PDA

View Full Version : Libeskind Modification *- pics



JMGarcia
February 27th, 2003, 12:34 PM
Can be seen at

http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/index.html?ID=42

I like them!!! Notice an additional tower has been added that is also taller than 1 Liberty St.


http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/middle/view_west_street.jpg

http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/middle/view_sept11th_place.jpg

http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/middle/model_shot.jpg

http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/middle/view_financial_center.jpg

(Edited by JMGarcia at 11:35 am on Feb. 27, 2003)

TAFisher123
February 27th, 2003, 12:51 PM
i like it and dislike it as the same time although i know its still a work in progress, do not like the slurry wall, didnt they say it cant remain exposed to the elements...id rather see a marble wall with engraving of the old complex or somethig more attractive to look at

NYatKNIGHT
February 27th, 2003, 12:51 PM
Nice new perspectives! Sometimes that Garden Tower looks like a flimsy pole, and sometimes it almost looks like a real building. I sort of wish he would switch the tallest towers to the southeast corner (Liberty and Church) purely for skyline asthetics. I don't see how that would change things much. Not to side with Silverstein, but he wants the tallest tower there too.

diVinci
February 27th, 2003, 12:57 PM
JMGarcia!!!! or anyone!!!

Get to work!!! *Add the Foster towers to the Lots C& D where the two new towers (3 & 4) are on the eastern edge in your pics 1 & 4! *As we know, other architects may design the towers. *Let's show them the possibilities...with FOSTER!!!! *

SO....add these to the first and/or third pic you posted here and let's get the world's response! *I'm sure it will be WOW! *I will then email the image(s) to the media, Libeskind, Foster, Pataki, Bloomberg. *If the public keeps applying pressure, then taller will be built.

I'm SOOOOOOOO glad Libeskind was chosen...he's always been my favorite w/Foster.


(Edited by diVinci at 12:43 pm on Feb. 27, 2003)

JMGarcia
February 27th, 2003, 01:01 PM
2 Options have been released for the Libeskind Towers.

To begin with, there are now 5 towers rather than 4 in the plan.

Detail Option 1

Garden Tower - 1776ft at 111 Floors
Floors 71-109 - Garden, Cafes, Restaurants
Floor 110 - Observation Deck

Tower 1 (Attached to Garden Tower)
920ft/70 floors to start of slope - slope brings it higher approx 200ft.

Tower 2
910ft/70 floors to start of slope - slope brings it higher approx 200ft.

Tower 3
825ft/65 floors to start of slope - slope brings it higher approx 200ft.

Tower 4
760ft/60 floors to start of slope - slope brings it higher approx 200ft.

Tower 5
655ft/50 floors to start of slope - slope brings it higher approx 100ft.


Detail Option 2

Garden Tower - 1776ft at 111 Floors
Floors 71-109 - Garden, Cafes, Restaurants
Floor 110 - Observation Deck

Tower 1 (Attached to Garden Tower)
920ft/70 floors to start of slope - slope brings it higher approx 200ft.

Tower 2
850ft/65 floors to start of slope - slope brings it higher approx 200ft.

Tower 3
760ft/60 floors to start of slope - slope brings it higher approx 200ft.

Tower 4
720ft/55 floors to start of slope - slope brings it higher approx 200ft.

Tower 5
655ft/50 floors to start of slope - slope brings it higher approx 100ft.

Note that Option 2 has appox 15 less floors of occupied space.

http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/middle/view_west_street.jpg

http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/middle/model_shot.jpg

http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/middle/program_diagrams01.jpg

http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/middle/program_diagrams02.jpg


The best options will give us buildings with heights to roof (a la Citicorp uptown) of 1120ft, 1110ft, 1025ft, 960ftm and 855ft

This will give dowtown 5 new tallests to roof and 4 new tallests overall.

They will also be the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 11th tallest to roof in the city with the Garden Tower being the tallest.



(Edited by JMGarcia at 12:10 pm on Feb. 27, 2003)

billyblancoNYC
February 27th, 2003, 01:20 PM
No more 1/2 circle promenade?

Did they bulk up the garden tower?

JMGarcia
February 27th, 2003, 01:22 PM
Look at the new ground level plan. It has definitely been bulked up a bit and could easily go even further.

http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/middle/ground_level.jpg

dbhstockton
February 27th, 2003, 01:40 PM
Glad to see the circular promenade go. *I'm having computer trouble looking at the pictures, though.

JMGarcia
February 27th, 2003, 01:52 PM
The website is completely overloaded. Hitting refresh helps or right clicking on the picture and doing "show picture".

There are 2 new treatments of West St. One is a park a la Foster and the other is a Blvd. a la P/L.

http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/middle/landscape_a.jpg

http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/middle/landscape_b.jpg

Jay
February 27th, 2003, 01:52 PM
Greetings all.
As a first-time poster, I want to say how gratifying, in spite of all the NIMBYist and megamemorialist bickering in the air, that Libeskind's plan has been chosen.
Having said that, I'd like to submit an idea I've just had concerning how a twin-tower design can be integrated into the scraper arrangement.
1. Make the Garden tower separate fromthe adjoining tower.
2. Juxtapose it and the connecting tower so that the Garden tower is now between the first and second tallest.
3a & b. Make both towers of equal height (i.e. bring the second tallest's height up) and make the roof angle of the tower to the viewer's left point to the Garden tower.
4. Give the top of the Garden tower a steeple-top so that there exists an ascendent continuity between it and the angled roofs of the adjacent twins.
Finally...
5. Connect both twins to the Garden Tower with Petronas-like walkways at varying levels.
This way, the visible aspects of the plan can, for still-hopeful Twin Tower enthusiasts, be satisfactorily (IMO) altered without touching the memorial space.
What do you think?
Regards;
J
P.S. I would (certainly) keep the other three towers, just increase *their* height as well to keep Mr. Liebeskind's "spiraling rooftops" idea intact.

(Edited by Jay at 12:58 pm on Feb. 27, 2003)

Fabb
February 27th, 2003, 02:28 PM
Look at that skin.
Awful.
I hope they change that.
(Among many other things).

NYatKNIGHT
February 27th, 2003, 02:58 PM
One treatment of West. St. has a tunnel with local traffic above, and the other one is simply beefed up medians and sidewalks. They still haven't decided whether they have the funding or not.

Kris
February 27th, 2003, 04:02 PM
General information page:
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/default.asp

New slide show:
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/new_design_plans/selected_libeskind/slides/slide1.asp

Signature images:

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/images/plan_des_images/selected_sig4.jpg

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/images/plan_des_images/selected_sig1.jpg

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/images/plan_des_images/selected_sig3.jpg

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/images/plan_des_images/selected_sig2.jpg

Kris
February 27th, 2003, 04:39 PM
Notice the trench along the northern half of the western side of the bathtub. I suppose it allows a full view of that part of the slurry wall.

Evan
February 27th, 2003, 04:40 PM
Those renderings are great. *They make the Libeskind plan look more sanguine as opposed to morbid. *I like the extra tower because it adds more density especially when there is a lack of an impressive supertall. *Removing the circular walkway was good because the new WTC becomes more pedestrian friendly. *I also like the idea of having a park in the pit, it makes it less gloomy.

TomAuch
February 27th, 2003, 04:44 PM
If they make the Gardens of the World Tower stand alone, occupiable, and show renderings of it from other angles, like the Brooklyn Bridge, then I could live with this plan.
While the bathtub is still exposed, putting a bus terminal underneath the bathtub doesn't give the Mega-Memorialists the last word, which is good.

NoyokA
February 27th, 2003, 04:47 PM
I agree I would like to see more renderings. Brooklyn Bridge especially. This plan works with the international and postmodern buildings, while the spire pays homage to the past, the golden era.

Kris
February 27th, 2003, 04:50 PM
In reponse to the charges of morbidity, the tone of the renderings has become softer and lighter and the "deathpit" has turned green. Clever.

Kris
February 27th, 2003, 04:53 PM
The angles are less marked and aggressive.

NYatKNIGHT
February 27th, 2003, 04:55 PM
Yes, including the garden tower, it no longer stands at an angle.

(Edited by NYatKNIGHT at 5:14 pm on Mar. 4, 2003)

DougGold
February 27th, 2003, 05:09 PM
I've always frowned upon how we have to nit-pick the determination of what the world's talled buildings have been because of the height of radio antennas and such. I hope we can get as many floors into the garden tower as possible, because that spire has gotta be the architectural equivalent of cheating.

Gulcrapek
February 27th, 2003, 05:17 PM
:D I like it more now..

Kris
February 27th, 2003, 06:48 PM
(From Architectural Record.)

The changes and major design elements include the following:

- Libeskind originally proposed using the “bathtub,” a 70-foot-deep area surrounded by concrete slurry walls, as the site for a memorial. (The actual memorial design will be chosen in a separate competition). The new design presented today preserves some of that idea, but raises the base of the bathtub to 30 feet below street level, in order to address concerns that the retaining wall would not be able to support itself over time. The raised floor also makes room for PATH trains to pass underneath, and also, possibly, for a proposed bus terminal.

- Pedestrian access has been added to the bathtub memorial site from the surrounding streets. Ramps would slope down into the site. One of these ramps would allow access to a sliver of bedrock—what Libeskind referred to as a “nave-like space”—at the northwest corner of the bathtub, so that the entire height of the slurry wall could still be seen. The northern edge of the bathtub will consist of a translucent wall that will allow light to filter into an underground shopping and transportation concourse.

- An inclined, circular pedestrian walkway that connected the site to the World Financial Center across West Street has been eliminated. Instead, Libeskind presented two possible designs for what he referred to as “West Street Park.” One plan calls for a sunken West Street, with a park above. An alternate plan shows West Street at grade level, surrounded by landscaping.

- A 1776-foot tall structure, topped with gardens and an antenna remains a centerpiece of the design. An arc of progressively taller office buildings spirals around the site to this tallest structure, which is intended to echo the form of the Statue of Liberty. The office towers could be built as commercial demand dictates. Libeskind has placed a new restaurant at the 110th floor of the tower, at the same height as the former Windows on the World restaurant.

- Greenwich and Fulton Streets will be restored across the site. Libeskind placed an emphasis on the importance of this intersection to the design. The four corners would include the entrance to the memorial museum, the 1776-foot tower, a performing arts center, and the entrance to the transit hub. An open space around this intersection would be designed so that no shadows would fall on the plaza on the morning of September 11 each year.

NYguy
February 27th, 2003, 06:58 PM
Here's an older view of the plan, same basic concept...
http://reconstructionreport.org/documents/LMDC/021218_7-plans/Studio_Daniel_Libeskind/Signature_Images/Libeskind-MODEL-view-3.jpg

CaptAmerica
February 27th, 2003, 07:06 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.

NYatKNIGHT
February 27th, 2003, 07:21 PM
This is an improvement:

Libeskind has placed a new restaurant at the 110th floor of the tower, at the same height as the former Windows on the World restaurant.

billyblancoNYC
February 27th, 2003, 07:31 PM
Overall the "smaller pit", the taller buildings, the 110th floor restaurant, the removal of the oval promenade, not sure if the spire is bulkier (looked it, though) make the plan a lot better. Now, we just have to make sure the actual buildings are works of art and not bland, big box development.

Bring on the transit centers!

NyC MaNiAc
February 27th, 2003, 07:55 PM
The project will continue to improve if what everyone says is true...I just hope we will see twin towers at that site...2 huge buildings, different in design from the originals....IN fact Libeskind's tallest building on the site would do just fine(not the crazy spire thing, but the building next to it)...just modify it a little...make it to worlds tallest height and make a duplicate of it...add a spire and, heh, you got 2 nice looking Twin Towers for NYC

TLOZ Link5
February 27th, 2003, 08:50 PM
This will give New York five 1,000-footers; if you count the antenna being added to Condé Nast and the NYTimes building, then there'll be seven. *When this is all completed, they'll give us an edge over Chicago (five 1,000-footers upon completion of TTC), and possibly over Hong Kong (six confirmed thousand-footers upon completion of Nina Tower 1 and 7 Kowloon Station; two or three 1,000-footers are currently proposed and under consideration).

Bennie B
February 27th, 2003, 09:10 PM
It's still completely wacko. *What kind of decent architect is going to fill in one of those ding-dong trapezoidal floorplates? *Straighten out the angles, for pete's sake, and let P/L take over the building design as well as the site.

dbhstockton
February 27th, 2003, 09:13 PM
Prepare to be flamed, B. *You dared to mention P/L in this forum.

JMGarcia
February 27th, 2003, 09:14 PM
I imagine the same people who will fill the trapezoidal 7 WTC. I guess maybe its the flat top that'll make the difference. ;)

Bennie B
February 27th, 2003, 09:27 PM
dbhstockton, P/L had it right from the start. *The best new building on the block is Graves' 425 5th street, and I don't see anything like that going in here until they put the grid back together. *IMHO, anyway.

ddny
February 27th, 2003, 10:01 PM
As I mentioned before...Libeskind was my favorite.

Are you serious about P/L? P/L had the worst architecture of the bunch.

TAFisher123
February 27th, 2003, 10:05 PM
Quote: from Bennie B on 8:27 pm on Feb. 27, 2003
dbhstockton, P/L had it right from the start. *The best new building on the block is Graves' 425 5th street, and I don't see anything like that going in here until they put the grid back together. *IMHO, anyway.

Yea, 425th street is a real jem, a real eye catcher...really stands out from the pack (i hope you know sarcasm when you hear it)

ddny
February 27th, 2003, 10:10 PM
So what did happen to the circular promenade?

JMGarcia, how do you know the slopes are 200ft on the buildings?

JMGarcia
February 27th, 2003, 10:31 PM
Estimation base on the elevations I have. You can count the pixels in the 1776ft tower to get the number of feet per pixel and then count the pixels of the slope and multiply. You have to do it on a real elevation or the perspective will skew it.

In any case, as we've all said, none of the buildings are anywhere near being finalized or detailed. The are just estimations based on the number of floors by the architects. If the final design feature a particulary tall or short lobby, or if a large mechanical floor is included, or a thousand other things then the heights will change.

Its just all a good guess by Libeskind at this point.

(Edited by JMGarcia at 9:32 pm on Feb. 27, 2003)

Bennie B
February 27th, 2003, 11:05 PM
TAFischer123, here's a REAL nyc skyscraper:

<img src="http://www.taylorphoto.com/casestudies/images/425-big.jpg">

(sorry if the html doesn't work)

JMGarcia
February 27th, 2003, 11:13 PM
You're tastes are quite traditional.

Bennie B
February 27th, 2003, 11:41 PM
Sorry, guess I just spooged on my face. *Well I tried.

Maybe so JMGarcia. *BTW those are great links.

JerzDevl2000
February 28th, 2003, 02:31 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: from Bennie B on 8:27 pm on Feb. 27, 2003
dbhstockton, P/L had it right from the start. *The best new building on the block is Graves' 425 5th street, and I don't see anything like that going in here until they put the grid back together. *IMHO, anyway.

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


Funny, I thought it was 425 5th Ave. Real eye catcher, just like those ads showed it to be, haha. I don't think zoning would allow something as tall and dull like this to be built on 5th St. .

P/L was nothing more than a postmodern take on Rockefeller Center. Thank God the right plan was chosen!

(Edited by JerzDevl2000 at 1:32 am on Feb. 28, 2003)


(Edited by JerzDevl2000 at 1:33 am on Feb. 28, 2003)


(Edited by JerzDevl2000 at 1:37 am on Feb. 28, 2003)

markmartin6
February 28th, 2003, 10:32 AM
This "new" plan is definitely a great improvement. I agree that I would like to see more views of the design, especially the Brooklyn Bridge view. That will be one of the most powerful views of whatever is built and we need to see it beforehand.

TLOZ Link5
February 28th, 2003, 08:34 PM
Quote: from Bennie B on 8:10 pm on Feb. 27, 2003
It's still completely wacko. *What kind of decent architect is going to fill in one of those ding-dong trapezoidal floorplates? *Straighten out the angles, for pete's sake, and let P/L take over the building design as well as the site.


The original 7WTC had trapezoidal floorplates, as do the twin towers at AOL-Time Warner Center.

djcomlab
February 28th, 2003, 10:01 PM
I heard something cool about how the placement of the towers allows the first rays of the morning sun (every sept 11th) to enter the memorial area at the same time the 1st plane hit. Then, the last rays of the sun will dissappear from the memorial area at the same time the 2nd tower fell.

If true, I can't imagine a more subtle / poetic / creative / awesome tribute.

Gilbert Gjersvik
February 28th, 2003, 10:43 PM
Dear DJC,
What happens if it's an overcast day? And for those of you who haven't graduated from junior high school, you'd be amazed to learn that the morning sun doesn't actually shine year after year in exactly the same place on 9/11. Why? Uhhh, has anyone heard of leap year?
GG

djcomlab
February 28th, 2003, 10:57 PM
Well, duh! I'm surprised you would ask such an obvious question. As for leap year, big whoop. The Stonehenge developers must've overlooked that one too...

Gilbert Gjersvik
February 28th, 2003, 11:05 PM
OK, smartypants, what was the purpose of Stonehenge?

Bennie B
March 1st, 2003, 12:08 AM
I hate to say it, djcomblab, but that groundhog-day thing was a gimmick. *How is the light in a six-acre pit going to be different on 9/11 than the day before or after? *Now that he's won, don't expect more than a nice sundial somewhere, or more likely, a crummy crooked slanty sundial. *

Bennie B
March 1st, 2003, 12:28 AM
JerzDevl2000, yep, I meant 425 5th Ave., hand me a towel. *Come to think of it, a postmodern Rockefeller Center would be awesome, and P/L is still on the payroll, so if somebody hires a real architect (Graves), we might get one. *And it would rent, and you would love it.

ZippyTheChimp
March 1st, 2003, 01:40 AM
Gilbert:

These are sunrise times for Sept 11. Since the sun transit time is constant year to year, there is a linear relationship for other times (the time of the attacks).

2003 * *6:32
2004 * *6:33
2005 * *6:33
2006 * *6:32
2007 * *6:32
2008 * *6:33

Since the sun is a disk and not a point light source, only an unreasonable person would expect the light to just pop on like flipping a switch.

I still can't figure out what you are so angry about. It seems to be a personal thing with Libeskind.

JMGarcia
March 1st, 2003, 02:00 AM
This thread (and others here) seems to me to be a microcosim of the argument between those who think that the dead and the memorial are all important and those who think that rebuilding for the living should take overwhelming precedence.

Libeskind has attempted to walk the line between these two opposites and solve the paradox and is getting lambasted by the extremes on both sides for making that compromise.

amigo32
March 1st, 2003, 08:07 AM
You make a valid point JM.
The question that I would have to ask is, shouldn't we as a people move on with our lives, and just stop dwelling on the pain of the past? *That does make logical sense dosen't it?
I guess that some people just like to submerse themselves in their own personal pain in order to try and block out the realities of life. * I might be wrong, but that is the way I see it.

ZippyTheChimp
March 1st, 2003, 09:57 AM
For a time after someone close to me passed away, I felt anger that the rest of the world went about its business. I think for some of these people, that anger is still there. The memorial is less about their grief, and more about making sure everyone else takes notice, so the size of the memorial becomes an issue.

Gilbert Gjersvik
March 1st, 2003, 10:16 AM
Zippy,
I'm impressed by your sun time calculations, I knew after I sent that email that I might be wrong. But there's still the issue of rainy days and not much difference from one day to the next around the 9/11 date. Bennie nailed what struck me as wrong with the idea which is that it's a gimmick, like something you'd see in Las Vegas, not New York. I actually felt the same way about that towers of light thing, the first thing I was reminded of when I drove in one night from New Jersey was it reminded me of flying into Vegas and seeing that laser beam from one of the hotels.
GG

amigo32
March 1st, 2003, 10:33 AM
To quote another member "Oh Boy".

ZippyTheChimp
March 1st, 2003, 12:02 PM
As much as I'd like to, I can't take credit for those calculations. Simply enter dates on the US Naval Observatory
website.

Yeah, some of the stuff is gimmicky.

Like him or not, Libeskind understood the selection process, and showed he has the political and PR skills that I think will be necessary for him to retain any measure of control.

Kris
March 1st, 2003, 01:14 PM
GG, could you keep the expression of your resentment in the own personal thread you've created for yourself?

dbhstockton
March 1st, 2003, 01:31 PM
I was familiar with Libeskind's work before the contest, but totally unfamiliar with his persona. *Assuming he was just another eccentric avant-garde elitist, I have since been blown away by his skill at public relations and, more strikingly, his ability to accomodate and compromise while maintaining the core of his avant-garde ideas. *Quite a tightrope-walker. *If you listen to statements by the other architects in the competition, they sound surprised too, as well as bitter -- but resigned to the fact that Libeskind was simply playing the game at a different level from the beginning. *

JMGarcia
March 1st, 2003, 01:55 PM
I'll say this for Libeskind, he is very dedicated to what it commits himself to. An American citizen, he actually pulled up stakes for his entire family and company and moved to Berlin to do the Jewish Museum there.

I have a little more info on the two options for the towers. Both options provide 10 million sq. ft. of office space. The plan with the taller towers also includes 1 million sq. ft. of residential space. Therefore, make sure you all support the residential space in the plan to get the taller towers. ;)

Complete info can be found here:

http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/selected_libeskind/pdfs/selecteddesignreport-libeskind2.pdf

ZippyTheChimp
March 1st, 2003, 02:55 PM
Thanks for the link. I'll support the residential space, as long as I don't have to buy an apt. Doubt I could afford it.

Interesting solution to the slurry wall problem. A trench in
one corner down to bedrock. I suppose there will be lateral support across the trench. I'm also glad the floor was raised to 30 feet. The engineering issue will make it difficult to argue this on an emotional basis.

Libeskind plans to move his operation, along with his family, back to NYC in May.

TLOZ Link5
March 2nd, 2003, 01:33 PM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 1:00 am on Mar. 1, 2003
This thread (and others here) seems to me to be a microcosim of the argument between those who think that the dead and the memorial are all important and those who think that rebuilding for the living should take overwhelming precedence.

Libeskind has attempted to walk the line between these two opposites and solve the paradox and is getting lambasted by the extremes on both sides for making that compromise.


He's performed admirably in my opinion. *I mean, I think building tall at the Trade Center site should be a must, yet I think honoring the victims should take more precedence and be the focal point of the redevelopment.

Okay, lemme get out the marshmallows, 'cuz I know the flames are coming ;)

Fountainhead
March 3rd, 2003, 04:39 AM
WOW, I am amazed at the passion that has gone into the reconstruction debate, intelligent or otherwise!! The Liebskind plan won, quite simply because it walked a fine line between a flexible plan and suggestive, emotive architecture and form. I must say that whatever opinions people have about Liebskind, aesthetic or otherwise, he is a very smart guy. This is a great masterplan folks - it provides a good framework for some great buildings to emerge in a few years time.

Personally, I hope that liebskind is intensely involved in the actual tower designs - I think that now the masterplan has been signed off, there is more opportunity to do some really interesting things in the shape, facade and detail of the buildings, and it needs to harmonize together!!!

Alex
March 3rd, 2003, 12:16 PM
Libeskind's Lunacy: Buildings with 70 habitable floors "at most," a patently useless greenhouse sliver lean-to, topped by a spire not much taller than the 1,728 foot communications tower atop the old 1 WTC. It is open to debate if this structure can be considered a building at all, let alone the world's tallest. This flimsy sliver is only adding insult to injury. Libeskind's 1,776 foot pole is only good for raising a white flag, for pointing out: "Look what Osama has done. See how we never recovered."

Any serious proposal for the new WTC MUST include two Towers of at least 110 habitable floors and 1,368 feet to roofline each, no matter what goes alongside them. Libeskind can put his 1,776 foot spire atop such new Twin Towers.

Towers in every dimension at least as tall and grand as the Twin Towers are a must for the new WTC. Not just a flimsy "skyline element," but real buildings, habitable all the way to the top. We cannot replace the Eighth Wonder of the Modern World with something less. That would be a crime against civilization and progress. It would discourage any aspiration a human being may have.

We shall not have Libeskind's Lunacy! Get involved and support building a new WTC of dignified, super-tall office Towers! Not Libeskind's greenhouse sliver!

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

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

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

And PLEASE email Daniel Libeskind

info@daniel-libeskind.com

and ask him to revise his proposal toward a greater skyline presence. From past experience as a rebuilding activist, I know that he reads and usually answers his emails. If we all write him, if he is forced to recognize us as a major constituency, like the families or the urban contextualists, he hopefully will amend his inept scheme.

JMGarcia
March 3rd, 2003, 12:36 PM
Libeskind's Lunacy!!

I'm sure that'll put him right in the mood to listen to your concerns and he will fight for your cause with Silverstein and the PA who are the ones that a keeping the height down.

You've allowed the LMDC/PA/Silverstein to lure you into their trap by using Libeskind as the front man. Libeskind has absolutely not say over the heights of the buildings. He is not the decision maker. The best you can hope from him is that he will promote greater height with Silverstein/PA. If they say no then he has no choice.

Save your invective for Silverstein and the PA and think of a good reason for Libeskind to want to promote your vision, not ignore it.

NYC4ever
March 3rd, 2003, 09:47 PM
I agree with the genius guy who like the FOSTER towers. They were awesome. They were the most publicly approved of towers, i loved them! Office space all the way! Something usable to help the economy out! My fear is why they didnt do this like it shouldve been done in a DEMOCRACY, Foster should be added since so many people loved it. I wouldn't cancel Libeskind out, however, since he includes the tallest building in the world, some other nice towers, and a beatiful skyline. But Foster was the NEW and safer WTC.

NYC4ever
March 3rd, 2003, 09:51 PM
Thanks for all your information JMGarcia. You made my day a much better one, really. I am glad to here the stories start at the slope, instead of end at it. This provides more office space. In addition to that, it made me happy to learn that there would be some USABLE space above floor 70. I had no idea they'd have restaraunts, and cafes. I liked the garden, but this and the garden is great. Plus im extremely relieved to here about this observation deck. You're a genius JMGarcia. Thanks for the info.

NYC4ever
March 3rd, 2003, 09:58 PM
There is one thing i need to get straightened out. I know Libeskind beefed up the plan, and I'm glad. My question is: Will the Garden tower now be the flimsy square one, or the nice circular one that is a REAL building? If anyone knows please post it and email it to me, im going on vacation so i won't be able to read posts. My email is veg_jon@hotmail.com Thanks.

dbhstockton
March 3rd, 2003, 10:32 PM
http://www.entablature.com/feature/libeskind/program_diagrams.htm

or try this link: http://www.entablature.com/feature/libeskind/program_diagrams.htm

(Edited by dbhstockton at 9:33 pm on Mar. 3, 2003)

dbhstockton
March 3rd, 2003, 10:43 PM
For some reason they have nice big pics on that website. *I didn't seem to have much luck posting them, so, for those of you who are tired of squinting at Libeskind's press photos:

http://www.entablature.com/feature/libeskind/model_shot.htm

http://www.entablature.com/feature/libeskind/west_street.htm

http://www.entablature.com/feature/libeskind/financial_center.htm

http://www.entablature.com/feature/libeskind/phasing_diagrams.htm

http://www.entablature.com/feature/libeskind/memorial_site.htm

http://www.entablature.com/feature/libeskind/landscape.htm

http://www.entablature.com/feature/libeskind/ground_level.htm

http://www.entablature.com/feature/libeskind/level1.htm

(The whole feature is here (http://www.entablature.com/feature/libeskind/libeskind.htm))

JMGarcia
March 3rd, 2003, 11:21 PM
Here's another 2 small pics showing yet another slightly different desing of the towers.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/image3.jpg


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/image5.jpg

Bennie B
March 4th, 2003, 01:01 AM
Awesome pics JMG. *He's got a nice renderer, but those buildings belong in Pittsburg PA.

Edward
March 4th, 2003, 02:52 AM
Quote: from Alex on 11:16 am on Mar. 3, 2003
Libeskind's Lunacy: Buildings with 70 habitable floors "at most," a patently useless greenhouse sliver lean-to, topped by a spire not much taller than the 1,728 foot communications tower atop the old 1 WTC. It is open to debate if this structure can be considered a building at all, let alone the world's tallest. This flimsy sliver is only adding insult to injury. Libeskind's 1,776 foot pole is only good for raising a white flag, for pointing out: "Look what Osama has done. See how we never recovered."

Any serious proposal for the new WTC MUST include two Towers of at least 110 habitable floors and 1,368 feet to roofline each, no matter what goes alongside them. Libeskind can put his 1,776 foot spire atop such new Twin Towers.

Towers in every dimension at least as tall and grand as the Twin Towers are a must for the new WTC. Not just a flimsy "skyline element," but real buildings, habitable all the way to the top. We cannot replace the Eighth Wonder of the Modern World with something less. That would be a crime against civilization and progress. It would discourage any aspiration a human being may have.

We shall not have Libeskind's Lunacy! Get involved and support building a new WTC of dignified, super-tall office Towers! Not Libeskind's greenhouse sliver!

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

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

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

And PLEASE email Daniel Libeskind

info@daniel-libeskind.com

and ask him to revise his proposal toward a greater skyline presence. From past experience as a rebuilding activist, I know that he reads and usually answers his emails. If we all write him, if he is forced to recognize us as a major constituency, like the families or the urban contextualists, he hopefully will amend his inept scheme.



Alex, your post does not belong in this thread; there is the thread "Why the World Trade Center MUST BE rebuilt" and "Why we should scrub the Libeskind Plan" and your post would be more appropriate in any of these two threads. Make sure you stay on the topic.

JMGarcia
March 4th, 2003, 09:25 AM
Don't be bitter now Bennie. ;)

NYatKNIGHT
March 4th, 2003, 11:16 AM
Great links dbh. I notice they refer to the tall tower as the "Antenna Tower". This must be what will eventually be the broadcast tower that Bayonne was hoping for, no? Has anyone heard otherwise? If it is, then why wouldn't they make it go to 2000 feet as the broadcast tower was originially intended?

I have to say, the overall plan is growing on me. The crossroads of Fulton and Greenwich Streets will no doubt be a lively intersection and entryway to the memorial area. Tourists will flock here, and hopefully so will lots of business.

Fabb
March 4th, 2003, 05:59 PM
Sunday, Mar. 02, 2003

Daniel Libeskind calls architecture "a civic art, an art of negotiation." Which is another way of saying that designing a building is only half the battle. The real struggle is getting the thing built. Libeskind, 56, was named the winner last week of the extraordinarily hard fought and closely watched competition for a design to rebuild the World Trade Center site. Now the real work begins: financing a scheme that includes a museum and five office buildings, working with the sharp-elbowed assortment of public authorities and private parties who lay claim to the site and keeping the plan from being nibbled to death by changes. How much of it will actually be built? If you want to make God laugh, the saying goes, tell him your plans.

Then again, God may not have reckoned with a man of Libeskind's willingness to accommodate or his industrial-strength charm. In the years ahead, his tommy-gun speech, his more or less Polish accent and his hand-tooled cowboy boots will become as familiar to New Yorkers as Sarah Jessica Parker and her Manolo Blahniks. His intense campaigning for the project made him a target of criticism. But Libeskind has produced a design worth campaigning for. At its symbolic center is the "bathtub," the scorched and scoured pit in which the foundations of the Trade Center once stood, plus its surrounding concrete wall. Libeskind's plan calls for a 7acre area, 30 ft. deep, to be preserved as testimony to the attack and the resilience of New York City and America — in effect, a Wailing Wall for the 21st century, with an emotional power that grows from calamity but tells of endurance.

"I shaped the entire site to speak to the traces of the event and to its significance," he says. "But we also want to reassert its vitality." So all around and above, Libeskind offers life rearing up in triumph. Above the hole there's the museum in his signature angular style. On three surrounding sides is an ensemble of towers, including a 70 story office structure with a spire that rises to the patriotic altitude of 1,776 ft.--the world's tallest building. In a gesture that harks back to the ancient solar markers of Egypt and Peru, he has designed his public squares so that each year on Sept. 11, a wedge of sunlight will fall across one of them from 8:46 a.m., when the first of the hijacked planes struck, until 10:28 a.m., when the second tower fell. Still to be decided is the design for a memorial to the Trade Center victims, which will be chosen this year after an open competition and may be erected within the bathtub. Meanwhile, Libeskind has embedded the idea of recollection all through his design, moving vertically from grief to renewal.

But who exactly will build it? After 9/11, New York Governor George Pataki formed the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. (LMDC) to oversee restoration of the Trade Center site. But the 15 LMDC board members share power with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the agency that built the Trade Center and owns the land. The Port Authority in turn must accommodate Larry Silverstein, a New York City developer who signed a 99-year lease on the Trade Center six weeks before the attack. Silverstein is partnered with a retail developer, Westfield America, that is pushing for maximum shopping space in any new plan. For good measure, he also has his own famous architect, David Childs. Though Silverstein says he is committed to building Libeskind's tower, it could be Childs, not Libeskind, who provides its final design — assuming that Silverstein stays in the game at all and is not bought out by the Port Authority. Got that?

Then there's the money question. While the museum and other cultural facilities in Libeskind's design are likely to be built with some combination of public and private funds, no one knows where those will come from. As for the office towers, are there many private developers ready to build them in lower Manhattan, where 14 million sq. ft. of office space sit empty? And as of now, no law requires any private developer to accept Libeskind's designs, though arm twisting and pleasanter incentives from the state and city can be expected.

As befits a knot this tangled, the crucial figures in awarding the Trade Center job to Libeskind were not the official decision makers of the LMDC. In August the LMDC had set in motion a worldwide competition for the site. Early last month six semifinalists were winnowed down, Survivor-style, to two: Libeskind and Rafael Vinoly, a global design star of the same magnitude as Libeskind who worked as part of a project team called THINK. Its design featured immense twin towers of steel latticework. High-rise delicacies, they looked like ghostly evocations of the annihilated Trade Center — too much so for some people. The Port Authority also preferred Libeskind's design because it was less expensive and easier to integrate with their plans for transit lines and a rail station. And New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg liked the street life and plazas.


For weeks it appeared that Libeskind had the upper hand, until a last-minute push for Vinoly/THINK by lmdc heavyweight Roland Betts, a New York City developer and former Yale roommate of George W. Bush's. After a four-hour meeting last Tuesday in which both proposals were examined over sandwiches, the lmdc's site committee, which Betts heads, voted 43, with one abstention, in favor of Vinoly. But the next day their recommendation was overruled by Pataki and Bloomberg, who had long favored Libeskind's plan. Betts says that's fine. "Nobody was Vinoly or bust," he insists.

Now it's Libeskind or bust. Though born in Poland, he's a U.S. citizen. He likes to remind people that at 13 he came to the U.S. with his parents, Holocaust survivors, arriving on a ship that glided past the Statue of Liberty. For much of his architectural career, he was a teacher and theorist, not a builder. Then in the late 1980s, while living in Europe, he won a competition to design the Jewish Museum of Berlin. His complex building, a zinc-clad thunderbolt, operates in a way similar to that of Trade Center design. Its very lines acknowledge a calamity — in this case the Holocaust — while offering pathways for a story of survival and continuity. It instantly made him a worldwide design star, with commissions in Europe, Asia and the U.S., including a planned addition to the Denver Art Museum in his most explosive style.

Berlin also gave Libeskind combat experience in guiding a controversial design to completion. Now he and his wife Nina are moving back to New York City, looking for a new home "right next to the site." Architects like to keep a close eye on things. By the time of his death in 1926, Antonio Gaudi was living full time on the construction site of his masterpiece, the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona. For the record, it's still unfinished.

TIME Magazine.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030310-428061-1,00.html

(Edited by Fabb at 5:02 pm on Mar. 4, 2003)

Anonymous
March 4th, 2003, 06:02 PM
Quote: from Bennie B on 12:01 am on Mar. 4, 2003
Awesome pics JMG. *He's got a nice renderer, but those buildings belong in Pittsburg PA.

I'm with you and I feel that it's better to give NYC back what it lost.

dbhstockton
March 4th, 2003, 08:05 PM
Are you going to remind us in every thread? *

TomAuch
March 4th, 2003, 10:05 PM
Don't listen to TalB. He got banned from the other forum because he made all these dumb posts. Look at what he said on NYCS:

..."This is a faceless message board! *Also, there was never any rule saying how long anybody can be a member. *Maybe America really does stand for Unamiously Stupid Americans b/c they allowed hijackers to take their planes from Logan Airport in Boston and crash them into buildings. *A few months ago something like this happened at David Ben-Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv and the plane was before it could even leave and that was b/c of the security they had. *The people who usually have problems with me are usually found to be of American/Canadian birth. *Ron Devito claims that this board is for nothing but a bunch of whinners who hardly do anything and he was right."


And look at his profile:

http://www.theopinion.com/newyorkcityskyline/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.pl?board=rebuild&action=viewprofile&username= TalB

He had more than 1000 posts, but the moderator deleted them.

TonyO
March 4th, 2003, 10:39 PM
The Port Authority rep was on New York Tonight talking about the Libeskind plan, and a little about the selection process.

He did reiterate that this is just a land-use plan. *He also talked about how Silverstein came around to work with them. *He had good things to say about Libeskind's enthusiasm and ability to persuade.

One thing he did mention also is how Foster's plan actually was the most popular (wow, someone can actually admit it!).

So for those of you who need evidence more than polls, it was on NY1 tonight....as if that wasn't obvious enough.

NyC MaNiAc
March 4th, 2003, 10:57 PM
thats a a step in the right direction (IMO), Tonyo. If they know that a Twin Tower design was the most popular, this might increase the chance of seeing true twin towers at the site.

JMGarcia
March 4th, 2003, 11:11 PM
One thing he did mention also is how Foster's plan actually was the most popular (wow, someone can actually admit it!).

The first problem was that even Foster was only getting about 30-35% in favor. There were still 65-70% who wanted something else. Maybe if it was over 50% it would have been a different story.

The second problem is that the public doesn't get the deciding vote on the subject. Its vote counts, but not as much as Pataki, Bloomberg, the PA, or even Silverstein.

As NY1 also said, "The basic paradox is that the public wants its skyline back, but few would be willing to work there and fewer still would be willing to rent there."

NyC MaNiAc
March 4th, 2003, 11:32 PM
Well, then we need to gather up 50,000 people. We need to gather up huge companies. we need to show that there all people who will work up there.

I would. I'm sure alot of you would. Survivors of 9/11 have said they will. Several companies have said they will work in newly rebuilt Twin Towers. So let's make our voice heard.

JMGarcia
March 4th, 2003, 11:45 PM
I'm sure a lot of people would work there, the problem is that a lot of companies won't rent there.

Unless some major corporation comes forth and says "We will relocate to the WTC but only if its over 100 floors high" then you're not going to convince anyone in power that the heights must be increased.

TomAuch
March 4th, 2003, 11:49 PM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 10:45 pm on Mar. 4, 2003
I'm sure a lot of people would work there, the problem is that a lot of companies won't rent there.

Unless some major corporation comes forth and says "We will relocate to the WTC but only if its over 100 floors high" then you're not going to convince anyone in power that the heights must be increased.

Now if we had taken that defeatist attitude back in Jan '02 when the LMDC condemned building tall, then we wouldn't even have the Libeskind design right now.

JMGarcia
March 4th, 2003, 11:51 PM
We are at a different point in the process than Jan 02 and you know what, they're still not building tall offices now are they.

JMGarcia
March 4th, 2003, 11:52 PM
Oh and PS, enough with that "defeatist" BS just because someone offers an alternative suggestion to your current tactics.

Fabb
March 5th, 2003, 09:31 AM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 10:45 pm on Mar. 4, 2003

Unless some major corporation comes forth and says "We will relocate to the WTC but only if its over 100 floors high"


Now, who could be tempted to say that ?
How about Microsoft ? Aren't they fed up with their low-rise headquarters in Richmond ?

Someone should call B. G.

JMGarcia
March 5th, 2003, 10:04 AM
Now, who could be tempted to say that ?
How about Microsoft ? Aren't they fed up with their low-rise headquarters in Richmond ?

Someone should call B. G.

Funny, I though of exactly the same thing. I also thought that maybe Steve (I love publicity) Forbes might be good.

TonyO
March 5th, 2003, 11:27 AM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 10:11 pm on Mar. 4, 2003
[quote]
As NY1 also said, "The basic paradox is that the public wants its skyline back, but few would be willing to work there and fewer still would be willing to rent there."


They do claim that. *I don't know where they get their data though. *That's an easy thing to say, but there has never been any poll I have seen on that. *The NYTimes recently ran a story how the Empire State Building has the lowest vacancy in a decade. *And you can't get a good cell signal in the building!

JMGarcia
March 5th, 2003, 11:50 AM
I was just quoting what they said on NY 1. But, there have supposedly been market research studies done on the issue which have shown that large corporations do prefer lower floors. Idle claims that there is a market for higher floors will get you nowhere.

Even before 9/11 companies preferred not to have to deal with the express/local elevator setup in the WTC. Builders preferred not to go to the expense of extra elevator banks and resulting smaller floor plates on the lower floors even before 9/11.

Its a very, very hard sell to say that the market really wants taller buildings unless you can come up with the market research to support it. It is obvious to the public and developers that a group like the rebuilding lobby has ulterior motives for claims about there being a market for high floor offices. Without supporting data (not anecdotes) you're not going to convince developers to spend or banks to lend an extra billion or so dollars.

TonyO
March 5th, 2003, 01:27 PM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 10:50 am on Mar. 5, 2003
I was just quoting what they said on NY 1. But, there have supposedly been market research studies done on the issue which have shown that large corporations do prefer lower floors. Idle claims that there is a market for higher floors will get you nowhere.


All seeing one, I was stating what I have read. *Feel free to read it yourself. *This is the article, although you need a subscription to read it. *If you ever hear about any market study, please post it.

"New York TImes | Metropolitan Desk | December 25, 2002, Wednesday
Again the Tallest, and a Beacon; Empire State Building Wins With Tourists and Tenants "

(Edited by tonyo at 12:27 pm on Mar. 5, 2003)

JMGarcia
March 5th, 2003, 01:42 PM
I love it when people get sarcastic. It means they know they're wrong and won't admit it. In any case I said "there have supposedly".

BTW, I read the article and the upper floors are being rented mostly for broadcasting equipement and a few small companies, not the large, conservative corporation that would be need to fill the WTC. People do seem quite happy to rent the lower floors though.

TonyO
March 5th, 2003, 02:26 PM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 12:42 pm on Mar. 5, 2003
I love it when people get sarcastic. It means they know they're wrong and won't admit it. In any case I said "there have supposedly".


Hardly, but thanks for the diagnosis Dr. Garcia.

The article does talk about broadcasters renting out the very top floors. *But that isn't just equipment, as anyone knows who has worked inside the ESB, you can't have broadcast equipment inside that building - it just doesn't get through the shell. *So someone must be working on those floors.

JMGarcia
March 5th, 2003, 02:34 PM
I mustn't have read the chapter on sarcasm in "How to win friends and influence people." ;)

NYC Rocks
March 5th, 2003, 06:14 PM
Hey JMGarcia, are you sure that the 70 stories start at the slope? That'd be great, cause i originally thought they ended at the slope.

rootab
March 5th, 2003, 06:20 PM
i hate to promote like this, but wouldn't the spire be the perfect structure for a vertical memorial experience.

www.memorialfirst.com

there must be a more elegant solution than that ramp.

JMGarcia
March 5th, 2003, 07:02 PM
The two diagrams below (bigger ones are available for dowload at http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/pressimages.html) show 920ft/70 stories at the start of the slope. The diagrams are very rough and there's 2 separate options. What's more I'm sure it'll change between know and then.

http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/middle/program_diagrams01.jpg

http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/middle/program_diagrams02.jpg

Also, with a little division and measuring you can extrapolate the heights of the various parts from this diagram which confirms that the approximation is correct.

It looks to me that most of the new renderings are using the shorter option (#1) from above. :(

http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_d/slides/images/Slide21.jpg

TLOZ Link5
March 5th, 2003, 09:56 PM
Quote: from Fabb on 8:31 am on Mar. 5, 2003


Now, who could be tempted to say that ?
How about Microsoft ? Aren't they fed up with their low-rise headquarters in Richmond ?

Someone should call B. G.



It's Redmond, Fabb. *Redmond, Washington. *And I heard in the Post or the News that Microsodt is building up its presence in New York. *Maybe not its HQ, but definitely a presence.

Fabb
March 6th, 2003, 05:17 AM
Oups.
But I wasn't being serious, of course. The state of Washington has already lost Boeing...

amigo32
March 6th, 2003, 07:40 AM
LOL! *The charm of subtle sarcasm. *:)

Liz L
March 7th, 2003, 04:54 PM
Well, I have to admit that the modified Libeskind plan looks better than the original, and the buildings don't look like they're trying to hide behind the rest of the skyline...

About the Empire State Building - I also heard that it was really hard to run cable through it...which brings up the question of how well older skyscrapers, even the great landmarks, will be able to compete with newer buildings...and skyscrapers must "earn their keep", so to speak, by fulfilling their *intended purpose, unlke, say, a castle, which can easily be turned into a museum...

JMGarcia
March 7th, 2003, 05:28 PM
A very good example of skyscrapers needing to earn there keep is 40 Wall St. As you can see in the picture it has very small floor plates compared to the modern building next to it (60 Wall St. ).

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/40wall/wall40.jpg

Because of the small floor plates it could no longer be considered the most desirable of places to rent. Generally corporations prefer bigger floor plates these days.

At one time Trump (who owned the building) was going to turn it into residential. The smaller floor plates are well suited to residential as everyone wants all their rooms to have windows (doh!). At the time downtown vacancy rates were very higher. Higher than today in fact.

Before the plan got too far along though the .com boom started and downtown was severly short of office space. Trump signficantly upgraded the building and marketed the new tower offices as "boutique" offices for lawyers etc. who prefer many offices to have windows. It was all very successful.

In any case, the building needed to change to "earn its keep" so to speak.

dbhstockton
March 7th, 2003, 05:29 PM
That's what people who moan about the vacancy rates downtown ignore. *The vacancy rates are high, in part, because the buildings are so ancient (in skyscraper years). *Spanking-new, high-tech class-A commercial space downtown will be very desirable.

NyC MaNiAc
March 7th, 2003, 05:38 PM
Well, I sure am ready to see new modern buildings downtown. And it needs to happen soon or Downtown will become completly undesirable compared to midtown. The WTC project and other projects must start quick downtown or Downtown will be forgotten next to the builiding "boom" in Midtown. I really wish that the distribution of building was even between Midtown and Downtown.

Does anyone see this as a possibility in the near future?

Fabb
March 7th, 2003, 05:57 PM
NO. For a simple reason : Midtown has plenty of room and Dowtown is already densely constructed.

The only possibility for Dowtown to rival Midtown : go up, build taller skyscrapers.