Reasons why a twin complex is better than 1 world trade center

[L.A.F.2.]

Alright, but what's a spam-bot?

EDIT - Fail! Used the up arrows to point to your comment, but I started the next page and instead they pointed to a Sparkle Juice ad.

[ThatOneGuy]

Just a program that creates accounts, spams threads and advertises some product. That particular bot repeated comments on several different threads. That one advertised 'E-liquid' (whatever that is)

Keeping on topic, I've noticed that some buildings look isolated and incomplete by themselves. A twin is needed to complement them, for example, NY's WTC and Moscow's Federation Tower. Also, Hudson Yards' twin towers wouldn't look so great if one tower was removed...

[windowsoftheworld]

Originally Posted by L.A.F.2.

I think he was symbolically referring to his closing statement. In his opinion, there's no benefit of a tower being doubled, so he posted it twice to show there's no benefit from repeating something as well in an attempt to make a point.

That was deep.



OT, so far we've got:
1.Efficient
2.Improve the Skyline.
3.Easier to identity.
4.They Look neat and organized.
5.Twins complement each other aesthetically.
6.Aesthetically appealing.
7.??

[chris123678]

I think many of you are missing the big picture.
I have loved the twins for a long time but they aren't certaintly better than the new complex, safety or looks.

The only thing that made the Twin Towers look unique is the mere fact that they were twins, two of them.
With the new World Trade Center, any of those towers could stand alone and look pleasing and not out of place.
Secondly,these buildings require much less steel, but are 10 times stronger than the twins.
Thirdly, only 2 have been built, so how can we say the twin complex is better if this one isn't finished.

Please Don't mention that I didn't read your first request, because this is a discussion thread.

[ThatOneGuy]

The point. You're missing it.

[chris123678]

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

The point. You're missing it.

Please elaborate?

[windowsoftheworld]

Originally Posted by chris123678

I think many of you are missing the big picture.
I have loved the twins for a long time but they aren't certaintly better than the new complex, safety or looks.

The only thing that made the Twin Towers look unique is the mere fact that they were twins, two of them.
With the new World Trade Center, any of those towers could stand alone and look pleasing and not out of place.
Secondly,these buildings require much less steel, but are 10 times stronger than the twins.
Thirdly, only 2 have been built, so how can we say the twin complex is better if this one isn't finished.

Please Don't mention that I didn't read your first request, because this is a discussion thread.

Let's say you weren't illiterate and your post would be relevant to this thread:

The only thing that made the Twin Towers look unique is the mere fact that they were twins, two of them.
With the new World Trade Center, any of those towers could stand alone and look pleasing and not out of place.

Precisely the point of Twin Buildings having the upper edge on a single tower, they're infinitely more attracting than any one tower for the simple fact that there are two identical buildings instead of one or in the case of this complex, a few scattered towers around the area.
And i disagree about the buildings not looking out of place, in fact, they're modern architecture and aesthetics make them look extremely out of place, however, this is not a bad thing.

Secondly,these buildings require much less steel, but are 10 times stronger than the twins.

Irrelevant, seeing how if the twins were to be rebuilt today, all the new safety implementations would be added to the buildings.

Thirdly, only 2 have been built, so how can we say the twin complex is better if this one isn't finished.

We've all seen the model of the whole complex completed, going back to the twins could save money, resources, space, time, etc in the case of twin complexes, less = more.

[Kanto]

Okay, this will be a rather long rant, so I'm warning anybody that this won't be short ....

First I would like to say the good side of the new complex. Its engineering is far superior to that of the Twin Towers and is a prefect example of how buildings should be built. I am very grateful that they took the time and the money to design something that won't collapse if a plane crashes into it. Strength is by far the most important aspect of a skyscraper and I am very grateful that they are making the new buildings sufficiently strong

Another good point I would like to add is that each and every tower that is being built is a masterpiece of architecture

Now come the bad things, first of all the fact that something other than new Twin Towers is being built is an unforgivable crime and act of treason. Twin Towers are what used to stand there before 9/11 and pride dictates that the Twin Towers must be rebuilt. Rebuilding the Twin Towers would have been the ultimate sign of strength. After engineering pride is the second most important aspect of a skyscraper. Not rebuilding the Twin Towers is a humiliation

Now we come to the height, which is a humiliation on its own. And a rather big one. The fact that the second tallest building of the new complex is shorter than the second tallest building of the old complex is a huge humiliation. Another humiliation is that 1WTC was originaly planned to be only as tall as the old 1WTC and only the fixing of an error in its height measurement made it taller. Also, all of the new WTC towers are no where near to compete for the title of the world's tallest building. Another aspect the new WTC should have had was to try to claim the title of the world's tallest building, or at least come close to it. As to finances, if they would build 2 buildings instead of 5, they could have the money to achieve this

Now comes another aspect, the memorial. Two mass graves in the form of two holes filled with water? Excuse me, but that is plain and simple disrespect to the victim families! First of all, each 9/11 victim should have a grave. Mass graves are for long deceased people that have only very few relatives left, not for victims of such a recent tragedy as 9/11. If no lowrises would be made arround new Twin Towers, there would be enough space for both, a normal park and a graveyard with beautiful trees, channels filled with water and other stuff that would make it a beautiful place. Also, new Twin Towers would be the ultimate memorial for the 9/11 victims. No memorial could be better than a memorial resembling what was lost, which is towering over the rest of the city

Last, but not least comes Libeskind's site plan, which is plain and simply horrible! The buildings don't work with each other, they overshadow each other and it is perfect in assuring that none of them will be dominating. Other than that the worsening fact that it is not a Twin Towers complex applies to it too but I already mentioned that before

Okay, so now some final words. The new complex is not bad, in fact it is very good, definitely far better than those utterly medicore Hudson Yards. However, it could have been far better and it should have been far better. This is not rebuilding, this is an amnesia inducing drug! I think that the Twin Towers shouldn't be forgotten and I also think that they shouldn't be only a part of the past. I hope a heroic developer will come one day to lower Manhattan and rebuild the Twin Towers on another spot. Land reclamation from the river is an option, just as demolition of old useless buildings is. I really hope that one day, a true tribute both to the western world and to the 9/11 victim families will be made and the only way to achieve this is to build new Twin Towers.

[1Filipe1]

Originally Posted by Kanto

Okay, this will be a rather long rant, so I'm warning anybody that this won't be short ....

First I would like to say the good side of the new complex. Its engineering is far superior to that of the Twin Towers and is a prefect example of how buildings should be built. I am very grateful that they took the time and the money to design something that won't collapse if a plane crashes into it. Strength is by far the most important aspect of a skyscraper and I am very grateful that they are making the new buildings sufficiently strong

Another good point I would like to add is that each and every tower that is being built is a masterpiece of architecture

Now come the bad things, first of all the fact that something other than new Twin Towers is being built is an unforgivable crime and act of treason. Twin Towers are what used to stand there before 9/11 and pride dictates that the Twin Towers must be rebuilt. Rebuilding the Twin Towers would have been the ultimate sign of strength. After engineering pride is the second most important aspect of a skyscraper. Not rebuilding the Twin Towers is a humiliation

Now we come to the height, which is a humiliation on its own. And a rather big one. The fact that the second tallest building of the new complex is shorter than the second tallest building of the old complex is a huge humiliation. Another humiliation is that 1WTC was originaly planned to be only as tall as the old 1WTC and only the fixing of an error in its height measurement made it taller. Also, all of the new WTC towers are no where near to compete for the title of the world's tallest building. Another aspect the new WTC should have had was to try to claim the title of the world's tallest building, or at least come close to it. As to finances, if they would build 2 buildings instead of 5, they could have the money to achieve this

Now comes another aspect, the memorial. Two mass graves in the form of two holes filled with water? Excuse me, but that is plain and simple disrespect to the victim families! First of all, each 9/11 victim should have a grave. Mass graves are for long deceased people that have only very few relatives left, not for victims of such a recent tragedy as 9/11. If no lowrises would be made arround new Twin Towers, there would be enough space for both, a normal park and a graveyard with beautiful trees, channels filled with water and other stuff that would make it a beautiful place. Also, new Twin Towers would be the ultimate memorial for the 9/11 victims. No memorial could be better than a memorial resembling what was lost, which is towering over the rest of the city

Last, but not least comes Libeskind's site plan, which is plain and simply horrible! The buildings don't work with each other, they overshadow each other and it is perfect in assuring that none of them will be dominating. Other than that the worsening fact that it is not a Twin Towers complex applies to it too but I already mentioned that before

Okay, so now some final words. The new complex is not bad, in fact it is very good, definitely far better than those utterly medicore Hudson Yards. However, it could have been far better and it should have been far better. This is not rebuilding, this is an amnesia inducing drug! I think that the Twin Towers shouldn't be forgotten and I also think that they shouldn't be only a part of the past. I hope a heroic developer will come one day to lower Manhattan and rebuild the Twin Towers on another spot. Land reclamation from the river is an option, just as demolition of old useless buildings is. I really hope that one day, a true tribute both to the western world and to the 9/11 victim families will be made and the only way to achieve this is to build new Twin Towers.

i think your the only once concerned with having the worlds tallest building, frankly no one really cares, it would ruin the entire skyline having a 3000 foot building where the freedom tower is tahts just plain ridiculous, and last time i checked were not in any sort of race to get the tallest building in the world because guess what, its not neccesary. The complesx is fine in my opinion you actually people are going to care if the 2nd tallest tower there is like 10-15 feet shorter..seriously how can you even notice that when its 1350 feet in the air. rebuilding the twins would be a horrible idea because they would just be a massive target.. And idk how you can possibly say the memorail is 2 holes with water..have u ever even been there?

[ThatOneGuy]

SHUT UP ABOUT THE NYC TWIN TOWERS. It's not what the thread's about. I might make a thread like this myself without 'wtc' in the title just to stop comments like these. Again, the WTC was just the initial comparison, and he refers to all twin structures in general.

[L.A.F.2.]

Kanto brought up some excellent points, I will have to say. But, I don't think walking through a graveyard to get to work every day would attract too many tenants. And besides, since it took so long to get plans together, all the victims, that were able to be identified and weren't just body parts, would already be buried. And the ones not identified?

Originally Posted by 1Filipe1

i think your the only once concerned with having the worlds tallest building, frankly no one really cares, it would ruin the entire skyline having a 3000 foot building where the freedom tower is tahts just plain ridiculous, and last time i checked were not in any sort of race to get the tallest building in the world because guess what, its not neccesary. The complesx is fine in my opinion you actually people are going to care if the 2nd tallest tower there is like 10-15 feet shorter..seriously how can you even notice that when its 1350 feet in the air. rebuilding the twins would be a horrible idea because they would just be a massive target.. And idk how you can possibly say the memorail is 2 holes with water..have u ever even been there?

But as far as being the world's tallest building, it could have easily been done. All they would need to do is use the original plans, but add some modern strengthening, which would save 4 years of time for construction, and since it wouldn't be as complex as the new complex (), it could be completed in 2009, a year before the Burj. "But that only makes 1,368 feet," you might say. But here's where you are wrong. Instead of using the old 1WTC antenna, make the new one part of the building's design, totalling a height of 1,727 feet on 1WTC, and you have a world's tallest building that doesn't stick out like a sore thumb in Lower Manhattan.

[Hudson11]

shoulda, coulda, woulda

[Kanto]

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

SHUT UP ABOUT THE NYC TWIN TOWERS. It's not what the thread's about. I might make a thread like this myself without 'wtc' in the title just to stop comments like these. Again, the WTC was just the initial comparison, and he refers to all twin structures in general.

Um, read the title of this thread. It clearly says that it refers to the World Trade Center

rebuilding the twins would be a horrible idea because they would just be a massive target

A book, which in my opinion is the best book ever written, says "Fear is the mind killer, fear is the little death that brings total obliteration!" Concern is a wise thing and because of concern the buildings must be built as strong and blast proof as possible, but fear is something completely different. If you fear the terrorists, then they have won. I don't know about you but I would rather die than to be a coward and fear a bunch of moronic loosers like that al quaeeda scum or whatever they are called

And idk how you can possibly say the memorail is 2 holes with water..have u ever even been there?

Imagine this, you're a 9/11 victim family member and you want to have a few minutes of silent thinking at a grave. Wait, there is no grave, okay, so you have to do with a massgrave. Several other 9/11 families, whose lost relative has got his name next to your lost relative block you path. Very well, you wait. When you finally get to that name you would like to plant some nice looking flowers there, um, wait, you can't, well, okay then, then at least even despite the noise and busy traffic all around you you get to have a few minutes of peace. Oh, but wait, what's that? Some curious tourists photograph you like an animal in a zoo .... Those two holes are horrible memorials. They can't even be seen from a place other than the surrounding buildings, in other words, all to make 9/11 be forgotten. But 9/11 shouldn't be forgotten, the victims should be honored and remembered. New Twin Towers should have been made as a huge, massive memorial that can be seen from far and a silent graveyard should have been built too, where every 9/11 victim will have his/her grave, where people can think and remember in peace and where they can plant flowers to make those graves more personalized. If no remains of a victim were identified, it doesn't matter. Remains are not important, to have a place where families can go and peacefully think and remember, that is what matters and that is something at which those pools horribly fail

One thing I would like to add is that this graveyard, that I think should have been built there, should have been on a 10 meter pedestal to make it isolated from the busy streets and the public and tenant part of the park. This way graves wouldn't bother tourists and employees and tourist and employees wouldn't bother 9/11 families. The park would be enough big for both, public places for recreation and a graveyard if only 2 towers and 1 PATH station were built there

As to water, it's beautiful. breathtakingly beautiful but it could have been incorporated in other ways too, like for example small channels and fountains in both the public and the graveyard part of the park

[windowsoftheworld]

Originally Posted by Kanto

Um, read the title of this thread. It clearly says that it refers to the World Trade Center

Originally Posted by windowsoftheworld

the WTC in NY was the only complex i could've used as an example for this thread seeing how the old was Twin towered and the new isn't. However, this thread isn't solely about the WTC, just twin towered complexes in general vs Single towers..

Geezus KRIST

[chris123678]

Originally Posted by windowsoftheworld

Let's say you weren't illiterate and your post would be relevant to this thread:



Precisely the point of Twin Buildings having the upper edge on a single tower, they're infinitely more attracting than any one tower for the simple fact that there are two identical buildings instead of one or in the case of this complex, a few scattered towers around the area.
And i disagree about the buildings not looking out of place, in fact, they're modern architecture and aesthetics make them look extremely out of place, however, this is not a bad thing.



Irrelevant, seeing how if the twins were to be rebuilt today, all the new safety implementations would be added to the buildings.


We've all seen the model of the whole complex completed, going back to the twins could save money, resources, space, time, etc in the case of twin complexes, less = more.

I don't appreciate being called illiterate. Yet,there are reasons why BOTH are better than each other. Both complexes have their ups and downs, but personally rebuilding the same two buildings that we're destroyed in the worst terrorist attack on U.S soil since pearl harbor isn't something that would sit well with me. I was in NY the day it happened, the previous night I went to see a MJ concert, and it was horrible watching those people jump. I personally couldn't bare seeing those go up again.

[Kanto]

Originally Posted by windowsoftheworld

Geezus KRIST

Then why did you name it the way you did?

[windowsoftheworld]

Originally Posted by Kanto

Then why did you name it the way you did?

I just explained it to you in my last post.

Originally Posted by chris123678

I don't appreciate being called illiterate.

And I don't appreciate people derailing my thread.

[Kanto]

I know what you said, I just don't understand why anybody would say in the thread title that it is about the WTC if it in fact isn't about the WTC?

[Bruce.Tenmile]

Originally Posted by windowsoftheworld

I just explained it to you in my last post.


And I don't appreciate people derailing my thread.

If you consider discussion as derailment, maybe you don't understand the nature of a forum. You just can't say 'agree with me or shut up'. Any opinion either for or against twin towers is on topic and therefore relevant.

[ThatOneGuy]

It was derailed because it had nothing to do with what the thread was actually asking. Yes, the title is misleading, but this thread is about 'Twin Buildings vs Single buildings in general.

I suggested the thread title be changed to something like "Twin Towers vs. Single Towers" but nobody seems to care.