SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Kenneth Gardner on MSNBC

i got home around 3:25 PM ET today, and turned on MSNBC to see if they knew anything about that plane scare today in DC. From that story, they transitioned into an interview with Kenneth Gardner with his new 9ft model, leading in with "some are calling for Freedom Tower to be scrapped altogether." Gardner talked about the technical advances of his tower, such as interior columns, stronger structure, etc. Some interesting points to note are how the Freedom Tower has to be redesigned to pull back from the highway, whereas Gardner/Belton's model already calls for the towers to be 250 feet away from the main highway. Also, Gardner made a good point about his memorial, and how well it integrates with the look of the towers. His memorial also gives a more international tribute, since all the flags of the countries that lost citizens on 9/11 are represented in the memorial, as are the names of all who died. He hasn't heard back from the city yet, but that could mean that they either haven't considered the Gardner/Belton plan, or that they have but don't want to make it public, or deny it publicly. One thing is for sure though, it's going to be hard to ignore this plan now that MSNBC has introduced it to Americans everywhere.
 

·
What'u smokin' Willis?
Joined
·
2,097 Posts
I still think the facades of the towers need to be worked out (it needs a more verrtical thrust to it, not the horizontal banding), but the basic layout is perfect.
 

·
Long live the Twins!
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
personally, i think belton-gardner's lowrise buildings need some redesign to keep them from becoming too corny-looking, but everything else is nice. the facades of the new twins still seem to reflect that of the original twins, despite having a more open look to them. the memorial's optimistic and powerful, and not depressing like the two underground pits that we currently have.

and this plan's a lot more practical than the freedom tower b.s. that has not proven to be anything except of being impractical and problem-ridden.
 

·
Hirise Piping Man
Joined
·
842 Posts
Well, if i where to be asked, "what plan would you like, to be built on the World Trade Center site?" I would have to shoot down, (without question!) the David Childs freedom tower plan. And even though i like only one aspect of the Daniel Libskind's proposal, (the sloped roof lines, not to much of a cheat if 50% of the area of slope is filled with floors.) I would throw his plan out the window as well. And as far as the Gardner/ Belton plan, I would throw this one out the window also!. What we need here is a NEW plan for this, not an updated version of the same thing!!!. I would be pained every time i saw this plan, I know that most of the public is of the opinion of "rebuilding the twins" but i think we need to be a touch more open minded about this. To me the sight of almost identical buildings would bring the tragedy of 911, and the unbelievable horror and shock of that day alittle to close to home for me!. When i think of 911 the first, and most searing memory is of the people, who where trapped above the impact zone of north tower, jumping to their deaths. As i watched this on television, i was in tears of disbelief.

What i would like to see with this plan, is a new concept, that captures the grandeur, the scale, and the banal quality of the original's, but only reminisent of them, not copys of them! (not to mention the total replacment of the lost office space!!). But with a new site layout and building placement program (with 2 to 4 office towers, (maybe incorperating the sloped rooflines?) The train terminal, and the "footprint" memorial. And NOTHING else.....!!!!!!. i'm sure an architect, somewhere can come up a plan along those lines. ( I mean even I myself, have come up with a concept.)

Anyway that's my opinion!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
929 Posts
I agree that more verticality needs to be introduced to the plan. But my big question is, what the hell were they thinking with those lowrise buildings? They are tacky.
 

·
Member, Winifred Fan Club
Joined
·
2,973 Posts
I must be in the minority, but I think that building a twin towers version 2 would be a mistake. I think that this is a chance to do something grand and new. Rebuilding the twin towers would be looking to the past. But what NYC needs is an icon for the future. I think homages to the twin towers would be okay-- for instance, the Think design or the Foster design because they pay tribute but they grow. But building a derivative of the old design seems close minded to the possibility of change and does not seize on the moment to make something even greater than the old twins were. I embrace the inspired and "new" Manhattan that the new crop of iconic buildings are ushering in-- Calatrava condos, BoA, NY Times... I think the greatest monument to New York would be a monument that celebrates its dynamism and its embracing of change and growth-- something a rebuilding of the twins would eschew.
 

·
What'u smokin' Willis?
Joined
·
2,097 Posts
^You can't just forget the Twin Towers either. The key is to created somethig obviously inspired by the Twins, yet signicantly different. If you don't build a reminder people WILL forget. However, the mistake of the Freedom Tower is that it references the collapse of the WTC. It is just as grounded in the past as rebuilding the Twins exactly the same, but without the bravado. The THINK design puts two giant skeletons in the sky, a pale imitation of the Twins, thus also unacceptable. Foster could work, but it needs a major rework. The version submitted to the LMDC looked like it was going to fall over, but it is still the best of the final nine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I completely agree with you STR. they need to build something that doesnt portray collapse, defeat, weakness etc...The twins certainly didnt portray any of those things in fact the complete opposite..they wouldnt have even fallen if not for the intense fires which might have been prevented by better fire proofing...They were strong buildings in every sense. I do think rebuilding them would be a lot better than the freedom tower but i dont think it would be enough , something more would be needed..perhaps rebuilding the twins and then also building a freedom tower along with them maybe hehe but not that weak looking thing, something far more powerful..and make it taller than the burg dubai! I didnt like any of the proposals at all, including the fosters, they all represent weakness with there abstract and ugly designs.. i hope thats not what the future of skyscrapers looks like.
 

·
Hirise Piping Man
Joined
·
842 Posts
If i were to take my pick of the proposal's, i'd have to go with the Richard Meier proposal, I think it does the best job of paying homage to the original complex. I liked the idea of "FIVE" 88 story towers, first 3 and then 2, interconnected at three intervals, standing at a right angel to one another, on the North and East steet line of the site. I beleive this proposal was the only one to encompass the three most important aspects of the original's, those being (1) Largeness or Massiveness, (2) Tallness, ( if perhaps,each tower is built up to 110 storys, it could reach upwards of 1'400 feet.) and (3) banality........
 

·
Member, Winifred Fan Club
Joined
·
2,973 Posts
I don't know... United Architects also had the largeness/massiveness, and tallness factors down. I'm not quite sure what you mean by banality though. I guess the Meier design is more banal than UA.
 

·
What'u smokin' Willis?
Joined
·
2,097 Posts
Rumor has it that Donald Trump is going to start pushing this proposal. I don't have a direct source yet, but in several recent interviews/statements he's said he has a huge model. The 9ft B/G model would fit that quite well. Plus he said on several occasions he said he wants the towers rebuilt and always added at the end "maybe one story taller." I've seen 2-3 interviews on FNN(I was flipping past)/MSNBC and he said it every time. The slight height increase was a big part of the Belton-Gardner plan.
 

·
Lurker
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
STR said:
Rumor has it that Donald Trump is going to start pushing this proposal. I don't have a direct source yet, but in several recent interviews/statements he's said he has a huge model. The 9ft B/G model would fit that quite well. Plus he said on several occasions he said he wants the towers rebuilt and always added at the end "maybe one story taller." I've seen 2-3 interviews on FNN(I was flipping past)/MSNBC and he said it every time. The slight height increase was a big part of the Belton-Gardner plan.
Yeah, I saw something about Trump's Twin Towers on channel 7 this morning.
Things will be interesting for the WTC's future over the next few weeks.
 

·
Long live the Twins!
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
i just hope we're witnessing a huge turning point in the rebuilding process...in which the twins and the voice of the people will finally prevail, thanks to nyc's new hero - donald trump! *applause*

united architects does feature tall buildings in its plan, but from far away, the buildings look too cluttered and confusing to comprehend. richard meier definitely have powerful looking buildings, but the prsence of the horizontal crossings between the towers undermines their verticality, and the towers need an increase in height.

but i agree with you ticonla1, banality is indeed an important part of the original towers. their simple design and appearance helps to make a simple yet powerful statement about the power and strength of the US. freedom tower just does not achieve that.
 

·
User
Joined
·
5,634 Posts
According to some sources, expect this or a some modified version to be unveiled tomorrow by Trump, so he is behind this. I just hope they make a couple of adjustments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,441 Posts
the reason i hate this proposal is because WTC 1,2,3,4,5 are so very identical to one another. i SERIOUSLY hope that this changes
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top