daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old May 25th, 2005, 07:20 AM   #121
Furiine
Proud Marylander
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 554
Likes (Received): 0

I agree with your steblack. The most important part of being an architect, which should be common knowledge, is to serve your client; not mount a building to boast your ego. I guess the controversy lies around, "Who are we doing this in remembrance of: the victims or America as a whole?" This shouldn't be a race over who has the most creative design or argue over trivial architectural features. This isn't even about two buildings; it's about people losing their lives, people who put everything they had on the line to save another person. The buildings are, certainly, indelible synonyms of all that happened on 9/11. Yet, we can't be so bold as to base it around a building. This should be a project that stimulates inspiration, memory, emotion, hope, freedom; anything you can fit into the picture.

As far as everything else is concerned, I've been flipping back and forth between the Twin Towers and the Freedom Tower, only to be undecisive overall with either. How can we possibly pronounce "unity" if we put up with shear ignorant comments coming from hungry developers, crafting (and note the incoming sarcasm) brilliant descriptions such as "piece of crap architecture?" Um, woohoo? That's really going to get my vote, Donald. Where's the unity? Where's the open mindedness? You don't think he could have injected such a proposal without deriding Libeskind's idea? Who should have to bother making intellectual comments anymore? I guess it doesn't matter then; it's just another fight in any big city over property rights and being heard, not necessarily being right or a good listener. Putting aside all that, I believe there are ways to present a replicated Twin Towers so that they are a metaphor for America. The same can be said for the Freedom Tower, or any proposal. You won't find one proposal to win everyone's hearts. Someone will be left out, feeling dissatisfied. First and foremost, before anybody should be pumping out proposals, the people need to be heard. Our opinions on all this are the integral part of this rebuilding mission. We are the people. Sorry if I'm not making sense, I'm a little tired, but I felt that I just needed to say that..
Furiine no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 25th, 2005, 08:22 AM   #122
memento27oasis
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2
Likes (Received): 0

Archiconnoisseur, I admire your understanding of architecture, where did you graduate? Anyhow, there is a small fraction of people that fall into these categories:

1. Artsy Fartsy people in the "art community" that think a round circle on a black background can be spiritually moving art, and think up of millions of explanations for that single stupid circle. They think too deeply into sh*t and would see the magical glass spire that is Freedom Tower and love it. They'd wear their grungey clothes and piercings and all and sip their coffee marveling it, finding the meaning of life somewhere imbeded into the freedom tower, even though it's just a building.

2. People that are clueless to what architecture really is. To them, they work and live in buildings, that's it. They could function in any way, good or poor and they wouldn't know the difference. Several different types of people fit into this category including my Mom.

Now, these two categories of people will love the cool design of a 1,776ft glass swirling spire, but for the wrong reasons.

The real appreciators of architecture see directly through the glass into a lifeless building, a building trying to create life with "artsy fartsy" angles and geometry.

I would personally have to see the blue prints of all proposals to see what's best. But I do know that the people of NY and the USA deserve better.



side note: on Frank Ghery, dude, one twisted metal building was innovative, but now it's getting f*cking old, move on.
memento27oasis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2005, 07:35 PM   #123
beiklopa
Madge, I wanna confess...
 
beiklopa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dubai
Posts: 445
Likes (Received): 0

This idea is the dummest idea ive ever seen in my life.
1,. who would want to live/work in there after 9 11??
2. hehe if i were Osama Bin Laden , i would just do tht again, just for fun to show how stupid this idea is. This is plain stupidity to rebuild what was tragically destroyed.
I dont think it would show New York and AmericA in a good way, just proving tht they ve run out of ideas and designers. Shame and pity.
beiklopa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2005, 08:41 PM   #124
New York Yankee
member
 
New York Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 1,034
Likes (Received): 4

that piece of the pentagon is rebuild. why the twins not?

that's from my letter to g. Pataki.
New York Yankee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2005, 08:45 PM   #125
nezzybaby
Look at my shiny ball
 
nezzybaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bristol
Posts: 8,775
Likes (Received): 2857

^ dont be a tit

they arent gonna rebuild them with the same structural weaknesses, what is proposed is to build something more sturdy. When i visited NY nearly 10 years ago the main memory in mind afterwards was of the twin towers, i still think of them when i think of NY. They were the main feature of the skyline for a long time, and i would love to see them return. To be honest i wouldnt mind seeing the freedom tower on the site either (liebskinds original proposal, not the bullshit collaboration), but i think the most important thing for america and new york is to build something there and fast! Not building there and just fannying about all the time is the biggest let down to the survivors and families of those lost than any building. I find this a great shame.
nezzybaby no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2005, 10:19 PM   #126
Justadude
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,361
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm
That's a cute fantasy, but corporate clones don't have the balls to follow up with this "show the terrorists who's boss" B.S.
Ohhh yeah they do. Being able to say "We lost 50 employees on 9/11 and we were the first ones to sign on for the Freedom Tower" is like drawing an ace out of a deck of public-relations cards. Corporations love to project themselves as "courageous" and concerned with the nation's best interests, so they'll fall all over themselves to make those kinds of statements. Just you wait and see.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Archiconnoisseur
And people posting that the terrorists did New Yorkers a favor by destroying the WTC aren't?
Of course that's tasteless. But you've not convinced me that sinking to those people's level is the best course of action.

Quote:
I'd wager 10:1 that the majority of posters saying the U.S. shouldn't rebuild the twin are foreigners, not Americans, or at the very least are Americans who have not been here for more than a generation.
I'm an umpteenth-generation American and I see no good reason to rebuild the twins. There is a point at which memorial becomes obsession. If your wife dies, do you refuse to date any woman who doesn't look and act exactly like her?

Quote:
It's bad enough that there will be extensive memorials to the atrocity at ground level, but I'm horrified at the thought of memorializing Islamofascism with huge building-sized abstractions....A bunch of psychopathic, backstabbing foreigners murdered several thousand people in cold blood and will get a whole complex of ginormous abstract towers to memorialize their act.
I have a feeling you've really seriously missed the point of these memorials....
Justadude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2005, 12:15 AM   #127
ReddAlert
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 4,573
Likes (Received): 8

[QUOTE=Archiconnoisseur]
Quote:
Originally Posted by steblack
The problem is that the site does not belong only to those who lost loved ones there. It's a public space, and one that will be used by our descendents for decades.

I don't think it's fair to force generations of Americans to navigate through a graveyard in the center of lower Manhattan. Life is for the living, and whatever is constructed at Ground Zero should first and foremost be an excellent piece of architecture that furthers the urban lifestyle and improves the environment. I'm tired of seeing bleak abstract memorials that are lifeless and force people to negotiate around them.

I'd be happy to see the towers rebuilt right on top of the original footprints, but perhaps lifted off the ground on vaulted arches that touch down at the corners. I can't think of a better monument than to construct an awe-inspiring skyscraper on each of the original footprints.

How big a memorial is fitting for the 9/11 victims? The Vietnam War cost us over 50 thousand casualties, but we only built a small wall for them in Washington (although there are other memorials scattered around the country). Do the roughly 2,500 9/11 victims deserve to hog all of the three-dimensional space that is Ground Zero?

I certainly don't think the WTC was perfect. I especially disliked the wind-swept plaza at ground level. While the plaza served as a nice stage on which to present the two gargantuan towers, they were very uninviting as a public place.
great points. Im agreeing alot with what you are saying. This isnt Washington D.C., its New York City. This is where the huge business deals in this nation are made. Put the memorials there...but make the area more of a building, rather than a memorial. Actually, the Vietnam War saw close to 60,000 DEAD. There were hundreds of thousands of wounded. Actually, 9/11 death figures are more comparable to the numbers of American troops missing in action in Nam. Point is.......this tragedy doesnt deserve special treatment. We have seen millions killed/wounded in WWII, WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Gulf War, Civil War, etc. The smaller monuments built for them are more unique, beautiful, simple and bring out much more emotion than Libeskinds would. Keep it simple and beautiful...nothing too crazy in my opinion.
ReddAlert no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2005, 05:32 PM   #128
ElCapo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigAppleSunset
This is my very first post at the SkyscraperCity Forums, so I want to make it a good one...

Unless you have lived in or around New York City, were connected in any way to the tragedy (locally, nationally or abroad) or affected by all that has gone on here since then, I believe that people who aren't should not tell us what is most appropriate for Ground Zero. While this directly affects this city the most and is especially a national tragedy, yes it does affect the international community. However, what belongs there is what should ultimately be what New Yorkers believe, not those from other countries.

While some of you want to convince us that New Yorkers should completely move on from what has been a lot more than just a pair of skyscrapers that stood in Lower Manhattan. I'm sorry, we won't be able to move on. We cannot forget. The terrorist attacks on New York City will be a part of us forever. Words cannot describe enough the feelings we have for the barbarians that tried to forever destroy a part of this city, a true icon. I don't care what the LMDC tries to replace it with, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center are irreplacable. If they weren't such a icon for New York and what ended up as a financial symbol for this country, Al Queda would not have taken them down in the most horrifying way imaginable.

Another thing... this was a very public endorsement of Kenneth Gardner and Herbert Belton's proposal, not Trump's own plan. Gardner and Belton badly needed someone of Trump's stature to get the proposal the media exposure for everyone to see. This idea had been supressed for far too long by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation from getting any attention and consideration whatsoever. Now, this proposal is finally out in the open and the timing of this being done was perfect for those who support it.

To answer anyone's question as to where I stand with what I want for Ground Zero, yes... 110% behind rebuilding the Twin Towers. However, one condition must be considered first and foremost… a fitting memorial as a part of the master plan. While the new Twin Towers idea is worth much consideration for its selection, it can only be an element of such a plan that is a part of a symbolic tribute (or restored icon) to all New Yorkers and Americans that in any way were affected by the tragedy, not solely as a commercial real estate element to this site.

While I have mixed general views of Mr. Trump and whether or not this is for his own publicity, love or hate him, he at least gives the impression he's thinking for the people on backing the Gardner/Belton proposal. Problem for him is that he has no say as to what the final plan is decided upon for Ground Zero. The majority of people that have been a part of this entire process during the last 3½ years (victims' families included) would have to publicly endorse such a plan to persuade New York State governor George Pataki, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, site leaseholder Larry Silverstein and the LMDC what grand site plan they really want.

Whether this proposal ever gets considered or is miraculously chosen with some site plan changes that is fitting for everyone, it's anyone's guess. The odds are stacked high against it ever happening, but at least this is now a possibility and not anyone's belief as "never going to happen".
Spoken like a true New Yorker. I 100% agree.
ElCapo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2005, 08:18 PM   #129
eljash
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 29
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by andysimo123
Same Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by eljash
__________________
eljashCHIPLIFEhttp://www.rozmowy.all.pl
eljash no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2005, 12:13 AM   #130
Islander
SSP Native
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New "The Big Apple" York (Manhattan)
Posts: 197
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by New York Yankee
that piece of the pentagon is rebuild. why the twins not?
What would you have them do, tear down the untouched 90% of the building just to build a new one? The pentagon was only repaired, while the twins were far beyond repair after 9/11.
Islander no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2005, 02:22 AM   #131
Archiconnoisseur
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 427
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by memento27oasis
Archiconnoisseur, I admire your understanding of architecture, where did you graduate?
Alas, I am but a lowly physicist, but I grew up as the son of an architect. I spent hours poring over my father's blueprints and reading his books and magazines.


Quote:
side note: on Frank Ghery, dude, one twisted metal building was innovative, but now it's getting f*cking old, move on.
Yes and no. I agree that his buildings appear repetitive when placed side-by-side in a magazine article, but I believe that each building suits its locale well. In a sense, Gehry is mass-producing his art and evolving it in the process. As long as he's being paid to experiment, what does he care?

I agree, though, with your subtext that a new WTC should NOT look curvilinear. I'm simply interested in the metallic cladding Gehry uses. It might be possible to use perforated aluminum or novel glazing to achieve a solid brushed metal skin without obstructing the view of those inside.
Archiconnoisseur no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2005, 10:38 AM   #132
drnilescrane
Registered User
 
drnilescrane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 283
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archiconnoisseur
Yes and no. I agree that his buildings appear repetitive when placed side-by-side in a magazine article, but I believe that each building suits its locale well. In a sense, Gehry is mass-producing his art and evolving it in the process. As long as he's being paid to experiment, what does he care?
Anybody that's seen the Team Disney "Ikea" Admin Building at Disneyland would agree that his designs are getting old and out of place. I already have my own design lined up that wont look rediculous next to It's a Small World.

As for the WTC, if they realy HAVE to rebuild them I want them to have GPT crowns on them, just to make it slightly more intesting:

drnilescrane no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2005, 07:12 PM   #133
steblack
KY native in NYC
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 17
Likes (Received): 1

I live in NYC, and I am against rebuilding the twins

A reminder - just for the record - I am against rebuilding the towers - AND I LIVE IN NYC, and lived here when 9/11 happened. So those who say they live here and want them rebuilt, I respect your opinion, but don't say that its only people from outside NYC who don't want them rebuilt.
steblack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2005, 06:39 AM   #134
Cliff
Tan
 
Cliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London
Posts: 4,317
Likes (Received): 172

Steblack:

But I also know we have to move forward, and let the past be the past, even though we may still mourn the loss. I already feel like some people who live here in NYC carry on as if nothing ever happened. I think rebuilding those towers will only make that worse.

CheeseMmmmmmmmmmm:

Even New Yorkers hated the twins before embracing them after the '93 terrorist attack.

Those idiot terrorists did that skyline a FAVOR by knocking down the WTC. What an ugly pair of buildings. I'm glad to see them gone, never to return.

Candy:

Shortly, I am saying that the towers need to be more than just "two boxes" sticking out in the sky...

CheeseMmmmmmmmmmm:

And I think the idea of re-building the twins for spite like some people want is a waste. Because no one's going to want to work in them, and most importantly, terrorists wouldn't get all angry if they were re-built! You think they'd be out in their caves going "... NO! THEY REBUILT THEM! WE LOST!! " Please people, they already accomplished their goal.

The simple truth is, re-building the twins would only be a symbol of how the U.S. can't move past 9/11. More importantly, we need to get some more proposals for building(s) on this site, enough with the Freedom Tower and Trump, LET'S GET SOME REAL IDEAS!!!

Archiconnoisseur:

I don't think it's fair to force generations of Americans to navigate through a graveyard in the center of lower Manhattan. Life is for the living, and whatever is constructed at Ground Zero should first and foremost be an excellent piece of architecture that furthers the urban lifestyle and improves the environment. I'm tired of seeing bleak abstract memorials that are lifeless and force people to negotiate around them.



Different views, but all make sense, great food for thought.
Cliff no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2005, 02:05 PM   #135
Curtain
Registered User
 
Curtain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,523
Likes (Received): 748

The "World Trade Centre" wasn't built to make a political statement about "Freedom".

It was built to accommodate 220 floors of office space in the biggest financial centre in the world in the most expedient way possible.

They became a spectacular expression of American financial success and power projected onto two of the tallest buildings in the world.
They were destroyed by those who vehemently reject that American power and financial success.

"Freedom" Tower is being considered and built for reasons of other than just office accommodation.

It is trying to incorporate and expand upon the ideas and symbolism that the original WTC became WITHIN a memorial and remembrance context and ALONG SIDE themes of reconstruction and rejuvenation.

These concepts are in my opinion incongruous to each other and result in the heated debates ensuing about what the site should be and look like.

Memorial and remembrance will never be properly served under the shadow of a "world's tallest" office tower representing rejuventated American financial and political power. The site is a place where the tragedy of thousands of people died in very extraordinary and public circumstances.

The debate about what the tower should look like would stop if the site were dedicated purely as a place of memorial and rememberance AND another site made available elsewhere in the city for the "Freedom" Tower where it can be built as just as another commercial tower would, albeit loaded with ideas about "tallest", "freedom", "reconstruction" and "power".

Money, power and some N.Y egos really need to take a back seat for once in the Big City and accept what happened and move on literally to another site and another day.

It is clear to me that both the "Freedom" Tower and the "Ground Zero" site are casting shadows over each other, neither letting the other be what they should be.
__________________
Melbourne - Australia's New Gateway and Global City
Curtain no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2005, 02:07 PM   #136
satit28
Rukpong
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Khon Kaen
Posts: 4,402
Likes (Received): 13

rebuilding it is just another way of saying..................
"we're not a loser"..............
satit28 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2005, 07:37 AM   #137
jpq21
Registered User
 
jpq21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA/ Hong Kong
Posts: 135
Likes (Received): 0

i think if their going to rebuild the towers they should make them signifiacantly taller, like close to 500m.
__________________
Skyscrapers are life in Hong Kong,
and work, and relaxation, and tourism, and everything else.
Skyscrapers are Hong Hong.
jpq21 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2005, 07:57 PM   #138
Jamfocus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 11
Likes (Received): 0

Should we expect Donald Trump to say anything else about him and others wanting the World Trade Centre built again? I'm guessing where going to hear more from him at some point?
Jamfocus no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu