NEW YORK | 3WTC (175 Greenwich Street) | 357m | 1170ft | 80 fl | U/C

[Nomadd22]

Originally Posted by fish

Those two waterfalls -- Reflecting Absence -- is no replacement for the Twin Towers.

No, the four new towers are a replacement. The waterfalls are a memory of the two towers. Flowing water has a magical ability to evoke powerful feelings and memories in people. If it doesn't work for you, don't try to deny it for others.

I do not mind responding to a quote (even if it is off-topic), but I simply ask Nomadd22 to read my prior responses because I do not wish to encourage anyone to change the subject of this thread.

With all due respect, let's get back on topic please.

[jcg96]

thats great! but.. the towers are in danger like the EX-twin towers?

[xXFallenXx]

My favorite of the WTC buildings. it will be fun to watch this one rise.

[kingsc]

Originally Posted by luci203

Building other towers in that place, is like building your house above a grave...

I don't understand why your quoting me. I never said build a building there. And people have been dying since the dawn of time. So my house just might be built on a graveyard.

Originally Posted by BrooklynNYC

I don't think that that was fish's point. The earlier post said "replacing." The two waterfalls at the footprints reflect absence. The intention is not to replace the twins but rather to emphasize or remind the viewer of their absence.

I think that fish's point was that "replace" is the wrong word.

Once again why I'm I being quoted, I understand what he's saying. What I'm saying is there nothing you can do about it. And the old WTC be replace by the new WTC.

[luci203]

Originally Posted by kingsc

I don't understand why your quoting me. I never said build a building there.

I put the sign, that I agree with you... the 2 plots must be a monument, not 2 towers. (I was misunderstood)

Originally Posted by kingsc

And people have been dying since the dawn of time. So my house just might be built on a gravy yard.

Yes, but it was not a gravy yard less than 10 years they built the house... is not the same.

[Ebola]

This tower may be u/c (meaning foundation work started).

I dunno.

[Tag_one]

It's not U/C yet. After they excavated the two caissons they haven't done anything.

[kingsc]

Originally Posted by luci203

I put the sign, that I agree with you... the 2 plots must be a monument, not 2 towers. (I was misunderstood)


Yes, but it was not a gravy yard less than 10 years they built the house... is not the same.

I don't know whats in my backyard. And as they say once a graveyard always a graveyard.

[droneriot]

Why would you have gravy in your backyard?

[mudvayneimn]

Because gravy is everywhere!

I really can't wait to see this one really going. This tower completes me....well the renders at least. I think this tower will be a one of the very best in the US, can't wait to take the trip to NYC sometime between 2012-2014 to see the complex complete.

[Tag_one]

An excavator has been working in one of T3s foundation caissons for two days now.

[ZZ-II]

finally . hope they'll finish the foundation as fast as on Tower 4

[kingsc]

Originally Posted by droneriot

Why would you have gravy in your backyard?

because it taste so damn good. My bad I miss spelled the word grave hahaha I'm a dumb ass

[Eric Offereins]

Originally Posted by Tag_one

An excavator has been working in one of T3s foundation caissons for two days now.

If so, shouldn't this thread be moved to the U/C section?

[korea2002]

[Veseу]

^ Man, that's great.

It's interesting to compare that scene of construction to how the same plot of land looked in the late '60s.

[gwool1sc]

Yes I like it, build it............................

[kingsc]

Of curse there going to build it. The real question is how long will it take them.

[Basincreek]

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...tump_towe.html
WTC survivors up in arms over Stump Towers plan

BY DOUGLAS FEIDEN
January 31st 2009


The last thing Ground Zero needs is a sorry-looking pair of stumpy low-slung buildings where chi-chi retail chains would peddle jewels, jeans and lingerie to tourists.

That was the emotionally charged verdict of 9/11 families Friday on a Port Authority plan to erect temporary stump-like structures in place of two of the towers long planned for the World Trade Center site.

"It's a national embarrassment," said Rosaleen Tallon, a biology teacher whose brother Sean, a 26-year-old probationary firefighter, died in the collapse of the north tower. "Rebuilding towers at the site was supposed to make a powerful statement of our grand resolve. Building chintzy, second-rate placeholders to sell retail goods makes a very different kind of statement."

With jobs vanishing, financing frozen and real estate in crisis, the authority is mulling putting up twin pedestals as stand-ins until the economy rebounds.

The specter of retail development pods rising two to six stories along Church St. - instead of a 79-story skyscraper and a 71-story tower - outraged people who lost loved ones on 9/11.

"It sounds like a plan to build a shopping mall on my son's cemetery," said retired FDNY Deputy Chief Jim Riches, who lost his 29-year-old firefighter son, Jimmy Jr., in the north tower. "It's crass and offensive."

Sally Regenhard, whose son Christian, a probationary firefighter, perished on Sept. 11, said the Port Authority seems more concerned about out-of-town shoppers than New York victims. "What's next?" Regenhard asked. "McDonald's? Wal-Mart?"

Though the option of placing pedestals on sites where developer Larry Silverstein plans to build his towers was disclosed by PA Executive Director Chris Ward, agency brass insisted yesterday the master plan for the 16-acre site had not been altered.

"All of this is completely speculative," said Stephen Sigmund, the authority's chief spokesman. "The point we were making is our commitment to not leave holes in the ground - no matter what the state of the local and national economy."

I can understand the resistance to the "stumps" as it is a stupid idea. But it's my understanding that the retail, that is found to be offensive to some, would be built anyways if the actual towers are erected.

I can understand why Silverstein is against the stump idea as it would be a nightmare to try and build the towers over the stumps.