View Full Version : Libeskind WTC - What part should he rethink?

NyC MaNiAc
February 21st, 2003, 06:41 PM
Libeskind is likely to be chosen for the new WTC plan. Though, these plans are only an outline of what will eventually be built, what do you think should be changed *about the memorial/building in his plan? What would make you more content with it?

February 21st, 2003, 10:38 PM
My Suggestions, even though I hate his plan, I could live with it if:

1. He makes the "Gardens of the World" tower into an office tower. He should also give it some more bulk to fit in better with the surrounding buildings.

2. *A shallower pit. I don't want the memorial to be at bedrock, because it's excessive and morbid, however the benefit of having something slightly below ground is that the memorial won't come into conflict with whatever gets built at street level. A street level memorial would make it hard to maximize commercial space for fear of being disrespectful. They should also make the pit less of a barrier when crossing West St.

3. Design the office towers to compliment the tallest tower. They should lead people's eyes upward, and remind people of monunmental scale.

4. Make the restored streets pedestrian-only. We don't need the WTC site turned into a collection of average city blocks. Streets with vehicular traffic would isolate the WTC from itsself, and pose a security risk, since you could sneek a truck bomb through the site.

NyC MaNiAc
February 21st, 2003, 10:51 PM
Just looking at your sig, TomAuch, would you like Libeskind's towers to be more like the old Twin Towers? As in, Do you want Libeskind to make 2 huge towers that are Twins? This is an idea im very hooked on.

I dont like his random assortment of buildings. I'd like to see twin towers rise out of that site. What do you want?

February 22nd, 2003, 12:19 AM
Quote: from NyC MaNiAc on 10:51 pm on Feb. 21, 2003
Just looking at your sig, TomAuch, would you like Libeskind's towers to be more like the old Twin Towers? As in, Do you want Libeskind to make 2 huge towers that are Twins? This is an idea im very hooked on.

I dont like his random assortment of buildings. I'd like to see twin towers rise out of that site. What do you want?

Well I consider myself to be more of a moderate Pro-Rebuilder, meaning I could live with just one tall tower on the site. Rebuilders base themselves on the fact that we want tower(s) as tall or taller than what was there before, but not necessarily the same thing. *BTW, I don't like the fact that he put the tower on the NW corner of the site. If you look at it directly from the Hudson, his tower doesn't fit in well with the WFC.

February 22nd, 2003, 12:24 AM
Just wondering, but could rebuild Twin Tower's be incorperated into Libeskind's plan? I think I'd be happy with that "Gardens of the World", complimented with rebuilt towers, or at least something worthy of them.

February 22nd, 2003, 02:57 AM
Incorporating the twin towers in Libeskind's plan would mean increasing the height and square footage of the office buildings. I'm OK with that.
Silverstein will probably think this is just mad.

(Edited by Fabb at 2:57 am on Feb. 22, 2003)

February 22nd, 2003, 08:57 AM
Ideally, he should include into his plan rebuilt Twin Towers of at least 110 office floors each. If possible, they should retake the world's tallest title for New York City, the greatest city in the world.

Even if 110 office floors were not possible, why has he to build the world's tallest lean-to?

He should just take two of Mr. Silverstein's 50-odd floor office buildings, make them, say, 60 office floors, put 20 floors of hotel rooms on top of each, 25 floors' worth of greenhouse on top of that, and top them out with some restaurant and observatory floors.

Lo and behold - new 110 story Twin Towers. He can put 1,776 ft spires or communications towers atop of them. Thus, everybody will be content, including Mr. Silverstein.

(Edited by Alex at 8:59 am on Feb. 22, 2003)

February 22nd, 2003, 08:25 PM
New Yorkers want their Twin Tower skyline back. *In July, the most popular plan of the six (albeit all were awful) was the one which had two identical "skyline elements" as the LMDC is fond of calling them. *60% of the public preferred that one even though the elements were shorter than some of the skyline elements in the other 5 plans. *Of the nine recent plans, 19.8% of the public preferred Foster, the only one with Twin skyscrapers, making it the public's first choice. *What Libeskind needs is to remake the buildings adjacent to the death pit as follows:
1. *Two skyscrapers no less than 110 stories each.
2. They should be equal in cross sectional area and height to each other. *I prefer to see 2 towers 111 stories tall each much more than seeing one tower that is the tallest in the world
3. They should be fully occupiable to the top....we dont want 50 story buildings with 60 story space needles. *It doesn't matter what he puts at the top. *He can even put his greenhouse on the 110th floor, and fill the 80-110th floors with art studios.

The above is as close to a "restorationist manifesto" that summarizes what should be rebuilt. *If you had that shown on any site plan, I guarantee you the support would great for that plan.

NyC MaNiAc
February 22nd, 2003, 11:27 PM
agreed. I want to see Towers rise from the ashes---nothing else would work for me.

Edit: Oh, and put a nice spire on one of em' :)

(Edited by NyC MaNiAc at 11:28 pm on Feb. 22, 2003)

February 23rd, 2003, 01:39 PM

NyC MaNiAc
February 23rd, 2003, 07:33 PM
Thanks for that "picture" JMgarcia! Increasing the heights makes it look nice...

I just guess I'm "hooked" on the thought of having two towers on that site.

Oh, and does the buildings colors actually reflect what Libeskind wants to be built there?I'm just saying 2 huge purple towers dosn't sound that nice...But if they were to make tham identical, a weeee bit taller and add a spire to one of em' I could deal with it. :)

February 24th, 2003, 05:43 AM
I still think Libeskind's design is too aggressive.
I might end up hating these angular towers.
Of course, more vertical lines and an upward movement could soften their image.

February 24th, 2003, 10:12 AM
Don't you think Libeskind merely depicted buildings of varying heights, shapes, and colors to suggest what could be there? Those aren't actual architectural models, they are conceptual at best. That's why no one should get married to every detail they see. It will be a few years before we start seeing the real architectural plans for these buildings, and they may not look anything like what we've seen thus far.

One reason I appreciate his plan is because he showed his conceptual buildings not as mere boxes but unique and modern towers. They share similar characteristics yet are not identical. He suggests that perhaps the tops all slightly slant respectfully toward the memorial, which I think would be kind of cool instead of aggressive. (If those look ominous, then the ESB looks lethal!)

Of course, I would prefer if these buildings were taller since they seem to have little impact on the skyline let alone restore it. Especially that skinny Garden Tower - it just doesn't cut it.

(Edited by NYatKNIGHT at 12:06 pm on Feb. 24, 2003)

February 24th, 2003, 07:19 PM
Apart from a much greater impact on the skyline, I'd like him to get rid of the pompous heroic and patriotic rhetoric. Of course he should improve his scheme to produce something at least as good as the following...

Victoria and Albert Museum, London:


Denver Art Museum:


ROM, Toronto:


But that requires control and I doubt he'll obtain it. The worst would be that corporate firms design the towers and, in an effort to be "artistic" and conform to his vision, create mediocre versions of his original designs. The final result would be a travesty.

NyC MaNiAc
February 24th, 2003, 11:00 PM
Wow, those museums and other buildings by Libeskind share a similar "crazy" image that I have incorporated with the *O' Gehry...

Also, those buildings do look suprisingly alot like the memorial he is proposing for the WTC

February 25th, 2003, 04:43 AM
Were these three museums actually built ?
I wonder what they look like in reality.

February 25th, 2003, 06:43 AM
All in the works.

February 25th, 2003, 10:55 AM
Wedge of Light



Sept. 11 Museum


February 26th, 2003, 05:21 PM
Kris wrote:
...get rid of the pompous heroic and patriotic rhetoric...

I've waited a day to respond to this so as not to reply in anger. Why does this post have to come from one of our French participants? Does this not smack of hypocracy coming from the home of Napoleon's triumphal arch? I think Frenchmen feel they must maintain thier monopoly on pompous heroic and patriotic rhetoric and don't want to see the Americans chipping away at their market share.

February 26th, 2003, 08:43 PM
1. I'm Swiss (and American).

2. One doesn't necessarily represent one's country.

February 26th, 2003, 09:27 PM
So you're only living in France to study architecture? You wrote about studying architecture in France, I made the assumption you were a Frenchman. It still doesn't fully explain your comment, though America bashing seems pretty popular in Europe these days, especially where you're at.

(Edited by chris at 9:28 pm on Feb. 26, 2003)

February 27th, 2003, 06:49 AM
Switzerland has a French-speaking part. I wasn't criticizing America at all.

February 27th, 2003, 07:37 AM
So you speak French.
That's just as bad. *;)

February 27th, 2003, 10:40 AM
I'd like to say that I did not see your comment as America-bashing. *You thought Libeskind's rhetoric was over-the-top and I agree with you. *

Lightning Homer
April 28th, 2003, 09:28 AM
I think Liebeskind plan is novative and inventive. He has choosen not to build ON the footprints, but I think he should not build ABOVE either !
Who knows ? Maybe in the future we will be ready for the Twins back. We well need that place then...

April 28th, 2003, 10:34 AM
Why does this post have to come from one of our French participants?

There's only one.

This time, he would probably agree with Christian. (I'll ask him when I see him, but I'm pretty sure he deems heroism and patriotism remnants of a barbarian past).

Does this not smack of hypocracy coming from the home of Napoleon's triumphal arch?

The arc de triomphe represents the triumph of liberty over obscurantism and persecution. It's a universal symbol.
The French people like to cherish abstract, universal ideas and the last French patriot died in 1970.
Being a patriot today in France is at best frowned upon, at worst a shameful support of an ignominious right wing political party.

Lightning Homer
April 28th, 2003, 02:24 PM
Er... could we go back to the main subject ?
Thanks !

April 28th, 2003, 03:11 PM
Since it has been deemed that the footprints are to be preserved, I am somewhat surprised that Libeskind has his museum over the them. It severely limits how they can be incorporated into the memorial especially with regard to height and the absence of sky.

April 28th, 2003, 03:28 PM
Whoa. That Victoria and Albert Museum addition is awful.

April 28th, 2003, 03:30 PM
It also eliminates the possibility of Guilliani's "soaring memorial," though Libeskind has signalled his flexibility. *

By the way, the LMDC's site for the memorial competition is up and running. *Significantly for this discussion, the criteria they specify treats Libeskind's museum and layout as a fait accompli. *

Time for all the wackos to come out of the woodwork again:

(Edited by dbhstockton at 3:31 pm on April 28, 2003)

April 28th, 2003, 03:36 PM
Should we start a new thread for the memorial competition, or continue the discussion here?

TLOZ Link5
April 28th, 2003, 04:17 PM
I think we already have a thread for that...

Lightning Homer
April 29th, 2003, 07:06 AM
Fait accompli ? Sounds weird. Reminds me of those old professors, ending every sentence with a latin locution, eeeek !

(Edited by Lightning Homer at 6:47 pm on May 14, 2003)