PDA

View Full Version : Why the World Trade Center MUST BE rebuilt



Pages : [1] 2

StevenRosenow
February 26th, 2003, 05:23 AM
Hey folks, I'm a newbie here, although somewhat of an upcoming NYCS veteran of sorts.

The World Trade Center. It was much more than its signature Twin Towers. It was an immense office complex of seven buildings, an underground subway connection, and the site of Lower Manhattan's largest indoor shopping mall. Nestled at the southwest corner of an immense 5-acre public plaza, the World Trade Center's Twin Towers offered 10 million square feet of space, more than the entire city of Cincinatti, OH. It is estimated that 50,000 people worked there, and another hundred thousand visited each day. It was also the site of a U.S. Customs House.

The World Trade Center was also the site of one of the most ostentatious hotels in Lower Manhattan. Built in 1981, the Vista Hotel was the Hotel-to-be when visiting or doing business near the World Trade Center.

All of these buildings sat on a 16-acre superblock in Lower Manhattan. Efforts are now underway to cut through the superblock and restore the streetgrid. And those efforts must be stopped.

For the World Trade Center must be built - similar in fashion to the old WTC. The new WTC should feature a set of twin towers each 1365 feet tall, 208 feet square, and offset to where the southeast corner of the North Tower should be directly north of the Northwest corner of the South Tower by 135 feet. The North Tower should have a "skyline" element - a TV antenna - that reaches 311 feet above the rooftop of the North Tower. *The South Tower should feature - once again - New York City - as well as the world's - highest outdoor viewing platform.

At the base of each tower, and the focal point of the complex, shall be a five acre radiant plaza with a fountain roughly centered, and a sculpture between the two eastern lower plaza buildings - at the Church Street entrance - and a scultpture at the southwest corner of the Plaza.

The World Trade Center was a landmark that was ahead of its time. The idea for such an immense site - and its five acre Austin Tobin plaza - was so that pedestrians could enjoy themselves without having to be in the perils of street automobile traffic. To rebuild the street grid would defy the very principle that was the defining reason the superblock idea was chosen. And it's for that reason that the 16-acre superblock remain intact, with no streets cutting through it.

Another idea why the World Trade Center was built like it was - is that any other plan would've been too bulky, or would've made the site look too clustered. It was decided that two identical towers, each 110 stories tall, would be offset from each other. Not only to compliment themselves, but keep some sense of human scale. When asked why Yamasaki didn't build a 220-story tower, he simply replied "Hey, I didn't want to lose the human scale."

Initially, the World Trade Center was almost a project that went bankrupt, and the only way to pay for it was to have the PA and the State of NY take up office. The economy was in a slump at the time. And the economy then - is the same economy Lower Manhattan is in now. But as the 80s proliferated, the office space began to fill up - and rapidly as the economy improved. By the mid-90s, the World Trade Center had reached full occupancy, and at the time of their attacks, were 97% occupied with investment firms, etc. The World Trade Center had EARNED its place - as a World Trade Center. *

We defied the economy then to build them, and we can surely do it again.

To rebuild anything less that what was there before is to send a clear message that we've been defeated.

We must revitalize lower Manhattan - by providing lower Manhattan with another World Trade Center.


(Edited by StevenRosenow at 4:25 am on Feb. 26, 2003)

DaliborCroatia
February 26th, 2003, 07:27 AM
WTC must be rebuilt like it was.Identical.

Fabb
February 26th, 2003, 07:56 AM
When asked why Yamasaki didn't build a 220-story tower, he simply replied "Hey, I didn't want to lose the human scale."


What a dreamer !

dbhstockton
February 26th, 2003, 11:03 AM
I'm sorry, but: *Give it up.

TAFisher123
February 26th, 2003, 01:12 PM
true, this ship sailed a long time ago

Agglomeration
February 26th, 2003, 01:51 PM
Maybe we need a citywide grassroots movement to counter NIMBY's, PC wackos, mega-memorialists, and political panderers who have disrupted the rebuilding process at the WTC site and also hurt the city's economy and reputation overall.

Alex
February 26th, 2003, 02:23 PM
It's not over yet! More people than you may think support rebuilding the WTC Twin Towers or buildings very much like them.
You can get involved here:

WTC Restoration Movement: http://www.put.com/wtc/

Team Twin Towers: http://www.teamtwintowers.org/

NYC Skyline message board: http://www.theopinion.com/newyorkcityskyline/

chris
February 26th, 2003, 02:35 PM
I think too many "grassroots movements" are the problem. Every one of the "wackos" you listed is a "grassroots movement" that for whatever dillusions they may or may not possess, considers themselves to be on the moral highground, or to represent the unheard majority... no doubt because in their circle or aquaintances, theirs view represents the majority opinion and they consider that sampling to be representative of the whole. I probably agree often with opinions stated on this board, but I'm not dillusional enough to think that the group participating here is a real accurate sampling of opinions in New York, America or the world at large.

If it makes you feel any better, some out there might even consider participation in this board to indeed be a grassroots movement!


(Edited by chris at 1:36 pm on Feb. 26, 2003)

dbhstockton
February 26th, 2003, 02:48 PM
Are there any qualified architects or engineers lending their support to the replica movement? *It would be even more pointless without them.

Anonymous
February 26th, 2003, 02:54 PM
Quote: from dbhstockton on 10:03 am on Feb. 26, 2003
I'm sorry, but: *Give it up.

Those who are true pro-Towers supporters will never give it up, and that's what the LMDC wants us to do!

dbhstockton
February 26th, 2003, 02:55 PM
The World Trade Center was a landmark that was ahead of its time. The idea for such an immense site - and its five acre Austin Tobin plaza - was so that pedestrians could enjoy themselves without having to be in the perils of street automobile traffic.

Quite the contrary. *Yamasaki's WTC was the very last of a generation of modernist urban planning that goes back to Le Corbusier at the end of the First World War. *Like it or not, it was out of fashion before it was even completed.

Anonymous
February 26th, 2003, 03:09 PM
That might be true but that doesn't give any type of reason not have them back. *As a matter of fact, saying that the Twins shouldn't be rebuilt b/c of their design says absolutley nothing and is more of an excuse. *In conclusion, you said nothing but a bunch of meaingless stuff. *There are a number of people who are saying that they shouldn't rebuilt due to its desgin but that's really just another stereotype.

chris
February 26th, 2003, 03:17 PM
I greatly enjoyed the World Trade Center towers. I miss them very much. I think Yamasaki gets a bad rap. As far as rebuilding the towers goes, the most prominent person that I know to support it is former New York City Mayor, Ed Koche. As a sentimental, pulling at the heart string nostalgia, for the first week or two I'd longed to see them come back as well. The reality is, while I loved the iconic nature of the towers, the street level plan did not stand up well to the test of time. I really thought that in the immediate aftermath, Philip Johnson spoke in favor of rebuilding the towers, and I thought it was in an issue of Metropolis, but I've never been able to find that quote... I may have miss attributed it. Regardless, he is now in favor of an open design competition. I'd hope that whatever goes there has the same iconic/minimalist triumph within the skyline, yet corrects the misguided site plan. I'd personally rather see Johnson as a member of the competition's Jury than a participant in the contest.

NYatKNIGHT
February 26th, 2003, 03:31 PM
Barring any complete reversal by virtually all parties involved, the twin towers will not be rebuilt - it's not going to happen. No doubt there are MANY people who want to see the twin towers rebuilt, but Chris is right, could it be that at least as many prefer something else, something better? If you can't believe that could be true, possibly you think there is a conspiracy. Consequentially, absolutely no credibility is given to any design that doesn't look like the twin towers. Why not instead funnel that energy to insure better architecture, that the final plan has a tower or towers at least as tall, as iconic, and as exhilarating?

Kris
February 26th, 2003, 03:35 PM
You've had more than enough time to face reality. Stop hurting yourselves, it's pathetic.

DougGold
February 26th, 2003, 05:30 PM
Quote: from Kris on 2:35 pm on Feb. 26, 2003
You've had more than enough time to face reality. Stop hurting yourselves, it's pathetic.

Christian, that comment is outrageous and shameful. I for one would sign up for any march or demonstration calling for the rebuilding of the original Towers if one were organized.

dbhstockton
February 26th, 2003, 05:37 PM
I'm with Kris.  The rebuilding movement is both impractical and wrong-headed.

ZippyTheChimp
February 26th, 2003, 05:40 PM
Quote: from TalB on 2:09 pm on Feb. 26, 2003
As a matter of fact, saying that the Twins shouldn't be rebuilt b/c of their design says absolutley nothing and is more of an excuse. *In conclusion, you said nothing but a bunch of meaingless stuff.
Actually, what they are telling you is the truth. To be fair to Yamasaki, the superblock was also planned in what is now
Tribeca. Independence Plaza was the first, and gladly, only
example.

The original Battery Park City master plan drafted in 1969 was also a superblock, or mini city (hence the name). It had no connection to the rest of Manhattan, except the WTC.
Pelli's WFC is an example of the original plan. In 1979, the
street grid layout was developed for the rest of BPC.

Also in the 1960s, a system of pedestrian bridges and elevated walkways was envisioned for lower Manhattan. Remember the bridge that crossed Libery St from WTC to Deutsche Bank elevated plaza, and then across Greenwich to the firehouse roof? No one ever used it.

The elevated West Side Highway was still there.

My point is the lower Manhattan that the WTC site was designed to integrate into never happenned.

TLOZ Link5
February 26th, 2003, 05:59 PM
The "radiant" 5-acre plaza you speak so glowingly of was, in fact, an agoraphobic ripoff of St. Mark's Square in Venice. *It was extremely windy and often went underused, even in the best of weather. *Its elevated position from the street actually deterred pedestrians, and the shopping concourse sucked the street life out of the surrounding area.

The law firm I work at now previously had its offices somewhere between the 50th and 60th floors of Tower One. *The employees who worked there said that they hated it there. *The constant swaying of the exceedingly lightweight building was -- obviously -- unsettling; people who worked on the upper floors would go home early on windy days.

Sociologists who focus on Middle Eastern culture have divulged that terrorist groups like Al Qaida *operate on a get-back-on-the-horse policy: if they fail to bring it down, they'll keep trying until they get it right. *My co-workers knew that; many of them were working there when Hamas tried to bring down the WTC ten years ago. *Ten years ago TO THIS DAY, mind you all; God forbid we've forgotten when this all started.

Mind you, I am definitely not against building tall again. *But building exact replicas of the Twins, to me, just conveys a message of denial about the horrible events of 9/11. *What you are proposing is pretty much that we scrape Ground Zero clean and erase any memory of the attacks.

(Edited by TLOZ Link5 at 5:00 pm on Feb. 26, 2003)

JMGarcia
February 26th, 2003, 06:48 PM
I've never ever thought that the towers should be rebuilt as they were. I definitely wasn't one of those that hated the original towers, I worked there and I liked them, the mall, and even the plaza. However, I always felt they were somewhat lacking in something.

Very shortly after the towers fell, I had my first thought about rebuilding the site. It never occurred to me that I would want them rebuilt as they were. Instead, my first thought was that maybe the good in all this could come from something even better being built.

The closest thing that I've seen that I feel would be the best improvement was the Libeskind towers raised up higher than the original WTC.

http://members.verizon.net/~vze26pnp/WTC4.gif

Realistically, as long as Silverstein, the PA, Bloomberg, and Pataki all feel that working at such heights is a no-go then this isn't going to happen.

As far as the final 2 plans go, out of the 9 originally presented, Libeskind and THINK's Great Room were my favorites. I liked Foster but figured it had no chance for a variety of reasons. I also liked WCC but didn't seriously consider it as I thought it would be too expensive, with no monetary return, to have a chance at being the winner. I was also holding out a small hope for taller occupied towers.

Well, that seems to have changed now that the towers price has been cut in half or more and there is no question that there is anybody in the decision making process who would support tall occupied towers.

What I like about the Libeskind plan is not the pit (although I like the memorial being out of the way and the pit keeps getting smaller which is good), but the general layout and the architecture of the various towers and other buildings. As it becomes more apparent that this is going to be bastardized by Silverstein/SOM, my support has waned somewhat. From the beginning I liked THINK in general (Great Room) and think that WCC definitely makes a strong impact. I'll be very disappointed if it is picked and is not higher than the original towers. I was glad to hear that it would be done in stainless steel. I've seen towers with stainless on the exterior and it is an excellent material for towers. I am disappointed to hear that even more of the towers will be left empty than in the original design.

I'll be happy if Libeskind is picked, but with reservations as to what will happen the architecture when Silverstein/SOM get involved. I'll be happy if WCC is picked but only if the tower's height is greater than the original WTC, otherwise I will be enormously, totally, incredibly, mega pissed off.

What has bothered me the most about this whole process is the continued negativity of so many. Libeskind has been slammed for the "death pit" but mostly by people who are really mad about the lack of a better restoration of the skyline or they just don't like Libeskind's architectural style, not about the pit itself. Put Foster's buildings next to the "death pit" and they'd be singing a completely different tune. In any case, WCC not only has 2 "death pits" at the base of the towers, it has another pit along almost the entire east side of Greenwich St. that looks down into the transportation center.

THINK has been slammed for their "skeletons". Again, I don't think that people are really that mad about the exposed girders (do they also hate the Eiffel Tower?). Foster had exposed girders plus the building, being bent, looked like it was falling down. But, it was occuppied. Again, the real issue is that people are mad that its not an occupied office building.

In my opinion, Al-Qaida, is not part of this process in any way shape or form and to me that means that we don't have to prove anything to them by rebuilding taller occupied space. I also believe that "the fear factor" should not be a consideration. Unfortunately both points of view have somewhat clouded the debate on the architecture itself.

When it comes right down to it, there is a reason why NY and for that matter the US as a whole, hasn't built occupied space above 1000ft since the 70's. Even during the 90's boom, high prices, and office space shortage nothing of great height was built. While building high occupied space is not completely economically unfeasable, it does severly cut into profits. Since the 80's Savings & Loan crisis, developers can't really get financing to build speculative buildings. Both these things contribute to the fact that no occupied space above 1000 ft has been built since the 70's.

I thought that the emotional impact of the WTC my be able to negate these facts and perhaps something would get built, but "the fear factor" as removed that possibility. There is no other pragmatic reason to build occupied space over 1000ft here or elsewhere in the US. Any supertalls are going to be built in the developing world where the government needs to make an ego point and can support the buildings financially.

Given all this, I will be more than happy to see 2 1665ft structural towers or a 1776ft spire and 2 new tallests for downtown. Its as good as can be realistically hoped for.

StevenRosenow
February 26th, 2003, 07:21 PM
But building exact replicas of the Twins, to me, just conveys a message of denial about the horrible events of 9/11. *What you are proposing is pretty much that we scrape Ground Zero clean and erase any memory of the attacks.


I disagree. And strongly.

The events of 9/11 will hardly be forgotten, just like the events of Pearl Harbor. They will always be remembered, and spoken of in memory.

Besides, there's too much photographic evidence of9/11 to allow itto be forgotten or to deny it.

And I disagree about your "agoraphobic ripoff" comment about the WTC's plaza. I have several photos of it showing it filled with activity.

ZippyTheChimp
February 26th, 2003, 07:35 PM
Quote: from StevenRosenow on 6:21 pm on Feb. 26, 2003
And I disagree about your "agoraphobic ripoff" comment about the WTC's plaza. I have several photos of it showing it filled with activity.
Photographic evidence? Well, case closed I suppose.

Probably on the days they had free concerts.

chris
February 26th, 2003, 07:37 PM
I loved the towers themselves, but to defend the street level plan is folly or you're simply living in a state of denial. If you have photos of the trade center plaza filled with people, then the photographer brought in a lot of extras... and btw, why don't you post this image?

How much time did you spend down there? I worked briefly in building 7. I can tell you that the plaza was a vacant, wind swept concrete void. St. Mark's Plaza is lively and full of people because of street level activity, shops, restaurants, etc... the fact that it open on one side to a harbor port... and not least because, save for boats, Venice is a pedestrian city. Motorized land vehicles are not just illegal and non-existent, but would prove impossible regardless. All this lent itself to the creation of a grand public space that, while the WTC plaza was modeled on St. Mark's, fell short in ways Yamasaki obviously did not fully account for. The mega block was a very popular concept at the time. Only in time did people see its damage. On that note, I loved the towers. It is a sad day every time I look to the sky and see they are not there. I've also seen nothing so far worthy of replacing them.

StevenRosenow
February 26th, 2003, 07:38 PM
Quote: from dbhstockton on 4:37 pm on Feb. 26, 2003
I'm with Wieland. *The rebuilding movement is both impractical and wrong-headed.


Impractical? Explain yourself more clearly.

Surely it's not impractical to rebuild what was there - or a likeness thereof. Remember, Lower Manhattan's economy when the Twin Towers were built is identical to the economy Lower Manhattan is in as we speak. *Defying an sluggish economy was done once, and it can be done again.

And wrong headed? Again, explain yourself.

Surely, while I want The Twin Towers as well as the rest of the site rebuilt to a close likeness of what was there, I also want to see some sort of memorial.

To me, the wrong way of memorializing it would be the extreme of leaving the entire site a 16-acre park. Or leaving an 8-acre section empty and as a dull empty pit.

We should make a LIVING memorial, and one that has function instead of one that's just aesthetics. the area that the WTC is in is the financial capital of both Lower Manhattan and the US in general. Cultural centers and memorials have no place in an area like that.

Sure, the World Trade Center may not have been appreciated in the beginning, but they earned their title as a World Trade Center, and not to rebuild them disgraces the site's honor.

And remembering the World Trade Center only as the site of a disaster, instead of a workplace and tourist attraction does not only the Twin Towers injustice, but it also disgraces the people who worked there, and who helped build it.

We shouldn't also have to make every building resemble the Chrysler Bldg or ESB by making them have spires or setbacks. It's too monotonous. The World Trade Center added a uniqueness to the skyline, albeit one that some viewed as dull.

It shames me to think that Minoru Yamasaki is disgraced because of the simplicity of the design. Keep in mind he grew up in a poor Seattle home, and was tought as a kid to enjoy and appreciate the simple things in life. He applied those principles, and went away from classical or mainstream architecture and wanted to branch on his own, by creating minimalist architecture. What's so wrong with that? Like I said, not every building has to look like the ESB or has to have a stone or granite facade.

This whole rebuilding effort should've resulted in a new set of Twin Towers rising to 20 stories and climbing, instead of this political backstabbing and pandering. And the victim's families have to realize that while their loved ones were lost there, it doesn't entitle them the rights to the entire site or portions thereof.

And another thing to realize. The fact that the Towers stood as long as they did stands testament to the strength and rigidity of the structure. Any other office tower would've collapsed at the moment of impact or soon thereafter. The Federal Emergency Management Agency even said in one of their Building Performance Stidies that for their time, the World Trade Center was one of the strongest structures to withstand such an event.

Instead of turning Lower Manhattan into a deathpit, we should revitalize what was lost.

Agglomeration
February 26th, 2003, 09:05 PM
I'm all for bringing back the Towers (not necessarily in their original form). Since this debate is in need of a mediator, I'll give a compromise voice here. The plaza was windswept and obviously didn't adequately protect people from cold weather. The Twin Towers made up for that though, with their prominence in the skyline and huge amounts of office space. The Towers had their big observatory decks (South Tower) and Windows on the World (South Tower). I agree that windswept plazas are largely passe, but that's something we can improve upon in the rebuilding process.

A New World Trade Center should improve on the original's flaws and use the good assets (especially the height and office space) to its advantage. I still want the WTC to have new Twin Towers 100 floors or taller, although it doesn't have to be an exact copy of Yamasaki. And of course new towers and other new buildings should be a lot stronger structurally.

One more note, I hate the LMDC.

(Edited by Agglomeration at 8:06 pm on Feb. 26, 2003)

DaliborCroatia
February 27th, 2003, 09:32 AM
Quote: from Alex on 1:23 pm on Feb. 26, 2003
It's not over yet! More people than you may think support rebuilding the WTC Twin Towers or buildings very much like them.
You can get involved here:

WTC Restoration Movement: http://www.put.com/wtc/

Team Twin Towers: http://www.teamtwintowers.org/

NYC Skyline message board: http://www.theopinion.com/newyorkcityskyline/


Free World is with you.Dont never give it up.The Twin Towers make New York so great and beautiful.Like Eifel in Paris,the great piramides in Egipth,coloseum in Roma,etc.

BrooklynRider
February 27th, 2003, 11:18 AM
Rebuilding the twin towers doesn't "restore" anything. *It actually serves to set us back 35 years to the time when it was conceived and designed. *I think it would be more symbolic to build something that sets a standard and creates imagery conducive to "21st century design".

Rebuilding the towers is just a silly idea. *If your home burned to the ground or was destroyed and you had the money to rebuild, would you build it exactly as it was or would you address all the thingsthat kind of annoyed you about it? *Would you build it to the standards and with the element that were the rage back when it was originally built or would you improve upon it and moderninze it? *

Out of the 9/11 tragedy comes a wonderful and unique opportunity for the city to reinvent itself and show what it has learned since the design and construction ofthe WTC 35 years ago. *I don't want the crappy wind swept plaza that was there before. *I don't want to cross bridges to get to Battery Park City. *I don't want stark streetscape and more boxes. *

Look how Times Square was recreated architecturally. *Despite all the naysayers, you'd be hard pressed *to find anyone who would argue that the transformation hasn't been inspired. *Certainly you could argue about the "atmosphere" being a bit more middle America - but with a 6 block area we have seen architecture rise that moves away from the numbing repetitive designs that created indistinguishable buildings during the 70's & 80's.

As lovers of architecture, we should be challenging the planners to continually evolve the accepted design - not to be just taller - but to be bolder and more inspiring. * * *


(Edited by BrooklynRider at 11:04 am on Feb. 27, 2003)

TonyO
February 27th, 2003, 12:03 PM
This is the only option that shows courage. *Anything less is a failure.

NYatKNIGHT
February 27th, 2003, 12:32 PM
Talk about lack of courage, sounds like you're afraid to take a step forward into the next century. You're entitled to your opinion - but I think that's just sad if you don't have enough imagination to come with anything else that shows real courage, and to be so closed minded that anything other than exact replicas of the twin towers is failure. The worst failure would be to rebuild aspects of the Trade Center that were in need of improvement.

I don't believe it is posslible to find anyone on this forum, Steven, who believes the site should be to left a 16 acre park. And I defy you to point out anyone on this board who would not be thrilled to see soaring office towers even taller than the original twins. I have not read anyone argue that the site ought to be remembered only as a site of a disaster, and I have yet to read where anyone prefers a "deathpit" to a vibrant community. No one I know didn't think the observation decks thrilling, and no one doesn't miss our iconic towers soaring over the skyline.

In fact, we agree on almost every aspect of the rebuilding process, except the notion that we would "dishonor the site" if we don't rebuild the twin towers as they were. The site, the victims, New Yorkers, and Americans alike deserve something at least as good as what was there, in fact better. To not make the necessary improvements would be a tragic mistake. If you don't feel like there was any need for improvements then you disagree with the vast majority of professionals who have studied and made a career of urban planning and construction.

As for the towers themselves, well we all agree that their height and the fact that there were two of them made them so memorable. But liking their boxy 60's architecture is where opinions differ. No one wants to attempt to change your opinion about the architecture of the twin towers, but you must be aware that they were derided by many, many people. Perhaps we can't come up with something better, in which case I say rebuild the towers. But if anything is dishonorable, it would be not to try.

dbhstockton
February 27th, 2003, 01:31 PM
Amen.

StevenRosenow
February 27th, 2003, 04:35 PM
Quote: from BrooklynRider on 10:18 am on Feb. 27, 2003


Rebuilding the towers is just a silly idea. *If your home burned to the ground or was destroyed and you had the money to rebuild, would you build it exactly as it was or would you address all the thingsthat kind of annoyed you about it? *Would you build it to the standards and with the element that were the rage back when it was originally built or would you improve upon it and moderninze it? *




Actually, I know of several homes here that were burned to the ground totally. Yet identical replacements went up in their place. And it was the homeowners' choice. One of those homes was a very expensive home.

And to be honest, I would rather have a large open air plaza as a centerpoint of a large complex, rather than have a set of new office structures "fronting the street" basically. I find that to be annoying. A large office tower or complex such as the World Trade Center requires a large plaza of some sort. Just having them front the street like the Empire State Building or the other buildings in lower Manhattan would be foolish.

Remember, the entire site in which the original was built was in a severe state of urban decay. *That's why the superblock was built.

Long before the attacks of 9/11, I had made plans to visit NYC, and my first destination wasn't the Empire State Building. It was the World Trade Center.

dbhstockton
February 27th, 2003, 04:45 PM
So you're a tourist telling us how we should rebuild lower Manhattan?

Agglomeration
February 27th, 2003, 05:07 PM
Folks, he's only stating his opinion. And so is everyone else. I know none of us agree fully on what should go on those 16 acres, but please everyone, don't turn this into a hate-spewing contest. Save the insults for the pandering LMDC, they're the ones behind this perverted rebuilding process.

My main opinions is this: I want the Twin Towers back to their 110-floor height, and if they don't turn out to be exact copies of Yamasaki's, that's OK. At the same time, let's make improvements that will make the new WTC complex (including the new Twin Towers) much better than the originals in form, structure, use, transportation, and symbolism. We should revitalize what worked for New York in the past, yet improve on it and make it better in the future.

(Edited by Agglomeration at 4:08 pm on Feb. 27, 2003)

NYatKNIGHT
February 27th, 2003, 05:13 PM
Quote: from StevenRosenow on 3:35 pm on Feb. 27, 2003
Remember, the entire site in which the original was built was in a severe state of urban decay. *That's why the superblock was built.Not really at all true. In the 1960s it was the largest concentration of radio and electronic parts and equipment stores anywhere in the world. The area was called Radio Row. Greenwich, Vesey, Fulton, West Broadway and Cortlandt Streets were familiar to all active radio amateurs. To make room for the World Trade Center, large blocks of buildings had to be razed - including all of Radio Row.

Originally the WTC was to be built near South Street Seaport. I'm glad that neighborhood isn't a giant lifeless superblock. Radio Row may have been a little run down but at least it was a neighborhood, and it could have improved over time like Soho or the Lower East Side. The superblock permanently kept that from happening. That is why planners insisted on reintroducing the street grid, and reintroduce some life, day and night, back into the area.


Radio Row (Cortland Street)

http://commemoratewtc.com/history/images/cortlandt.jpg

TonyO
February 27th, 2003, 05:15 PM
Courage to rebuild - its that simple. *Some never liked the towers design in the first place, and that's fine...but just say so. *Don't hide behind fear and opportunism.

DougGold
February 27th, 2003, 05:18 PM
Agg, thanks for being a voice of reason. I have to say that the reason I want the Twin Towers back has nothing to do with the argument about the super-block. Yes, the super-block turned out to be a dreadful idea, because it didn't allow for any street-level retailer locations. Not that I think that's all so important--the indoor mall areas I'd heard did great business.
No, the reason I want the towers back (with a different street plan) was because of their iconic nature. They said "downtown new york is the business capital of the world. Period." They were statements like the Pyramids or Obelisks, or not to be silly but like the monoliths in "2001." Their size and simplicity alone had such presence that even taller buildings didn't seem as imposing.
I want that kind of presence back in New York. What emotion will Libeskind's proposal add to the skyline? Will downtown's skyline be known as the pile of pointy buildings and a stick? That's not the NYC i want to see every day.

Fabb
February 27th, 2003, 05:25 PM
It has to be improved.
I'm sure very tall twin towers can easily be inluded in Libeskind's plan.

NYatKNIGHT
February 27th, 2003, 05:37 PM
I agree Doug. I want that kind of presence back in New York too. They were definitely iconic and made a bold statement. I don't think Libeskind's plans as we see them have the same punch as the former towers and would like to see them make significant changes.

You may not think the Libeskind plan is as good as the twin towers, but deriding them as simply a pile of pointy towers and a stick just shows your dissatisfaction for not getting what you want. It may need work, but this tower plan if it were anywhere else has the potential to be incredible.

Don't worry yet, there's still plenty of changes to be made in these plans.

JMGarcia
February 27th, 2003, 06:01 PM
Acting petulant will put you in the same category (namely those that the LMDC ignores) as those calling for low-income housing and other absurdities.

The Libeskind plan certainly allows for very tall towers and as one of the towers is actually attached to the 1776ft signature tower, it even encourages it. Its not like you'd be asking for a tower taller than one that was already there. :)

CaptAmerica
February 27th, 2003, 07:08 PM
Very disappointed with the selected plan!!
I live in Fla and have only visited NY twice. *However that skyline & the WTC left an indelible memory and I was very proud that city was in our country. *Although still a great city, the selected WTC plan doesn’t keep NY’s dominance and grandeur like before. *A thin, delicate looking “airy spire” just isn’t as magnificent as they should have built. * Maybe NYC isn’t ready for another world-class skyscraper, which is understandable. *Plus the new plan almost seems a bit morbid for the amount the site is dedicated to memorials. *
I believe you’re missing a big element in this – the cost. *That design was cheaper.
Very disappointed.

Anonymous
February 27th, 2003, 09:22 PM
Once again some of you present even more stereotypes to not having back the Twins. *Saying that it isolated BPC doesn't really mean that. *People have their own definations of what forms isolation and a superblock is only one of them. *Also, just b/c it blocks off a number of roads doesn't isolate it. *Another is saying that building exact replicas would deny the event. *TAKE THAT BACK! *Amercia has rebuilt entire cities in the past that had faced both man-made and natural disasters and never thought that rebuilding them would deny what they faced. *So rebuilding the Twins isn't make us forget about 9/11. *I say why remember that the Twins that stood there when you can actually bring back what stood there, though this is my opinion. *I used to always go to the Twins and ever since I saw them going down I wanted them to go back up again.

NyC MaNiAc
February 27th, 2003, 09:46 PM
Well said, TalB. Although I know asking for our 110 story, exact copy of the original twins is asking to much, The libeskind design right now is not for me. If he were to make twin towers though, I'd be more than happy with the plan. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nothing will look right unless it's a twin.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I want towers...they dont have to be exact replicas...But I want 2 massive buildings standing side by side...and I know we deserve nothing less...
*|
| *| | *|
| *| | *|
| *| | *|


(Edited by NyC MaNiAc at 8:48 pm on Feb. 27, 2003)

Anonymous
February 27th, 2003, 09:53 PM
I'm only for preserving the exterior, but anything can be done with their interiors and maybe make them even taller than before.

MidnightRambler
February 28th, 2003, 12:25 AM
Quote: from TalB on 8:22 pm on Feb. 27, 2003
Amercia has rebuilt entire cities in the past that had faced both man-made and natural disasters and never thought that rebuilding them would deny what they faced.

Yes, that's true. *But they weren't rebuilt to look the same. Chicago before the fire was a bunch of small wooden buildings on a swamp. *The destruction of the old city allowed them to rebuild and improve - specifically, by building skyscrapers. *If they had rebuilt the city the way it had been, what would have been the point?

ZippyTheChimp
February 28th, 2003, 12:30 AM
You walked right into that one, Tal.

Anonymous
February 28th, 2003, 11:40 AM
Yes, that's true. *But they weren't rebuilt to look the same. Chicago before the fire was a bunch of small wooden buildings on a swamp. *The destruction of the old city allowed them to rebuild and improve - specifically, by building skyscrapers. *If they had rebuilt the city the way it had been, what would have been the point?
[/quote]
However, this does answer that they were modified with what could resist the disasters in the future. *In relation to rebuilding the Twins, they should be modified better to withstand a plane that would crash into them on purpose b/c in the past nobody ever assumed that. *Most people who want back the Twins actually want it with better saftey modifications than what it had before hence a more updated building code and still have the same exterior and at least the same height. *It is actually cheaper to reconstruct it exactly the same than it is to change it. *The only reason why Chicago rebuilt itself with skyscrapers after the firestorm was b/c the smaller buildings were found to be less safer and more prone to disasters whereas a building of greater height contians more resistance. *Therefore, cities may not have been rebuilt exactly the same, but they were definately better modified.

dbhstockton
February 28th, 2003, 12:01 PM
One example of rebuilding an exact replica is the Campanile in Venice. *I think it collapsed in an earthquake around the turn of the nineteenth century and they rebuilt it exactly as it was. *I still don't think we should follow that example.

Fabb
February 28th, 2003, 12:05 PM
Are you sure it was destroyed by an earthquake ?

(Edited by Fabb at 11:06 am on Feb. 28, 2003)

TonyO
February 28th, 2003, 12:09 PM
I think you did see somewhat of a rally behind a particular plan from a portion of the rebuilders. *Foster's plan was by far the CLOSEST to the twin towers - real buildings, real tall, with improvements.

They clearly won. *And what happened? *They tell us that the skeletons were the one of two finalists.

Now they give us the Libeskind proposal. *While I admire his enthusiasm, he is misguided. *The slurry walls were nothing extraordinary. *He makes them out to be the Pyramid of Khufu.

The twin towers really should be rebuilt in some fashion. *I know people are starting to see the common sense in this. *Its really the best choice. *The one sitting right there in front of all our faces - except the LMDC.

ZippyTheChimp
February 28th, 2003, 12:29 PM
TalB:

Have you considered that rebuilding the WTC (even with safety improvements) would miss an opportunity to advance architecture throughout the city.

Maybe you should think outside the 16 acre box.

TonyO
February 28th, 2003, 12:33 PM
Zippy,

I see what you are saying, but I think rebuilding twin towers is the perfect opportunity to update both their safety and design.

While I won't speak for Tal, I think that the majority of people who favor rebuilding twin towers would go for buildings that are as tall or taller that have a new look.

Skidmore Owens & Merrill re-designed 7 WTC and I think new Twin Towers with this design would be incredible.

Kris
February 28th, 2003, 12:41 PM
Incredibly dull.

ZippyTheChimp
February 28th, 2003, 12:51 PM
tony:

All I'll say about 7WTC is that I'm disappointed.

I'm ok with twin towers. What I object to is the twin towers and all that goes with it. The Libeskind site plan has been chosen, and we need to move on. At this point, I would like to see the PA do what it does best - transportation infrastructure.

If the site is developed correctly, it will help create demand for office space.

Fabb
February 28th, 2003, 12:52 PM
Seriously, what's so great about exact twins ?
It's a miracle Yamasaki's functionned. (Maybe the huge antenna helped a little).

I'd be happy with two different tall towers that would have some similarities.

Kris
February 28th, 2003, 12:55 PM
I think their twinness had an eery power.

ZippyTheChimp
February 28th, 2003, 01:04 PM
I must admit it was strange to be on the roof of 2WTC and see the roof of 1WTC floating just 200 feet away.

dbhstockton
February 28th, 2003, 02:02 PM
That was cool. *I'm glad they have a restaurant in the works. *I don't see an open-air observatory, though, which is dissapointing. *Maybe the cladding of the spire opens up at a certain point. *But it doesn't look that way.

MidnightRambler
February 28th, 2003, 03:37 PM
Who would want to work in a rebuilt twin towers?

NYatKNIGHT
February 28th, 2003, 03:39 PM
Now THAT would be eerie.

Anonymous
February 28th, 2003, 04:40 PM
I know where some of you are going here. *It's time to play devil's advocate on these views. *For Midnight Rambler, it might be true that nobody would want to work in the Twins but that's saying if it you were thinking short term here. *Myself or anybody else who wants back the Twins, though this is really me saying it, knows that the Twins will not fill up overnight if rebuilt nor is that being expected b/c the originals didn't fill up overnight either plus even the ESB took a while to fill up as well and was known as the "Empty State Bldg" for 20 years after being completed. *For Fabb, 1 WTC was given the OCEA award in 1971, which is an award that is NOT given to just any skyscraper especially if it was poorly engineered and/or didn't meet any fire codes. *Also, on 9/11 it was found that the Twins were able to perform better than they were expected to by the FEMA report. *To Zippy, building codes in existing skyscrapers can actually be updated/modified to which it has been done for 30-50 years so this is not something new. *If this didn't exist then older building would have to be demolished/replaced rather than just simply being renovated from the inside. *Also, the modification that possibly a lot of people including myself suggest is what was mentioned by FEMA itself. *It's like when you make a mistake you would have to change everything rather than just simply correct the parts that are wrong. *I rest my case.

ZippyTheChimp
February 28th, 2003, 04:48 PM
You completely missed my point. I was referring to architecture, not building codes.

NYatKNIGHT
February 28th, 2003, 04:51 PM
But please TalB - rest your case like you promised.

(Edited by NYatKNIGHT at 3:53 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)

Fabb
February 28th, 2003, 05:07 PM
Quote: from TalB on 3:40 pm on Feb. 28, 2003

*For Fabb, 1 WTC was given the OCEA award in 1971, which is an award that is NOT given to just any skyscraper especially if it was poorly engineered and/or didn't meet any fire codes.


Thanks.
But you don't have to try hard and convince me. I was a big fan of the twin towers.

Did I say miracle ?

TonyO
February 28th, 2003, 05:43 PM
"who would want to work in tall buildings" - this is a common argument. *In 10 years time, noone will remember anyone saying or thinking this. *That is when any new buildings would probably near completion. *Think to the future. *

(Edited by tonyo at 4:43 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)


(Edited by tonyo at 4:44 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)

JMGarcia
February 28th, 2003, 05:52 PM
The question is not "who will work in tall buildings" but rather "what corporate mid-manager would sign a lease in tall buildings when its so much easier to cover you ass by renting lower".

TonyO
February 28th, 2003, 06:19 PM
I urge you to read the NYTimes article recently about the lowt vacancy rates at the Empire State Building as well as other signature buildings.

Again, in 10 years, noone will have to "cover their ass" about renting in a tall building. *Its just human nature to move on. *Especially tenants who want prime office space in signature buildings. *That is what sold offices in the original Twin Towers - their premier location. *Think that couldn't happen again? *Think again.

Anonymous
February 28th, 2003, 06:28 PM
Quote: from Fabb on 4:07 pm on Feb. 28, 2003

Quote: from TalB on 3:40 pm on Feb. 28, 2003

*For Fabb, 1 WTC was given the OCEA award in 1971, which is an award that is NOT given to just any skyscraper especially if it was poorly engineered and/or didn't meet any fire codes.


Thanks.
But you don't have to try hard and convince me. I was a big fan of the twin towers.

Did I say miracle ?

If you liked them so much then wouldn't you want them back?

chris
February 28th, 2003, 07:45 PM
That is what sold offices in the original Twin Towers - their premier location. *Think that couldn't happen again? Think again.

What filled office space in the original twin towers was government subsidy. Remove the tenents from over 50 floor rented for government offices and the building would have been losing money hand over fist. As it stood, it was only marginally breaking even. That's why Silverstein was brought in in the first place. He convinced them he could make a profit with it and was willing to remove the finacial risk away from the PA to himself. Mind you, if it had been a private developer that built them, and couldn't have relied as heavily on the government to bail them out, the twin towers would have never made one penny and would have likely been the largest financial loss in New York real estate history.

With that said, I loved the towers, enough that my wife and I were married at Windows on the World. I'm not a twin tower basher, wasn't when they were still standing, and I'm not now that they're gone, but don't try to look at the past with rose colored glasses. Those buildings did wonders for New York's skyline and world stature, etc. but they were a loss making money pit that never saw a day of true profitability from day one.

There are many arguements you can make subjectively, but objectively, you simply cannot argue that they should be built back because they will be so profitable.


(Edited by chris at 6:57 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)

TomAuch
February 28th, 2003, 07:58 PM
That's not entirely ture. On 9/11/01, the towers were 97% occupied, and since the '93 bombing, partly thanks to PA improvements of the WTC infarstructure and the tech bubble, the towers became cash cows. Why do you think so many developers jockyed for control of the site?

TonyO
February 28th, 2003, 08:54 PM
Chris, you are way off. *I don't know where you read such things, but the twins were making the PA a LOT of money. *Why do you think they want all that office space back? *So they can lose money again?

The "above 50 stories" thing is rubbish. *The top floors did cost more obviously, but these wives tales about the twin towers are getting out of hand.

As someone said, they were almost fully rented when they were destroyed. *If I remember correctly, they were raking in 100+ Million a year. *You think Larry Silverstein was there to take on someone elses loss? *Hardly.

Agglomeration
February 28th, 2003, 11:20 PM
The Original WTC simply had the misfortune to be built at the wrong time, namely the 70's. But the Twins began to show their full potential when the economy recovered in the 80's. The same happened with the ESB and the Chrysler during the 1930's.

MidnightRambler
March 1st, 2003, 12:42 AM
Quote: from tonyo on 4:43 pm on Feb. 28, 2003
"who would want to work in tall buildings" - this is a common argument. *In 10 years time, noone will remember anyone saying or thinking this. *That is when any new buildings would probably near completion. *Think to the future.


That wasn't my argument. *My argument was: who would want to work in a replica of the twin towers? *You have to take in to account that most people would find that way too creepy. *You can argu all you want, but common sense dictates you won't have folks lining up for a job in 1 & 2 World Trade Center.

Besides, as much as I loved the twin towers, they were awful, ugly buildings. *Their attractiveness now is due to nostalgia for the period of American innocence, or more precisely, ignorance, before 9/11, that in some ways the twin towers represented.

TonyO
March 1st, 2003, 12:54 AM
Again, think to the future. *Whether you think people will be repulsed/afraid/ticklish they just won't care in a decade. *People have short memories. *Otherwise we would all hide in our closets.

Example: look at New York crime. *11 years ago, remember what it was like here? *2000 murders/year. *Its quite different now. *In fact, I bet people walking through parts of town not thinking twice wouldn't be crazy enough to do so back in the early 90's.

"Besides, as much as I loved the twin towers, they were awful, ugly buildings. *Their attractiveness now is due to nostalgia for the period of American innocence, or more precisely, ignorance, before 9/11, that in some ways the twin towers represented. "

So your idea of rebuilding should be self-abasement? *Your "love" for the towers is a little off by my definition. *It seems that is your real gripe - the symbolism that the terrorists hated. *Smells like fear.

Myself personally, I didn't drool over their design. *But most buildings have mediocre designs anyway. *What I loved, as did our terrorist friends, is their effect as a whole. *They defined the skyline. *They were NYC.

StevenRosenow
March 1st, 2003, 01:58 AM
Who would want to work in a rebuilt twin towers?

Uhm. How's about the hundreds of people who held offices in them that survived? How's about the firms like Jonathan Hakala who've committed themselves to working in them again?

I know that if I had worked there, and they were rebuilt, I'd work in them again. To not work in rebuilt Twin Towers is to live in fear. And to live in fear is to live no life at all.

MidnightRambler
March 1st, 2003, 03:21 AM
First off, please don't call me afraid. *You don't know me, and I don't know you.


They were NYC.


No they weren't. *Most New Yorkers will agree that the WTC was not the defining feature of their city. *A lot of people hated them. *Whether you think they're being fearful or not, most people wouldn't want to work in an exact replica of a place where three thousand people lost their lives. *It's morbid. *It would be like sailing off into a field of icebergs on the Titanic II. *Of course nothing's going to happen, but you can't change human nature, an essential component of which is fear.

Anyway, this argument is ridiculous.

Zak
March 1st, 2003, 04:28 AM
I would gladly work on the 100th floor.

Who's with me?

StevenRosenow
March 1st, 2003, 04:56 AM
Quote: from Zak on 3:28 am on Mar. 1, 2003
I would gladly work on the 100th floor.

Who's with me?

I AM!!

StevenRosenow
March 1st, 2003, 05:00 AM
Quote: from MidnightRambler on 2:21 am on Mar. 1, 2003
First off, please don't call me afraid. *You don't know me, and I don't know you.


They were NYC.


It would be like sailing off into a field of icebergs on the Titanic II. *Of course nothing's going to happen, but you can't change human nature, an essential component of which is fear.




That arguement holds as much water as a pasta colander.

People kept sailing on the Olympic - Titanic's Sister Ship - after the Titanic sank. And the Olympic was nearly identical to the Titanic save for minor aesthetics. So don't say that people won't hold office or work in a replica or likeness of the World Trade Center's towers.

ZippyTheChimp
March 1st, 2003, 10:31 AM
There are already roadblocks in place against building tall.
Why should we add another one by building replicas?

Steven: I don't know how much experience you have had with the WTC, but after living across the street from it for 19 years, I can tell you the site plan was a failure.

To continue the ship analogy: "The SS Rebuild the Twin Towers has sailed."

Anonymous
March 1st, 2003, 11:41 AM
Quote: from Zak on 3:28 am on Mar. 1, 2003
I would gladly work on the 100th floor.

Who's with me?

I too would want to work there but I would rather be all the way on the top at the 110th floor!

TonyO
March 1st, 2003, 12:05 PM
There are no roadblocks to building tall...only people's fear and misconceptions about it. *And time.

Explain how it is morbid to rebuild? *To the contrary, it is courageous to rebuild! *Morbid. *Really that is the most defeatist thing to claim. *Maybe the families would agree with you, but there are 8million in the city, with 20 million in the area that have much different opinions it appears.

I didn't call you afraid, your claims just come off as fearful. *They are still contemporary due to the events of 911 but in a few years the winds will move away from the arguments using scare tactics.

ZippyTheChimp
March 1st, 2003, 12:27 PM
tonyo:

The debate is about rebuilding the twin towers, not about rebuilding. Most on this forum want to rebuild.

The mega-memorialists and the twin-tower-rebuilders are the two extremes in this debate, but the central argument is the same. If you are anywhere in the middle of these two points of view, you are either morally bankrupt or a coward.

(Edited by ZippyTheChimp at 11:28 am on Mar. 1, 2003)

Bennie B
March 1st, 2003, 12:49 PM
Quote: from Zak on 3:28 am on Mar. 1, 2003
I would gladly work on the 100th floor.

Who's with me?

I am, big time, but only if the corners are square, the walls are straight, and the roof is flat or faceted. *No slanty angles and no ding-dong Hong Kong tipped cubes.

Izeklah
March 1st, 2003, 01:08 PM
Quote: from Zak on 3:28 am on Mar. 1, 2003
I would gladly work on the 100th floor.

Who's with me?


Sorry, but I'd rather work on the top floor!

TonyO
March 1st, 2003, 02:29 PM
Quote: from ZippyTheChimp on 11:27 am on Mar. 1, 2003
tonyo:

The debate is about rebuilding the twin towers, not about rebuilding. Most on this forum want to rebuild.

The mega-memorialists and the twin-tower-rebuilders are the two extremes in this debate, but the central argument is the same. If you are anywhere in the middle of these two points of view, you are either morally bankrupt or a coward.

(Edited by ZippyTheChimp at 11:28 am on Mar. 1, 2003)


Zippy, to the contrary, I don't think that people who want some version of the twin towers there are on the fringe.

Look at the only real knowledge we have of people's opinions:
1) Javits LTTC: skyline restored
2) most popular of 1st 6 proposals: a design that had "twin" poles on the top of "twin" buildings.
3) Online LTTC: rebuild our skyline, the polls there were even more clear, people thought rebuilding twin towers should be an option.
4) The next set of plans, the most popular? *Foster's Twinned Towers.
5)Choice between the two: "neither" was the most popular choice on any poll that had the choice. *After that? *The THINK plan. *Why? *Because it had twin towers.

So when you call the people who want twin towers back a fringe, I have to disagree with you. *The truth is, is that there has not been any poll that really has even ASKED whether people want the twin towers back. *The LMDC would NEVER ask such a question because they are afraid of the answer: yes.

dbhstockton
March 1st, 2003, 03:21 PM
You dig up the architects, engineers, developers, and public officials who are willing to stake their time, energy, and reputation on resurecting the twin towers, and we might take your cause more seriously. *There just isn't the will amung any of the people who would actually have to realize your vision, and you're going to have to face that sooner or later. *

As for Foster's "twinned" towers, I think it was popular on its own merits, not simply because its "twin" theme.

And if the THINK scheme was popular largely because it was familiar, then it illustrates a dramatic lack of vision amung the segment of the population that honestly feels that way. * Sorry.

Bennie B
March 1st, 2003, 03:52 PM
dbhstockton, "architects, engineers, developers, and public officials" would put PeeWee's playhouse down there if they thought people wanted it. *Politicians need votes, developers need tenants, architects need prizes and they all want their picture on the front page of the NYT. *If we the people speak, eventually, they'll hear.

dbhstockton
March 1st, 2003, 04:10 PM
If it were only that simple. *How long have you been following this forum? *It's the best single resource I've found that shows just how complicated it is to get anything done in NYC.

Bennie B
March 1st, 2003, 04:31 PM
DBH, at first nobody wanted anything on the site, remember? *Then nobody wanted tall towers, then nothing over 60 stories, then nothing substantial over that, then the world's highest doohickey as long as it was full of plants. *They changed the program each time. *Well, eventually they'll get the message that what we want are Twin Towers, bigger and better, and not PeeWee's playhouse.

TAFisher123
March 1st, 2003, 05:48 PM
whoa!!! where did all these new faces come from....all with the same idea that the wtc needs to be rebuilt (have you migrated from a different forum???)....when the towers collapsed I thought its goijng to take years before those building are rebuilt, at the time it never occurred that they would never be rebuilt....but reality set in and i accepted that something new will be built instead....this arguement is really ridiculous....the process will continue with or without you........i can see making the arguement for a taller skyline but saying the twins must be rebuilt shows you have not come to terms with reality

NyC MaNiAc
March 1st, 2003, 06:16 PM
TAfisher123, I think the argument is fine. Yes, asking for rebuilt twins, identical to those made in the 70's, is really pushing it. Yet, many people are asking for rebuilt Twin Towers that could be put into Libeskind's plan. I think lots of people, including myself, are hooked on the Idea of having Twin Towers at that site.

Thats not asking too much. Just Twin Towers (as in 2 buildings of the same height, and maybe a spire on one to get the Twin Tower feel) with a different facade, look, shape, whatever, from what was orignally there.

Just instead of *6 medium height buildings and the spire, we want 2 Huge buildings with a spire on one of em'. Just my opinion. Twin Tower fans, correct me if I'm wrong.

Bennie B
March 1st, 2003, 06:30 PM
TAFischer, like it or not, money talks (or, to put it more politely, we live in a democracy), and if the public wants Twin Towers and not a playhouse, they're going to get it, no matter how hard the NYT and Bloomberg shove PeeWee down our throats.

NyC MaNiAc
March 1st, 2003, 06:48 PM
Amen, Bennie B, Amen. :)

dbhstockton
March 1st, 2003, 07:02 PM
I've had enough of this thread. *who's with me?

ZippyTheChimp
March 1st, 2003, 07:09 PM
I'm with you Stockton.

This is like Don Quixote - without the charm of windmills.

I was at the other forum (what a mess), and you folks were asked to behave when you came over here. This forum has a much broader scope than whether the WTC should (or should not) be rebuilt.

You can post what you want, but it's becoming preachy and
spam-like.

Anonymous
March 1st, 2003, 07:30 PM
Quote: from dbhstockton on 6:02 pm on Mar. 1, 2003
I've had enough of this thread. *who's with me?

Then don't post on this thread, but if others want to then let them.

Izeklah
March 1st, 2003, 07:53 PM
Quote: from TalB on 6:30 pm on Mar. 1, 2003
Then don't post on this thread, but if others want to then let them.

But what if the thread IS becoming annoying? I'm as pro-towers as they come, but I'm also starting to realize that our groups' postings on this forum.... Could have been done in a less invasive way, as it is only giving the pro-twins group a bad name.

(Edited by Izeklah at 6:53 pm on Mar. 1, 2003)

amigo32
March 1st, 2003, 11:15 PM
I think that you summed it up, Izeklah.

TomAuch
March 1st, 2003, 11:28 PM
The views of Duplicationists (or replica tower supporters) are only one of many. But the majorty of the public does want tower(s) as tall or taller. And just because people want new Twin Towers, doesn't mean they'll be based on Yamasaki's design.

If Duplicationists chose to be their own group, they would be a fringe, but by cooperating with other Pro-Rebuilders, they are part of a meanstream group.

TonyO
March 2nd, 2003, 02:05 AM
Yes, as soon as you realize you have no real good arguments other than your fear, you want to drop the thread. *Real insightful and decisive.

In every forum and poll I mentioned, the direct call for and indirect spirit of rebuilding the twin towers was encouraged.

It really doesn't matter if a few of you stalwarts minds are set for Libeskind's misguided pit. *Something great has to be built there, tall that is.

amigo32
March 2nd, 2003, 02:33 AM
I pretty much hated Libeskind's plan, BUT the final decision has been made!! * END OF STORY.
*I am perfectly happy and content to embrace and accept it (with its flaws), and move on. *Whatever plan that comes out of this process will be fine tuned down to a very acceptable design. By allowing yourself to get stuck on a single ideology that is impracticle, and nonworkable from a political point of view is harmful, and dare I say ludicrous. *You can beat on a dead horse as long as you desire, but that won't reanimate that horse back into a living state.


(Edited by amigo32 at 3:17 am on Mar. 2, 2003)

ZippyTheChimp
March 2nd, 2003, 02:50 AM
Quote: from tonyo on 1:05 am on Mar. 2, 2003
Yes, as soon as you realize you have no real good arguments other than your fear, you want to drop the thread. *Real insightful and decisive.

In every forum and poll I mentioned, the direct call for and indirect spirit of rebuilding the twin towers was encouraged.

It really doesn't matter if a few of you stalwarts minds are set for Libeskind's misguided pit. *Something great has to be built there, tall that is.


Consider this:

Any movement will be in the minority compared to the general population, so the strategy should be to build a coalition.

Some of you people have come to an architecture forum, and managed to alienate its members.

Maybe it's time to examine your tactics and goals.

amigo32
March 2nd, 2003, 04:24 AM
Words of wisdom, Zippy.

Bennie B
March 2nd, 2003, 05:38 AM
Quote: from amigo32 on 1:33 am on Mar. 2, 2003
I pretty much hated Libeskind's plan, BUT the final decision has been made!! (Edited by amigo32 at 3:17 am on Mar. 2, 2003)

Au contraire amigo32. *The fat lady just got out of the shower.

NyC MaNiAc
March 2nd, 2003, 05:44 AM
Yup, Yup...we still got a lot of time until that fat lady sings...

So, hopefully, in the amount of time we have, modifications will be made so everyone will be happy...ahh, and with that comment, I can rest easy tonight...

amigo32
March 2nd, 2003, 05:59 AM
Did she get out of the shower? *I am not so sure.
Does it matter? * NO. *

TonyO
March 2nd, 2003, 12:35 PM
Consider this:

Any movement will be in the minority compared to the general population, so the strategy should be to build a coalition.

Some of you people have come to an architecture forum, and managed to alienate its members.

Maybe it's time to examine your tactics and goals.


I am not going to apologize for anything anyone says here. *This is an open forum. *Deal with it.

The coalition is not built. *I agree. * *On rebuilding twin towers some of us will obviously not agree.

But just understand this: before you claim to be in the majority, understand that the call for rebuilt twins has taken place in multiple forums. *The attempt to squelch this only makes these voices louder. *In the end, I think they will change this project beyond the scope you see today.

(Edited by tonyo at 11:41 am on Mar. 2, 2003)

ZippyTheChimp
March 2nd, 2003, 01:00 PM
This will be my last post on this thread:

I never claimed to be in the majority. What I said was that whatever a movement is (rebuild the WTC, organic farming, etc) will have the majority of the world apathetic at best.

Your misreading suggests to me that you see this as a competition. My group's bigger than your group. The more I post the same thing, the better.

JMGarcia
March 2nd, 2003, 01:26 PM
I am a strong supporter of tall towers being built on the site.

This is why it saddens me that the largest group supporting them....

1. Takes such an agressive, belligerent, uncompromising attitude that it alienates most people inlcuding most importantly the LMDC, the PA, Silverstein, Pataki, and Bloomber.

2. It has become a semi-cult with all sorts of unimportant minutae such as specific width, shape, site offset, floor areas, location etc.

I firmly believe, and results so far prove me correct, that you are going about this the completely wrong way. Your own inflexability is your worse enemy.

I have tried to point this out to you guys but to know avail. I sincerely hope you do not aggravate so many people in positions of power and supporters among public that you make getting any tall buildings built more difficult.

TonyO
March 2nd, 2003, 02:34 PM
Tactfulness is something the tall tower movement has lacked at times. *Its from frustration, but still there is no excuse for it.

On the other hand, you have to say what you think and not worry about offending people. *There are those here who simply WANT to be offended. *They pretend to be open minded but really they have their own agenda against those they claim to be insensitive or overbearing.

Those who oppose tall towers at the WTC site, in fact, are offended at the mere IDEA of rebuilding the buildings. *So, if you happen to have my point of view you are already an agitator.

To this I say, deal with it. *There is a reason that the mere idea of rebuilding those buildings is abhorrent to you. *Instead of trying to marginalize my view, take a look at why you need to cry foul at it.

JMGarcia
March 2nd, 2003, 02:59 PM
"On the other hand, you have to say what you think and not worry about offending people."

Say it by all means but there is no need to repeat it ad nauseum.

"There are those here who simply WANT to be offended. *They pretend to be open minded but really they have their own agenda against those they claim to be insensitive or overbearing. "

I am not in the least offended. I have no agenda and would fully support the towers being rebuilt if that decision had been made. Again, I am criticizing your tactics much more than your agenda.

"To this I say, deal with it. *There is a reason that the mere idea of rebuilding those buildings is abhorrent to you. *Instead of trying to marginalize my view, take a look at why you need to cry foul at it."

Rebuilding the towers is far from abhorrent to me. Stop being so fricking defensive. I am not trying to marginalize your view but you simply must change your tactics. You are turning more and more people against rebuilding tall towers at all, much less the twin towers themselves.

So, I'll try to be as clear as possible so you won't again misinterpret what I'm saying.

Your tactics suck. Change them.


(Edited by JMGarcia at 2:03 pm on Mar. 2, 2003)

chris
March 2nd, 2003, 02:59 PM
How the heck is this thread going on so long? I'm only posting to get off the notification replier.

TonyO
March 2nd, 2003, 03:18 PM
Quote:
Your tactics suck. Change them.


Wow. *Easy killer. *I wasn't directing anything at you personally. (ie. I wasn't talking to you specifically)

(Edited by tonyo at 2:20 pm on Mar. 2, 2003)

JMGarcia
March 2nd, 2003, 03:22 PM
Sorry if I misinterpreted a reply to a post of mine as you talking to me personally.

And I was not speficially targeting your either - I was using the plural "you".

Anonymous
March 2nd, 2003, 03:28 PM
Quote: from tonyo on 1:05 am on Mar. 2, 2003
Yes, as soon as you realize you have no real good arguments other than your fear, you want to drop the thread. *Real insightful and decisive.

In every forum and poll I mentioned, the direct call for and indirect spirit of rebuilding the twin towers was encouraged.

It really doesn't matter if a few of you stalwarts minds are set for Libeskind's misguided pit. *Something great has to be built there, tall that is.

That is very true. *The support for having back the same towers is actually the majority in most areas including the hearings as well as the official that I showed to Alexander Garvin that prooved that Libeskind's design was the most hated. *This now prooves that us Yamasaki-holics are actually the majority. *It's usually the case that anti-rebuilders, or cowards that I choose to call them, normally use stereotypes to say that they shouldn't be rebuilt. *On another forum I did a thread that contained all of the statements anti-rebuilders used on called it "Rebuilding Stereotypes" as if they were just excuses.

Agglomeration
March 2nd, 2003, 04:08 PM
Everyone on this board, please try to reach a consensus. This argument has to end now! I've had it up to here in this armed conflict. Do I have to be the next Secretary of State James Baker in order to bring peace to this forum?

OK we agree that there should be no 16-acre memorial, that most or all of the 10-11 million sq. ft. of office space should be restored on site, the building of Twin Towers (not necessarily Yamasaki's design) should remain a good possibility, and that a transportation hub should be built below ground just as it was alongside a memorial. And we all agree that NIMBY's of all types are evil.

Libeskind supporters and Yamasaki supporters like all of you need to stop arguing and insulting one another and quit pretending that your ideas and perceptions are inflexible. That goes for everyone who's posted on this board. No one's gonna agree on what's to be there, but pressing uncompromising ideas down people's throats is not the way to build support for rebuilding.

I have to lash out because I hate both sides of an uncompromising squabble. This is exactly what exterminated Ross Perot's Reform Party in 2000, which Patrick Buchanan made worse.

As for Libeskind, his designs suck obviously, but he's only an architect, and he put his heart and soul in what he made. His design for office towers is NOT the final word. Maybe we could encourage him to integrate Twin towers into his plan if we ask nicely. Let's save the insults for the mega-memorialists and for the likes of George Pataki, not against one another.

(Edited by Agglomeration at 3:13 pm on Mar. 2, 2003)

NyC MaNiAc
March 2nd, 2003, 04:15 PM
Very nicely said, Agglomeration. If we team up instead of fighting, we have a better chance of getting our Twin Towers, in whatever form, on that site.

And I think we'd all be happy with that.

Anonymous
March 2nd, 2003, 04:19 PM
Honestly having back the same towers would really make feel very happy. :(

JMGarcia
March 2nd, 2003, 04:51 PM
Here's my list of what I'd like to see on the site and its importance. I think you'll see that the responses to this from others will show why there will not be a concensus.

In no particular order.

1. Very Tall Tower(s) - We've got that in Libeskind.

2. 10-11 Million Sq. Ft. of Office Space- We've got that in Libeskind.

3. Twin Towers of Equal Height - Not important. I prefer more than two and could not particulary care if they were of exactly equal height as long as thay are all tall. I'd like to see some of Libeskinds towers go higher but we don't need a whole new plan for that.

4. Square tower(s) - I prefer not.

5. Flat topped tower(s) - I prefer not.

6. Large floorplates occupied 110 floors with offices - Nice to have but not a deal breaker in my opinion. Not against it but way down on my priority list.

7. 2 Towers offset at the angle of the old WTC - Could care less.

8. Observation deck - We've got that in Libeskind.

9. Better/Grander Transport Center than before - We've got that in Libeskind.

10. Large amount of retail space in doors- We've got that in Libeskind.

Can anyone reach consensus on that?

Anonymous
March 2nd, 2003, 05:51 PM
The ES/Chrysler Bldgs are in their 70's. *The Flatiron, Met Life Ins, and Park Row Bldg are in their 100's. *The Woolworth Bldg and 40 Wall St are in their 80's. *Despite their ages and being outdated they are still popular skyscrapers for Manhattan as well as NYC. *My way having back the Twins may have an outdated design but updated building code. *The interior is what should be replaced, but allow people to look at it from the outside as if they still existed. *Also, I don't want to read any posts following it saying that this would be an enigeering nightmare b/c it's not. *Finally, if any of the above buildings got destroyed then would you want them replaced with something much newer or rebuilt the same? *Maybe this can help you think about whether the Twins should be rebuilt the same or not.

NyC MaNiAc
March 2nd, 2003, 06:09 PM
To me Twin Towers of Equal Height are important. What's not important is if they look exactly the same as the old design.

"new" Twin Towers is what I would prefer the most.

Other than that, JMGarcia's list matches mine.

StevenRosenow
March 2nd, 2003, 06:57 PM
Here's what I would like to see go up.

I would like to see something very similar to what was there before, so that people like me - who were robbed of the chance to visit them - can see what it was like to see them. Up close, and in person. I want to know what it was like looking over 135 feet to the other tower, and looking up to its antenna. I wanna know what it was like looking up from the base of a 208x208 foot square tower, and I want to know what it was like being inside a lobby so massive. And I want to do that without having to resort to 3D models on the web or by looking at photographs which give no scale.

I would like to see a similar siteplan - although that won't probably happen (and it's a shame that "Neo-urbanism" has taken a strong foothold on the site). And I would like to see something there that has use, function, and a way to regenerate the 50,000 jobs lost.

I want to know what it was like walking on Austin Tobin Plaza, its size, and how large the sculptures were. I want to do all of this, yet not have to resort to photos on the web. They give no scale, and no idea as to the great size and scale that the WTC once had.

That's why I think it should be rebuilt to a close likeness of what was there before. The generations who never had a chance to see them before should have the chance to see something as great as the World Trade Center was.

Izeklah
March 2nd, 2003, 10:09 PM
All I'm intrested in is basically- Two offset Twin Towers of close to equal height, at least as tall as the old ones, with as similar of a facade and color as possible, and floor plates that are, if not as wide as the old ones, as wide as possible, for both safety and replication reasons. An observation deck would also be needed, and I would strongly prefer a WTB if possible. I have no preference for location, interior, structure, or surrounding area.

(Edited by Izeklah at 9:17 pm on Mar. 2, 2003)

The Brain
March 15th, 2003, 09:13 AM
To have our skyline changed based on an imposed unwanted horrific event as it was, will forever be a sign and dated reminder that lower manhattan went from our signiture image to our new face. Its my strong opinion that not to rebuild something strongly resembeling the original will forever be a flag of victory for our enemy. Not to say some opportunitys for improvements to the civic aspect and the practical use of some plaza areas cannot be reworked, but as a whole lower manhattan has had two teeth knocked out. Just put them back.

NoyokA
February 20th, 2004, 04:40 PM
NEWSDESK

18 Feb 2004 23:29:01 GMT
New York group proposes rebuilding WTC twin towers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Pedro Nicolaci da Costa

NEW YORK, Feb 18 (Reuters) - An advocacy group on Wednesday unveiled a design to rebuild the World Trade Center's twin towers in the image of the original skyscrapers, in an effort to overhaul official plans for the site.

"One might ask, isn't everything regarding the future of the World Trade Center site already cast in stone? The answer: No, not at all," Jonathan Hakala, spokesman for the advocacy group "Team Twin Towers," said at a news briefing.

"Team Twin Towers" said it is speaking on behalf of New Yorkers and Americans who want to see the towers rise again over lower Manhattan. The rebuilding of the site as it stood before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks would be the best way to restore the New York skyline, the group said.

Last year, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, announced plans to build at the former World Trade Center site a skyscraper dubbed the "Freedom Tower" and a memorial to the 2,749 victims of the attacks by Islamic militants.

More than 5,000 proposals were submitted to the design competition. "Team Twin Towers" was not able to complete its design before the competition closed.

"Team Twin Towers" is one of several groups pressuring government and development officials to alter the reconstruction plans.

Joanna Rose, spokeswoman for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which is coordinating reconstruction at the site, said the organization intended to go forward with its current plans.

Although another proposal has been selected, Ken Gardner, the designer working for "Team Twin Towers," was not discouraged about the prospects for his design.

"There will be a rallying cry" for the proposal, Gardner said.

Randy Warner, co-founder of "Team Twin Towers" said: "As long as we haven't started digging a hole in the ground, there's room for discussion."

Under the group's proposal, two towers would be erected 300 feet (91 meters) east of the original buildings' "footprints." The towers would resemble the original 110-story design on the outside, but the the interior structure would be revamped to make the skyscrapers sturdier and the windows larger.

A 500-foot-high (152-meter-high) mast on top of the North Tower would bring its total height to 1,888 feet (575 meters) making it the tallest building in the world, surpassing the 1,667-foot-high (508-meter-high) "Taipei 101" office block in Taiwan.

Official plans call for the "Freedom Tower" to reach 1,776 feet (541 meters).

Gulcrapek
February 20th, 2004, 06:35 PM
Hakala is a member here, no?

ZippyTheChimp
February 20th, 2004, 06:58 PM
John-I never met a sound bite I didn't like-Hakala?
Really?

The only thing this design accomplished is to discard the distinctive facade of the twin towers.

Gulcrapek
February 20th, 2004, 07:09 PM
Yes... basically all it does is places two huge, unremarkable boxes at a different location.

NoyokA
February 21st, 2004, 11:56 AM
Alex posted:

Look at this new plan for rebuilding the Twin Towers:

http://www.teamtwintowers.org/planindex.html

Also, did you know that the LMDC is required by law to consider rebuilding the Twin Towers in some form? They hid that option at the bottom of the DGEIS, so that we shall not see that they have no good reasons at all for preferring the Libeskind scheme.

Check out their document. Go to:

http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/environmental_impact_contents.asp

Click on “Chapter 23 – Alternatives”

And scroll down to “23.4 Restoration Alternative” commencing at the bottom of page 11.

NoyokA
February 21st, 2004, 11:57 AM
Its a well executed proposal, probably the best I have seen thus far. Its chances of being built however is ziltch.

Chris2005
February 21st, 2004, 12:10 PM
So how come they're not even considering to rebuild the towers then? To me this would mean that they can't build this disgusting freedom tower...am i right??

ZippyTheChimp
February 21st, 2004, 12:16 PM
The restore option is almost always included in an EIS, as is a do-nothing option. The restore option is used as a baseline to measure the project. As such, the TTT proposal is not valid as the restore option.

In my opinion, this design is just self gratification by TTT, a stubborn attempt to gain a historical footnote in rebuilding. It is inferior to the original WTC in building placement, it's ugly, and stands no chance of being built.

If TTT wanted to do something useful, they could have come up with a resonable alternative to the current plan, instead of stubbornly holding to their roots.

dbhstockton
February 21st, 2004, 12:18 PM
Yamasaki's turning in his grave. The way they quote so superficially, missing the delicate Venetian/Rennaissance spirit of his design, is illustrative of the shallow bone-headed chauvanism of their thinking.

Chris2005
February 21st, 2004, 12:25 PM
Being that they're required by law to rebuild the Twin Towers stills raises my question about why they're considering to build the freedom tower. Unless the freedom tower actually is a form of the Twin Towers which in my opinion, doesn't come close. Am i right about that?

ZippyTheChimp
February 21st, 2004, 12:33 PM
Being that they're required by law to rebuild the Twin Tow
That statement is incorrect. They are required to consider the original WTC as the "restore option." on the EIS. It doesnt mean they are required to build it.

If you look at other EIS documents (such as the Fulton Transit Terminal), you will find an option to "do nothing."

Chris2005
February 21st, 2004, 01:09 PM
Being that they're required by law to rebuild the Twin Tow
That statement is incorrect. They are required to consider the original WTC as the "restore option." on the EIS. It doesnt mean they are required to build it.

If you look at other EIS documents (such as the Fulton Transit Terminal), you will find an option to "do nothing."

So are you implying that the only thing they're required to do is to officially decide on one of the options?

ZippyTheChimp
February 21st, 2004, 01:36 PM
I'm not implying anything. It is all very specific in chapter 23. Did you read it?

Kris
March 11th, 2004, 09:21 AM
Team Designing and Promoting New Design For World Trade Center

March 10, 2004

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/images/040310teamtwin1.jpg
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/images/040310teamtwin2.jpg

A team of activists and designers called “Team Twin Towers” recently unveiled a design for the World Trade Center that is an almost exact replica of the original Twin Towers.

The team, led by journalist Randi Warner, with a design by engineer Ken Gardner and architect Herbert Belton, is lobbying aggressively for its design, called the “Plan of the People.” The idea consists of two towers whose sleek, rectangular designs are purposeful reminders of the originals. In fact one of the designers, Belton, worked on the Twin Towers' original construction drawings for New York firm Emory Roth and Sons. The towers will be two stories taller than the Twin Towers, and the north tower is designed with a 500-foot-high mast to make it the tallest building in the world.

While similar in form to the Twin Towers, the new design, the team says, is built to be much safer. It has a steel skin built in two layers – a tube within a tube- that has much heavier columns and much greater, and redundant, structural support. The design also calls for larger windows for comfort and much improved fireproofing over the original. Other elements include two twelve-story memorials made of the original steel skin (with replicated steel), access to bedrock, and a list of victims’ names etched in granite.

The tower design, the team says, is a much more effective symbol of fortitude and hope than anything in the works right now.

“It stands for resolve, it stands for strength, it stands for renewal,” says Gardner. “To see the towers return would have an inspirational impact on the population. It's a living memorial, and I think it's more powerful than pretending 9/11 never happened.”

Does the team think their plan will actually take shape? “I think it’s pretty good chance. We know that in all polls the majority of people favor this,” says Gardner, who points to teams of people working on financing, engineering, and publicity for the project. Gardner adds that if Larry Silverstein loses his insurance case in court he will not have enough money to carry off his plans, making his team’s plan more realistic.

“This will be easier to do because you’ll have more people willing to contribute,” Gardner adds. The team is now shopping a presentation of their plan to corporations for possible funding. For more information visit www.teamtwintowers.org .

Sam Lubell

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/wtc/archives/040310teamtwin.asp

MonCapitan2002
March 12th, 2004, 03:10 AM
I hope the Libeskind monstrosity falls apart so it can make room for this proposal.

ZippyTheChimp
March 12th, 2004, 07:54 AM
All the creativity that went into this effort, it's simply amazing.

:roll:

NYatKNIGHT
March 12th, 2004, 11:15 AM
......the north tower is designed with a 500-foot-high mast to make it the tallest building in the world.
How often have we heard that the Freedom Tower "cheats"?

BPC
March 12th, 2004, 11:30 AM
All the creativity that went into this effort, it's simply amazing.

:roll:

Still, it looks good to see them in the sky again, even if only in clay models.

dbhstockton
March 12th, 2004, 02:07 PM
Why don't they just build it in Las vegas where it belongs?

BPC
March 12th, 2004, 02:32 PM
Why don't they just build it in Las vegas where it belongs?

If we put this in Vegas, then where would we put the ersatz Childs/Libeskind skyscraper, with its ridiculous design of open air windmills and such? I would propose Epcott Center.

TonyO
March 12th, 2004, 05:29 PM
Whoever conceived of "NY, NY" in Vegas had the foresight to not put the Twin Towers in it.

OKoranjes
March 13th, 2004, 06:45 AM
What's ridiculous is the idea of rebuilding the WTC as it originally was. Why try to redo a bad plan to begin with. Also, windmills etc are very good things. They make it so that buildings, which already account for over 60% of the world's pollution, don't wreak so much havoc on the environment. Hope this helps.

Zzed
March 13th, 2004, 09:20 AM
when the idea of a rebuild was first discussed it seemed to me to be an understandably backward step away from reality. now i'm not so sure. all the proposals including the "approved" Freedom Tower don't hack it. with new cladding and a little more roof height, this looks like it could be the real response. i was impressed with the restoration work done at the Pentagon, morphing the Towers into a stronger form is powerful. i like it.

ZippyTheChimp
March 13th, 2004, 10:11 AM
The TTT renderings do not show an overhead site plan, in my opinion to disguise another major flaw. The towers appear to be closer together than the originals, and the description states that Greenwich St is opened to Fulton. That just moves the pre-09/11 problem down one block.

It's obvious that twin-towers are only going to work on the original footprints, and there is no chance that that will happen. This entire saga reminds me of a scientific thought-experiment, with no basis in reality.

...except maybe that certain people get their names in the media.

LuPeRcALiO
March 13th, 2004, 11:56 AM
they'll work alright, maybe with a little squeezing and shaving at street level

http://home.earthlink.net/~ostaley/site-streets.JPG

BPC
March 13th, 2004, 12:31 PM
What's ridiculous is the idea of rebuilding the WTC as it originally was. Why try to redo a bad plan to begin with. Also, windmills etc are very good things. They make it so that buildings, which already account for over 60% of the world's pollution, don't wreak so much havoc on the environment. Hope this helps.

Environmentally, the old plan was far better than the new one, which opens up Greenwich Street, Fulton Street and, if the City has its way, several other unneeded new streets through the site to automobile traffic, with the attendant air and noise pollution that will bring.

Indeed, you don't explain why you considered the WTC a "bad plan." For those of us who lived and/or worked in the area, we considered it a spectatcularly great plan. The buildings provided space for some 60,000 jobs. It connected seamlessly to the existing public transportation network to get these 60,000 people to home and to work. It created a retail concourse that was the most successful economically in the entire country. And it made the downtown skyline magnificent, as it will never be again. The old WTC was not perfect, but its flaws were miniscule in comparison to those of the plan that will replace it.

Ultimately, I do not believe that restoration of the WTC is economically feasible, at least on that site, because of terrorism fears. If it were, Larry Silverstein would be rebuilding it that way. I trust that he is more attuned to the real estate market than the advocates of this new rebuilt WTC, and that his decision to limit the occupiable heights of his buildings is based on sound economics. Still, the WTC site is public property, and I believe that this proposal is a positive development, as it allows the public to participate in the debate, rather than be presented with a fait accomplis by the facelss bureaucrats who run the LMDC.

ZippyTheChimp
March 13th, 2004, 01:25 PM
An environmental appraisal of the site plan must be made in its context in lower Manhattan. Opening up Greenwich St may increase noise and pollution at that spot, but the traffic flow in the entire area will be improved.

Your reasons for calling the original a "great plan" are true, but he jobs, retail, and transit connections will be of equal merit in the new plan. The skyline aspect is really one of personal preference. I don't think it contributed to the collection of buildings which together define a skyline; it just made a dominating statement on its own - which could work anywhere.

The big glaring weakness is the way it fragmented the varoius downtown communities, and in that respect, the new plan, though flawed, is far superior.

MrShakespeare
March 13th, 2004, 03:04 PM
Any attempt at urban planning is subject to criticism: While the Libeskind plan may eliminate the former WTC's plaza, re-connect the street grid through a portion of the site, establish street-level retail, and a park-like memorial, it eliminates some of the perceived flaws of the WTC while creating new ones of its own. Some of these "mistakes" will only be apparent in hindsight, which is, of course, the benefit that extends to the many who have criticized the WTC's towers, plaza, and underground retail complex. Regarding TTT, it is nice to see that the merits of the WTC (including, but not limited to, its effect on the skyline) are being recognized in addition to its faults.

Perhaps it is possible to restore the towers, and the other positive elements of the former WTC, while accounting for the benefit provided by 30 years of hindsight. The restoration of the towers certainly appeals to me, at least, even though I also appreciate and admire the ideas of those who would dramatically alter the configuration at the new WTC.

I do quibble with using Larry Silverstein as a barometer of the NYC real estate market. In my opinion, any efforts by Silverstein to minimize the number of occupied storeys at the new WTC originate from Silverstein's financial situation, rather than the real estate market as a whole. I, for one, think that tenants do, and will, exist to buy or lease space at heights greater than 70 storeys - particularly at the new WTC. But, I don't have the capital to support that assertion. Silverstein does (3.5 to 6 billion from WTC insurance, plus the stream of income generated by his other investments), but has apparently determined that it is cheaper to build multiple, shorter buildings, rather than two large structures on the site. Given the limitations of his insurance proceeds, Silverstein's interest is merely on the cheapest possible way to provide maximum possible return on his 99-year WTC investment. Unlike Austin Tobin's Port Authority, Silverstein may not have enough capital or power to build nearly 10 million square feet of office space in two majestic towers. But he does have the wherewithal to construct four or five smaller buildings that add up to nearly the same amount of rentable space and generate either the same, or greater, return on his investment. That does not indicate to me that the market for supertall space has evaporated, but rather that Silverstein lacks the financial capacity to capture that market, given the risks he associates with the attempt.

Derek2k3
March 13th, 2004, 03:30 PM
Rebuilding the twin towers doesn't "restore" anything. *It actually serves to set us back 35 years to the time when it was conceived and designed. *I think it would be more symbolic to build something that sets a standard and creates imagery conducive to "21st century design".

Rebuilding the towers is just a silly idea. *If your home burned to the ground or was destroyed and you had the money to rebuild, would you build it exactly as it was or would you address all the thingsthat kind of annoyed you about it? *Would you build it to the standards and with the element that were the rage back when it was originally built or would you improve upon it and moderninze it? *

Out of the 9/11 tragedy comes a wonderful and unique opportunity for the city to reinvent itself and show what it has learned since the design and construction ofthe WTC 35 years ago. *I don't want the crappy wind swept plaza that was there before. *I don't want to cross bridges to get to Battery Park City. *I don't want stark streetscape and more boxes. *

Look how Times Square was recreated architecturally. *Despite all the naysayers, you'd be hard pressed *to find anyone who would argue that the transformation hasn't been inspired. *Certainly you could argue about the "atmosphere" being a bit more middle America - but with a 6 block area we have seen architecture rise that moves away from the numbing repetitive designs that created indistinguishable buildings during the 70's & 80's.

As lovers of architecture, we should be challenging the planners to continually evolve the accepted design - not to be just taller - but to be bolder and more inspiring. * * *


(Edited by BrooklynRider at 11:04 am on Feb. 27, 2003)

well said

Ptarmigan
March 13th, 2004, 05:37 PM
I haven't been here a while. The World Trade Center should be rebuilt.

NyC MaNiAc
March 13th, 2004, 06:05 PM
While I used to be for the rebuilding of the WTC, I have to side with BrooklynRider.

It's time we move on to bigger and better things. We will always remember the Twin Towers, but this change is a good thing for the city of New York.

Let's hope from here on, the rebuilding process goes quickly and smoothly.

Also, nice to see you back here, Ptarmigan!

OKoranjes
March 13th, 2004, 06:37 PM
Environmentally, the old plan was far better than the new one, which opens up Greenwich Street, Fulton Street and, if the City has its way, several other unneeded new streets through the site to automobile traffic, with the attendant air and noise pollution that will bring.


Well it's silly arguing with someone who obviously knows nothing about these issues. Providing through roads and making transit more patterned and giving cars more options once they are already in the city reduced pollution, it does not make it worse. If you look at successful urban areas that have held up to the test of time you will realize that you are arguing for a dead cause. Please read up on the subject though so that you don't lead others astray. If you search for New Urbanism on Google you should find some interesting facts. Also, one book I HIGHLY reccommnend is "Suburban Nation."

ZippyTheChimp
March 13th, 2004, 07:16 PM
Well it's silly arguing with someone who obviously knows nothing about these issues. Providing through roads and making transit more patterned and giving cars more options once they are already in the city reduced pollution, it does not make it worse. If you look at successful urban areas that have held up to the test of time you will realize that you are arguing for a dead cause. Please read up on the subject though so that you don't lead others astray. If you search for New Urbanism on Google you should find some interesting facts. Also, one book I HIGHLY reccommnend is "Suburban Nation."
Don't you think you could have made your point equally well with:

Providing through roads and making transit more patterned and giving cars more options once they are already in the city reduced pollution, it does not make it worse. If you look at successful urban areas that have held up to the test of time you will realize that you are arguing for a dead cause. Please read up on the subject though so that you don't lead others astray. If you search for New Urbanism on Google you should find some interesting facts. Also, one book I HIGHLY reccommnend is "Suburban Nation."
Unless of course, you wanted to start an argument...which would be silly.

LuPeRcALiO
March 14th, 2004, 12:40 AM
sustainable systems are nice, and they can restore the street grid if it makes them feel better, but radically changing the building design is a riskier business.

Anyone remember what happened to the new Coke?

BPC
March 14th, 2004, 04:28 AM
...you are arguing for a dead cause.

No doubt. I have an urban planner friend who tells me that if terrorists destroy Grand Central tomorrow, most of his colleagues will advocate for the restoration of Park Avenue straight through that site, in much the same way they have successfully argued for the restoration of Greenwich Street through the WTC Path and Subway station.

Still, urban planning philosophies come in cycles. Aa spate of bad downtown pedestrian malls in the 1950s and 60s turned contemporary planners against all pedestrian spaces, even extraordinary successful ones like the old WTC transportation and retail concourse.

But as someone who works across the street from Grand Central and uses it every day, I know the model still works. Enclosed pedestrian spaces, when linked to public transportation and retail, enliven an area far more than open roads with cars running through them.

OKoranjes
March 14th, 2004, 10:40 AM
You're right Zippy. That would have been better.

LuPeRcALiO
March 14th, 2004, 11:11 AM
realistically, if they ever do open any streets through the site, they will immediately close them for security reasons. So other than propping up the asphalt industry what's the point?

ZippyTheChimp
March 14th, 2004, 02:34 PM
A street, once constructed, can easily be converted at a later time to limited access or pedestrian only. The reverse is not so easy.

This occurs every New Years Eve at Times Square. What's the problem?

TonyO
March 14th, 2004, 05:02 PM
While I used to be for the rebuilding of the WTC, I have to side with BrooklynRider.

It's time we move on to bigger and better things. We will always remember the Twin Towers, but this change is a good thing for the city of New York.

Let's hope from here on, the rebuilding process goes quickly and smoothly.


Similar experience here. I was for the rebuilding of the towers as well, but since have more or less embraced the concept of the FT. It has grown on me and with more work it will be a great new landmark for NYC and the US.

I believe that if it were not for the efforts of rebuilders that we may never have had the drive to create any form of WTB on the site again.

LuPeRcALiO
March 14th, 2004, 05:24 PM
Zippy the problem as I see it is that pedestrian / emergency circulation can be designed around the buildings, whereas buildings have to go around streets carrying vehicular traffic, which require bigger rights-of-way and a heck of a lot more infrastructure for multiple lanes, sidewalks, drainage, signals, lighting, bus and taxi stations, landscaping, etc. etc. It's like putting in an Olympic pool when all you're trying to do is water the lawn.

BigMac
March 14th, 2004, 05:24 PM
Similar experience here. I was for the rebuilding of the towers as well, but since have more or less embraced the concept of the FT. It has grown on me and with more work it will be a great new landmark for NYC and the US.
Same here, though I hope the master plan will largely be adhered to. One reason the original trade center was so distinct was because of its 'twin' theme. This time, the 'spiral' theme offers a similar kind of uniqueness.

ZippyTheChimp
March 14th, 2004, 05:48 PM
Zippy the problem as I see it is that pedestrian / emergency circulation can be designed around the buildings, whereas buildings have to go around streets carrying vehicular traffic, which require bigger rights-of-way and a heck of a lot more infrastructure for multiple lanes, sidewalks, drainage, signals, lighting, bus and taxi stations, landscaping, etc. etc. It's like putting in an Olympic pool when all you're trying to do is water the lawn.

This "problem" is pretty much the model of Manhattan.

The buildings are sited to fit the street grid. Whether they are pedestrian-only or not makes no difference. The problem only arises if you try to fit buildings on the grid that don't belong there - like twin towers. As I said in another post, the twin towers would work on the master plan that was originally designed for them.

LuPeRcALiO
March 14th, 2004, 07:23 PM
sure, except that in this case, the grid has already been altered, and for good reason, given the scale of what was and will be built there. All I'm saying is that the rationale for reestablishing it doesn't seem very compelling.

ZippyTheChimp
March 14th, 2004, 07:50 PM
Two reasons already mentioned:

Ease traffic in the surrounding area.
Reconnect the neighborhood.

Your rationale for not restoring the grid is to justify a site plan that no longer exists.

LuPeRcALiO
March 15th, 2004, 12:01 AM
maybe so ... Zippy if it were up to me I'd declare a five-year moratorium and put a temporary park there while everybody figured out what to build.

Anyway I think we both might have missed something important but I'll bore you with it later.

LuPeRcALiO
March 16th, 2004, 09:41 PM
Zippy the point I wanted to float is that traffic mitigation has never seemed like the real reason for running those streets through the WTC. Take Fulton for instance: does it really matter whether it dead ends at West Street instead of Church? And Greenwich--who benefits, people driving from the Greek church to the post office? They've driven around it for forty years, and they'll probably have to keep driving around it, since both streets will likely be closed for security concerns. So much for reconnecting the neighborhood.

So why chop up the superblock? If there's no real practical reason, there may be a psychological reason, which is to obliterate from memory the Twin Towers and everything connected with them including the supersize WTC plaza. This might also explain the anything-but-twin-towers plan chosen by Governor Pataki: instead of two identical flat-top butter sticks, it's got five asymmetrical, slant-roofed wedges, the appeal being how different it is from the old WTC.

And from that perspective I can understand the resistance. But I honestly think that after a little more time passes the memories of 9/11 will recede and getting the Twin Towers back will start looking more attractive, even to artistic geniuses like Pataki.

ZippyTheChimp
March 17th, 2004, 12:30 AM
Do you make these traffic observations with any experience in the area? It appears to me that you are opposed to the street grid only because it breaks up the superblock, and without the superblock there can be no twin towers. If you're going to advance underhanded plots by devious politicians bent on denying us the twin towers, I'll drop out of this topic. We've been down that road.

The superblock is gone. I'll discuss what streets, and whether they are pedestrian only, should run through the site. I've worked in the area since the 70s, and lived there since the 80s, so I am familiar with pedestrian and traffic flow.

The east-west streets are not important for traffic. They can remain pedestrian only. You make the same mistake about Greenwich St that others have. Though it's called Greenwich St, it's really 7th Ave South-Varick-West Broadway that runs through the site. Look at a map. It's a major southbound route. Because of the superblock, that traffic has to turn to Broadway to continue south. Streets such as Chambers become clogged.

LuPeRcALiO
March 17th, 2004, 01:47 AM
LOL. No this is a new theory. I mean psychological in the sense of unconscious, not political. What I'm getting at is that the experience of 9/11 was pretty gruesome and that people who experienced it directly don't want to be reminded of it, which resurrecting the old WTC might do.

ZippyTheChimp
March 17th, 2004, 09:59 AM
So we cut up the superblock to repress memory, but build a memorial to enhance memory.

I guess you don't want to discuss issues based in reality, so I'll sign off.

LuPeRcALiO
March 17th, 2004, 12:33 PM
in consideration of St. Patrick's day I'll do the same!

BPC
March 17th, 2004, 01:24 PM
Do you make these traffic observations with any experience in the area? It appears to me that you are opposed to the street grid only because it breaks up the superblock, and without the superblock there can be no twin towers. If you're going to advance underhanded plots by devious politicians bent on denying us the twin towers, I'll drop out of this topic. We've been down that road.

The superblock is gone. I'll discuss what streets, and whether they are pedestrian only, should run through the site. I've worked in the area since the 70s, and lived there since the 80s, so I am familiar with pedestrian and traffic flow.

The east-west streets are not important for traffic. They can remain pedestrian only. You make the same mistake about Greenwich St that others have. Though it's called Greenwich St, it's really 7th Ave South-Varick-West Broadway that runs through the site. Look at a map. It's a major southbound route. Because of the superblock, that traffic has to turn to Broadway to continue south. Streets such as Chambers become clogged.

Zippy, before you drop out, a couple comments.

1. Did you attend David Childs' CB1 presentation on 7 WTC? At it, Childs stated that Greenwich Street in front of 7 WTC would be closed to public traffic, and that southbound on Greenwich, when it reached Barclay would be shunted westward over to Broadway. If that holds true, that would eliminate any traffic benefits from the reopening of Greenwich. Moreover, I note that the urban planners lopbbied to reopen Greenwich not because it would improve traffic but rather becuase it would create so-called "sight lines" from Tribeca (although I recall a subsequent NT article calling that outcome into doubt).

2. Even if Greenwich is open to traffic straight through, it's not clear to me how much benefit that would be, unless it led directly to a Battery Tunnel ramp. As it stands now, Greenwich narrows considerably south of the WTC site and then just sort of dies out short of the tunnel.

ZippyTheChimp
March 17th, 2004, 09:55 PM
I was not aware of the statements by Childs, but did he state that the DOT was in agreement? The last I heard about traffic flow was that the DOT was studying how to configure the street directions with the assumption that Greenwich St would be directed southbound through the site. I do remember the argument that Greenwich St should be opened for the sight lines, but that was a Tribeca issue. The LMDC position is that blocking the street hindered development in the area south of Liberty.

As now configured, Greenwich St dead ends on Edgar St, where all traffic must turn left, but access to the BBT could easily be constructed.

As I stated earlier, a street through the site would allow flexibility for adjustment, but once a building is put in the way, you're stuck with it.

LuPeRcALiO
March 18th, 2004, 05:21 AM
Zippy there's no doubt that superblocks like Washington Square and Central Park present local inconveniences. The question is whether the dubious benefits of reestablishing the street grid outweigh the benefits of maintaining the parcel. If the PA is going to be allowed to rebuild the WTC to its original occupancy, they absolutely do not. But it seems pretty clear right now that they aren't.

ZippyTheChimp
March 19th, 2004, 03:29 PM
The writing style is familiar, but I couldn't quite make the connection...until now.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ostaley/site-streets.JPG

Interesting image. Not the image itself, but the url. The parent directory is
http://home.earthlink.net/~ostaley/

Several are familiar, having been posted by this person (http://forums.wirednewyork.com/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=454) before he was banned from the forum.

So are you Bennie B? I personally don't care if you are back here posting, but that means that you are Mack Marco on SSP and Marcologic on NYCS, and for the last year you have been condemning the unfairness and narrowmindedness of this forum using your other identiites.

If I am in error, I apologize; but if I'm correct, your posts have no credibility.

Jasonik
March 19th, 2004, 04:00 PM
http://home.earthlink.net/~ostaley/gotchorizo.JPG 8)

NyC MaNiAc
March 19th, 2004, 07:50 PM
The writing style is familiar, but I couldn't quite make the connection...until now.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ostaley/site-streets.JPG

Interesting image. Not the image itself, but the url. The parent directory is
http://home.earthlink.net/~ostaley/

Several are familiar, having been posted by this person (http://forums.wirednewyork.com/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=454) before he was banned from the forum.

So are you Bennie B? I personally don't care if you are back here posting, but that means that you are Mack Marco on SSP and Marcologic on NYCS, and for the last year you have been condemning the unfairness and narrowmindedness of this forum using your other identiites.

If I am in error, I apologize; but if I'm correct, your posts have no credibility.

It seems we have a super sleuth here... :wink:

LuPeRcALiO
March 20th, 2004, 02:00 AM
So we cut up the superblock to repress memory, but build a memorial to enhance memory.

Zippy if we can return to the topic for a moment what you say about the memorial is pretty interesting. It's supposed to enhance memory, that's true, but memories of the Twin Towers as tombs, not towers -- they're buried in underground vaults, they point down instead of up, they barely rise above ground level, and they're concealed by trees. The message seems to be "remember them if you must, but if you'd rather not, you don't have to."

Jasonik
March 20th, 2004, 02:05 AM
So sorry it makes you sad to see the freedom tower as the symbol of renewal.

BPC
May 19th, 2004, 01:10 AM
NY POST

WORLD TRADE SELLOUTS

By NICOLE GELINAS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 18, 2004 -- THE Republican National Convention hits New York in August - a tribute to the city that stood tall in the wake of 9/11. The problem: When it comes to rebuilding Downtown, New York is close to accepting defeat.

Osama bin Laden gave the order to destroy the World Trade Center - but Gov. Pataki & Co. are paying for the funeral. New York's leaders refuse to heal our city's mutilated skyline.

In Washington, the horror of 9/11 was met with resolve: The feds rebuilt the Pentagon within a year.

In New York, horror was met by bureaucratic flaccidity.

Two years have passed since workers cleared the rubble from the World Trade Center site. But Pataki squandered months holding architectural beauty pageants while the crater in the middle of Lower Manhattan sank into the permanent landscape.

What's Pataki's legacy to be, after all that wasted time?

The governor has chosen architect Daniel Libeskind to erect a "Freedom" Tower that will be a half-hollowed monument to cowardice.

The top floors of the Freedom Tower are designed for bin Laden. They'll be empty. The tower is to be built with just 70 occupied stories - 40 floors shy of each of the destroyed Twin Towers.

Pataki wants to break ground on the Freedom Tower on the Fourth of July - but all the fireworks in the world won't mask the fact that the Freedom Tower is no World Trade Center.

It is shocking - almost inconceivable - that we haven't snatched back from our enemies what belongs to us. Americans always understood the Twin Towers. They were us: stark capitalism, power and beauty without explanation or apology.

It's not too late to stand down fecklessness at Ground Zero.

Herbert Belton, an architect who worked on the original World Trade Center, has designed new, 112-story Twin Towers for Lower Manhattan. Belton's partner, structural engineer Ken Gardner, has created an exquisite 5-foot model of the proposed towers and memorial plaza.

Their challenge was to fit Downtown's tragic new history into the proud heritage of the World Trade Center. They've preserved the form and style of pre-9/11 Downtown while paying homage to what happened on that hallowed ground.

Belton and Gardner would set each of their Twin Towers on the acre opposite its fallen predecessor. The footprints of the old WTC buildings would thus serve as testaments to 9/11's dead.

The footprints would be framed by the skin of the fallen towers that survived on that morning. A glass floor over each footprint would allow visitors to peer down to bedrock.

Belton and Gardner's memorial plaza includes an elegant building to inter the unidentified remains of those killed. In the sky, the top floor of each of the new Twin Towers would serve as a separate memorial to the police officers and firefighters who lost their lives to rescue so many on that day.

The new WTC would include post-9/11 safety features: Each tower would be protected by a double exterior skin, and would feature six well-fireproofed stairwells.

In the shadow of Gardner's 5-foot model of what could be, Pataki's groundbreaking on July 4 will be an occasion to mark not triumph, but more tragedy.

To watch the steel structures of new Twin Towers pierce New York's skyline floor-by-floor - after all New York has been through - would be to experience one of the greatest moments in modern history. But Pataki and his Freedom Tower would rob New York - and America - of that moment.

This generation will be judged on its response to 9/11. "Rebuilding the World Trade Center shows that we will not be moved by these crazy, mad people," Gardner said.

The construction of the Freedom Tower won't do that - instead, it would desecrate our own dignity.

Worse, the Freedom Tower's abject mediocrity would lull New Yorkers - and Americans - into a false sense of complacency in the face of terror and tyranny. Erecting an empty tower of appeasement won't make us safe.

Pataki owes it to New York to take a look at the Belton- Gardner plan - or our skyline will be forever marred by a 1,776-foot gravestone that marks the death of New York's spirit.

ZippyTheChimp
May 19th, 2004, 06:13 AM
Nicole loves hyperbole.

billyblancoNYC
May 19th, 2004, 11:19 AM
I hear this new Twin Tower plan has a good chance of being picked as the final design...

LuPeRcALiO
May 19th, 2004, 11:28 AM
Big push to rebuild towers--The Real Thing

Lore Croghan
NY Daily News
May 19, 2004


Encouraged by setbacks developer Larry Silverstein has suffered trying to collect double insurance coverage for the World Trade Center, grassroots groups are lobbying vigorously to get the twin towers rebuilt at Ground Zero.

The new campaign to reconstruct the two towers close to their original design targets city and state officials and financiers.

"We've got this one chance," said Jonathan Hakala, who's involved in the lobbying effort. "We should not assume we will get another."

http://www.nydailynews.com/ips_rich_content/566-wtcproposal.JPG
Model of twin towers design that advocates are seeking to get rebuilt at Ground Zero.

Advocates of twin towers reconstruction have been largely left out of the political process of deciding how to rebuild Ground Zero.

But now groups such as Team Twin Towers and the World Trade Center Restoration Movement think Silverstein's reverses could give them an opening to be heard - and taken seriously.

Recent court decisions cut the Trade Center leaseholder's possible insurance payout from $6.8 billion to at most $4.7 billion.

The Port Authority has asked Silverstein to explain how he can foot the bill for the current Ground Zero rebuilding plan, whose centerpiece is the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower.

New twin towers would be powerful symbols of defiance against terrorism, supporters argue - and stronger draws for big tenants than the Freedom Tower design.

With signed twin tower leases in hand, Silverstein could get construction financing, said Hakala, a venture capitalist whose firm was on the 77th floor of 1 World Trade Center.

Architect Herbert Belton and structural engineer Ken Gardner have drawn up a new twin tower design to bolster advocates' arguments. The new towers would be 112 floors tall, and share the silhouette of the famous originals without being exact replicas. They would have updated safety features, and would stand near the footprints of the destroyed towers.

The design can be viewed at http://www.makenynyagain.com . [fixed]

Leaving downtown

One tenant that isn't going to stick around to see what happens downtown is Weiss Peck & Greer.

Last winter, the Daily News reported that the money manager was looking to leave lower Manhattan. Now it's official.

The firm - currently located at 1 New York Plaza - rented 105,000 square feet at 909 Third Avenue. The new office will be in a skyscraper on the corner of E. 54th St., in a tony office nabe called the Plaza district. The rent's about $50 per square foot.

CB Richard Ellis was the broker for Weiss Peck & Greer and its new landlord, Steven Roth's Vornado Realty Trust.


Originally published on May 19, 2004

Clarknt67
May 19th, 2004, 06:37 PM
It also seems the the most fearless reaction to terrorist threat we could make. Far more truly brave than the chest thumping that's going on in Iraq.

But I doubt this proposal has a chance. It strikes me as too hot a potato for anyone with any real power to put their hands on.

It is interesting that both DN & NYP highlight it in 2 days.


I hear this new Twin Tower plan has a good chance of being picked as the final design...

from who do you hear this? Oh, I'm guess you meant that sarcastically... :oops:

TomAuch
May 19th, 2004, 07:22 PM
They're pumping up TTT and the WTCRM for two reasons:

-The NY Post has long been Pro-Rebuilding, therefore, they'll pump up many events for the Rebuilders

-The Daily News HATES the Libeskind Plan for the same reason that the NY Times does: The office space factor, and Silverstein's insurance loss has meant all sorts of lobbying groups are jockeying to tear down the non-Freedom Tower office buildings as proposed, and in the process, they are propping up TTT and the WTCRM because they to hate the Libeskind Plan. Why they are doing that is beyond me, since I've always seen more Anti--Rebuilding editorials than Pro-Rebuilding ones from the Daily News.

ZippyTheChimp
May 19th, 2004, 07:32 PM
Same reason for the Post and News articles.

Same reason for the TTT "breakup" and Hakala resurfacing.

The 09/11 hearings are in NYC.

TLOZ Link5
May 19th, 2004, 07:45 PM
Nicole loves hyperbole.

I was about to say...

BPC
May 19th, 2004, 10:54 PM
Nicole loves hyperbole.

I was about to say...

Not any more than any other writer for the Post.

Ninjahedge
May 20th, 2004, 02:48 PM
Why should we rebuild a sybmol of arrogance and financial waste?

Seriously, it took us SO long to getthat building all leased out, and now, with the memory it has, GOOD LUCK getting people into it.

Everyone is always SO QUICK to say what buisnesses and government should do to fit their ideals, but so slow to realize or ever admit that the plan has flaws or has not been thought through completely.

I have NEVER seen ONE FRIGGING ARTICLE stating a viable course of action or method of implementation that would guarantee financial liquidity for any of the tower proposals, and doubly so for the rebuild or "In your face Osama" design proposals offered by a few.

Somehow the money is supposed to all come from the government or some magical place that will not mind the fact that the tower(s) will/would be half empty for 20 years.

Bleh.

As for the double skin proposal, that is a needless expense. the plane wentthrough a very tightly spaced WALL OF STEEL COLUMNS and was only stopped by the center concrete core! Two layers of steel would face the same problem, OR be prohibitively expensive, or both!

And I am SO SURE that adding 2 more fire stairs would save thousands of lives. Come on now!


Ah, sorry, I just can't stand when people are so quick to talk about structures that will "pierce the manhattan skyline" without thinking once of how it will actually be done, or what else it might end up piercing.

As for Grenwich/Varick/7th, I think that should be re-opened, but it would be interesting if they could maybe go underground with that. Who says this thing needs to stay up top, or that nothing can be built OVER it if it were to re-open? Just make it forbidden for trucks and you will have a pretty easy design...... ;)

BrooklynRider
May 21st, 2004, 03:49 PM
I can't understand why they didn't incorporate a bull's eye into the curtain wall.

Zzed
May 21st, 2004, 04:10 PM
given the endless politics, delays and wrangles for over two years, this proposal is the only one that makes any sense now. i would only add that if possible make the new towers even taller, all the way to 2000 feet and beyond. be done with it and build.

Chris2005
May 21st, 2004, 09:40 PM
Is Pataki or the LMDC allowed to chip in money to complete silverstein's money shortage? Because the way I see it, is that the original towers are the only solution...unless another proposal is put up before July 4, 2004.

ZippyTheChimp
May 22nd, 2004, 12:50 AM
The PA is not a public agency like, say, the Parks Dept. By its charter, it cannot receive public funds. All of its revenue comes from its operations.
Silverstein is a private developer with a lease agreement with a landlord (the PA). No matter what office towers are built, they are NOT a public works project.

Would either of you care to explain how, if there is a financial problem with the existing plan, how Gardener's plan (or the original towers) is the "only one that makes sense now"?

BPC
May 22nd, 2004, 01:36 AM
Would either of you care to explain how, if there is a financial problem with the existing plan, how Gardener's plan (or the original towers) is the "only one that makes sense now"?

Silverstein's insurance lawsuit defeat is a vacuum into which everyone has now inserted his/her own alternative plan. Last week, the Times ran some idiotic piece from some professor at some third-tier law school arguing that the only thing that made sense now was to build nothing. To read some of these articles, you would think the jury issued a declaratory judgment to the effect that the Libeskind plan, and that plan only, must be scrapped.

MidnightRambler
May 22nd, 2004, 04:25 AM
Would either of you care to explain how, if there is a financial problem with the existing plan, how Gardener's plan (or the original towers) is the "only one that makes sense now"?

Silverstein's insurance lawsuit defeat is a vacuum into which everyone has now inserted his/her own alternative plan. Last week, the Times ran some idiotic piece from some professor at some third-tier law school arguing that the only thing that made sense now was to build nothing. To read some of these articles, you would think the jury issued a declaratory judgment to the effect that the Libeskind plan, and that plan only, must be scrapped.

well, it should. but not in favor of rebuilding the towers.

what ever happened to originality?

LuPeRcALiO
May 22nd, 2004, 12:57 PM
The PA is not a public agency like, say, the Parks Dept. By its charter, it cannot receive public funds. All of its revenue comes from its operations.
Silverstein is a private developer with a lease agreement with a landlord (the PA). No matter what office towers are built, they are NOT a public works project.

Would either of you care to explain how, if there is a financial problem with the existing plan, how Gardener's plan (or the original towers) is the "only one that makes sense now"?

Zippy the PA, LMDC, and Empire State Development Corporation are quasi-public agencies funded with public money (fees, tolls, and taxes, like the $21 billion pledged by Congress). So while they may appear to "private," they are not -- they are government agencies managing publicly owned property. The only "privately" funded parts of the project are the memorial and cultural buildings (opera house and museum) and so far Pataki hasn't been able to coerce anyone into heading a committee to collect donations.

The reason rebuilding will be easier to finance is simply that there's so little public enthusiasm for this or any other plan proposed by Pataki or his surrogates, while the Twin Towers, original or not, have been wildly popular since September 11. Congress for example is a lot more likely to release funds for a vote-catching winner than for a controversial, poorly conceived, or heavily politicized redevelopment.

ZippyTheChimp
May 22nd, 2004, 01:07 PM
You are a multiple ID troll who has been dumped from this forum, Skyscraper Page, and ironically, from the infantile forum you now moderate.

Please don't respond to me directly. I find you offensive.

LuPeRcALiO
May 23rd, 2004, 01:22 AM
Zippy scoff if you will, but here's what Heidi Marquez, Special Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Correspondence, had to say in today's mail:

"Dear [LuPeRcALiO]:

"Thank you for your letter to President Bush about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The President appreciates hearing your views and welcomes your suggestions.

[etc. etc.]

"Please accept the enclosed Patriot Day proclamation with the President's best wishes."

http://home.earthlink.net/~ostaley/Bush12.JPG

So evidently somebody's listening. And the second signature says "George W Bush."

BrooklynRider
May 24th, 2004, 11:24 AM
You are a multiple ID troll who has been dumped from this forum, Skyscraper Page, and ironically, from the infantile forum you now moderate.

Please don't respond to me directly. I find you offensive.

Is it okay that I find this post hysterically funny? :lol:

ZippyTheChimp
May 24th, 2004, 11:54 AM
Yes.

Although I am serious, given the trivial nature of this thread, the comment was also meant to be funny.

I'm not going to waste time with someone who thinks a president, especially THIS president, sits down and personally reads and signs the letters sent to the White House. Bush has no time after Archie and Jughead.

http://www.signaturemachine.com/index.html

Jasonik
May 24th, 2004, 11:55 AM
And I'm a Scooby-Doo fan club member... wanna see my decoder ring? :roll:

ZippyTheChimp
May 24th, 2004, 11:58 AM
Scooby-Doo is too complex for Bush.

(Is it possible for this thread to go off-topic?)

Jasonik
May 24th, 2004, 12:04 PM
Well, the Scooby-cipher I decoded this morning said: "tHe tOwErs MusT bE RebUiLt!!!"

JMGarcia
May 24th, 2004, 03:58 PM
LOL :lol:

Scooby Dooby Dooooooooooooo

Ninjahedge
May 24th, 2004, 05:29 PM
Zippy scoff if you will, but here's what Heidi Marquez, Special Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Correspondence, had to say in today's mail:

"Dear [LuPeRcALiO]:

"Thank you for your letter to President Bush about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The President appreciates hearing your views and welcomes your suggestions.

[etc. etc.]

"Please accept the enclosed Patriot Day proclamation with the President's best wishes."


http://home.earthlink.net/~ostaley/Bush12.JPG

So evidently somebody's listening. And the second signature says "George W Bush."
That sounds like she took a lot of time to write you a personal message there Lup.

I have never heard something like that outside of Technical Helplines, she must have worked really hard at it!!!

And I guess that means you know what's best too, because she said thanks.

yep.

Uh-huh.

:)


Oh, and GW's signature~!~~~!!!~~!!

:rolleyes:

LuPeRcALiO
May 25th, 2004, 03:35 PM
Tech operators don't control a branch of the U.S. government.

Jasonik
May 25th, 2004, 03:51 PM
And diletantish urban planners don't get to tell developers what to build.

LuPeRcALiO
May 25th, 2004, 05:16 PM
And diletantish urban planners don't get to tell developers what to build.
I'll mention that to Alex Garvin next time I see him.


p.s. hot off the press...

The Ground Zero Rebuilding Scandal: The Dirty Politics of Creating a New World Trade Center

http://a1055.g.akamai.net/f/1055/1401/5h/images.barnesandnoble.com/images/7720000/7728439.gif


From the Publisher:

Award-winning investigative journalist Justin Berzon exposes the total corruption of the Ground Zero rebuilding efforts in New York City. Berzon, whose research on the subject has been featured in the New York Post and National Review Online, explains how a handful of politicians rigged the international design competition for the new World Trade Center.

Despite a staggering 70% of New Yorkers voting to rebuild the Twin Towers in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, rebuilding officials were intent on choosing their own new plan.

Berzon records firsthand testimony from a New York Times writer accusing New York’s governor of being “bought” to rig the competition. He investigates how Times reporters allegedly presented their evidence to top editors, only to see it buried because of a conflict of interest with a Times business partner. Soon enough, he discovers how the committee choosing the new design had sought out the winning architect before the competition got underway.

But that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Berzon explains how an unlicensed architect who lost every round of the official competition – and who committed fraud in the process – managed to snare the commission anyway. In a breaking story, the public learns why New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg went along with the plan, secretly plotting to steal the trade center insurance proceeds to finance other city projects. In another shocking development, the Port Authority is exposed for trying to defraud the WTC leaseholder of millions of dollars. Yet perhaps most importantly, Berzon uncovers why the New York media were largely in the dark as the scandal unfolded right in front of them.

Barnes and Noble (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=bsq1fxFRUO&isbn=1413449514& itm=4)

Jasonik
May 25th, 2004, 05:58 PM
Are you implying Mr. Garvin supports the Belton- Gardner plan?

(Or that the LMDC is full of...) :wink:

Thanks for the book info.

I have the distinct feeling that you are against the Libeskind plan rather than for the building of a pair of clunky, over-engineered, inelegant, emotionally driven throwback towers. Am I way off?

LuPeRcALiO
May 25th, 2004, 08:08 PM
Jasonik I don't object to the Libeskind/Childs plan any more than I object to the "preliminary design concepts" of July 2002 -- they're all variations on the same idea:

http://www.renewnyc.com/images/plan_des_images/c1_elevation_small.jpg
Memorial Plaza

http://www.renewnyc.com/images/plan_des_images/c3_elevation_small.jpg
Memorial Triangle

http://www.renewnyc.com/images/plan_des_images/c4_elevation_small.jpg
Memorial Garden

thirduncle
May 26th, 2004, 04:14 AM
An allegorical tale for all of the historical know-nothing recreationists:

Imagine that a group of pedantic German architects in the 1920s decreed that all workers must live and work in buildings that look like statues of Lenin.

When they escape to The U.S., they are lavished with artistic and academic praise. Upon their promotion to major universities, they brainwash architectural students that "all serious architects must think this way."

Corporate America is hornshwaggled into buying their didactic crap, and besides, their Lenin-buildings are cheaper to build. (the Lenin-buildings were never really meant to be skyscrapers, but the Architects, being egotistical opportunists, convince Corporate America that their way is THE modern way)

So over every American skyline rise giant statues of Lenin. Finally, a Japanese acolyte of these gasbags is hired to design the world's tallest buildings. They deviate slightly from orthodoxy in that the twin statues of Lenin have venetian capes, and, hey the thing that makes it AMERICAN is that they're REALLY big!

The public and critics rightfully hate these buildings when they are built, but grudgingly learn to live with them because they're BIG!

Flash forward to 2001. Islamic terrorists fly planes into the buildings not BECAUSE of their design, but because they are the tallest buildings that people in the New York financial industry work IN.

The recreationists absurd refrain is: rebuild the statues of Lenin, because they represented AMERICA!

The pedantic architects I refer to is the Bauhaus. Their rigid, sneering, cultish notion was: all workers must live and work in an unadorned factory like box. This will bring about socialist equality. Ornamentation, comfort, exuberance; anything that is not a box is BOURGEOIS! While there are some nice Bauhaus buildings here and there, there are already way too many monuments to this bizarre ideological fad that was foisted upon Americans.

Just because the terrorists were anti-American, it does not erase the fact that the design of the World Trade Center was based on an anti-American aesthetic ideology. Take the super-block (please!), created by Le Corbusier, a designer of cities.....WHO HATED CITIES!

This, recreation fanatics, is why there is no groundswell of outrage to rebuild (as there would had Chrysler or Empire been destroyed); the World Trade Center was merely the largest of cookie cutter buildings that were baked over every American skyline for 50 years, cooked up by European socialists who thought that utopia came in a dull box.

I'm all for tall buildings. My personal preference would have been Frank Lloyd Wright's "Mile high". I think that even a scaled down version of that would have been a fitting replacement, but as I've said before, even the freedom tower breaks the Bauhaus taboo of a spire and non-box torque.

MrShakespeare
May 26th, 2004, 12:23 PM
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/letters/24454.htm

May 23, 2004 -- THE ISSUE:The idea of rebuilding the World Trade Center as it was before 9/11.

*****

I agree with Nicole Gelinas ("World Trade Sellouts," Opinion, May 18 ).

I'd love to see a newer, more modern World Trade Center rise like a phoenix from Ground Zero.

I'd like to propose the ideal tenant for the uppermost floors of the rebuilt Twin Towers: the United Nations.

Placing the United Nations there would align their interests with ours and guarantee that they place their focus on safety and security.
Frank Cerbini
Pleasantville

*****

The proposed Freedom Tower does not represent freedom.

It represents our captivity to our fears and a maudlin reluctance to move on.

Put the Twin Towers back up.
Joe Mulvanerton
Sunnyside

*****

Bravo to Gelinas for supporting reconstruction of the World Trade Center.

As one of the original tenants of 2 World Trade Center, I can attest they were great buildings.

We can certainly refine and update the original plans - as the proposals Gelinas mentioned do. But we must restore the silhouette of the city and restore America's pride.

The current plan is a pathetic shadow of the original Twin Towers' bold skyline statement.

If Gov. Pataki really wants a memorial to cement his legacy, he should stand behind reconstructing the Twin Towers.

We have wasted three years. Let's start building.
Andy Martin
Palm Beach, Fla.

*****

As a New Yorker and a witness to the destruction of the World Trade Center, I find it incredible that Pataki is being allowed to move forward with Libeskind's pathetic Freedom Tower.

How can we build something called the "Freedom Tower" and have half of the structure be a skeletal shell? Is that how New York City and America define freedom?

We don't need a memorial to fear.

More people than not want the Twin Towers back.

It's long past time that Pataki listen to the public.
Carl Weber
Manhattan

*****

I'm on the New Jersey Turnpike every day, and I'm just as angry now as I was on Sept. 12, 2001, when I see the skyline.

Terrorists took down the Twin Towers for a variety of reasons - one of them being symbolism.

Anything going up at Ground Zero other than the two towers that once stood there would be playing right into the terrorists' hands.

Rebuild power, freedom and capitalism and show them that every time we get knocked down, we'll get right back up.

An empty, pointy and downright ugly structure - like the Libeskind design - would be meaningless.

It would be better for the site to remain empty than for us to build anything other than the Twin Towers.
John Yerkovich
Jamesburg, N.J.

*****

The Libeskind design is a failure that does not do justice to the heroes who died on 9/11.

As someone who worked in the World Trade Center, I believe that a similar design, arranged so that the original footprints are left as a memorial, would be a much more powerful design.

No one I worked with in the World Trade Center would want to give terrorists the pleasure of seeing 40 empty stories.

I would like to see the skyline restored, with the message that Americans - especially New Yorkers - are stronger and more committed than ever to freedom.
Torin Swartout
Ridgefield, Conn.

*****

I agree with Gelinas. The current plan for the World Trade Center site does not reflect the desires of a majority of New Yorkers.

At numerous LMDC public comment sessions, more speakers called for rebuilding the Twin Towers than supported the Libeskind plan.

Despite this, no restoration alternative was presented to the public during any of these comment sessions.

During 2002, six preliminary design concepts were unveiled to universal disdain, and nine subsequent designs were announced later in the year.

During this process, policy makers consistently ignored the idea of rebuilding the Twin Towers.

The exercise of rebuilding at Ground Zero should not be viewed as some abstract exercise in urban planning.

Rather, it is a response to an act of mass murder and urban vandalism on an unprecedented scale.
Bill Hough
Manhattan

*****

The Libeskind death pit and the memorial circus must go.

We don't want a cemetery. We want the World Trade Center rebuilt.
Joe Wright
Manhattan

Jasonik
May 26th, 2004, 12:31 PM
HEAR, HEAR THIRDUNCLE!

http://sofa.digitalien.org/sieben/7dusl/duslpics/wright.jpg

ZippyTheChimp
May 26th, 2004, 01:35 PM
Letters can be funny:


Placing the United Nations there would align their interests with ours and guarantee that they place their focus on safety and security.
Frank Cerbini
Pleasantville

Yes! And the Office of Emergency Management on the floor above.
Must be something in the water in Pleasantville.


a maudlin reluctance to move on.
Put the Twin Towers back up.
Joe Mulvanerton
Sunnyside

The irony, Joe.


The Libeskind death pit and the memorial circus must go.
Joe Wright
Manhattan
This guy needs to update his rally slogans.

LuPeRcALiO
May 26th, 2004, 02:52 PM
Finally, a Japanese acolyte of these gasbags is hired to design the world's tallest buildings. They deviate slightly from orthodoxy in that the twin statues of Lenin have venetian capes, and, hey the thing that makes it AMERICAN is that they're REALLY big!

LOL, "venetian capes," that's pretty good. I won't argue with your aesthetic analysis although the International style still has huge fans, in this forum anyway, but what does it prove? Only that the Twin Towers came out of an historical context just like the White House, Capitol, or any other national monument whose ranks they joined at 8:46 am on September 11, 2001. The problem is that aesthetics ceased to be the issue at that moment. Another problem is that the Freedom Tower has slightly less than 28% of the floor area of the Twin Towers, and that's 150 floors short of a full recovery.

JMGarcia
May 26th, 2004, 04:06 PM
All those people whining about there being too much office space on the site will be soooooooooo pleased. :roll:

LuPeRcALiO
May 27th, 2004, 12:47 PM
JMGarcia those people are called NIMBYs and Alex Garvin is their love child.

BPC
May 28th, 2004, 03:15 AM
JMGarcia those people are called NIMBYs and Alex Garvin is their love child.

NIMBYS they are not. We neighbors of the former WTC's, by in large, support the commercial restoration of the site, although views on the actual architecture tend to vary. Alex Garvin, by contrast, is a college professor who lives in New Haven, not Downtown NY, and is a creation (por "love child, in your words) of the academic planning community.

LuPeRcALiO
May 28th, 2004, 07:31 AM
okay soi-disant love child, in this sense: Garvin likes to pretend he speaks for all New Yorkers--I've heard him do it--and while there may be some residents who support his 28% plan (let's call them "concerned neighbors") he's never had the thundering consensus he lays claims to.

LuPeRcALiO
June 7th, 2004, 03:07 AM
newsflash: Muschamp sees the forest through the trees

from: Back to Square One at Ground Zero
Published: June 6, 2004
The New York Times
ROBIN POGREBIN

IT once seemed possible that the debate over ground zero's cultural activity would be less contentious than the debate over its office buildings.... now is the moment to rethink the entire project, to search for the best answers to the most trenchant questions, rather than the most expedient compromise. To jump-start the discussion, here are eight suggestions from the chief critics of the New York Times.


HERBERT MUSCHAMP

Back to Basics: Twin Towers II

WHAT functions can we eliminate? What uses can we subtract? These seem to me among the most constructive questions that can be asked today about the planning of ground zero, particularly about cultural programming.

Up to now, the planners have been thinking along opposite lines. How much can we add, they ask, as if an accumulation of functions is needed to produce the desired lively effect. Opera house, museum, and so on: these proposals are signs of cultural failure. At best, they denote impatience to arrive at some creative response that really requires more time and thought. More ominously, they represent distractions from the forces that have mired ground zero in politics and propaganda.

As a result, I have recently become more sympathetic to the "cop-out" position, which would mean abandoning the flawed ground zero design process altogether in favor of reconstructing the twin towers more or less as they were. Certainly, I'm prepared to defend reconstruction as a cultural act. It would be an offering to Mnemosyne, mother of the muses, from whom all culture flows.

The reduction to essentials is a great New York tradition, evident in our engineering and in our art. It is the correct tradition to invoke here. And then, to insure its revival, I would propose a school, a center of unlearning as well as learning, a place for disembedding ourselves from the welter of fantasies that has enveloped the country in recent years.

TonyO
June 7th, 2004, 08:40 AM
I couldn't believe Muschamp's comments when I read them yesterday. It may be more a symbol of frustration than true interest. Either way, very interesting. Time Out New York also did a short story on the Team Twin Towers duo and it wasn't a joke.

Zzed
June 7th, 2004, 10:22 AM
yes the whole Libeskind scheme is passe now. this was never about architecture or even design, it's a political process and the only solution is a political one. rebuiild the towers better and taller but above all else, REBUILD.

Ninjahedge
June 7th, 2004, 01:02 PM
yes the whole Libeskind scheme is passe now. this was never about architecture or even design, it's a political process and the only solution is a political one. rebuiild the towers better and taller but above all else, REBUILD.

Bottom line.

Noone will move into the death-towers. Period.

They had to offer discounts to apartments in the Buisness District to get people to move back in, how many companies do you see rushing to get the 85th floor in tower 2?

the original towers were hard enough to fill, rebuilding ones would not work FISCALLY.

So unless the supporters of the original twin towers can get enough companies (as well as themselves, if need be) to sign away their own assets (confirm and commit them) to the projects rebuilding, I would suggest they quiet down.

Read up on real estate while you are at it and stop listening to the propoganda from either side. Maybe you will get a better idea why 97% of the stuff that has been bandied about for the past 2 years has been absolute fantastic BS.

ZippyTheChimp
June 7th, 2004, 01:24 PM
Highlighting passages without understanding the entire article leads others
who read it to compound the mistake. The two subsequent sentences should have been highlighted.

:roll:

krulltime
June 7th, 2004, 01:30 PM
Why is this subject keeps coming back to hunt us? Give it a rest. No more pain please. :(

Ninjahedge
June 7th, 2004, 02:22 PM
Highlighting passages without understanding the entire article leads others
who read it to compound the mistake. The two subsequent sentences should have been highlighted.

:roll:

"Certainly, I'm prepared to defend reconstruction as a cultural act. It would be an offering to Mnemosyne, mother of the muses, from whom all culture flows."


Oooooookay....... :?:

RandySavage
June 8th, 2004, 06:00 PM
I didn't live in New York until after the Twins were leveled, and so I never really got a grasp of how huge they were in real life (not photos). Today, as I was walking across Chase Plaza I overheard a tour guide telling a group of highschool kids to look at the width and height of One Chase Plaza and then imagine two buildings twice as high.

One Chase is an enormous building in and of itself. As I looked up with the students, I could scarcely imagine how overwhelming something twice as tall and nearly as wide as Chase must have looked when standing right below it. At that moment I joined the "re-build" faction - or at least pay homage with the Double Freedom Tower...

... obviously its not going to happen, but I still stand in awe of the politcal, economic and social forces that brought such amazing edifices into being in the 70's.

MrShakespeare
June 11th, 2004, 11:21 AM
Interesting article from one element of the global press. FYI, the Guardian is a London-based newspaper that leans just a bit to the left. ;)


http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1236355,00.html

The Guardian
© Copyright 2004. The Guardian. All rights reserved.

Friday, June 11, 2004

Tower power: The winning design to redevelop Ground Zero faces mounting opposition from campaigners who want the Twin Towers to be rebuilt. James Westcott on the latest twist in a tortuous tale


On July 4, the ground will be ceremonially broken on the construction site of the new World Trade Centre. "As we commemorate the founding of our nation," New York's state governor, George Pataki, said at a recent luncheon, "we lay the foundation for our resurgence." The Freedom Tower, designed by architect Daniel Libeskind in collaboration with corporate behemoths Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), mimics the posture of the Statue of Liberty and rises to a symbolic 1,776ft. Not everyone is happy, however. "We are replacing a symbol of world peace and human cooperation with a self-absorbed salute to America," says Robin Heid, executive coordinator of the activist architectural group Team Twin Towers. The Libeskind plan, he argues, is "tone deaf to a monumental degree".

Team Twin Towers was formed in 2002 when Heid, an ex-paratrooper in the US Army, teamed up with Randy Warner, a TV executive based in Los Angeles. They are the biggest of many groups lobbying for the "restoration" of the twin towers as a defiant and therapeutic response to September 11.

Heid insists that the desire to rebuild isn't just a knee-jerk reaction to terrorism, or a response to the frustration that Ground Zero remains a largely empty crater nearly three years on. "Rebuilding is a fundamental, visceral human response. If they knocked down Big Ben, what would they do? Have a design contest? Instead of having a clocktower have two doves twirling around a pole?"

It seems that many people agree with Heid. The Team Twin Towers plan for buildings two storeys taller than the originals has received glowing endorsements from the fiercely rightwing magazine the National Review and from Rupert Murdoch's New York Post. "Americans have always understood the Twin Towers," said columnist Nicole Gelinas. "They were us: stark capitalism, power and beauty without explanation or apology."

The WTC skyscrapers were never much loved as architecture, until now. But a poll in 2002 found that half of New Yorkers wanted them rebuilt, and Team Twin Towers cite other polls that show up to 70% support for rebuilding. The modernism the two blank, monolithic towers represented has become something of a safe tradition compared with the perceived postmodernism of the Libeskind/SOM plan. It's as if what the towers symbolised - power, or cooperation, depending on how cynical you are feeling - can now only be embodied in the II shape.

Another team advocating for rebuilding, Make New York New York Again, have come up with a design that is, by their own admission, populist. "The average person doesn't have to figure out the theories or what the designer was thinking of," says Ken Gardner, gesturing at his model twin towers. "This plan transcends architecture." John Hakala, a partner in the group and an influential lobbyist of the editorial boards of New York's tabloids, says: "Libeskind's building is twisted. It just seems to imply something bent out of shape, destroyed. It might be interesting architecture somewhere else. But for those of us who smelled the towers burning - and I lost my best friend there - it's not right for this site."

Gardner and Hakala inadvertently raise interesting questions about whether any architect could achieve the miracles expected at Ground Zero, while working in perhaps the most complicated and politically delicate building site in the world. Juggling the governor's office, the property developers, the Port Authority, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the mayor's office and victims' families, would seem an impossible task. The supporters of "restoration" have a certain cynical and depressing logic: erase the architect from the picture and replace his divisive, elitist ideas with something popular and economically viable.

But isn't there a possibility that people will be disturbed to see the towers rising again? "That's why they're not exact replicas," Gardner says. They would restore the familiar and now beloved silhouette to the skyline, but would have different detailing and updated safety features. The new towers would have a double steel skin - a tube within a tube - for strength, and six stairwells instead of four for safety. A 500ft mast on the north tower would make it the tallest building in the world.

The Make New York New York Again plan was not submitted to the "innovative design study" launched in 2002 by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the newly created body charged with overseeing the rebuilding. This may have because their model wasn't ready, but Hakala claims other reasons. "The competition was not really a competition," he says. "Anybody who entered was required to surrender all of their intellectual property rights. So there were only about 400 entries, whereas with the major truly open architecture competitions in Europe, there are usually about 3,000 entrants. A lot of really big names said 'We're not going to play by those rules. This isn't what usually happens."'

Perhaps it isn't surprising that many New Yorkers are disillusioned by the painfully slow and tangled rebuilding plans. Team Twin Towers calls the whole LMDC process, which included town hall-style public meetings, a "mass group therapy session" and a "farce". "Guess what?" Heid says, "therapy's over." But wouldn't rebuilding be the ultimate act of therapy? "Exactly," he says. The restoration advocates claim to have expediency on their side: the twin towers would be "marketable," says Gardner. They also claim idealism: "Rebuilding would be the most profound act of counter-terrorism through peace not war," Heid argues.

Matters are further complicated by the fact that Pataki's announcement came just two days after Larry Silverstein, the property developer who holds the lease on the World Trade Centre site, lost an insurance case in which he tried to claim that the September 11 attacks on the twin towers constituted two separate incidents. He won't get the double payout he was counting on to fund the $8-$10bn redevelopment. With a maximum payout of $4.5bn, Silverstein's landlords, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, are nervous about his ability to pay. "The fact is, Silverstein doesn't have the money to build," Hakala insists.

With such financial uncertainty, "the groundbreaking ceremony is absolutely meaningless," Gardner says - except perhaps as a diversion from the real issue: Freedom Tower just isn't very popular. "You don't see it on a single mug, T-shirt, postcard or pin around the city," says Hakala. "People don't know what it is." Hakala believes that new twin towers would appeal to New Yorkers' pride and to tenants' loyalty and defiance, something Freedom Tower has failed to do in the 17 months since it was announced. Pataki will have his office there, but he might be quite lonely: not a single private sector tenant has signed up so far. With a downtown office vacancy rate of 14%, it's arguable whether 10m square feet of new space is really needed.

Other evidence of cracks in the masterplan for Ground Zero: Pataki can't find anyone to fund the September 11 memorial. Sanford Weill, chief executive of Tishman Speyer properties and Jerry Speyer, chairman of Citigroup, both turned down the offer to chair the fundraising board. "They're too smart to say why," Hakala hints darkly. "But the reason is that they don't want to attach their names to something that's about to collapse."

Hakala and Gardner say that they are having success lobbying top politicians and financiers in New York, and believe they are in with a chance of sneaking into Ground Zero. So are they? A source close to the redevelopment, who did not wish to be named, put that chance at "a million to one".

BigMac
June 15th, 2004, 04:30 PM
Team Twin Towers
June 8, 2004

TTT & WTCRM Join Forces for July 4 Press Conference

For the first time, Team Twin Towers and the World Trade Center Restoration Movement will join forces for a Press Conference on July 4th, 2004 at the World Trade Center site to announce that New York, America, and the World do not support the Freedom Tower, more popularly known as the Twisted Sister, Fraud-em Tower, or Franken Tower. We will also be joined by WTC survivors who support rebuilding the Twin Towers. On July 4th, Governor Pataki will be breaking ground for what WILL become the greatest architectural mistake in New York and American history.

We INVITE everyone from all over to join us at the World Trade Center site on July 4th at 11:00 AM (time subject to change & exact location TBA - check websites below for updates). Everyone is encouraged to bring your favorite pictures or posters of the Twin Towers, anything with the likeness of the Twin Towers, or signs (without sticks) or banners politely expressing your dissatisfaction with the refusal of the authorities to seriously consider rebuilding the Twins. Surprise Celebrity guests to appear! FREE tee-shirts, buttons, and bumper stickers will be given out as long as supplies last!

Polls in NYC and elsewhere support us: More Americans than ever want the Twin Towers rebuilt because they know this isn't just about New York, or even the USA. It's about the future of the world and whether that future is bright or dark. As Osama bin Laden said: "Those awesome symbolic towers that speak of liberty, human rights, and humanity have been destroyed. They have gone up in smoke." *

This is precisely why what went up in smoke must go back up in steel: Rebuilding the Twin Towers is the most profound act of counter-terrorism through peace— not war.

* October 2001 interview with al-Jazeera reporter Tayseer Alouni.

In order for us to pull off this amazing event, we need your help more now than ever before. Our flyer team will be distributing flyers all over the city up until July 4th. We'll be making posters, banners, buttons, bumper stickers, permits, etc. We need your support! Both TTT & WTCRM have extensive email lists. If everyone on both lists donated as little as $10 each, we will have enough money to make our voices heard loud and clear.

To support this joint campaign, there are two methods you may use to donate: online through PayPal and by check. With PayPal, you can go http://www.teamtwintowers.org/donations.html, select the amount of your choice, and follow the prompts. Checks can be mailed to:

Team Twin Towers, Inc.
1369 Madison Ave., #238
New York, NY 10128

Thank you for your support. Team Twin Towers, Inc. is a 501 c 4 non-profit organization. Donations are not deductible for income tax purposes.

krulltime
June 16th, 2004, 10:25 AM
Polls in NYC and elsewhere support us: More Americans than ever want the Twin Towers rebuilt because they know this isn't just about New York, or even the USA. It's about the future of the world and whether that future is bright or dark. As Osama bin Laden said: "Those awesome symbolic towers that speak of liberty, human rights, and humanity have been destroyed. They have gone up in smoke." *

It is time to let go. I understand your pain but let it go.

A new complex yet with a memorial that won't remind us too much of that painful day will be better.

It is kind of letting go of a lover that has die and then finding a new soulmate. I hope it make sense.

Ninjahedge
June 16th, 2004, 11:23 AM
It all comes back to the fact that all these people are calling for the original ones to be built and are ignoring the fact that these were not civil structures.

They were Private Sector office towers.

That being said, you rebuild them, psychologically, you might as well put a giant target on it and gravestones at its base.

That's the way investors will see it.

Maybe we should stop listening to the "will of the people" on this at every drop of the hat and listen to the people that may actually PAY for it and make it happen.

ZippyTheChimp
June 16th, 2004, 01:37 PM
I wonder what ever became of Mr Rosenow, the thread originator. I remember he was one of the more intense of the "down to the doorknob" replication advocates.

LuPeRcALiO
June 17th, 2004, 09:40 PM
Ninja I know it sounds nutty but the people paying for it are you and I.

p.s. you and me is also correct.

TomAuch
June 18th, 2004, 05:51 PM
I wonder what ever became of Mr Rosenow, the thread originator. I remember he was one of the more intense of the "down to the doorknob" replication advocates.

The weirdest thing about WNY is the fact that these threads last so long, the people who started them are long gone. Rich Battista started the Bloomberg thread, but he hasn't been here in a while. I myself don't post often, but I still lurk on WNY frequently.

Kris
June 18th, 2004, 06:07 PM
Threads last as long as the topics matter, this one being a notable exception.

krulltime
June 19th, 2004, 03:34 AM
WIND RISKS 'BLOWN' IN WTC SPECS


June 19, 2004

The World Trade Center's designers may have severely underestimated the forces that wind exerted on the Twin Towers, leading them to create skyscrapers less able to withstand the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal report says.

Wind tunnel tests conducted as part of litigation over the buildings' collapse found wind loads 20 to 60 percent higher than those found in tests performed during the towers' design in the 1960s, according to the report released yesterday by a federal institute examining the collapse.

The buildings would have been stronger and might have performed better during the 2001 attacks by terrorists in hijacked jetliners if the higher wind load numbers had been used, said Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

A spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the site, declined to comment on the NIST findings. He repeated earlier statements that the towers were built according to building standards.

The report also provided the first official estimate of the number of people in the Twin Towers when the planes struck: between 16,200 and 18,600.



Copyright 2004 NYP Holdings, Inc.

Kris
June 19th, 2004, 12:23 PM
June 19, 2004

Lost Towers, Reflected in a Coffee Can

By JAMES BARRON

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/06/18/nyregion/coffee.184.jpg

A familiar saw-toothed view of the New York skyline on a product with deep New York roots has quietly been altered. How it came to be changed is a story of corporate strategizing - and of deciding to ease some customers' painful memories of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Half-asleep coffee drinkers may not pay much attention to what is on the coffee can, but in redesigning its product, Chock full o'Nuts removed the World Trade Center.

For years, the twin towers had stood against a taxi-yellow sky on the Chock full o'Nuts label, as did the Empire State Building and the Citicorp Center. But about a year ago, Chock full o'Nuts decided it was time to do something to set itself apart from brands like Maxwell House and Folgers.

So it added a new flavor - "100 percent Arabica New York roast" - and began looking into a makeover. "The existing packaging was a bit antiquated," said Angie Hancock, a brand manager for Chock full o'Nuts, a unit of the Sara Lee Corporation. "It definitely resonated with an older consumer but was not doing enough to attract younger consumers."

And, she said, "there was the issue with the twin towers."

They were at the far right of the skyline on the old label. Ms. Hancock said that in the days after Sept. 11, "we received calls about whether we're going to change the packaging immediately or not."

By last year, when the company hired market researchers to question consumers about possible new labels, the trade center was "a very polarizing issue," she said.

"It was split 50-50 between people wanting to see it there, and then people wanting to not see it there," she said. "It would either remind them of what it looked like, a sense of nostalgia, or it would be a reminder of a tragedy. We decided it was too divisive." The new yellow-on-yellow skyline replaced a black landscape and taxi-yellow background, and the buildings are more recognizable than on the old can. The triangle top of the Citicorp Center looks more like itself than the oddly lopped-off old shape, for example.

Chock full o'Nuts began phasing in the new design at the beginning of this year. Ms. Hancock said the last of the old-label cans were vacuum-packed in March. The last of those cans are disappearing from supermarket shelves, although some can still be found around New York City. "We can't control what stock a retailer may have in the warehouse," Ms. Hancock said. "It takes a certain amount of time for that inventory to sell through."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Ninjahedge
June 21st, 2004, 02:48 PM
WIND RISKS 'BLOWN' IN WTC SPECS


June 19, 2004

The World Trade Center's designers may have severely underestimated the forces that wind exerted on the Twin Towers, leading them to create skyscrapers less able to withstand the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal report says.

Wind tunnel tests conducted as part of litigation over the buildings' collapse found wind loads 20 to 60 percent higher than those found in tests performed during the towers' design in the 1960s, according to the report released yesterday by a federal institute examining the collapse.

The buildings would have been stronger and might have performed better during the 2001 attacks by terrorists in hijacked jetliners if the higher wind load numbers had been used, said Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

A spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the site, declined to comment on the NIST findings. He repeated earlier statements that the towers were built according to building standards.

The report also provided the first official estimate of the number of people in the Twin Towers when the planes struck: between 16,200 and 18,600.



Copyright 2004 NYP Holdings, Inc.

*cough*BS*cough*

I hate it when these guys get free reign on this. All the building would have had would be some cross bracing or a stiffer core. the sheer impact of the plan would still have taken out a significant portion of the structure and the fire would have softened the remaining so that the resulting softened columns would not have been able to withstand the eccentric load.

The wind motions were bad based on a PERCEPTABILITY problem. I will have to look and find the exact #'s, but I am pretty sure that the factors of safety were enough to account for the additional loads presented by wind tunnel analysis.

All a redesign would have probably done is gave an additional 15 min or so (hard to put an exact number) and there is no guarantee that it would have done even that.

NYC244
October 14th, 2006, 01:07 PM
WTC must be rebuilt like it was.Identical.

hey another croat! i agree 100%. everything else is just a nonsense.:mad:

William
December 30th, 2006, 02:29 PM
people, check out this pro-rebuilding website: http://www.bobbyshred.com/twintowers.html

William
December 30th, 2006, 02:36 PM
I found some good pics on that site...

http://www.bobbyshred.com/images/trumpntowers.jpg

http://www.bobbyshred.com/images/wtcinlobby1.jpg http://www.bobbyshred.com/images/moonwtc2.jpg http://www.bobbyshred.com/images/newtowers.jpeg http://www.bobbyshred.com/images/wtcsunrise.jpg Let the Twin Towers be rebuilt and not that ugly Freedom Tower!!!

lofter1
December 30th, 2006, 03:52 PM
To truly recreate that ^^^ you'd have to get rid of the new 6-12 Barclay as well ...

NYguy
December 30th, 2006, 03:56 PM
http://www.bobbyshred.com/images/wtcsunrise.jpg

Let the Twin Towers be rebuilt and not that ugly Freedom Tower!!!

Let it go....

William
December 30th, 2006, 10:00 PM
"It ain't over 'til it reaches street level..."

James Kovata
December 31st, 2006, 12:21 AM
It's not going to happen. GIVE IT UP!

sfogonline
December 31st, 2006, 03:51 AM
"It ain't over 'til it reaches street level..."

Unfortunately it has been over for quite some time.

With the foundation being the primary component of any structure, it is also the most vital, as you probably know well. Since the foundation has already been finished to the dimensions and cosmetic appeal of the single Freedom Tower structure, there is no turning back to the original World Trade Center design. In order to make the change, that would require the demolition of what they have already begun and the scrambling of land to meet the area of the old twin towers. Then, World Trade Center 7 and the remaining other complexes would not match the theme of the primary World Trade Center Tower(s). Unfortunately, despite your passion to return the towers to the skyline, they did not include the grandest concept of structural support. Of course, the towers were supported both inwardly and outwardly (the big problem with its destruction). With outward columns being its primary source and a central core acting as secondary support, if any event were to repeat as with 9/11. the building could be at risk. I do believe the Freedom Tower plans have been designed to resolve or inhibit this structural failure. For those two reasons, the original towers cannot be rebuilt and they won't be. And, for emotional reasons. You yourselves may enjoy the appeal of the towers, but some might try to forget their existence for the reason they lost a loved one. Now, some of you might have lost loved ones as well, but the majority would find it emotional to see those towers arise back in the skyline. As well, I am not sure business partners and corporations would feel comfortable inhabiting the buildings after they were rebuilt. Think about it, if they rebuilt the Titanic as it was before it sunk, would you want to take it across the ocean? Its just a gut feeling that would always be awkward to all...

Bob
December 31st, 2006, 09:51 AM
SFOG online's post nails it, as unfortunate as the matter may be. I do believe we've made a big mistake by not rebuilding the Twin Towers, and it's not the purpose of my post here to spam the issue. What I would like to add to the discussion is that there could be a Twin Towers in our future. Any great thing starts with an idea, and proceeds from there. Now, admittedly the original towers were death traps, but a new set of twins could have double or even triple the strength of the originals which (as we know) stood up to the impact of large/heavy jets travelling at over 500 mph. A concrete core with X-bracing matched to the original tube design could really make for the mother of all strong buildings.

I am always amazed when people say, "that will never happen." From my own experience, I fought for repeal of the national 55 MPH speed limit as early as 1975. Everybody told me I was wasting my time, that the limit would never go up. I even was told by a Texas state trooper, "the limit is 55 and they'll never raise it." Well, I didn't give up. I stayed the course and fought harder. I joined the National Motorists Association, testified at state legislatures, wrote plenty of letters, prepared reports, etc. The law was indeed changed (by President Clinton, thank you.) I didn't do it by myself, of course, but a sustained grass roots effort made it happen. The same thing can be done for a new Twin Towers. Capture the imagination of people with power...that's the trick. And, stay the course with your eye on the prize.