Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
User
Joined
·
5,634 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
You know, I've been following this rebuilding process for a long, long time now. Closely following it. There have always been those who don't care or have the time to care. The others supporting the towers. Others just riding Pataki's back going along with the official plans. Then there's the others.

The others who repeatedly state they don't want the Towers back, they hate the Freedom tower, but they want something "new" and "bold." They want something different. That's totally understandable, that's cool.

However, I still can't find that "new" and "bold" proposal for the site that these people speak of. The only proposal that comes close to fitting this description is Foster's kissing towers. Is that everyone's definition of grand, new, bold and daring?

If not, what is? I haven't seen one impressive design ever for the WTC other than the original WTC being rebuilt or Fosters (personally I have some issues with the Foster plan but it was pretty good.)

So, those "new" and "bold" people, what do you envision? Have you ever seen anything that fits what you want? If so, share this plan to us.
 

·
Professional
Joined
·
764 Posts
the problem with 'new' and 'bold' is that very few people are capable of producing that image, or expressing those ideas to others...

for those who just want to see the towers rebuilt, that is no great leap of creativity or thought.... my personal opinion is that it shows an extreme lack of either

the FT is an attempt at something new and bold... although it has some serious problems in and of itself architecturally and it has many hurdles in the process with all the infighting and toe stepping going on...

even though the original WTC seemed very banal just being big volumes and big floor plates there was a significant amount of meaningful thought and detailing put into the design that gave them the ability to overcome initial distaste from teh public and many in the architecture profession...

the rebuild plan lacks all of those things...its a shell and that is it

to move past the rebuild or the FT and be 'new' and 'bold' takes a big step in creativity, thought, concept...everything... it isn't something that just any schmuck is going to up and think of, that isn't how these sorts of problems get resolved... so we'll sit and wait for the light to turn on in someone's head and then we'll have an answer...

but to say "well nothing bold and new has been thought of, so lets just build what was already there" isn't a very intersting or appropriate action either
 

·
Long live the Twins!
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
i agree with savethewtc. there's a growing number of people in this forum who feel that we can do better than the freedom tower and rebuilt twins.

what we truly need right now is to ask every active major skyscraper architectural firm to create a design of what they want to see rise on the wtc site. pataki's narrow minded nature and his despotic control over the rebuilding have prevented other better architects with bolder ideas from expressing what they want. but i think it's time for those other architects out there to speak up and let the public know of what they want for the new wtc. even if pataki want to stop them, he can't really do anything since he's just a lame duck governor who's gonna get kicked out of office next year anyways...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
Whoever supports the twin towers is extremely short sighted. Those two boxes were a BLIGHT not an asset to new york's skyline. There was nothing brilliant about them, they were boring and hideous.

Not saying that the freedom tower is impressive, but some great buildings will be built on the area. I think the redesigned memorials with the park is pretty. The Calatrava transportation terminal is beautiful. And who knows what other architects will get involved.

However, the freedom tower is a disaster. I like some of the symbolism, but most of this post-modern bullshit that libeskind designs is boring. Or Childs, there is nothing bold about his architecture...he is just a lackey, a ***** who serves the people who are paying him, similar to Philip Johnson.
 

·
Professional
Joined
·
764 Posts
i don't agree with trashing the old WTC... they were very nice buildings if you really understand their design... granted they were grossly oversized and gave absolutely no respect to their neighbors but they were so big in and of themselves that they really didn't even have to... if you are familiar with koolhaus' work you'll understand this concept of 'bigness'

but they were important enough for other buildings to react to them, such as the world financial center, which strived not to overcome the WTC but to help make it a part of the city... they were very important buildings to the skyline and many other buildings reacted to them...

eitherway, there doesn't have to be an organized competition for the design, that isn't how you get the best or most interesting... that is how you get competition designs, not good designs.... they become all about words and presentation, not about good design and interesting and intellectual exploration...
 

·
Hirise Piping Man
Joined
·
842 Posts
Well allright then, I did not care for any of the proposals submitted, (i've explained this on many WTC threads, within this forum. The only one that caught me for a moment was the Richard Meier's proposal for five 88 story towers, two, and then three, interconected. This was the only one that had the (in my opinion) three elements of the original's, but did not copy them. Those three components, mass, height, and banality were best represented in this plan. Foster's plan, I liked it, but it looks to damned flimsey, where in this case, strength is the asthetic i'm looking for. As far as the "rebuild the twins" and the Childs, Liebskind, plan, i'd throw all that shit out the window.

What is needed on this site is a bold and new "representation" of what was there, not copy's. And further to say, only two aspects of the original complex need to be rebuilt, with the addition of a third, the two being, the 10+ million sq.ft. of office space lost, (including a hotel) and the reconstruction of the train inferastructure, (the Calatarva design is highly acceptable to me for this.) And the third, a memorial to the inocent lives lost that tragic morning (though i like the chosen plan, i believe it should be allittle more open air, with lots of trees and greenery.

As soon as i can post pictures with my new scanner, i'll post my site concept's and renderings. The rough draft sounds like this: The concept includes, (with the newly completed 7 WTC,) Five additional new office tower's. My original plan had only three, but the scrapping of the Childs' Freedom tower, I decided to add two more to that location. So on the Northwest corner of the site, (were the FT was to be) there are two office towers, the western most is 102 floors, and it's sister around 80' to 100' feet away is 62 floors, if you continue East, (to the block just north of the proposed train terminal) this block holds only the tallest of the five, this one is 122 floors. Then the last two towers (just to the south of the terminal) on the middle block stands the shortest of the towers, at 42 floors, then on the southern most block, (Southeast corner of the site) the last tower an 82 floor tower. I have not decided which tower(s) will get the hotel component, and there is an aspect of the Liebskind plan that i did like and have incorperated into my plan, that is the sloped roof lines, however in my plan they are all identical. (with the low point at the SW corner of the tower with the west/east face' sloping upwards at 60 degees, and the north/south face sloping at 30 degees.) With the exception of the memorial and train terminal, there are no other buildings, or storefronts, no culteral/performing arts/or museums, just open plaza and landscaped features. (with many trees.!!) And of course the only "actual" reminent to be placed on the site, the unrepaired "sphere" sculpture that stood guard over the twin towers, when they commanded the skys of lower Manhatten.
 

·
Professional
Joined
·
764 Posts
in all of that, what is going to give it any kind of 'signature appeal'

is it just going to look like a bunch of office towers with sloped crowns??? there is plenty of those running around...what is bold or new about it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
I think too many people associate "bold" with "crazy angles and rebellious structure." A bold structure doesn't necessarliy have to contain a twist (Freedom Tower) or look like it's falling down (Foster's). A bold structure, in my opinion, is one that makes an impact on the skyline, has force and power behind it. A "bold" structure can be relatively conservative looking. I don't think anyone would argue against 2IFC or the Aon Center being bold, but they're still square.

I actually liked the Littenberg proposal. The two main towers needed a little more mass on the top I think, but overall, the way it tried to transform the area into a whole new city district, with that tree lined promenade, was very bold in my mind. It was fairly conventional in terms of design of the buildings, but the end result was something I felt I would have been proud to have in NY.

As far as the site goes, I'd like to have something more conservative looking. I love really modern stuff like Calatrava's, but I just think for this particular site, doing something more modern would alienate people, and the trade center site should be one that has broad appeal. I think a proposal like Peterson/Littenberg comes closest to being strong and visionary without getting too caught up in being hyper modern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
929 Posts
Here are some of my favorites:

1. Love the shapes.

Isaac Epp

2. For this one, I love the tall building, not so much the rest of the site.

Leopoldo Padron

3. I am a big spire fan, when done right.

Ray Keim

4. Love these twin towers.

Anthony J. Morali

5. LOVE these twin towers.

Marco Carrano

6. LOVE these twin towers.

Norman Foster

7. LOVE these twin towers.

Mary Auryansen

8. Love the spires when done right.

Arthur C. Lohsen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
I like the Twins in pics 5 and 7. To me they give a nice nod to the past while still being interesting.

But then again maybe I'm just not cool enough.
 

·
User
Joined
·
5,634 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Thanks for sharing GVNY, some interesting ones there.

Definitely like this one:



The facade is very smooth, any info on what they modified from the originals?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,666 Posts


This design looks retarded

i agree 5 and 7 are the best as there more of a 'classic' approach. 4 is not bad however it look like Metal that is weakened due to fire and so it takes on that twisting effect
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
929 Posts
savethewtc said:
Thanks for sharing GVNY, some interesting ones there.

Definitely like this one:



The facade is very smooth, any info on what they modified from the originals?
One of my favorites, SavetheWTC. I just realized what you were asking me. Well, first of all, they changed the colour of the towers. Second, they made the buildings curve outward, instead of a straight box with the former Twin Towers. Placement is different, and the buildings, I assume, are taller.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
929 Posts
Giorgos69 said:


This design looks retarded

i agree 5 and 7 are the best as there more of a 'classic' approach. 4 is not bad however it look like Metal that is weakened due to fire and so it takes on that twisting effect
I respectfully disagree. Plan 6's design is spectacular, and included some unbelievable elements, such as the sky garden on top.

5 is one of my favorites, as I love the colour and love the 'X' bracing, giving it a great look. 7 is one of the few that is perfect.

8, also one of my favorites, is the true classical approach. It would return the spectacular spire effect of downtown, which is one things I have miss of Lower Manhattan from a time gone by. A great plan.

And finally, 4. I love the twist, and the holes give the plan great feel. I didn't percieve the twist as melting steel, but to one there own, I guess.

So my favorites are (In Order): 8,5,7,6,4,3,1,2
 

·
Long live the Twins!
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
it CAN be accomplished. we just need people with ideas to step forward with their plan and join trump in challenging pataki's authority over ground zero.

plan 7 looks like a nice alternative. looks like it's made from reflective, metallic-looking glass. not a bad idea at all. plan 5's goals are definitely good, but i don't think x-bracings goes well with the twins.

plan 3 reminds me too much of the freedom tower proposal though, and plan 4 rubs salt into old wounds by creating "impact holes" in the skyline.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Top