PDA

View Full Version : Activist Group's Vision of WTC Massacre



JMGarcia
June 11th, 2003, 04:53 PM
From The Civic Alliance. The .pdf URL have better pictures.

Possible Change in Towers:
http://www.civic-alliance.org/pdf/OverallExplanation.pdf

The following changes have been proposed to the Libeskind master plan, which could result in the mundane-looking “business-as-usual” office development shown at the right:
• No commitment to the iconic Freedom Tower, including its sky gardens and elegant spire.
• The addition of a fifth office building on the WTC site over the location of the permanent PATH station:
increasing the amount of office space and obscuring the “grand entrance” to Lower Manhattan that was supposed to be open to light and air.
• No commitment to substantively include Daniel Libeskind in a design team, or to strictly follow the design concept that Libeskind has put forward.

http://www.civic-alliance.org/images/advocacy_main1.jpghttp://www.civic-alliance.org/images/advocacy_main2.jpg

http://www.nynewsday.com/media/photo/2003-06/8155174.jpg http://www.nynewsday.com/media/photo/2003-06/8155181.jpg


Moving Memorial to Ground Level
http://www.civic-alliance.org/pdf/MemorialExplanation.pdf

The image at the right illustrates the effect of the memorial site without the sunken memorial plaza, the
central component of the Libeskind master plan. Without the recessed area, the plan loses much of its
emotional impact. In the rendering, the memorial area is opened to commuters and residents crossing through the memorial site. As the site transforms to a routine short cut, the sanctity of the memorial space is
lost.

http://www.civic-alliance.org/images/advocacy_main3.jpghttp://www.civic-alliance.org/images/advocacy_main4.jpg

Retail Changes
http://www.civic-alliance.org/pdf/ShoppingMallExplanation.pdf
The current program for retail at the WTC site calls for approximately 1 million square feet of retail space.
Westfield Properties has lobbied for putting most of this substantial amount – larger than New Jersey’s
Paramus Mall – in an enclosed shopping mall. Much of the square footage would need to be squeezed
underground adjacent to the tower footprints and memorial. The image on the right illustrates that a fullfledged shopping center is not an appropriate neighbor for the memorial site.

http://www.civic-alliance.org/images/advocacy_main3.jpghttp://www.civic-alliance.org/images/advocacy_main5.jpg


(Edited by JMGarcia at 4:05 pm on June 11, 2003)

JMGarcia
June 11th, 2003, 04:56 PM
Civic group criticizes attempts to change Libeskind plan

By KAREN MATTHEWS
Associated Press Writer

June 11, 2003, 3:04 PM EDT


NEW YORK -- Redevelopment power brokers are trying to water down Daniel Libeskind's World Trade Center plan by hiring different architects to design the buildings and possibly even raising the sunken memorial to ground level, a civic group said Wednesday.

"The entire world is watching what we do at this site, and business as usual simply won't cut it," said Robert Yaro, chairman of the Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New York.

Alliance members charged at a news conference at Pace University that developer Larry Silverstein has denied Libeskind an active role in the design process.

"The Libeskind plan was chosen as the result of an historic and inclusive public process," said Holly Leicht, director of design, planning and advocacy for the Municipal Art Society. "Attempts to dramatically change it undermine the public's trust in the rebuilding process that led to its selection."

Libeskind, whose design for a rebuilt trade center was chosen in February, is currently under contract to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., but his role in designing the actual buildings is unclear.

His spokeswoman did not immediately return a call for comment on Wednesday.

Silverstein, who signed a 99-year lease on the twin towers just weeks before they were destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001, said Tuesday that it has "not yet been determined" whether Libeskind will have a hand in designing even the 1,776-foot "Freedom Tower" that is to be his plan's signature building.

Speaking at a real estate trade show Wednesday, development corporation interim president Kevin Rampe said "a series of designers" would design the new trade center's buildings and "we'll end up really with something special in terms of diversity of design and the excellence of design that we've come to expect in New York."

The Civic Alliance also noted that retail developer Westfield Properties has brought legal action against the Port Authority, charging that the Libeskind master plan isn't sufficiently retail friendly, and that some downtown groups have been lobbying to raise Libeskind's sunken memorial plaza to ground level.

"The memorial space is clearly what distinguished the Libeskind plan from the other plans, and was the primary reason for its selection," said Ric Bell, executive director of the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects. "We understand that architecture plans evolve, but the critical ideas should not be altered."

Gulcrapek
June 11th, 2003, 05:19 PM
How about no?

And is that Bertlesmann in the first rendering?

Fabb
June 11th, 2003, 05:48 PM
"we'll end up really with something special in terms of diversity of design and the excellence of design that we've come to expect in New York."


Diversity or cacophony ?

Why would we want that ? To make it unclear whether each building belongs to the complex or not ?

Eugenius
June 11th, 2003, 05:54 PM
Quote: from Gulcrapek on 4:19 pm on June 11, 2003
How about no?

And is that Bertlesmann in the first rendering?
I was just about to say that. *It looks like they changed the color scheme slightly, but left it unchanged otherwise. *In fact, I think it is even the same approximate height.

Fabb
June 11th, 2003, 05:58 PM
or 50 percent taller.
But it's still awful and inappropriate.

JMGarcia
June 11th, 2003, 06:04 PM
Personally, I think it is very important for the towers to have a design coherence like the World Financial Center, Rockefeller Center or ther original WTC. The Times Sq. model just won't do the site justice.

I wouldn't mind the put being brought up to ground level if it was going to be an open park. But, its not. It is no doubt going to have some bombastic tribute to the pain of the survivors and I therefore prefer it to be removed from the day to day workings of the site.

The underground retail in Libeskind's plan is as big as the old WTC mall. Its the additional retail space that is at street level. The old WTC was also headed this way with the addition of Borders and Cosi and the planned redesign of the plaza. I can't see where Westfield can complain. Perhaps if they made their complaints public I would understand.

JMGarcia
June 11th, 2003, 07:39 PM
By Katia Hetter
Staff Writer
Newsday

The following is a transcript of an interview with architect Daniel Libeskind on Wednesday about the Civic Alliance's concerns:

Q: What do you think of the Civic Alliance's concerns?

A: "Somebody from the Bronx doesn't get discouraged so easily. I truly intend to stick to what the public has seen and what the public wants"

Q: Will the end result at the World Trade Center site look like what you proposed?

A: "I think, yes, absolutely. I wouldn't be involved if this was business as usual. "

Q: Are all the proposals to change the plans part of negotiating strategies?

A: "It's a natural part of daily business, and despite what you read in the press, we're actually forging consensus and moving ahead …What you see (in Libeskind's initial plans) is what will built on the site … There are many different opinions and interest groups. That is natural ... my role is to keep vision alive and to deliver the project public has seen … I'm not in this for the short run."

TonyO
June 11th, 2003, 08:47 PM
Um. *Let's be real please. *This is absolutely ridiculous in its portrayal.

Funny too, that the tall tower in the 'horror' plan is a real building above floor 70. *Is that so horrible?

DominicanoNYC
June 11th, 2003, 09:04 PM
What the hell are they thinking. I usually say I don't like the Libeskind plan, but ugh. This is the stiffest most uninspireing design I've seen yet. This changes my view of the Libeskind plan. Even the people in the memorial pic are all stiff. All af them are in black suits. The buildings are just as uniformed as the people. :angry:

ZippyTheChimp
June 11th, 2003, 09:20 PM
Dominicano, these aren't design proposals. They're illustrations of what could happen.

In the first case, too many cooks.
The 2nd, a ground level memorial.
The third, too much retail below ground.

It is really awful though.

Jasonik
June 11th, 2003, 09:53 PM
Scare-mongering . . . though their hearts are in the right place.
I doubt Silverstein is this crass a developer.
'Dan with the master plan' will save us. *;)

Agglomeration
June 12th, 2003, 12:54 AM
I wouldn't count on it. The criticism of the ridiculous Libeskind plan and any changes to it is taking a life of its own. I still don't like it to tell you the truth. The office buildings are too short and too banal, the memorial site is still open to interpretation, and there are already signs of a power struggle between Silverstein and Libeskind over who will design the buildings. I don't lament Westfield's complaints about how the design will hurt their business.

At least Yamasaki backed up his plans with 110-floor Twin Towers, plenty of underground space, and a relatively simple, if flawed, design.

This has been too much of a top-down process, further exacerbated by a still-prevalent fear of tall buildings, and constant whining by the victims' families hasn't helped. Any suggestions?

(Edited by Agglomeration at 12:32 am on June 12, 2003)

Chicagoan
June 12th, 2003, 01:07 AM
I did not like the Libeskind design all that much. It was the third most liked, for me. I actually think that most folk liked it more for those skyline image[s] than for the design of the memorial space. Moreover, I think that his design, especially with the September 11th Place building, would be overpowering to any memorial that is to be built there. I have seen the renderings and I think they are much more "spacious" than the real perspectives.

I welcome many changes to it. But I feel that it has already been compromised too much.

Raising the memorial ground to grade would be a good idea, as long as it becomes an urban space. I also think that all the structures should be aesthetically cohesive. That rendering showing the polglot of structures look like LA, Manhattan, and Vegas had a baby. Then that child grew up and took acid. It is really bad. Moreover a tall folie of a tower, as Libeskind envisioned it, ir really pathetic.

Ptarmigan
June 12th, 2003, 02:13 AM
I don't like the Libeskind design that much. The design almost looks like the Bertelsmann Building in Midtown Manhattan. I think they should rebuild it as it was before 9/11, but taller and safer. Also, it should have a memorial.

Zzed
June 12th, 2003, 07:22 AM
didn't i post here yesterday? are posts being censored? this is most confusing ...

JMGarcia
June 12th, 2003, 09:18 AM
Here's one of my favorite quotes yet...


Yaro criticized local residents who want the memorial at street level.

"You'd think we were designing a neighborhood tot lot; this is the attitude some folks have," he said. "This is not a neighborhood facility. It has to work for the neighborhood, but you can't just design this thing to the interests of people who live around it."

Kris
June 12th, 2003, 09:19 AM
June 12, 2003

Supporters Object to Efforts to Alter Ground Zero Plan

By EDWARD WYATT

A coalition of civic and planning organizations said yesterday that Daniel Libeskind's plan for the World Trade Center site is in danger of being undermined by business and community groups that have proposed changes to it and by the companies that hold leases to the site.

But rebuilding officials and others involved in the process disputed the criticisms, saying that they are working together and that few if any decisions will be made without Mr. Libeskind's support. In addition, rebuilding officials said they had all but ruled out some of the proposed changes that are the most worrisome to the planning groups that spoke yesterday.

Officials of the group, the Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New York, said Larry A. Silverstein, the developer who controls the office space at the site, and others were pressuring rebuilding officials to accept changes to the Libeskind plan.

If carried out, those changes could take the soul out of Mr. Libeskind's plan and undermine the public process that created it, said Robert D. Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association, one of the organizers of the Civic Alliance, which comprises more than 75 civic, labor, business, academic and community groups.

For example, one of the chief objections voiced yesterday by Civic Alliance officials concerned a proposal by some groups of downtown residents to place the memorial at ground level, rather than 30 feet below ground, as Mr. Libeskind has proposed. The change would allow residents of Battery Park City to cross the site more easily to reach subway lines and commercial and cultural developments.

Kevin Rampe, the interim president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the lead rebuilding agency, said in an interview yesterday that although the memorial setting will be determined by the jury overseeing the memorial design competition, it must be consistent with the Libeskind design.

"It's hard to imagine that any memorial plan that would fill the bathtub area to ground level would be consistent with the Libeskind plan," Mr. Rampe said, referring to the sunken memorial area. "The entire memorial area will not be filled in."

Family members of people killed at the trade center on Sept. 11, 2001, also have expressed their desire to see the Libeskind plan maintained. At a recent meeting with members of the memorial jury, some family members also called on the jurors to closely follow the mission statement and design guidelines that the family members helped to develop, according to a transcript of the session released by the development corporation. The meeting, on May 27, was closed to the public.

The development corporation and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the trade center site, have also agreed that although Mr. Libeskind's design will provide the basis for the development of the site's office buildings, other architects will be hired to do detailed designs of the office buildings and retail space.

According to a memorandum of understanding between the two agencies, which is scheduled to take effect within a few days, those designs will be completed in cooperation with Mr. Silverstein and Westfield America, the shopping center company that holds the lease to retail space at the trade center site.

That has led to fears among some members of the Civic Alliance that the buildings will not resemble the designs in Mr. Libeskind's signature images, but instead be boxy structures indistinguishable from other downtown office towers. These members also fear that retail space will infringe on what some people call the sacred nature of the memorial site.

Mr. Libeskind said yesterday that that is not the case. "I'm not the only architect who will be working on the entire 16-acre site," he said. "There will be many, many others working in big teams." But his design "will be at the nexus, at the core of the project," he added. "I'll be very involved. I'm not going to be there just as some form of critic."

Howard J. Rubenstein, a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, said he "supports the Libeskind plan."

"There will necessarily be refinements as the concepts are developed," Mr. Rubenstein said. "But it will be a consensual process among the various agencies, stakeholders, Libeskind and other professionals."


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

TonyO
June 12th, 2003, 09:25 AM
The street-level memorial is a good idea. *While I agree that the Libeskind pit is 'different', different doesn't mean good by default.

This report is bizarre. *Instead of the Gap in their "mallification" why not just be completely in left field and depict a WalMart?

JMGarcia
June 12th, 2003, 09:39 AM
The pit has never bothered me to be honest. If the plan was just to put a park in the pit then it probably would be better at ground level, although sunken gardens can be nice too.

But

There is no doubt going to be some bombastic memorial to the pain of the victim's families. For that reason I prefer it to be out of the way and the best solution to that is taking it away from street level thereby removing it from the day to day use of the site.

DominicanoNYC
June 12th, 2003, 12:59 PM
The tallest building in the Civic Alliance plan look a lot like the Bertelsmann Building.

NoyokA
June 12th, 2003, 01:18 PM
That's because it is lol...

From right to left: Bertlesmann , 919 Third Avenue , Building in Frankfurt , unknown , the old 7 WTC , 191 North Wacker in Chicago.

You guys know these are not architectural renderings, right?

emmeka
June 12th, 2003, 01:28 PM
Dont worry, I noticed that they were all already completed skyscrapers, but i get the message!

JMGarcia
June 12th, 2003, 01:29 PM
Go take a look at the URL from Newsday. Its pretty clear what these renderings are all about.

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/nyc-alliancegal0611,0,5942220.photogallery?coll=nyc-topheadlines-left&index=1

JMGarcia
June 12th, 2003, 01:32 PM
Sunken memorial at Trade Center pit may be scrapped

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
NY Daily NEws

The door is “slightly ajar” to scrapping Daniel Libeskind’s plan for a sunken memorial at the World Trade Center site, the chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. said Thursday.

“It’s now in the hands of the jury to decide,” John Whitehead said. “It’s in the jury’s hands ... if they believe there is a plan that is far better than the Libeskind plan.”

When it was presented to the public last December, a central feature of Libeskind’s plan was leaving the foundation of the towers 70 feet below ground level exposed in remembrance of the terrorist attack.

By the time the plan was selected in February, the depth of the “pit” had been reduced to 30 feet.

Since then, some lower Manhattan residents and business groups have been lobbying to do away with the sunken memorial entirely.

At a public hearing last month, Carl Weisbrod, who is a member of the development corporation’s board and the president of the Alliance for Downtown New York, a business group, asked the jury that will choose a design for a trade center memorial to consider schemes that place the memorial at ground level.

Speaking at the development corporation’s regular board meeting, Whitehead said the door to such a design is “slightly ajar but not very far ajar.”

A spokeswoman for Libeskind did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

The jury that was chosen to pick a memorial design will begin reviewing submissions next month and will select a plan this fall.

Meanwhile, housing advocates held a news conference prior to the board meeting questioning why the development corporation has made no commitment to develop low- and moderate-income apartments.

“There is a profound failure of leadership here — on the part of the mayor, the governor and the LMDC — to address the housing needs of lower Manhattan,” said Victor Bach, senior housing analyst at the Community Service Society.

The advocates stood in the back of the room and waved their signs during a discussion of a development corporation plan to hold workshops at which downtown residents would advise the agency on how to spend $1.3 billion in unallocated federal funds.

ZippyTheChimp
June 12th, 2003, 01:39 PM
I hope one of the inside people has writing skills. Maybe we'll get a good book out of this in 10 years.

Agglomeration
June 12th, 2003, 01:41 PM
Well, people are starting to wake up to how arrogant and unaccountable all the rebuilding authorities are to the public, whether they want new 110-floor Twin Towers, want the memorial pit to be scrapped, want a better view of Lower Manhattan, want to see a downtown Grand Central, whether or not they want to save West Street or to tunnel it under, and so on.

TonyO
June 12th, 2003, 02:28 PM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 8:39 am on June 12, 2003
There is no doubt going to be some bombastic memorial to the pain of the victim's families. For that reason I prefer it to be out of the way and the best solution to that is taking it away from street level thereby removing it from the day to day use of the site.


Yes, if they have their way I completely agree that it could be better out of view. *In time it could become part of the scenery though and the more public space the better in my opinion. *

JMGarcia
June 12th, 2003, 02:38 PM
Out of all the groups maybe it'll be the low-income housing advocates that finally get their way. ;)

NYatKNIGHT
June 12th, 2003, 02:40 PM
I actually prefer a sunken memorial area - it's more dramatic.

Jasonik
June 12th, 2003, 03:22 PM
The sunken memorial space has the chief effect of making it clear to the passersby that this space is set aside and therefore special- inviting inquiry and ultimately entry. *Could this be accomplished through other means? *Possibly, but the primary separateness cannot be glossed over. *
JM, the creation of the memorial is essentially a reminder of that which is not be forgotten or ignored. *I hope (not spitefully) that whatever memorial is chosen will confront you with the truth whenever you are in the vicinity. *This is not urban renewal, it is remembrance. *That being said the memorial need not be a downer, as it will be the centerpiece for all new development. *I hope the memorial is an affirmation of life, something viewed proudly and fondly by New Yorkers, this is something too important to relegate to background status.

NYatKNIGHT
June 12th, 2003, 03:26 PM
Quote: from Zzed on 6:22 am on June 12, 2003
didn't i post here yesterday? are posts being censored? this is most confusing ...
It wasn't deleted, Zzed, you posted in New WTC Renderings (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/topic.cgi?forum=4&topic=632&start=80) which I believe is what this thread was called temporarily until JMGarcia edited the title.

Evan
June 12th, 2003, 03:28 PM
I'm not that sure if I am getting this. *Westfrield America wants to put as much as 1 million square feet of retail in a secluded underground mall??? *Having some retail space in that area makes sense because of the high volume, but most of the retail should be ground level. *If the city ever wants downtown to be a 24 hour communtity, it needs more housing, and ground level retail/entertainment. *I see no point in having that much retail space below ground. *Besides, malls are boring.

JMGarcia
June 12th, 2003, 03:34 PM
My fear is that memorial will not be a reminder of what happened and a rememberance of those that died.

Instead, my fear is that it will be the suffering of the survivors, especially family members of the victims and their loss that is will be brought front and center much as it is the loss to the survivors that is the main message of both the Oklahoma City and Pentagon memorials. Both veritably scream the point of view of surviving family members - "I have lost someone and I have suffered". It is the emptines left behind in their hearts that is memorialized. Neither memorial speaks to the life or the legacy of those that actually died.

I believe that memorials like this only resonate with those that actually lived through the event. That sentiment is lost for future generations.

The brilliance of the Vietnam memorial is that it can speak this personal message to a surviving family member of a soldier killed in the war and can also speak to future generations of the conflict itself in a less personal, more esoteric way.

ZippyTheChimp
June 12th, 2003, 03:37 PM
Westfield wants to create the conditions they had at the old WTC, the maximum number of people passing the retail stores.
That traffic helps them set higher rents for tenants.
That mall was extremely successful.

Street level retail is a street life issue. i think the one thing that is most successful about the design is that there is an equal amount of mall space plus street retail that satisfies community requirements.

I don't know how Westfield is going to argue this in court.

TonyO
June 12th, 2003, 04:26 PM
Another thing to consider is that a below-grade memorial pit is going to mean real crowding at entrances. *Unlike other parks that have many entrances, this will be limited to a few to scale the 30 feet down. *Just a bad idea all around I think.

Garcia puts it well, the current mood with the families is to memorialize their own loss, not the actual people. *We'll see with what they finally select if sense wins out.

NYatKNIGHT
June 12th, 2003, 04:40 PM
I'm not sure we know at this point what all the entrances will be let alone judge their capacity. Libeskind put entrances at every corner, but said the memorial designers can add as many as they envision, including bridges going over it.

I share your angst over these victims' families creating a morbid spectacle for themselves, but its a little too early to call it a bad idea all around. I have to believe this site still has the potential to be an amazing space. We're just going to have to sit tight until they show us the plans for the memorial.

(Edited by NYatKNIGHT at 4:29 pm on June 12, 2003)

Agglomeration
June 12th, 2003, 05:03 PM
"I'm not the only architect who will be working on the entire 16-acre site," he said. "There will be many, many others working in big teams." But his design "will be at the nexus, at the core of the project," he added. "I'll be very involved. I'm not going to be there just as some form of critic."- Daniel Libeskind

Riiiight... and I thought Silverstein was hiring his own architects for the buildings. :biggrin:

(Edited by Agglomeration at 4:04 pm on June 12, 2003)

Jasonik
June 12th, 2003, 06:14 PM
The memorial selection jury has one family member, numerous bureaucrats, and some creative types. *I don't believe (maybe wishfully) that they view their constutuency as solely the families. *
Everything built here must exude a vitality that the whole nation can look to and see that the terrorists have not won. *Libeskind has his head in the 'idealistic clouds' just enough to keep the commercial banalities at bay (hence the friction). *
As most everyone at this high level are adept at playing politics, they are well aware of the power of symbolism, and what it can do for the public. *Whether the tone is gloriously triumphal, technologically superior, or anything in between; Silverstein and Westfield aside, the decision is one of symbolism. *

The question to ask now is, "What do we hold dear that was threatened on 9/11, was it office space and retail, or was it much bigger than that?"

JMGarcia
June 12th, 2003, 06:18 PM
I think that right now everyone is just blowing smoke about who is going to design the site. People are trying to jockey for position. Silverstein through his PR agent is trying to play on the recent polls about NYers fear of height and those who dislike the Libeskind plan to allow him to build what he thinks will be a cheaper and more profitable site.

In the end run, Silverstein can't rebuild without approval of the PA (read Pataki). Its stipulated in his lease.

Silverstein can present whatever plans he wants by whatever architects he wants but the PA has to approve them or nothing gets built. Westfield and Marriott are in the same boat.

So Silverstein can say what he wants and Libeskind can say what he wants and the LMDC can say whatever they want but in the final analysis, the PA/Pataki will build what they want. Period. End of Story.

Agglomeration
June 12th, 2003, 06:31 PM
No surprise there. The PA is under the direct control of George Pataki and James McGreevey. They both come from suburban communities outside the main city and clearly have little idea about how important tall buildings or large projects are to the city's identity and economy. This is the main thing I resent about the two governors. And since the states they run are rivals, they are bound to clash over many issues concerning the PA and Ground Zero.

Jasonik
June 12th, 2003, 06:44 PM
What is their (PA/Pataki) motivation?
-They obviously don't want to alienate commercial interests.
-They obviously want to increase political appeal (read more power).

Maybe I'm an idealist to think that there is some inkling of civic enrichment percolating in the minds of these folks (Pataki and his hangers on).
Remember Pataki wants the 'Freedom Tower' and the State would be the first tennants. This is purely symbolic.
The PA know they are in good shape, they just don't want any limitations, they are used to doing what they want. *
How is this reconciled?

-Does Pataki look to the LMDC for civic high-mindedness?
-Is the LMDC just a red herring to placate the Manhattanites?
-Is there a Federal angle to all this?

Like I said before, this is much bigger than urban renewal.

Derek2k3
June 12th, 2003, 07:03 PM
Skyscraperpage continues to attract the biggest idiots in America...

"Hi JmGarcia.

Yes, I like the newer changes as shown in the photos at right!
These photos of the newer proposed changes to the towers make them look more buiness-like!

I especially like the new look in that the towers are all squared off evenly with FLAT roofs instead of those ugly looking slanted tops! And it shows the towers with a stunning bold new darker look. Yes, this newer look seems much more inviting in every detail!

But, there is still the burning question; Will the officials go for it.
And will it cost the same as the present design to build? Will the office floors be increased in the Freedom Tower? Will the spire retain its planned 1,776 foot height?

I truly hope that the changes can be made! I truly like the bold new look that the Freedom Tower has, along with the shorter towers in THIS design! It puts all of the towers in tune with most of the existing older towers in the area!

Also, I'm for the street-level memorial as opposed to the depressed below-ground one. If we could get LMDC & Silverstein to agree to this newer change that gives all of the towers evenly flat roofs, that would be great!

Of course, they may have everyone vote on the two designs to see which one looks more attractive & appealing."

The thread is still going with people thinking the pictures by the Civic Alliance are actual changes. All they had to do was read the article.:angry:

It also seems people can't comprehend that the buildings shown in Libeskind's renderings won't look like they do now which JMGarcia explains day after day. Rather people don't read and base everything on the preliminary renderings.



(Edited by Derek2k3 at 6:08 pm on June 12, 2003)

JMGarcia
June 12th, 2003, 07:12 PM
People are so visual. Give 'em a picture and text become meaningless. ;)

ZippyTheChimp
June 12th, 2003, 07:12 PM
I just saw that thread. It's really funny.

JM, you'd better get over there before a riot breaks out. :)

JMGarcia
June 12th, 2003, 07:21 PM
I think I'll use that thread as exhibit 1 on why the public should not be allowed to pick the WTC plan. ;)

TLOZ Link5
June 12th, 2003, 08:16 PM
::just finished reading Garcia's log of a SSPage.com message::

Oh. *My. *God. *Please don't tell me that people over there are generally this...shall we say, silly.

NoyokA
June 12th, 2003, 08:26 PM
What's going on at ssp would be funny if it was sarcastic. I wonder how me people are going to ask, hey, gee, is that the Bertselmann Building, I dont know charlie...

NoyokA
June 12th, 2003, 08:38 PM
My personal favorites....lol.

I'm not a fan of the design, but these improvements are worse!

These photos of the newer proposed changes to the towers make them look more buiness-like!

I especially like the new look in that the towers are all squared off evenly with FLAT roofs instead of those ugly looking slanted tops! And it shows the towers with a stunning bold new darker look. Yes, this newer look seems much more inviting in every detail!

I truly hope that the changes can be made! I truly like the bold new look that the Freedom Tower has, along with the shorter towers in THIS design!

Also, I'm for the street-level memorial as opposed to the depressed below-ground one. If we could get LMDC & Silverstein to agree to this newer change that gives all of the towers evenly flat roofs, that would be great!

This new rendering just simpers by comparison

But this? It looks like somebody just went around and kidnapped a bunch of random skyscrapers from several cities and then deposited them on the WTC site
This dude is the closest....

What if, God forbid, there's a small fire in one of the top floors of one of the towers? No one could go to the roof and be rescued by a chopper because the roof is slanted. And if people can't get to the stairs to get down to the lower floors, they are stuck there to die from smoke inhalation or be burned to death from the fire!!
Have you thought of that? I did.

Daquan13
Here's the intellectual of the bunch, just wish he knew what he was talking about. On second thought its better, he's having a good-time with his own little fantasy renderings.

And this new Times Square knockoff...
And getting even closer....

mundane-looking “business-as-usual” office development

Daniel needs to buy some new rendering teams, these things are too soft.
Offtopic, this is true.

I like the new design for Libeskinds buildings. I wish they would win but I'm sure the original plan will stick

What I didn't like however was the mall with the GAP (sigh) on the former grounds of the WTC.
hmmmm.... too easy.

Thought the 80's were over, eh? Now they're back- in New York. Attack of the 80s.
Actually one of those buildings is from 2000.

It looks to much like TIMES SQ the original look more like your remembering something No one wants to go see were about 2000 people died and see times sq type avertising everywere I could just go to midtown for that and and the do shoping at there mall the want to vist the museum

Ptarmigan
June 12th, 2003, 11:23 PM
Quote: from Derek2k3 on 5:03 pm on June 12, 2003
Skyscraperpage continues to attract the biggest idiots in America...

"Hi JmGarcia.

Yes, I like the newer changes as shown in the photos at right!
These photos of the newer proposed changes to the towers make them look more buiness-like!

I especially like the new look in that the towers are all squared off evenly with FLAT roofs instead of those ugly looking slanted tops! And it shows the towers with a stunning bold new darker look. Yes, this newer look seems much more inviting in every detail!

But, there is still the burning question; Will the officials go for it.
And will it cost the same as the present design to build? Will the office floors be increased in the Freedom Tower? Will the spire retain its planned 1,776 foot height?

I truly hope that the changes can be made! I truly like the bold new look that the Freedom Tower has, along with the shorter towers in THIS design! It puts all of the towers in tune with most of the existing older towers in the area!

Also, I'm for the street-level memorial as opposed to the depressed below-ground one. If we could get LMDC & Silverstein to agree to this newer change that gives all of the towers evenly flat roofs, that would be great!

Of course, they may have everyone vote on the two designs to see which one looks more attractive & appealing."

The thread is still going with people thinking the pictures by the Civic Alliance are actual changes. All they had to do was read the article.:angry:

It also seems people can't comprehend that the buildings shown in Libeskind's renderings won't look like they do now which JMGarcia explains day after day. Rather people don't read and base everything on the preliminary renderings.



(Edited by Derek2k3 at 6:08 pm on June 12, 2003)


Skyscraperpage and Skyscraper City has deteriorated, so I don't go there anymore. Most forums I go to have gone down hill. As for this site, its still the same as it was. Its rather civil and I hope it stays that way. They still have not finalize what will be built at the World Trade Center site.

NyC MaNiAc
June 13th, 2003, 01:36 AM
It's slowly getting there. Just, with all the complaining, it will take longer...

We'll all just have to wait and see.

billyblancoNYC
June 13th, 2003, 11:20 AM
Skyscraperpage always ends up as some mindless competition (and I do get sucked in sometimes) between who's city is better and blah, blah. *Sometimes it's actually entertaining to see how clueless some (or many) people really are.

Zzed
June 13th, 2003, 11:25 AM
It's slowly getting there. Just, with all the complaining, it will take longer...

We'll all just have to wait and see.

now where have i heard that before ... are you saying that we should all just sit back and let them build little heaps of mediocre crap on the site of one of the world's greatest buildings? *

Brooklyn Brawler
June 13th, 2003, 11:29 AM
At this point, it doesnt look like anything will be built at the WTC site with all the political bullcrap going on.

Typical politicians.

Agglomeration
June 13th, 2003, 01:50 PM
"Your city is better than mine!" That's practically all that Skyscraper Page and SkyscraperCity are now. I hardly ever post in those forums anyway except for the WTC sections; those two sections are the best parts of the forums it turns out.

Also there is some talk of the two of them merging into one. I can't wait. :biggrin:

(Edited by Agglomeration at 12:51 pm on June 13, 2003)

DominicanoNYC
June 13th, 2003, 02:03 PM
Quote: from Agglomeration on 12:50 pm on June 13, 2003
"Your city is better than mine!" That's practically all that Skyscraper Page and SkyscraperCity are now. I hardly ever post in those forums anyway except for the WTC sections; those two sections are the best parts of the forums it turns out.

Also there is some talk of the two of them merging into one. I can't wait. :biggrin:

(Edited by Agglomeration at 12:51 pm on June 13, 2003)

That is quite unlucky. I'm part of both too and it's true. Either they have polls or they just go at each other in an insult fest. That's why I joined this forum. I wanted to talk about architecture not bragging rights.

TonyO
June 13th, 2003, 10:31 PM
MEMORIAL PLAN 'PITS' REBUILD BOSS VS. SELF

By WILLIAM NEUMAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Email *Archives
Print *Reprint
*


June 13, 2003 -- The head of the downtown rebuilding agency said yesterday a Ground Zero memorial could be built at street level - instead of at the bottom of the World Trade Center pit - if the memorial jury feels that would make a "superior" design.
But Lower Manhattan Development Corp. Chairman John Whitehead later issued a statement backing off his earlier remarks, saying the agency will remain true to architect Daniel Libeskind's plan for a sunken memorial.

"It's a question where the door is slightly ajar but not very far ajar," Whitehead said initially, when asked about a recent push from downtown residents to raise the memorial from the floor of the 30-foot-deep pit envisioned in the Libeskind plan for Ground Zero.

Whitehead said the depressed memorial area and the exposed concrete foundation of the trade center are "an important part of the Libeskind plan."

But he said the ultimate decision is up to the 13-member jury that will choose a memorial design by the fall as part of an international competition.

"We encouraged [memorial contestants] to be imaginative and creative and . . . they are free to express their imagination in other plans," Whitehead said at a meeting of the LMDC board.

"It's now in the hands of the jury to decide if another plan is superior . . . if there is a plan they believe is far better than the Libeskind plan."



After Whitehead spoke, LMDC staffers rushed to clarify the chairman's statement.

"We are committed to preserving Libeskind's vision, a hallmark of which is the recessed memorial setting, and the winning memorial design must be consistent with that vision," said an LMDC statement released later in Whitehead's name.

At a hearing last month LMDC board member Carl Weisbrod asked the jury to consider a street-level memorial.

Weisbrod, president of the Downtown Alliance, and LMDC board member Madelyn Wils, chairwoman of Community Board 1, released a poll before the hearing showing that the majority of downtown residents dislike Libeskind's sunken memorial plan because it created a barrier in the middle of the neighborhood.

The poll showed 51 percent wanted a street-level memorial while 21 percent could live with the open pit if pedestrian bridges were built across it.

* Brian Christopher Hickey's name was added yesterday to the medical examiner's list of confirmed dead in the World Trade Center attacks.

TLOZ Link5
June 14th, 2003, 11:50 PM
Garcia, just a question. *Are you ever going to let on to the simpletons at Skyscraperpage that the "improvements" they're debating are simply conceptual renderings of what would happen if each architect were allowed to design one tower? *I've come to think that you're somewhat enjoying watching them act like idiots.

...wait, I think I just answered my own question.

(Edited by TLOZ Link5 at 10:51 pm on June 14, 2003)

JMGarcia
June 15th, 2003, 01:41 AM
I was waiting to see if someone would actually read the post beyond looking at the pictures and figure it out. In the meantime TomAuch explained it to them but it seems that they all just ignored him and continue to debate the merits of the new rendering. LOL

Its sad really. I shouldn't laugh. Really. :biggrin:

(Edited by JMGarcia at 12:41 am on June 15, 2003)

NyC MaNiAc
June 15th, 2003, 05:05 AM
Zzed, I understand your point.

But I've come to the realization that we can complain all we want, and we still won't get our Twin Towers back.

I've now decided to take a wait and see attitude, and it's working fine.

I don't know much, but I can assure you (without the backing of either newspaper articles or architects or city officials...) that nothing mediocre will be built there...

Can you really say that when the Twin Towers were built they were nothing more than mediocre?

Things change, and so will this project. We'll end up with something "mediocre" as you like to say, and end up with one of the most famous, beautiful, amazing buildings of all time.

History repeats itself, but hopefully the attacks won't.

ZippyTheChimp
June 15th, 2003, 08:35 AM
Telling them now might be dangerous - like awakening a sleepwalker.

Jasonik
June 15th, 2003, 11:41 AM
Though mind numbing prattle, it illustrates the conditions that brought about (rightly so) the general dismisal of the *6 Beyer Blinder Belle concepts. *Public opinion, however confused, deluded, or misinformed, is puported to be the way we govern this country.. scary Huh?
So incredibly ironic that The Civic Alliance releases these to sway public opinion in favor of keeping Libeskind's conceptual thrust, and it creates such confusion and abiguity.
I'm happy this forum understands that architectural critique depends on analysis, which often involves reading and research -not just looking at the pictures. *Very scholarly overall. *:)

I hope this general unsophisticated 'hemming and hawing' won't permeate the second round of the memorial competition w/ respect to street level v. below grade, or alphabetical v. company organization, or *affordable v. daring. *

The succesful Memorial must speak high and low with equal facilty capturing all with its lucid simplicity.

JMGarcia
June 17th, 2003, 10:35 PM
OMG - the thread has sunk to a new low. ;)

http://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?s=5ca58c5e38babae87b818b28bc89a30b& postid=16353#post16352

DominicanoNYC
June 17th, 2003, 10:48 PM
Lol.

NYguy
June 18th, 2003, 08:33 AM
(NY Post)

GROUPS QUIT DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE

By WILLIAM NEUMAN

June 18, 2003 -- The leading civic group advocating public participation in the rebuilding of lower Manhattan is being pulled apart by bitter fighting among its members - with at least two key downtown groups dropping out in recent days, The Post has learned.

"It is disturbing that . . . the Civic Alliance has [not] shown our community the slightest bit of respect, empathy or understanding," Madelyn Wils, the chairwoman of Community Board 1, wrote in a letter to the head of the Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New York.

Wils pulled CB-1 out of the alliance after its chairman, Bob Yaro, attacked critics who want to change architect Daniel Libeskind's plan for Ground Zero.

Wall Street Rising, a downtown business group, also quit last week.

The Civic Alliance is an umbrella organization of dozens of nonprofit groups - and Yaro's position alienated some of his own members.

"They don't represent people who live and work downtown," said Sudhir Jain, head of the WTC Residents Coalition.

Jain said his group will consider leaving the alliance, which led last year's "Listening to the City" forum on the first round of Ground Zero plans. *

Yaro, the head of the Regional Plan Association, also teaches urban planning at the University of Pennsylvania's Graduate School of Fine Arts, which is run by dean Gary Hack.

Hack is the urban planner on Libeskind's Ground Zero team.

"It's my part-time job," Yaro said. "I'm an academic. I don't have any connection to Libeskind."

JMGarcia
June 18th, 2003, 12:14 PM
Well, one thing Al-Qaeda proved is how many NYers live by the old cliche "my way or the highway" while the city suffers. For those who think its important to "not let terrorism win", NY's inability to get anything done is giving Al-Qaeda a bigger victory than not building the original towers ever would.

As the interest groups continue to fracture and become even less willing to compromise on anything this whole thing is turning into the 25 year Columbus Circle debacle. What was supposed to be a world class landmark finally rises as nothing more than a slightly better than average, shortened, mixed use corporate, business as usual development.

Agglomeration
June 18th, 2003, 01:54 PM
I couldn't agree with you more JM. The worst ones causing the factionalism are those who want shorter tall buildings, as short as possible, on the site, aka NIMBY's. These utopian wackos want to enforce their 19th-century-Paris vision of Lower Manhattan on the site as much as possible, either through bureaucratic gridlock, or through direct lawsuits. They're like the Pat Buchanan supporters who went in to hijack the infighting-plagued Reform Party, only to turn everyone else against them and bring about the party's collapse. Ultimately it's those 19th century nostalgics who must go.

Of course, all the authorities are playing along because they're rightly fearful of lawsuits or harsh condemnations in the media by the 'activists'. It's also one reason why they're ignoring the public, because they don't want to be caught in the middle of an ongoing and destructive power struggle and get hammered by the NIMBY's.

If anyone has any ideas on how to fix this mess, they should be discussed.

JMGarcia
June 18th, 2003, 02:36 PM
Step 1 should be to realize that the rebuilders, Silverstein, victims families, and the local residents are being just as inflexible as the NIMBYs. All these groups want it their way and only their way, everyone else be damned. Each and everyone is responsible for the factionalism.

Step 2 would be for every group to stop trashing each and every suggestion that is not their own out of hand. Have any of the NIMBYs endorsed a plan that is not their own? Have the rebuilders? Has Silverstein? After two rounds of official, professional proposals, and countless others there seems to be none that a majority can compromise on and rally around because it is not their own selfish vision.

Step 3 would be for some group, any group to present alternatives that are compromises, not just alternatives that are a re-iteration of what they and only they want.

Finally, I do not believe that the majority of NYers want replicas of the twin towers built. I don't even believe that a majority of NYers want twin 110 story office buildings. A substantial minority certainly does but not an outright majority.

The public is in no way going to make the best decision for the site. The public as a whole is generally too ignorant of urban design and quality architecture to make such a decision. Just look at the idiots at skyscraperpage.com, and they're supposedly more educated about these things than the public!

I find myself in an odd situation because I have always totally disagreed with the Civic Alliances agenda for the site and Yaro's in particular. Yet, I completely agree with their position that the powers that be should not let each and every interest group, Silverstein, Westfield, etc to continue to whittle away at the project.

As far as my vote goes for who is the worst one. It is without a doubt Silverstein. His stupid restrictions have already hamstrung the competition and his continued push to completely shut out everyone and do his own developement with his own architects on his own plan is the "business as usual" that will give no one what they want. Without Silverstein, Foster would have been a shoo-in and further refinements to his tower would have made it spectacular.

In hindsight I sometimes wish THINK had won. The LMDC would have built the lattice towers with the money from Washington and Silverstein/Westfield etc. would have had the rest of the site to themselves to fight over with all the other groups.

Of course, if THINK or Foster had one they'd be getting just as much venom spewed in their direction as Libeskind currently is. All these groups should be ashamed of themselves to have put their personal interests first in a situation like this.

TLOZ Link5
June 18th, 2003, 03:32 PM
I agree that Silverstein has done the most to stymie the process. *If I remember correctly, most of this wrangling started after he had the gall to propose a fifth tower right on top of the transit hub.

NYatKNIGHT
June 18th, 2003, 04:05 PM
JM you are right on the money. I wish the public could read more sensible editorials like that.

StevenRosenow
June 18th, 2003, 05:23 PM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 1:36 pm on June 18, 2003


Finally, I do not believe that the majority of NYers want replicas of the twin towers built. I don't even believe that a majority of NYers want twin 110 story office buildings. A substantial minority certainly does but not an outright majority.



Where do you get that opinion from?

Every New Yorker I've talked to, be it online or in person, says otherwise. In fact, I'd just completed a 1:570th scale replica of the former World Trade Center - and was showing it off where I work, when a former New Yorker came up to me and said "I'm ashamed of New York City - for not attempting to rebuild the Twin Towers. New York City isn't New York City without them!"

Several others in that pool of New Yorkers have said the same thing.

Agglomeration
June 18th, 2003, 05:31 PM
"As the interest groups continue to fracture and become even less willing to compromise on anything this whole thing is turning into the 25 year Columbus Circle debacle. What was supposed to be a world class landmark finally rises as nothing more than a slightly better than average, shortened, mixed use corporate, business as usual development."

It goes even beyond that. Even as the AOL Twin Towers were rising, some NIMBY group openly condemned the shortened complex as too tall! :angry: These 'activists' wanted an even shorter building surrounded by a big artwork mural and 'giving the area new distinction.' I'm surprised that they didn't lament the demolition of the old Coliseum. Can you believe there are TEDAO's (Tear Everything Down At Once) who condemned even downsized buildings such as AOL Twin Towers as too imposing and too dominating?

JMGarcia
June 18th, 2003, 06:13 PM
Quote: from StevenRosenow on 4:23 pm on June 18, 2003

Where do you get that opinion from?

Every New Yorker I've talked to, be it online or in person, says otherwise. In fact, I'd just completed a 1:570th scale replica of the former World Trade Center - and was showing it off where I work, when a former New Yorker came up to me and said "I'm ashamed of New York City - for not attempting to rebuild the Twin Towers. New York City isn't New York City without them!"

Several others in that pool of New Yorkers have said the same thing.


I get that opinion from the various polls taken as well as the feedback from LTTC and the Wintergarden displays. Personally, I feel that I am in the minority in saying I would love to see the world's tallest building on the site.

As in the recent poll about NYers not wanting the world's tallest on the site, it is mostly women it seems that think the idea is wrong. This has proven to be the same in my personal life with people I know.

There is undoubtedly majority support for "restoring the skyline". That is something different from rebuilding twin 110 story office towers.

The continuing paradox of the whole situation is that the majority wants the skyline restored yet the majority also think it is a bad idea (read unsafe) to have people working up too high. Plus, the potential rental market for millions of square feet above the 50th floor is quite small because of corporate conservatism.

The Post shortly after 9/11 ran a poll asking if the WTC towers should be replicated. The results were 51-49 in favor. The difference of 2% was even within the poll's margin for error. Replicationists have held this poll to be the only true poll of NYer's feelings to this day and have basically ignored every other poll done or dismissed it as unreasonable fear.

There is no doubt in my mind that if NYers really wanted very tall office towers on the site then Foster would have received over 50% in the polls in the "design study". Roughly 2/3rds of the people in those polls did not think it was that important to have such tall office towers and voted for one of the other plans for whatever other reason the liked that plan.

NYatKNIGHT
June 18th, 2003, 06:22 PM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 5:13 pm on June 18, 2003

The continuing paradox of the whole situation is that the majority wants the skyline restored yet the majority also think it is a bad idea (read unsafe) to have people working up too high. Plus, the potential rental market for millions of square feet above the 50th floor is quite small because of corporate conservatism. That's why the THINK lattice towers were so appealing. But the replicationists would have none of it. Like you said, it's all or nothing with these groups.

JMGarcia
June 18th, 2003, 06:42 PM
I had no problem with the WCC being picked. Although, I far preferred the original design to the 250 foot shorter modified design. But if it had been picked:

1. Replicationists would be screaming about the morbid skeletons rather than the death pit.

2. BPC residents would be complaining about lack of access across the lattice towers which sat in a reflecting pool and the only way across was a steep climb up a sky bridge. Not to mention the transit center on the east side of Greenwich was in an open pit which also had no way across it.

3. People would be dredging up Vinoly's Argentinian communist past as well as slamming him for his anemic skyline.

4. The families would be complaining about how the lattice towers desecrate sacred ground and how there's just no room for bus parking.

5. People would be complaining that the towers were useless and how stupid to build cultural buildings suspended in them.

6. Westfield would be wanting more retail space and people would still be arguing over it.

7. Silverstein would be wanting to do whatever he pleased with the office space and would be complaining the lattice towers blocked the views from the office towers making them unrentable.

It would go on and on and we'd be in exactly the same position we are in today.

Imagine today's litany of complaints applied to the Foster plan. Wait until the skyscraper safety group got a hold of that!

NY built what it is famous for (including the original WTC) when the public did not have any input. Chrysler, the ESB, Woolworth were all built purely for ego. Its ironic that those who yearn for the next great NY landmark think that public input is what will get it for them when the exact opposite has always proved to be the case.

TonyO
June 18th, 2003, 06:47 PM
Every bit of information can be spun to say exactly what you want. *Foster's winning 20-25% of the votes for his design to me means it was the most popular plan at the time. *Flat out. *It doesn't mean that NYers don't want tall office buildings.

The quinipeac poll was the most scientific, even if it didn't say what I personally wanted to hear....but that's the ONLY one. *For such an important decision it would seem obvious to get a better consensus.

Libeskind's claim that his is the choice of "the people" is just false. *I am all in favor about rallying around one plan, but I want to actually *like* it.

Who's to say what restoring the skyline means? *A toothpick needle sticking high up in the air is not restoring much in my opinion. *But this has somehow went under the radar of the average NYer to be ok. *The public is stupid, just look at how they gullibly accepted a link from Iraq to Al Qaeda.

Really talk to most people and more than half will agree that some form of the twin towers should be rebuilt. *Most who disagree are women, funny that.

The process is so muddy at this point. *Pataki has good intentions but he should not have overridden the final choice. *Maybe after he is out of office we can have some real leadership from Albany...Doctoroff and Bloomberg have done nil in this department also.

TonyO
June 18th, 2003, 06:55 PM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 5:42 pm on June 18, 2003
NY built what it is famous for (including the original WTC) when the public did not have any input. Chrysler, the ESB, Woolworth were all built purely for ego. Its ironic that those who yearn for the next great NY landmark think that public input is what will get it for them when the exact opposite has always proved to be the case.


True. *But there is noone with any pull showing any ego. *So you have to use what you have, and a loose public opinion is all there is to go on right now.

Give it a few years and I believe pressure will build as fears settle....then *someone* will do something with cojones.

StevenRosenow
June 18th, 2003, 06:59 PM
Quote: from tonyo on 5:47 pm on June 18, 2003
Really talk to most people and more than half will agree that some form of the twin towers should be rebuilt. *Most who disagree are women, funny that.

The process is so muddy at this point. *Pataki has good intentions but he should not have overridden the final choice. *Maybe after he is out of office we can have some real leadership from Albany...Doctoroff and Bloomberg have done nil in this department also.

That's exactly it. They want TWIN TOWERS nonetheless - and some form OF them.

I've come to a sort of compromise, and will accept anything in the form of Twin office towers. But, I'm firm on my grounds that they must have the same skyline presence and feeling that the original Yamasaki-designed ones did. Doing anything less wouldn't restore the skyline at all.

The overall majority of the public has bought the LMDC's version of skyline restoration, but in essence, that is way off when you actually look up the meaning of the word "restore"

Main Entry: re·store
Pronunciation: ri-'stOr, -'stor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·stored; re·stor·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French restorer, from Latin restaurare to renew, rebuild, alteration of instaurare to renew
Date: 14th century
1 : GIVE BACK, RETURN
2 : to put or bring back into existence or use
3 : to bring back to or put back into a former or original state : RENEW
4 : to put again in possession of something.

With that defined, we should've automatically settled for nothing less than a set of twin towers OF SOME SORT, with the same skyline presence that the originals had.

ZippyTheChimp
June 18th, 2003, 07:12 PM
The only scientific poll showed otherwise. Internet and newspaper polls are worthless. Testimonials of people you spoke to are likewise.

There is no mandate to rebuild (or not rebuild) twin towers.
Consider all the debate, news, and turmoil coming out of the site now. None of it has to do with twin towers.

NyC MaNiAc
June 19th, 2003, 05:02 AM
I think almost all of the forum members here would like to see Twin Towers...I can't imagine anything other then 2 buildings...

And, I'm sorry, but that's what I'd prefer. And for good reason.

Unfortunatly, the chance of us getting Twins are lessening every day... why is it that no high official has demanded Twin Towers?

I mean, I feel like I'm in "The Twilight Zone" or something... :)

ZippyTheChimp
June 19th, 2003, 07:57 AM
JM and tonyo have it right.

Concerning height: The various community groups are not a factor - their issues are West St, sunken memorials, access,
and retail. The LMDC funnel out the money - they have no financial or political stake. Bloomberg's issues are money -
but that money has nothing to do with the office buildings.
Pataki is a political expert - if height was a public issue,
he would have jumped on one side or the other. He only stated that he would lay the cornerstone to the freedom tower in time for the Rep convention (nice political move).

That leaves Silverstein. From the beginning, when he proposed 4 50 storey buildings, he has acted like what he is, a real estate developer. All his statements have been consistent with his character, followed by public relations damage control. His concerns are ROI (return on investment).

In my opinion, the problem with Silverstein is that he has no aesthetic sense, and he doesn't see himself as a figure in a unique historical moment.

If Silverstein were replaced by Trump, the main argument would be the name of the tower.

Evan
June 19th, 2003, 01:28 PM
Quote: from ZippyTheChimp on 6:57 am on June 19, 2003
JM and tonyo have it right.

That leaves Silverstein. From the beginning, when he proposed 4 50 storey buildings, he has acted like what he is, a real estate developer. All his statements have been consistent with his character, followed by public relations damage control. His concerns are ROI (return on investment).

In my opinion, the problem with Silverstein is that he has no aesthetic sense, and he doesn't see himself as a figure in a unique historical moment.

If Silverstein were replaced by Trump, the main argument would be the name of the tower.

Right on Zippy. *I just have one question though. *Since Silverstein bought the lease approximately 6 months before 9/11, what do you think the PA would do about rebuilding if they were still in control of the lease? *I don't think they would reconstruct the twin towers, but I think that they would still want substanital office space.

ZippyTheChimp
June 19th, 2003, 02:40 PM
Conjecture. The PA built the WTC without much regard for public input. Those days are long gone, but having one less entity in the group would simplify the process. We know they didn't want to manage the complex, or there would be no Silverstein, but I'm sure they liked the $10 million/month rent income. My guess is that they would seek a developer.

NoyokA
August 5th, 2003, 10:44 AM
JMGARCIA having some fun with the clowns at ssp.

Posting at a justly named thread "New 7 WTC Renderings Released"


Childs design for the Freedom Tower has been released...

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Childs1.jpg

The riot act begins....

Let me get this straight so that there is no confusion. You're kidding, right? Couldn't he try something better than this?
Is THIS what the Freedom Tower will look like? Where's 7 WTC?
The present renderings somehow show the two towers to be almost in tandom line with each other in respects to being neighboring office towers separated by Vesey Street.

This looks like 7 WTC with a spire added! Did you get the info and rendering from Silversteins new website?

Is it supposed to be a taller carbon copy of 7 WTC with the spire added? Might just as well have added two 111-story fully occupied office towers similar to the Twin Towers anyway if he's going to do it THIS way! Will ALL of the towers bear a striking resmblence to 7 WTC?

umm.... thats lame

Uhhh... bad editing job. "Good one"? ...I don't get it. Really, I don't. Is it supposed to be a middle finger?

JM, its not blatant enough, if it were a giant head of Larry Silverstein it wouldnt be clear enough. "I like the height, but I dont think the balding at the top provides the right type of symbol for NYC."

Just sit back and watch the comedy.

http://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?s=ac4e42651fac3a752e922223680b5043& threadid=5122&perpage=25&pagenumber=2

ZippyTheChimp
August 5th, 2003, 10:57 AM
I saw that last night. JM is a cruel and sadistic person, taking advantage of the feeble minded.

That place is a fisherman's paradise. Drop anything in the water - you'll get a bite.

Freedom Tower
August 5th, 2003, 11:22 AM
Oh no, they bought that!!! They are extremely gullible. Haha. JM, you are hilarious. Now I have something to do for the next hour, go to ssp and read this funny stuff.

JMGarcia
August 5th, 2003, 11:30 AM
I don't get it. What are you talking about? I quite like the new design.

;)

Chris2005
August 5th, 2003, 02:15 PM
I don't really think the choice for building the towers again are out. Decisions for the Libeskind plan are so hectic on what other companies or other architects want, that the LMDC just might put the plan back, disregaurding everything everyone says to bring it down, and fire libeskind or something. Thats just what i think...

Jasonik
August 5th, 2003, 02:33 PM
I would appear David Childs abandoned his centered spire concept without a fight. *

Dan must have bullied him. * *:biggrin:

billyblancoNYC
August 5th, 2003, 02:45 PM
Perfect.

TLOZ Link5
August 5th, 2003, 07:05 PM
Garcia, you filthy sadist. *;)

JMGarcia
August 5th, 2003, 07:31 PM
I know, I know. I'm thinking of getting counseling. :o


:wink: