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

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Skyscrapers

Skyscrapers General news, discussion and announcement forum about skyscrapers, including the Skyscraper Living forum



Global Announcement

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


View Poll Results: Pick which one you would like to see built
Twin Towers II 418 60.06%
Freedom Tower 278 39.94%
Voters: 696. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old May 4th, 2008, 10:38 PM   #141
Carlos82
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14
Likes (Received): 0

Twin Towers (1973)
Carlos82 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 5th, 2008, 12:26 AM   #142
TalB
Refugee
 
TalB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pleasantville, NY
Posts: 7,537
Likes (Received): 78

About three years ago, MSNBC's David Shuster did a poll on these two on his blog, and a landslide of 80% wanted TTII over the FT, which was just 20% of the votes.
__________________
I respected your views, so I expect you do to the same.
TalB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2008, 08:40 PM   #143
Union.SLO
Existere et persistere
 
Union.SLO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Vienna
Posts: 9,149
Likes (Received): 2044

I can't belive so many of you like old Wtc twins! In my opinion they were one of the ugliest skyscrapers in NYC. Freedom tower is quite nice, but it could be more iconical...
Union.SLO no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2008, 09:33 PM   #144
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,511
Likes (Received): 6535

the twins were the most beautiful towers on earth IMO
ZZ-II está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2008, 09:47 PM   #145
Astralis
Out of time
 
Astralis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: ATW
Posts: 11,932
Likes (Received): 26

WTC were pretty much OK, better than ESB or Chrysler building. I don't even have to mention Sears Tower since that one is pretty ugly IMO.
Astralis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 04:27 AM   #146
TalB
Refugee
 
TalB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pleasantville, NY
Posts: 7,537
Likes (Received): 78

For the record, no pro-Towers advocate had seeked David Shuster to conduct that poll on his MSNBC blog, he did that on his own. In that same year, he had Kenneth Gardner, one of the architects for TTII, and Johnathan Hakala, while having Donal Trump on another interview. From that, he conducted the poll. However, if anyone actually reads here, he mentiones that he is not taking either side regaurdless of the results, though there have been some who have misinterperted it as he is an activists when he distintively said he wasn't. The most he did was just look at the results and place some of the comments on his blog.
__________________
I respected your views, so I expect you do to the same.
TalB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 02:02 AM   #147
storms991
Leicester:NY:London
 
storms991's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 492
Likes (Received): 81

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZZ-II View Post
the twins were the most beautiful towers on earth IMO
Sentimental at the most . The twins were by far the ugliest buildings Manhattan's ever seen excluding that frosty snowball building on the West Side.
In a nutshell, they were gigantic metal boxes and the epitome of the New York Box-skyscraper fad.
storms991 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2008, 01:30 PM   #148
fettekatz
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,557
Likes (Received): 47

the old twins were extraordinarily ugly... I guess that why everybody sympathizes with them, besides the sentimental part of course

The new tower definately has the better design, though with it's faked height (spire) its not as impressive as the twins
fettekatz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2008, 05:03 PM   #149
dars-dm
Cotton
 
dars-dm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Moscow
Posts: 7,174
Likes (Received): 16874

I think that twin towers, but with modern finishing and outriggers
__________________
Code:
Как только проедят напечатанные амерами баблосы, нефтя будет падвацать, хас папиисяд, а толяр - пасто диривянных. И ражко сразу развалиццо. Патаму шо она сичаз разваливаиццо, хотя нефтя ещё не падвацать
dars-dm no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2008, 10:40 PM   #150
TalB
Refugee
 
TalB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pleasantville, NY
Posts: 7,537
Likes (Received): 78

It's easy to like something that is new and compare it to something old, which is sorting like saying that the Liberty Bell is bad when placing it next to a bell that is new and not cracked like it is.
__________________
I respected your views, so I expect you do to the same.
TalB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2008, 10:09 AM   #151
FM 2258
Registered User
 
FM 2258's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,436
Likes (Received): 611

The Twin Towers by far. I hate the Freedom tower. If I ever had a say on what was going to happen with the WTC site I would build 2001 foot replicas of the twin towers on the original footprints. I'm glad they at least left room for that to happen the future. I still can't picture New York without seeing two large boxes in Lower Manhattan. I loved Donald Trump's idea.
FM 2258 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2008, 11:09 PM   #152
storms991
Leicester:NY:London
 
storms991's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 492
Likes (Received): 81

Everybody should get over the fact that the Freedom Tower is being built. The Twins are history.
storms991 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2008, 05:50 AM   #153
TalB
Refugee
 
TalB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pleasantville, NY
Posts: 7,537
Likes (Received): 78

Keep in mind that foundation work these days can say anything, especially when the PANYNJ have recently mentioned that the FT alone is found to be over budgeted, which will give for more of a chance for the Twins to be rebuilt.
__________________
I respected your views, so I expect you do to the same.
TalB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2008, 11:40 AM   #154
Densetsu
Non-registered User!
 
Densetsu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,685
Likes (Received): 129

Freedom Tower!
Densetsu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2008, 01:05 PM   #155
redbaron_012
Registered User
 
redbaron_012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 11,565
Likes (Received): 3095

The Twin Towers were simplistic 60's architecture....2 boxes but are part of New Yorks diverse architectural history....sure with lots of bucks you can build anything....a new city like Dubai ! But for historic reasons I think the original WTC was simply....New York! They should be rebuilt ..stronger...but I find the Twin Towers II design heavy and ugly. The original design changed with the light and season......within the context of the greater NYC they were and should be again...where else could this be !
__________________
"Make no small plans, for they have not power to stir the blood" - Daniel H. Burnham
redbaron_012 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2008, 02:43 AM   #156
TalB
Refugee
 
TalB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pleasantville, NY
Posts: 7,537
Likes (Received): 78

The Gardner-Belton Plan will have a lot of similar features as the originals did. The are some differences such as they would be shifted off the footprints, have different, surrounding lowrise buildings, the windows would be wider, and have the top floors residential. The reason why it looks so heavy is mainly due to the safety concerns addressed by FEMA on having better engineering. Also, it is even said by the LMDC in the GEIS over in Section 23.4 that if the Twins are to be rebuilt, they must have updated engineering, which is not an option in that case. Other than that, it will be pretty much the same.
__________________
I respected your views, so I expect you do to the same.
TalB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2008, 04:50 AM   #157
connected_
Registered User
 
connected_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 305
Likes (Received): 15

Any architect who thinks it's a good idea to imitate a destroyed building should be put out of practice. Rebuilding the original twins means that you can't let go of your past. It's a sign of weakness, not nostalgia.

Something new and innovative that signals a way forward is much more appropriate, and Freedom Tower is proof of that (as much as I hate the name). Not only does a new tower mean you're moving on, but also embracing the past. The memorial proposed around Freedom Tower is so much more subdued and peaceful. Twin Towers II memorial is just morbid and scary. Would people honestly want a memorial that looks identical to what was left of the original WTC when the towers were destroyed?

And I just don't understand this mentality behind rebuilding 'stronger' twin towers? People seem to think that the old WTC was the only place of major financial activity in New York but it's just one of many with a high concentration of people. If terrorists had another opportunity to, and let's hope that never happens, they could destroy something equally as important in NYC now especially with all the new supertall projects going up.

Just for the record, I loved the old WTC design as it was one of the structures that inspired me to become an architect.
connected_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 05:26 AM   #158
TalB
Refugee
 
TalB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pleasantville, NY
Posts: 7,537
Likes (Received): 78

Quote:
Originally Posted by connected_ View Post
Any architect who thinks it's a good idea to imitate a destroyed building should be put out of practice. Rebuilding the original twins means that you can't let go of your past. It's a sign of weakness, not nostalgia.
By that logic, it would also be wrong to build a replica of the ESB or any other major skyscraper if they were destroyed by a natural or man-made disaster or are you just being selective here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by connected_
Something new and innovative that signals a way forward is much more appropriate, and Freedom Tower is proof of that (as much as I hate the name). Not only does a new tower mean you're moving on, but also embracing the past. The memorial proposed around Freedom Tower is so much more subdued and peaceful. Twin Towers II memorial is just morbid and scary. Would people honestly want a memorial that looks identical to what was left of the original WTC when the towers were destroyed?
Actually, it has been found to be the other way around that. The FT tends be more cold and conservative in its nature, and seems as if it was built to erase the mistake the Twins had, but this is my opinion here, so don't make any personal attacks on it. Many actually found the FT to be very vapid along with the memorial known as the Reflecting Abscence that even the families of those who died hated it. The TTII memorial was found to be more respectable to those who died by even having the first responders placed seperately from the others. Another reason why the families of those who died despised the Reflecting Abscence was that it was underground in making it feel that their lost ones were left in the dark whereas the TTII memorial puts at ground level with the light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by connected_
And I just don't understand this mentality behind rebuilding 'stronger' twin towers? People seem to think that the old WTC was the only place of major financial activity in New York but it's just one of many with a high concentration of people. If terrorists had another opportunity to, and let's hope that never happens, they could destroy something equally as important in NYC now especially with all the new supertall projects going up.

Just for the record, I loved the old WTC design as it was one of the structures that inspired me to become an architect.
This is not neccessarily true, and I can gaurantee that no pro-Towers advocate ever actually came up with that statement. The confusion comes from the fact that they were built durring an economic recession that was around that time. The reason why the terrorists attacked it to begin with was b/c they new what it stood for, which world peace and was a symbol to the world. If another major skyscraper got attacked like the Twins did, should something totally different go there, or should it be rebuilt but only stronger?
__________________
I respected your views, so I expect you do to the same.
TalB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2008, 01:17 PM   #159
archy Momen
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5
Likes (Received): 0

sure
new WTC....
archy Momen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2008, 06:20 AM   #160
TalB
Refugee
 
TalB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pleasantville, NY
Posts: 7,537
Likes (Received): 78

I find it common sense to bring back what was lost but only better. The problem is that there are those who make sure it can't happen despite having the technology for it, and come up with nothing but excuses rather than reasons. It was Paul Goldberger who started this all we just can't bring them back, and came up with the statement we cannot have back both the Twins and a memorial not to mention how he made the argument that they had to be mutually exclusive, which started this whole statement on the WTC is replacable, making it feel like a crime to want them back. Honestly, when I see the rendering the FT, it does show that the terrorists changed us that day, and does give into their fear, b/c they want us to be scared of them in the future. Newer engineering can be used in older buildings, and it has been done from time to time, which is why they are rennovated. I even typed "Freedom Tower + support" into Google at one point, and there were hardly any results showing that it was that much supported compared to typing "Twin Towers + support" in that same matter. There other comparisons that can be looked at here. On a sidenote, I am very displeased that a mod closed the Twin Towers Advocacy thread after some FT Fanatics demanded it should be closed even though there were recent articles showing that it wasn't inevitable. Nevertheless, this leads me to the questions of irony on this, which I know that most will not be able to find the answer to.


If the families of the victims don't want them rebuilt, then why did 64 of them sign the TTA petition along with 49 of the 9/11 survivors with their families?

If the FT is so supported, then why on so many polls it was in did it rank was usually last, especially in one that was conducted by MSNBC's Hardball Dave Shuster in 2005 where 80% picked TTII in a landslide compared to the 20% that wanted the FT along with the fact that it was constantly despised at hearings by the LMDC?

How come nobody seems to want to work in the FT compared to the 24 tennants that want to return to rebuilt Twins along with 23 business supporters, 43 construction works with their families, 20 past and present PANYNJ members with their families that have signed the TTA petition?

How can it even be called the FT when 'freedom' doesn't even describe the process that picked when former Governor George E Pataki even overriden the decision that was by his own LMDC that he handpicked himself?

How can saying that rebuilt Twins would just be another target when the same can be applied to the FT?

If the FT is so safe, then why did the NYPD make so many security concerns about it even more recently, especially with the reintegrated streets making it easy for a vehicle bomb?

If the Twins were such a target b/c of their height on 9/11, then what about the Pentagon for only being six stories, which was also hit that day?

How can some say building something smaller there is more safer when in fact that smaller buildings have been found to actually be less safer according to other natural and man-made disasters compared to taller buildings?

How can the PANYNJ keep on to any further deadlines on the current process when they have mentioned that they barely have the money for it right now?
__________________
I respected your views, so I expect you do to the same.
TalB 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 05:44 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