy costs during summers and winters.

The main problem is the buildings, or most of them, in spite of some of their pleasant interiors - SOM's towers look like worms, Meier's like tac-tac-toe boards or picket fences, UA's largest tower appears to be pregant....

Even Foster's design needs to be slimmed down as it rises, and has those uncomfortable connotations....

Maybe I'm just cranky, or too old fashioned, but I still think that any number of 'scrapers, from time-tested landmarks like the Empire State, Chrysler and Woolworth Buildings, to newer contenders like the Bank of China, the Seagram Building, or the Petronas Towers, could whip the tar out of any of these proposed buildings in a design competition....
:rant:

The Foster design is not bad...but, it's way too tall. It sticks out like a sore thumb...too huge compared to the buildings around it!
And what's up with the "picket fence" and those two tower things that are not functional buildings!
Come on people...I'm yet to see a design that is functional...conforms to the skyline, and is a lasting memorial to 911.
This stuff sucks!!!

I think the architects choked while designing these. They are the WTC Proposals.
Its not like making a regular architectual design. This while be seen and judged by the world.
I think they tried to do too good and ended up f**king up. (SOM)

Meier or Foster. Both are brilliant.

UA is a pure shit...

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by Liz L </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>

Maybe I'm just cranky, or too old fashioned, but I still think that any number of 'scrapers, from time-tested landmarks like the Empire State, Chrysler and Woolworth Buildings, to newer contenders like the Bank of China, the Seagram Building, or the Petronas Towers, could whip the tar out of any of these proposed buildings in a design competition....
:rant:</td></tr>
</table>
I somewhat agree, we've yet to see a post-modern skyscraper that matches up to the old beauties like ESB.But some are not far short.

http://www.artnet.com/magazine/reviews/robinson/Images/robinson1-22-d.jpg

Another proposal: Daniel Libeskind’s WTC proposal, at Protetch, very strange

And an interesting website that brings up much of the safety issues:
http://www.wtc2002.com/start.lasso

The one below looks like a joke!
http://www.robearly.com/911/wtc2.jpg

Are the proposals represented in the beginning of this thread the only ones that are left now?

Here is a link to more images of proposals:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Northeast/12/20/design360.wtc.rebuilding/

http://www.wtc2002.com/images/egress_3.jpg
http://www.wtc2002.com/images/egress_2.jpg

You're right, London Bloke, there are a number of very good post-modern 'scrapers out there - unfortunately most of the proposals, at least in terms of buildings, don't seem to come anywhere close to the best designs...

The Proposal by Richard Meier ( the one that looks like 2 giant noughts & Crosses boards )

" IS A HEAP OF SHIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ":baaa:

Its an absolute joke & an insult to architecture full stop !

very, very sad !

If that was built, i would consider knocking it down myself !

Lozza:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:

Please induldge a bit of silliness on my part - if buildings could talk, and if some of these projects were actually built, I could picture the Empire State, Woolworth, and Chrysler Buildings whispering to each other, way up there in the air, "Well, there goes the neighborhood!"... :D

I went with united architects, then with a second comes fosters in my head.......
United architects has sooo much super moderness to it, like all of those surrenal cities!!!!!!!!!! AWESOME!!!!!!1

I love Foster's design. This is the only one that looks better than the originals. It's a radical inspiring design and IMO looks like a man and a woman embracing at the hip. It's really beautiful and original and tall. If NYC builds this it will easily recapture the scraper initiative from HK and Shanghai both in terms of creativity/beauty and height. It's all up to the decision makers and public opinion now....

How daring is New York prepared to be?

How daring is New York prepared to be?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully not THAT daring :eek:

why don't they build something as gigantic for our age as the WTC itself was for the 70's when it was built?

I think that a beautiful and very tall building, not too daring and post-post-modern, would be of service...

when them archictects try to innovate too much, they fu** up everything and all we get is lame and crap...

but the lesser of 7 evils, Foster's project is the best if you ask me...

Nobody does a memorial like Liebeskind.

Foster was my fav at first, but I've changed over to the United Architects' proposal. It's much less tacky from a distance, and up close it's simply amazing. IF Foster's could be pulled off, perhaps it would be better, but 1700' towers just clash with everything around them, it's too tall.

The United Architects' design is very neat when given a second look, it gets my vote =)

Littenberg's design all the way.

It just seems like it will fit into the skyline. Looks like it has the strength of the Empire State Building, which guess what people, has become the symbol of skyscrapers as we know it today.

Plus the smaller towers around it will get tenants into that building instead of being scared to sit on top of Foster's design.

I still remain undecided on this issue- I think SOM is pretty much out of the race. Meier's, although creative, is too memoriallike for an entire structure. Littenburg is a good design as far as cos effectiveness is concerned, but not the most stunning or creative, although it gets the basics right, if the twins are tall enough. I am starting to like United Architect's design more and more, not only do they offer a stunning complex but symbolic meaning, as they represent a group of people holding hands in unity, but the overall design is somewhat overwhelming. Any of the Think designs would work, although there's not much detail on how the skyscrapers in Sky Park and the Great Room will look like.

Fosters design looks better every time I see it.
The rest have no chance.

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by caw123 </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>Fosters design looks better every time I see it.
The rest have no chance.</td></tr>
</table>

I aGRee.

PM Me iF yOU eveR neEd anyTHing.

REaLly. :D

The Meier design is awful. It just looks tacky, never mind its symbolism.

My girlfriend likes Foster, United Architects and Liberskind

Fosters is by far my fave design and it is most suitable. Meiers is the worst, its horrid. I must agree that the foster design doesnt fit in with new york, new york and other american styles is vertical and symmetrical, reffering back to more classical styles. It belongs in somewhere with more forward-looking, and organic ideals like china or far eastern asia. It would even look good in the square mile in london, once we start developing our cluster.

I think they are all horrible. They fail to have two Towers to the occupied space of the old Towers, they cut the superblock and there's too much green here. Foster adding 20 acres, what's NYC going to do with 20 acres? We already have a Central Park. This whole idea of memorializing is being focused on way too much causing these horrid designs. In generations from now, a feeling of memorializing won't be as strong and emotional. I think if we want to memorialize, rebuild the Towers..that's the true memorial.

why don't they build something as gigantic for our age as the WTC itself was for the 70's when it was built?

A building of WTCs size would still be gigantic for our age, as very few buildings of this size have been built since the 70s. I think Sears Towers and Petronas Towers are the only ones with both such a large size and so much height.

point of intrest: I think that most companies would refuse renting out space in another spectacular "skyscraper of capitalism". Therefore i would go for the Skidmore Owings proposal.

If i had to choose one of them, standing anywhere but not on this historic space, i would vote for the United design.


yyyves

Littenburg

THink team rulez! great design

Most are fantastic.

i like all the tall and slim designs! :D

Peterson

I don't like any one those proposed designs , all the architects are trying to create stupidy instead architecture.
Only Libeskind is close to reality the rest sucks !

Foster!

I heard the news that the plan was decided with the one of ''Think team''

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38606000/jpg/_38606695_one_300ap.jpg


Ewww...........it looks like the phone number sign. here's my rendering-

I#
How does it compare?

Enough debate. lets just hurry up and pick a design or designs and lets move forward into the future .Lets give New Yorkers back their city and there proud skyline. Fosters is the best I think.

Too bad noone thought of something like this: http://webpages.charter.net/jaysjaybird/wtcsweepingviewb.jpg

theyre pretty shocking, whose the architect?

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by Noonos </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>theyre pretty shocking, whose the architect?</td></tr>
</table>

DaveL designed that himself.

DaveL designed that himself.

:)

The Peterson proposal is actually the best proposal of the bunch. Its weakness are the towers themselves. But in so far as packaging and blending the area into the rest of Lower Manhattan - its the best proposal by far.

They didnt make the cut because they have been already selected by the city to revamp the rest of Lower Manhattan (a $10 billion dollar project in and of itself).

As far as towers are concerned, they all sucked - but the best one seems to be one from the THINK group.

G

The Peterson Proposal the best of the bunch? I have to disagree with you Gojeda. The P/L proposal was on par with the 6 original designs. (You know, all the ones that started with the word "memorial") And being on par with those horrendous designs is just that-horrendous. The THINK team and Libeskind design are not the best as well, but the fact that the Piterson/Littenberg design did not win was a victory in itself.

is there any decision yet?

cheers

lozza

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by DaveLdude </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>:)</td></tr>
</table>

he he i new that, just b/s u :P grr8 designs

too many proposals...are they really planning to rebuild Ground zero?

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by lozza </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>is there any decision yet?
</td></tr>
</table>

Thursday at 11 AM (Eastern Time) will be the big day, when a finalist is declared. Although, the design could end up looking way different than the original design, especially Libeskind's whose "Death Pit" must hit reality.

And the Death Pit It Is...Congratulations Mr. Libeskind...

On a serious note, lets hope this project gets turned around and we get something good out of it.

It´s Liebeskind not Libeskind .

I´m sorry guys ! I was wrong - but I still don´t get why it´s Libeskind - well, it doesn´t matter anyway ! :)

Liebeskind's design is wrong wrong. Putting a huge memorial on the site would only remind people of the tragedy, it would not tell people that New York has moved on, is stronger than ever. Putting a huge memorial with some of the wackiest architecture there is is just horrible. IMO This is as bad as the Gehry Guggenheim museum proposal.

LoL glassturm, it's alright...I won't hit you or anything...:laugh:

celebguy_dv, what the hell are you doing? :wtf:

I heard it's going to be the plan from studio Liebeskind?
could it be?

Fosters all the way.

I think they've made the right choice! I Like the design of liebeskind

Does anybody knows when will they start building?

They are already building the underground transportation infrastructure. It will be a while before anything is done up to ground level.

The new 7 WTC which is just north of the site is also under-contruction.

Libeskind's is alright but we need a real tower.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38606000/jpg/_38606695_one_300ap.jpg

looks like airplanes can pass by the holes. funny.

Although I normally love anything to do with foster and partners, i have to say these buildings would totaly wreck ny's skyline. I think they just look too modern from the surrounding area. Think team's design is the actual shape and size of the old towers, which is kinda cool because it tells you that they used to be here! and lets never forget them. United Architects design looks ok in the dark but it may look terrible in daylight.

Have to agree johnbaker ... usually a big fan of Foster & Partner's "Light 'n Shadow Show", but Libeskind it is!

Theory: Do you think Foster's design is winning in the poll due to its ginormous height/s? (like duuuh!).

I didn't favor any of these 9 plans, but If I had to choose I would have picked THINK's "Sky Park." I like the idea of an elevated park, rather than going 30 feet deep into a pit as in Libeskind's plan. With some modifications THINK's Sky Park could have turned out looking very good. I also appreciate Foster's plan for his boldness and courage with the towers in his plans.

Wish they would rebuild wtc.
Otherwise i choose united architects.
I dont like libeskind.
Foster is big but ...
united architects got some style.

Yea i totally rekon they should rebuild the two towers, to what they looked like, they just mixed with the skyline.

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by johnbaker </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>Yea i totally rekon they should rebuild the two towers, to what they looked like, they just mixed with the skyline.</td></tr>
</table>

Agreed.

i dont give a #$%# @ the new designs i want the old towers back :(

Richard Meier's looks like a gigantic joke. maybe some X and Os will complete it's tic-tac-toe image.:D

United's is so scary:D

Liber...whatever looks so not New York.

I vote for THINK.:okay:

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by savethewtc </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top><table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by johnbaker </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>Yea i totally rekon they should rebuild the two towers, to what they looked like, they just mixed with the skyline.</td></tr>
</table>

Agreed.</td></tr>
</table>


No No No! We should not rebuild as the towers were. I want to construct new towers much taller. A new Design, street grid, plaza, everything. The tower's plot was not that great. I hate Libeskind and love Foster's. The only firm with real experience in building highrises.

Liebeskind's plan looks gay to me. Foster proposed something that perhaps would look good in some other part of the world, but not NYC. Project that would replace the two towers should be extraordinary, worthy of being in the most important place of the most important city on Earth. I would like Norman Foster's design to replace the former WTC or the United Artists' project :guns1:

will the failed proposals be built anywhere else?
or be doomed to live as unforilled new york dreams?

Originally posted by spacepostman

will the failed proposals be built anywhere else?
or be doomed to live as unforilled new york dreams?

Good question, nobody really ever talked or asked about that. They probably are doomed and just considered as more New York dreams, but if a developer or someone wants to use one of these proposals somewhere else I don't see why not.

In London and other British cities, office buildings that were built in the 60s and 70s (like the WTC) are being demolished as they don't fit the specification foe modern offices (raised floors, air conditioning etc. etc.) I suppose its the same in the United States.

It may be a bit fanciful to believe that they would have demolished the WTC to replace it with a new building but not impossible.

The question is - what sort of building would you have wanted to see on the site if the WTC had been demolished and whatever you come up with shouldn' t that be you're starting point in evaluating all these designs?

I first went to New York when the WTC towers were still under construction. From talking to young New Yorkers then, it seemed that they weren't at all happy about these new buildings and preferred the early 20c. buildings. There was a joke at the time that the WTC towers were the boxes that the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings had come in. An architecture critic in the New Yorker said that the towers looked as if the builder had kept on adding storeys until the architect had made up his mind how to finish the tops.

O.K. thirty years is a long time and a whole generation of New Yorkers won't remember a time when those towers weren't there and no doubt many of them looked on the towers with a great deal of pride and affection. However, I don't think that people would be clammering to have the towers rebuilt like for like if it wasn't for the way that they were destroyed.

Think of the changes in construction technology and design in the 40 years since the WTC towers were first thought of. The buildings were pretty innovative in their day but they are probably as outmoded now as the Empire State Building was in the late 60s.

You can't forget what happened on September 11th. but to build a 21st. century development instead of a throwback to the 60s and 70s may be the best means of recovery for New York.

All those designs suck!
I wish they would built something like the supertowers they are currently building in Asia.
The Shanghai World Financial Center would look excellent as a new WTC.
All these designs are too artsy fartsy!

THINK Sky Park could have turned out to be STUNNING after some modifications.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/andrebenedikt/THINKSkypark.jpg

Blah! That design is no good either.
They need something that screams New York City! Not something that pretends to be something from another world. That is the problem with all these designs.

had to agree with foster. their design truly shows the spirit of NYC. I think that the design of united architects are pretty complex and somehow confusing :? . i bet u can't even see any of Libeskind's buildings from the hudson river except for that freedom tower.

Originally posted by israeli slider

i like them...
http://www.thefunnypage.com/wtc/wtc.jpg
http://www.september11news.com/WorldTradeCenterNight1.jpg


You've got good taste! I like that one too! It's the only one that looks fitting for Ground Zero!! Three cheers for the Twin Towers!!!!!!!!:cheers:


Daquan13.

Originally posted by savethewtc

THINK Sky Park could have turned out to be STUNNING after some modifications.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/andrebenedikt/THINKSkypark.jpg


You've got good taste also, savethewtc!! I would have jumped up and clicked my heels had they gone for THIS one!!!!

It's the next best thing to the Twin Towers!!!!!!!!!!:cheers:



Daquan13.

me too..... god i can't wait to see what happens, whatever does happen though, it will be extraordinary, you can count on that, New York City during wtc reconstruction will be AMAZING, watch....

Think would have been wonderful! I was just disappointed with the towers' height.

None of them should EVER be built

Re-build the old ones with saftey modifications

http://www.weatherpictureoftheday.com/images/wtc-strike-large.jpg

http://www.alexmarx.com/photos/wtc%20evening.jpg

http://www.starcitymall.com/webcam/wtc/wtc-1974.jpg

http://savethewtcgalleries.cjb.net/

http://savethewtcgalleries.cjb.net/

http://savethewtcgalleries.cjb.net/

What deisgn could ever possibley replace these two?

I like the fosters design but i'll agree rebuild them the way they were

Fosters is the best one, even though I think that Libeskinds is OK, too.

It's irrelevant, they won't build any of them, too many hands stirring the pot now.

But Foster's was the best.

FOSTER

It's winning here, and it would have won if the public had been allowed to choose. Why? Because it's better.

United Architects.

FOSTER is the best!!!

They all look like shit, this site is too important to build any of the proposed crap, none of these designs deserve to be built there! Maybe somewhere else, but NOT there!



Is it just me, or is there no proposed design that stands out as worthy of being built on this important site?

The best is Foster, but it looks disjointed, weak and as if its about to topple over.

The libeskind design is alright i guess, but it looks piss weak and scrawny compared to what once stood there.

What is the feeling about this in NY? What do the public think? I know if i were a new yorker id be mighty pissed off...

Gday

Anything would lookk better than the original WTC Twin Towers that fell down . They were so booring !

Sorry, but thats just my opinion !

cheers

lozza:dooby:

I like United Architects. 2500 feet says it all.

any pics....

http://www.japandesign.ne.jp/HTM/NY/0302/img/wtc12.jpg

http://www.japandesign.ne.jp/HTM/NY/0302/img/wtc16.jpg

http://www.japandesign.ne.jp/HTM/NY/0302/img/wtc13.jpg

http://www.japandesign.ne.jp/HTM/NY/0302/img/wtc18.jpg

http://www.japandesign.ne.jp/HTM/NY/0302/img/wtc14.jpg

http://www.japandesign.ne.jp/HTM/NY/0302/img/wtc19.jpg

http://www.japandesign.ne.jp/HTM/NY/0302/img/wtc15.jpg

http://www.japandesign.ne.jp/HTM/NY/0302/img/wtc20.jpg

http://www.japandesign.ne.jp/HTM/NY/0302/img/wtc11.jpg

Foster -rulez!

<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=98% class="quoteBox">
<td align=left valign=center> <smallfont> <b>Quote</B> <I>originally posted by Ersh </i></b> </smallfont> </td>
<tr><td align=left valign=top>I think I just realised what the Meier design is supposed to be. They look like the pieces of the old WTC - the steel facade sections that stuck up out of the ground.

http://www.conservationtech.com/MAIN-TOPICS/5-NYC-World-Trade/NEWS-photos/Debris-w-figure.jpg http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38606000/jpg/_38606695_one_300ap.jpg.

Too blunt on the symbolism...bad idea.</td></tr>
</table>






I can't believe that it took this long for someone to finally see what Meier was doing with his design. The symbolism is so thick, that it quite literally smacks you in the face. How can someone NOT see that the massing emulates the proportions of the mullions and spandrels of the old WTC's facade?

And many of you claim to be knowledgable about architecture? The only other person here who "got it" was a guy who has enough schooling to be an architect (Ersh). Concepts don't get much simpler than this folks... Man, I just lost ALOT of respect for so many of the forumers here... "waffle house" my ass...:|






And I'm not saying that I "like" the design, because I don't. Rather, I am simply appalled at the woeful ignorance and impulsive commentary of so many people on this issue. It almost makes me want to avoid this WTC discussion all together...

Do'nt be so melodramatic Jayhouse, had you just stopped at "concepts dont get much simpler than this", you'd have convinced as a smart guy...

Since you went some steps further to demagogically state that you've lost your respect for some forumers, it turned out to be evident that you just wanted to appear, playing the intelligent, "I'm-not-dumb-like-you" guy...
Oh, gimme a break...

Ah, I'm sorry, I almost forget, I am not here to provoke fightings any more, I just wanted to point that out.

I love the Foster design! Very tall, and a WTB by a long shot. However, who will work in some of these giant buildings? The vacancy rate will be enourmous.
I will.

Alot of people would work there, I mean it's short term thinking. In 20 years from now why wouldn't people work up there? The effects of 9/11 will be less and the fear would be less.

If you build it, they will come.

Libeskind's proposal never impressed me at all. Maybe the Think team proposal is something that I like to see but the decision was already made long ago. But the Freedom Tower in my personal opinion is unattractive and butt-ugly to be part of New York City's skyline.

I want to like and be excited about the Freedom Tower, I really do. But I just can't see it happening. The thing looks like something totally not made for the New York skyline. Maybe Hong Kong, but not NY. Libeskind's original design didn't seem too bad, but this is just not growing on me. I like the look of the exterior and how it's supposedly gonna shimmer so much, but I keep looking at this spire, and just saying "C'mon now...". I don't even want to hear the words "World's tallest building". :bash:

In my opinion, I say rebuild the Twins. If not that, something else that's both equally aesthetic and impressively tall. For this, I think average New Yorker feedback should have been taken with much more consideration. :)

i agree, nyc's planning to build many skyscrapers that doesn't even look like they'd belong in the city (1 bryant park, hearst magazine, and definitely libeskind's complex, to name a few). i don't get why suddenly the city's swept by the clear-glass-window/sculpture-shape skyscraper revolution. those kind of buildings just doesn't fit in the concrete and brick skyline of midtown and downtown and many of their shapes are too crazy be easily comprehended (im still trying to figure out what's up with the crazy angles on 1 bp and lib wtc). man, they should build these guys in europe, so they won't look so bland compared to more heavily-colored existing buildings in nyc.

for me, the perfect wtc complex consists of tall buildings with a simple yet powerful shape. foster fits all 3 categories, and libeskind fits none (like what dash said, the freedom tower does not deserve the wtb title, it cheats on height even more then the most extreme cases of asian spire scrapers).

those ppl who say workers will be afraid to reoccupy the wtc if the buildings are too tall are even more cowardly than bin laden and his half-crazed gang. those lunatics have to be stupid to reuse the same tactics to bring down tall buildings, cuz they would just get tackled by passengers and crew members and get beaten to pulp before he/she even reaches the cockpit.

Aside from rebuilding the Towers and the TTT plan the only other two plans that seem nearly as great are Foster's WTC and THINK Sky Park.

I think Foster's WTC might've ended up looking really great with a few modifications done...

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

THINK Sky Park also could've looked good with modifications, possibly making instead of a series of three towers, make it two instead. I also liked the idea of an elevated park, it seemed interesting.

http://www.schwartzarch.com/spmodel05.jpg

The proposed heights for the towers of the THINK Sky Park proposal weren't too bad either...

Office Tower 1 - 950 ft.
Office Tower 2 - 1250 ft.
Office Tower 3 - 1600 ft.

http://www.schwartzarch.com/parkpf.gif

I'd have to say that I like the Foster plan.

But i also like the Sky Park plan by THINK. Those two are the best ones in my book.


Daquan13

Aside from rebuilding the Towers and the TTT plan the only other two plans that seem nearly as great are Foster's WTC and THINK Sky Park.

I think Foster's WTC might've ended up looking really great with a few modifications done...

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

THINK Sky Park also could've looked good with modifications, possibly making instead of a series of three towers, make it two instead. I also liked the idea of an elevated park, it seemed interesting.

http://www.schwartzarch.com/spmodel05.jpg

The proposed heights for the towers of the THINK Sky Park proposal weren't too bad either...

Office Tower 1 - 950 ft.
Office Tower 2 - 1250 ft.
Office Tower 3 - 1600 ft.

http://www.schwartzarch.com/parkpf.gif



You got it!!

Those are MY favorites also.



-Daquan13. :tiasd:

The United Architects desing is definatly the best! I like very big buildings!

Build the WTC using 100% solid steel. OUTSIDE AND INSIDE

I like the one with the Freedom Tower idea.NYC is so lucky in having an opportunity like this.

Foster, By a longshot

I like the one with the Freedom Tower idea.NYC is so lucky in having an opportunity like this.

I don't think most people would look at it like that..

I think studio libeskind and the foster looks awesome...............
please email me at jrog0420032yahoo.com please.....................

At first I was in favor of THINK, but grew more fond of Foster. Foster not only retained the 'twin' theme, but also took it to a new level. Libeskind is growing on me little by little (I guess it will have to ;)), though I'm somewhat disappointed that it will not resemble the original plan, or at least the Sept. 2003 plan. I do like its 'spiral' theme.

A look at some of the models that were displayed at the Winter Garden of each plan...

Richard Meier and partners

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740479/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452105/large.jpg

Foster and Partners

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740451/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452131/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452134/original.jpg

Skidmore Owings and Merrill

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740472/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452108/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452116/large.jpg

THINK

Sky Park:

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740481/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452102/original.jpg

Great Room:

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740482/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452097/original.jpg

World Cultural Center:

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740485/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452095/original.jpg

United Architects

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740459/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452124/large.jpg

Studio Libeskind

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740438/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740445/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452147/original.jpg

Peterson Littenberg

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740468/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452120/large.jpg

Peterson Littenberg is the only one that dosnt hurt my eyes (I like it ;))

ohhh god, this is the worst!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38606000/jpg/_38606695_one_300ap.jpg

A look at some of the models that were displayed at the Winter Garden of each plan...

Richard Meier and partners

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740479/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452105/large.jpg

Foster and Partners

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740451/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452131/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452134/original.jpg

Skidmore Owings and Merrill

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740472/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452108/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452116/large.jpg

THINK

Sky Park:

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740481/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452102/original.jpg

Great Room:

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740482/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452097/original.jpg

World Cultural Center:

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740485/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452095/original.jpg

United Architects

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740459/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452124/large.jpg

Studio Libeskind

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740438/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740445/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452147/original.jpg

Peterson Littenberg

http://www.pbase.com/image/12740468/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/9452120/large.jpg

That first one would look so good in manhattan, especially when lit up at night. But I know it will be Freedom Tower.

Amzing Shots !

CNN

World Trade Center: Your Proposals (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/wtc.ideas/designs/page.140/)

When we asked CNN.com readers to submit their ideas for what should be placed on the 16-acre World Trade Center site, we were pleasantly astounded by the volume of response. In the end, we published well over 3,000 individual entries, from all 50 states and at least 76 countries.

Whether drawn on computer or with crayon, whether configured of steel or Legos, the ideas sent to us revealed a truth about the tragedies witnessed on September 11, 2001, in New York, Washington, D.C, and Pennsylvania: They may have happened in America, but the heartache was felt worldwide.

Foster's plan (posted by BronxBoy on WNY):

http://www.renewnyc.com/images_WMS/signature/Fosters-Battery-Park-view-1.jpg

Damn, I love Foster's Towers. It is such a shame, this whole circus we find ourselves in, currently.

Anyways, this looks somewhat like the new WTC memorial.


http://www.pbase.com/image/14587301.jpg

when will the rebuilding begin? and whatever theyre building, when is it supposed to be completed?

the rebuilding has already begun with the construction of a replacement 7 wtc, which is scheduled to be completed next year. the construction of the freedom tower will begin early next year once they demolish what remains of the old wtc parking garage. that building is scheduled to be completed at around 2008 or 2009.

however, it's not certain when will the other buildings in the redevelopment will begin, as of now, silverstein only have enough bucks to build the freedom tower and the memorial, so as the result, the redevelopment is highly likely drag on past 2010. pretty sad, considering the fact that it only took 4 years (1969-1973) to finish the old wtc complex excluding 7 wtc.

however, it's not certain when will the other buildings in the redevelopment will begin, as of now, silverstein only have enough bucks to build the freedom tower and the memorial, so as the result, the redevelopment is highly likely drag on past 2010. pretty sad, considering the fact that it only took 4 years (1969-1973) to finish the old wtc complex excluding 7 wtc.

Silverstein actually doesn't have to pay for the memorial at all, that's Pataki's job. He should have enough cash for the two tallest of the complex to go up, and then he can build the rest over a few years using traditional financing methods, as Larry would say. There's nothing sad about that, it's just part of the plan to "phase in" the 10msf of offices instead of immediately dumping it all into the market, causing high vacancy rates for the area initially. There's a glut currently in downtown so it would basically be pointless to build it all at once and have much of it empty for several years or more.

As for rebuilding designs Foster's was always my favorite, but I had a feeling it never had a chance because of so much high office space. It was never really feasible for the site, so I'm ok with what's being built now.

any other renderings...
i love fosters too. but libeskinds is just as good

When is the start of new york city?

That rendering of Fosters at the top of the page is Amazing! They should have built that one, Fredom Tower just isn't...

I saw one proposal for it. It was about 700 metres (just over 2100 feet or so) and made of dark tubes and spheres! It was just sickening! Freedom Tower is okay, I guess... Fosters was better, the Originals were the best.

In case no one knew about this site...

Foster WTC proposal website:

http://www.fosterworldtradecenter.com

How tall was fosters design?

How tall was fosters design?

From the website...

Tower Details

Building Height
1,764 ft 538 m

Number of Floors
98

Height to highest occupied Floor
1,568 ft. 478 m

FOSTER, FOSTER, FOSTER!

Let's all protest in front of Pataki's house.

:mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

Fvck Foster let's rebuild the Twins! :) But Foster's plan does kick Freedom's ass.

We gotta put pressure on Pataki... Don't think he'll listen though...

Fvck Foster let's rebuild the Twins! :) But Foster's plan does kick Freedom's ass.

We gotta put pressure on Pataki... Don't think he'll listen though...
For the sake of the polling, I chose Foster.
What I really wish for is Gardner and Belton.

That Foster idea looks like Gaudi :righton: it's amazing

Foster for sure.

Skypark and Foster KICK FTs ASS!


Its Silversteins fault not patakis

How about putting them back exactly as they were? Or an inch taller.

i like them...
http://www.thefunnypage.com/wtc/wtc.jpg
http://www.september11news.com/WorldTradeCenterNight1.jpg
They look great. Who submitted that great idea? My definite vote.

I don't know why they didn't pick Fosters or United! Agh, the selected proporsal is so...bland.

i wish they would of picked think designs,except that instead of them just being a memorial it would be offices.

I love the original WTC but i have to say I used to love the original WTC. i will never forget. nothing could be the same. Both towers now live in my memory.

fosters design is the best of all,

the freedom tower is so ugly, 70 floors for an WTC complex in new york, that isn't too much for an WTC tower.

Has the design been chosen.