WTC Tower One - by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (formerly "Freedom Tower") [Archive] - Page 2

Liz L

December 13th, 2003, 04:46 AM

BPC

December 13th, 2003, 08:58 AM

If Liz's dislike of the current plans constitutes a "reactionary agenda", then it would seem that almost all of us who post here are "reactionaries" as well. As for Cesar Pelli, his work has been lauded by, among numerous others, the brilliant architectural critic and scholar Vincent Scully, who has more taste and knowledge on this subject in the grit of his pinky nail than you have in your entire extended family.

finnman69

December 13th, 2003, 09:03 AM

Libeskind's towers are baloney. Here is Libeskind's exaggerated rendering.

http://www.justinberzon.com/Slide2.jpg

http://www.justinberzon.com/BRHome.htm

http://www.justinberzon.com/Slide2%20(work%20in%20progress).jpghttp://www.justinberzon.com/CHILDS%202100%20ft.%20Libeskind%20adjusted%20(plus %20color%20corrected).jpg
MINORU YAMASAKI

WORLD TRADE CENTER

DANIEL LIBESKIND

WORLD TRADE CENTER

(with DAVID CHILDS HEIGHT REVISIONS)

Occupiable height: 110 stories

Office space onsite: 10 million sq. feet

Height to the rooftop/structural top: 1,368 feet

Height to the tip of antenna: 1,727 feet

Main office footprint: 2 acres

Occupiable height: 70 stories

Office space onsite: Approx 8 million sq. feet

Height to the rooftop/structural top: Est. 945 feet/1,776 feet

Height to the tip of antenna: 2,000-2,100 feet

Main office footprint: Approx. 8 acres

In order to best comprehend the skyline impact of the new World Trade Center, these images should be viewed from a distance of ten feet. NOTE: The spire in the Libeskind image has been generously drawn to a height of 2,100 feet -- the top end of the range planners have so far suggested. When the final architectural plan for the Freedom Tower is unveiled on December 15, 2003, the spire is expected to be closer to 2,000 feet, as well as consist of an open-air steel latticework above the occupied office space, rather than the enclosed glass column proposed in the image above. In other words, it would appear even lighter and more spindly in reality. This image will be updated accordingly.

http://www.justinberzon.com/tallesthistory2.jpg

finnman69

December 13th, 2003, 09:08 AM

http://www.justinberzon.com/BRHome.htm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DECEMBER 8, 2003

Media Contact: (847) 727-6421, media@justinberzon.com

NEWS ORGANIZATIONS MAY FREELY

RETRANSMIT THIS ARTICLE

World Trade Center master planner
exaggerated skyline impact of new design

originally published at justinberzon.com

520 words

GRAPHICS AVAILABLE

NEW YORK – At the times when WTC master planner Daniel Libeskind presented both his initial designs and the winning version of his plan, the buildings in his widely published skyline rendering were significantly overscaled, falsely depicting their actual skyline impact.

Libeskind’s office towers and signature 1,776-foot spire were exaggerated in height by approximately 13.4 to 34.7 percent.

The height inaccuracies were first detailed in a study titled “The Berzon Report,” released by investigative journalist Justin Berzon. Berzon calculated the height discrepancies using simple rescaling tools within photo-editing computer software, checking Libeskind’s published dimensions against the known heights of the surrounding buildings.

Libeskind’s 1,776-foot spire, christened Freedom Tower by New York Governor George Pataki and meant to symbolize America’s year of independence, was drawn to a height of approximately 2,168 feet, or 22.1 percent taller (approximately 392 feet) than it would appear in reality.

“If that drawing is accurate, I guess we can all thank Daniel Libeskind for the next 165 years of British rule we apparently have to look forward to,” Berzon said.

Libeskind’s tallest office tower, which according to his schematic blueprints was slated to top out at 920 feet (70 stories), was drawn to a height of approximately 1,120 feet – about the height of Chicago’s 100-story John Hancock Tower or to the base of the Empire State Building’s rooftop mast. Another of his office towers was exaggerated by more than 260 feet or about 19-22 stories.

Libeskind’s responsibility for the inflated building heights is uncertain. Studio Libeskind would not respond to an interview request on the matter. But in July 2003, Libeskind told the New York Times: “At our studio, we've done all the working drawings for our buildings ourselves. I'm a great believer in not farming out those responsibilities to another office.”

It is also notable that the shortest of the proposed office buildings, with a height that would not breach the skyline, was drawn to perfect scale. Only those buildings that were meant to peek out slightly over the surrounding buildings and make a visible skyline impact were exaggerated.

The last wave of revisions to the Libeskind plan, announced in September 2003, called for a slight increase in the overall height of the office buildings, as well as the possibility of extending the Freedom Tower’s broadcast antenna to 2,000 feet. However, those extensions would still fail to cover the height discrepancy in the signature image.

Although Libeskind may originally have planned for taller office buildings in his preliminary sketches, at no time during the competition was the Freedom Tower meant to exceed 1,776 feet, as it did by almost 400 feet in the image. Although Libeskind revised several of his signature images during the month when the two finalists revised their plans, the skyline image plan still contained both the overscaled tower and office buildings when presented in winning form.

The overscaled skyline image depicts Libeskind’s structures against the backdrop of the Lower Manhattan skyline and has become one of the four main images used by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) to promote his plan. The LMDC is the city-state agency overseeing reconstruction efforts at Ground Zero.

sirhcman

December 13th, 2003, 11:03 AM

The skyline still looks so bare with this little dinky needle popping out :? It is not very prominent at all..It just reminds me of those big radio towers and now one will be popping out of Lower Manhattan... :(

http://www.justinberzon.com/Slide2%20(work%20in%20progress).jpghttp://www.justinberzon.com/CHILDS%202100%20ft.%20Libeskind%20adjusted%20(plus %20color%20corrected).jpg

JMGarcia

December 13th, 2003, 11:58 AM

Of course Childs' design won't look like this at all. Plus the other towers will be designed by an array of architects so who knows what it will really look like.

JMC

December 13th, 2003, 12:02 PM

I hope we'll know by next week....

Clarknt67

December 13th, 2003, 12:50 PM

http://www.justinberzon.com/tallesthistory2.jpg

This illustrates is what I think is baloney about the "it's the tallest building ever built" sell line. It's HALF the size of the Sears tower, people! What is really is IS the tallest Antennea ever built! YAY!

It's insulting to the memory of the towers and the intelligence of the public. It's hypocritcal. If you're too afraid to build high, then don't try to pretend that you are building high. Make a squat little building and tell everyone, "We're replacing the most majestic towers ever build with a squat little hideous thing." Enjoy! :twisted:

Gulcrapek

December 13th, 2003, 12:57 PM

In case you didn't notice, that comparison is exaggerated and FT is smaller than it actually is.

Freedom Tower

December 13th, 2003, 02:59 PM

Yeah, the picture is definately exaggerated. I think the REAL roof of the freedom tower is supposed to surpass the whole chrysler building. But the picture is good at getting a point across. If this counts as the worlds WTB then huge antennas will have to be counted as well. But don't get too worried because the real design is coming out this monday, and I'm sure it won't look a thing like that.

Clarknt67

December 13th, 2003, 04:38 PM

In case you didn't notice, that comparison is exaggerated and FT is smaller than it actually is.

So the occupiable space is world class? it really has occupiable floors higher than other building in this world? NYC is setting a new standard and not just in antennea height?

TAFisher123

December 13th, 2003, 05:14 PM

In case you didn't notice, that comparison is exaggerated and FT is smaller than it actually is.
Not to mention that the ESB has 2.25 mill sq ft office space while the FT is proposed to have 2.6

Kris

December 13th, 2003, 09:13 PM

Hmm, Christian, so I have a "reactionary agenda?" Well, let's see...

I must confess that, for the most part, I really dislike decconstructionist architecture, for the philosophy behind it as much as the buildings. I need to do more reading on the subject, but one of its basic ideas is that truth is only a construct determined by whichever elite is in power at any moment, which in turn means that words, including concepts like "beauty," have no real meanings. And when "decon" is expressed in architecture, that becomes glaringly obvious. I am thinking right now of most of the rebuilding concepts displayed at the Max Protech Gallery a while back, which I assume are examples of "decon," and which I consider some of the worst architectural trash I've yet seen. If they aren't specifically "decon," BTW, please feel free to correct me...

I base that judgment on what I consider to be a basic part of beauty, the idea of unity without monotony and variety without chaos. And I hate to say this, but most of those plans are completely tilted towards chaos - in fact, they've slammed and crashed right into chaos as if chaos were a concrete wall, leaving huge piles of wreckage. So of course they also don't have something else I see as an important part of beauty, which is the harmonious relationship of the parts to the whole, and of the parts to each other.

I also must confess, that while Mr. Libeskind's plan is, ironically, better than most of those other "decon" notions, it still has too much chaos and not enough harmony. I also understand that the annex to the Jewish museum in Berlin he designed is so alientating (starting with windows in odd places) that it makes people profoundly uncomfortable. Now "decon" might make sense here, as it hammers home the message "never forget!" But I don't think we need this in Manhattan - for starters, I don't think anyone visiting the site is going to need to be reminded not to slam planes into skyscrapers.

I would also argue that "decon", with its denial of truth (and, I assume, of the idea that there are some things worth fighting for) has NO PLACE on the WTC site, of all places.

Finally, I would like to see something rise on that site that somehow reflects and fits in with New York's architectural heritage, which includes, in its Art Deco towers, some of the most beautiful skyscrapers yet built....I'd like to see towers that soar proudly skyward with the class and confidence of the Empire State and Chrysler buildings...

So, if that's "reactionary," well, I guess I'm guilty as charged! :D

Final question - how would you say that a building's facade can show "integrity?" Just curious... :D
By not having a deceptive appearance - faking a material other than used - for instance.

Libeskind's scheme is not deconstructivist (although some of his work has been described as such) nor were generally those at the gallery. You've just found a convenient term and theory to reject architecture that bothers you - whatever is incompatible with your rigid preconceptions, apparently. It's delirious bullshit.

If Liz's dislike of the current plans constitutes a "reactionary agenda", then it would seem that almost all of us who post here are "reactionaries" as well. As for Cesar Pelli, his work has been lauded by, among numerous others, the brilliant architectural critic and scholar Vincent Scully, who has more taste and knowledge on this subject in the grit of his pinky nail than you have in your entire extended family.
I suppose I should bow before the critical authority you invoked, making you a windbag with a reference. Last time you complained about name-calling while doing the same and you now offer more of your offensive trash to a moderator. I base my characterizations on your words, whereas your petty insults are mere products of your imagination and stupidity - mention my family again and you're gone. Your attempt to take refuge among a majority of members is ironic considering one of the most common dislikes here is that of NIMBY bitches like you.

DominicanoNYC

December 13th, 2003, 10:30 PM

I actually like Cesar Pelli's buildings, but I guess you right Chris.

emmeka

December 14th, 2003, 06:42 AM

Oh My God!!!!!

What the hell is that thing sticking out of the freedom tower? I hope thats not the new antenna design. :x

http://www.justinberzon.com/tallesthistory2.jpg

ZippyTheChimp

December 14th, 2003, 09:13 AM

It's just bullshit from Berzon.

The height inaccuracies were first detailed in a study titled “The Berzon Report,” released by investigative journalist Justin Berzon.

The article makes it appear as though an independent news source is reporting on Berzon. But who wrote the article?

The graphics are distorted.

DominicanoNYC

December 14th, 2003, 03:29 PM

I agree. If that were the design then everyone would jump on Libeskind.

NYguy

December 14th, 2003, 03:45 PM

Oh My God!!!!!

What the hell is that thing sticking out of the freedom tower? I hope thats not the new antenna design. :x

You'll have the actual design of the Freedom Tower in a couple of days, if not tomorrow. Ignore anything else until then, its not worth getting excited over.

NyC MaNiAc

December 14th, 2003, 10:09 PM

Yeah, that's just a biased view of the Freedom Tower...

Boy, am I excited for tommorow. It's gonna be a heck of a day, IF the Tower is shown like it should be...

Freedom Tower

December 15th, 2003, 06:31 AM

Well today's the day. I for one, haven't heard anything yet. Maybe I got up too early, due to the excitement :oops:

emmeka

December 15th, 2003, 07:28 AM

Jasonik

December 15th, 2003, 11:13 AM

FEUDING WTC ARCHITECTS NEAR COMPROMISE

By WILLIAM NEUMAN (NY Post)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 15, 2003 -- Warring architects Daniel Libeskind and David Childs are inching toward a compromise on the design of the Freedom Tower, and officials hope details can be finalized as early as today, sources said.

Gov. Pataki had initially set today as the deadline for the architects to present him with a fully realized scheme for the tower.

They'll fall short of that, but after days of intense negotiations, development officials hope they have been able to hammer out the outlines of an agreement.

"It's almost there," said a source close to the process. "The governor is pleased."

The sources were anxious about the fragility of a pact, given the animosity between the two sides.

If the deal holds, a public presentation of the design could come by the end of the week.

"Everybody's in sort of desperate desire to make a deal," said another source. "There's been some progress. They're trying to make a deal. The governor's office has been very active."

TonyO

December 15th, 2003, 08:54 PM

NY1 just reported on New York Tonight that there has been a compromise. The Statue of Liberty-like aspect from Libeskind's design will join with Childs' open-lattice and windmill ideas. Whatever that means, who knows - JM might be right.

Friday 12-19 is the day. They said AM I believe.

NoyokA

December 15th, 2003, 08:57 PM

Unfourtanetly I wont have access to a computer untill the p.m. This is a top priority Right Now! Im hoping the design wont be a travesty.

NoyokA

December 15th, 2003, 08:57 PM

Architects Compromise On Design For WTC's Freedom Tower

DECEMBER 15TH, 2003

After months of vigorous debate, the two architects working on the design for the World Trade Center's new Freedom Tower have reached an agreement and will unveiled the design for the new structure on Friday.

The tower, which will dominate the rebuilt World Trade Center site, will incorporate design elements from both Daniel Libeskind and David Childs. At 1,776 feet, the tower will be the tallest building in the world when completed.

The structure will be topped with Libeskind's off-center spire, evoking the Statue of Liberty. But it will also incorporate Childs' cable and antenna complex at the top, and his wind turbines that will generate some of the building's power.

Libeskind, the site's master planner, and Childs, the lead design architect, have had an often-stormy partnership.

However, rebuilding officials and the governor's office brokered a compromise following a series of round-the-clock meetings.

In a statement released Monday, a representative of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation said: "Thanks to an often spirited design effort between Childs and Libeskind, the Freedom Tower will rise as a new symbol of our nation's strength and resilience in the aftermath of terror."

The design for the Freedom Tower will be unveiling Friday in a joint presentation attended by Governor George Pataki, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and site developer Larry Silverstein.

Gulcrapek

December 15th, 2003, 08:59 PM

Ehh.... :?

Pottebaum

December 15th, 2003, 10:19 PM

So, how long do you guys think it will be until we get to see the rendering?

Gulcrapek

December 15th, 2003, 10:37 PM

Friday.

NyC MaNiAc

December 15th, 2003, 11:11 PM

The whole "Compromise" between Libeskind and Childs, with the off-centered spire, and the"cable and Antenna complex", and wind turbines, and so on and so forth gets me scared...

I mean, how much junk are they putting on the top of our beloved Freedom Tower?

We'll see Friday.

billyblancoNYC

December 16th, 2003, 12:39 AM

Off center sounds off-putting. We'll see.

Kris

December 16th, 2003, 03:50 AM

December 16, 2003

Final Deal Reached on Trade Center Tower

Months of architectural wrangling over plans for the tallest building at the World Trade Center site — and in the world — have apparently ended in a 1,776-foot compromise that would include an asymmetrical spire favored by Daniel Libeskind rising atop a cable-framed wind farm proposed by David M. Childs.

Though the design will not be made public until Friday, an announcement yesterday by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation seemed to indicate that agreement had been reached on the broad outlines of the building, called Freedom Tower.

Yesterday was the deadline set by Gov. George E. Pataki for receiving a design. What has emerged, in the careful wording of the announcement, is an "idea" by Mr. Libeskind that has been "given form" by Mr. Childs.

Studio Daniel Libeskind is the master planner of the site, working for the development corporation and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Mr. Childs's firm, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, is working for Larry A. Silverstein, who holds the commercial lease on the site and will develop Freedom Tower.

Even the official statement acknowledged an "often spirited" relationship between Mr. Childs and Mr. Libeskind, who disagreed about aesthetics, engineering and their own respective roles.

They are also working for different clients whose interests sometimes conflict sharply.

As described by the development corporation, the tower will bear Mr. Libeskind's influence in its height and spire, evocative of the Statue of Liberty's upraised arm.

Mr. Childs's contributions include an open-air structure at the top of the building, framed in cables reminiscent of the Brooklyn Bridge and filled with electricity-generating wind turbines.

Neither architect would comment yesterday evening.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

NYguy

December 16th, 2003, 07:28 AM

DAILY NEWS...

Tower pact is a big deal
Ground Zero architects reach agreement at last

By MAGGIE HABERMAN

Architect Daniel Libeskind explains Ground Zero plan to Gov Pataki as Mayor Bloomberg looks on last February. Libeskind now has a deal with fellow architect David Childs.

The dueling architects of the soaring Freedom Tower have reached a compromise on the design, and their unified vision will be unveiled Friday, sources said yesterday.

Top aides to Gov. Pataki helped push Daniel Libeskind, whose master plan for Ground Zero was picked earlier this year, and architect David Childs, who works for developer Larry Silverstein, into an agreement.

One source said that in the new design, Childs made a few concessions to Libeskind, including scaling down the height of the spire, and the mass of the building. He also added a slanted roof so that the design will look more like Libeskind's original angular design, sources said.

But Childs was able to keep his idea for what will go in the open-area spire, including hundreds of feet of cables, trusses and wind-powered turbines that generate energy, another source said.

A fight between Libeskind and Childs went nuclear in the last two weeks, threatening to derail the project.

The source of the fight had been what the building's spire, which won't be occupied by offices, would look like. The lower part of the building is almost entirely Childs' work, the source said.

Lower Manhattan Development Corp. officials refused to elaborate on what the design will look like, saying in a statement only that the building would rise to 1,776 feet, as Libeskind proposed, and "incorporate cable technology ...and generate much of its own electricity," as Childs wanted.

Ed Hayes, Libeskind's lawyer, said only that the process "took a lot of hard work," but declined to give details. Childs couldn't be reached.

The deal came after days of secret meetings, including a particularly intense one Friday, when top Pataki aides John Cahill and Charles Gargano, and Port Authority executive director Joseph Seymour, tried to keep the project on track.

Libeskind had argued that Childs' plans didn't fit with his plan for the site. But sources in the Silverstein camp said that Childs had furiously redrawn the tower to please Libeskind, and that Libeskind would often agree to certain elements, only to change his mind later.

One source said that in the new design, Childs made a few concessions to Libeskind, including scaling down the height of the spire, and the mass of the building.

Well, I've been warning of this all along. Libeskind has officially ruined the building. I am not at all looking forward to Friday, but maybe there's a small chance of hope left somewhere. I don't see it...

TomAuch

December 16th, 2003, 07:31 AM

Liebeskind will condemn us with a big blight on our skyline!! I wish Childs hadn't pandered to this Euro-wimp.

...I wish Silverstein would use his authority to nullify the proposal if it fairs poorly in public.

NYguy

December 16th, 2003, 07:38 AM

The architects agreed to a tower design that would include 1,100 feet of commercial space topped with a sloping roof, a redevelopment official said. Childs' cable and energy-generating structure will extend 400 feet from the roof, and Libeskind's spire will then rise another 276 feet.

Guess we're looking at 1,500 ft and 1,776 ft with the spire. Not sure how accurate that is though. It doesn't sound right, that would be even smaller than Libeskind originally proposed. What a mess this tower will be.... :(

TomAuch

December 16th, 2003, 07:41 AM

NYguy

December 16th, 2003, 07:43 AM

I don't care anymore. They can build whatever the hell they want. Too much time has been wasted anticipating this design, only to have the deadline extended even further. The Freedom Tower has already worn out its welcome with me, and its not even built!

ZippyTheChimp

December 16th, 2003, 09:29 AM

Don't anticipate. Delays won't scrap the project, so what do we care if this timetable isn't met. The only thing tackier than the name is this race to the convention.

The PA should have hired all architects, with instructions to consult with the leaseholders and report back to us.

Silverstein is the biggest impediment. If he had the authority all along, we would be getting another tower over the transportation center. Wouldn't that have been wonderful?

finnman69

December 16th, 2003, 10:06 AM

This is sounding worse and worse all the time. Childs, please tell Libeskind to sit down and shut the f**k up.

I can imagine the outrage when this comes out. Silverstein and NYC is going to be stuck with a Frankenstein Tower.

NYatKNIGHT

December 16th, 2003, 10:08 AM

They should start with another building if they can't get this one right. It is the most prominent and, like the memorial, it shouldn't be a rush job (don't even get me started about this Republican convention). The description of this building sounds like the worst result of a compromise - the very result we all feared most. But I guess I'll wait until Friday before I denounce it as a botched job.

TallGuy

December 16th, 2003, 10:33 AM

NOTHING is definately better than this atrocity. As I said earlier, build a Super Wal-Mart on the site that can be replaced by something respectable in 10 years when we come to our senses. Bah! The WTC is permanently desacrated now; never mind by terrorists, but by our own selves! The only hope is, ten or 20 years down the line, for a developer to build something we can be proud of somewhere else in lower Manhatten that will erase this sad era from our memories.

ZippyTheChimp

December 16th, 2003, 11:08 AM

Clue us in. What have you seen?
:roll:

TonyO

December 16th, 2003, 11:31 AM

The amazing thing will be how they sell this as the "World's tallest building" to the public with a sloped roof only reaching about as high as the spire of the Chrysler building which long ago lost its title.

JMGarcia

December 16th, 2003, 11:55 AM

Its an easy sell. The general public doesn't consider things such as interior occupiable space and uses etc.

I'm sure most of the world would consider the Eiffel Tower the tallest building in Paris.

finnman69

December 16th, 2003, 12:51 PM

NY1 news has this graphic up and a video clip w/ an article.

http://www.ny1.com/Content/images/live/54/107322.jpg

DECEMBER 16TH, 2003

http://real.ny1.com:8080/ramgen/real3/00086F11_031216_105835lo.rm

http://www.ny1.com/ny/TopStories/SubTopic/index.html?topicintid=1&subtopicintid=1&contentint id=35661

After months of vigorous debate, the two architects working on the design for the World Trade Center's new Freedom Tower have reached an agreement and will unveil the design for the new structure on Friday.

The tower, which will dominate the rebuilt World Trade Center site, will incorporate design elements from both Daniel Libeskind and David Childs. At 1,776 feet, the tower will be the tallest building in the world when completed.

The structure will be topped with Libeskind's off-center spire, evoking the Statue of Liberty. But it will also incorporate Childs' cable and antenna complex at the top, and his wind turbines that will generate some of the building's power.

Libeskind, the site's master planner, and Childs, the lead design architect, have had an often-stormy partnership.

However, rebuilding officials and the governor's office brokered a compromise following a series of round-the-clock meetings.

In a statement released Monday, a representative of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation said: "Thanks to an often spirited design effort between Childs and Libeskind, the Freedom Tower will rise as a new symbol of our nation's strength and resilience in the aftermath of terror."

The design for the Freedom Tower will be unveiling Friday in a joint presentation attended by Governor George Pataki, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and site developer Larry Silverstein.

TonyO

December 16th, 2003, 01:19 PM

Its an easy sell. The general public doesn't consider things such as interior occupiable space and uses etc.

I'm sure most of the world would consider the Eiffel Tower the tallest building in Paris.

True, but up until Friday all that has been officially released have been concepts and ideas. When there is something more concrete to scrutinize it will be open for less interpretation. I hope they take whatever comes out and put it on the front page next to the oringinal towers, the ESB, the sears tower, the petronas towers, and Taipei 101. That would be truly interesting to see people's reactions then.

JMGarcia

December 16th, 2003, 03:09 PM

For comparison purposes:

Height of Building
ESB: 1050'
FT: 1100'
Taipei 101: ~1300'
Sears (last setback before narrow upper floors): ~1175'
Petronas: ~1225'
JH: ~1100

Height of architectural element/lattice
ESB: 1250'
FT: 1500'
Taipei 101: 1470'
Sears (narrow upper floors): 1454'
Petronas: ~1325'
JH: 1126'

Height of Tip/Antenna/Spire/Pole
ESB: 1454'
FT: 1776'
Taipei 101: 1667'
Sears: 1730'
Petronas: 1483'
JH: 1500'

http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=5&drawingID=19281http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=18&drawingID=19230http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=22&drawingID=19165http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=23&drawingID=18471http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=17&drawingID=7429

I think we are looking at a building that is about the size of the John Hancock in Chicago or the ESB. The cables and trusses will probably be much more massive than the ESB's spire and could easily be more massive the the last 350 feet of Sears. It still could be quite a building. I just wish I trusted Childs more.

JayW

December 16th, 2003, 04:29 PM

To me, it will be quite interesting to see what the result of all this suspense will bring about.

I was (and remain) quite the proponent of Mr. Libeskind's outlay, despite knowing the fact that he had not designed anything meant for skyscrapers until that point. I still think it to be the best when compared to skeletal cathedrals, monolithic pretzels and downright lumbering checkerboards. Now, whether or not Mr. Libeskind understood that the *look and feel* alone of his plan was to be the basis of his contribution is to me immaterial.

It was a noble gesture on his part, as an architect used to creating grand-scale memorials, to even consider a plan that, as he intended, evokes the principle for which over 3,000 people paid with their lives. Add to that the idea of roofs sweeping etherially skyward and you have something that is IMHO one of the most elegant visible architectural tributes I've ever come across.

While I cannot vouch for the personalities of either Mr. Libeskind or Mr. Childs (let alone all the other players involved), I think it highly regrettable that personality should have had to come into play in this process.
I believe it was JM who cited that too much would be at stake for Libeskind & Childs if first impressions come Friday go sour. I just wish everyone else involved felt the same sense of personal and professional accountability.

We should be thankful that at least something potentially monumental *will* rise...not *may*...not *can, could, should, would*, but *will*. Do I share your utter exasperation at the fact that all this could have been handled *way*, *WAY* more diplomatically? Of course. Do I agree with virtually all of you that the whole process could have been a lot more centralized? You bet. But that's just it; at least we're arguing over a fait accompli and not something we're all beating our heads against a wall over whether or not it will ever *come to pass*.

We should be amazed at how much progress something on this large a scale has actually made compared to other projects of similar magnitude in years past (BTW, ESB rose to the heavens in *less than a year* during the Great Depression, therefore all things are possble). Believe me: if the underlying reason for Freedom Tower/Memorial Park/Et Cetera coming into being weren't so worthy of memorialization, it would almost surely never get off the ground.

Anyway, having seen Mr. Child's work (One Worldwide Plaza(?), TW Center), I believe I can trust him with this effort, although the wind-turbine aspect of it has me kinda scratching my head as well. I have a feeling that something this important isn't going to be merely schlocked together at the last moment. I see it making a statement akin to the ones that have been made in Times Square in recent years.

With respect to Mr. Libeskind's plan, even if the four/five towers in his mind were meant to be mere massing models, their look and shape would have been good enough for me. As soon as I saw one photo of the Libeskind plan superimposed over downtown, my first thought was "Build it!". Some will disagree; it's their right to.

At this point, 1000 feet of office space and 776 feet for everything else is good enough for me, especially when taking into account the increasingly definite possibility of four additional world-class towers on the same grounds (Lord Foster, Nouvel & Maki, whom I 'm not fully sure of yet). Conforming to the Libeskind format, this will IMO give more of a balance to downtown than the original Towers' double hulking presence (Don't get me wrong here...the beauty of the Twins was their New Yorkish presence that suggested "Yeah, I'm here...wanna make sometthing of it?").

BTW, JM, can you add the data for the Twins (esp with respect to the North Tower's height to the antenna)? It's out of sheer interest on my part.

Somehow, at the end of the day, what we're going to see is something that has, in an odd way, aspects of scraper, antenna and spire that are more in balance than most of us may have in mind right now. It's going to be New York, so oviously it's going to be controversial, large and loud. After all, think of how much funk was raised when the Twins were completed. In addition, planning for the TWC began when? 1961?? The second tower was completed 12 years after that. This freedom tower's planning *alone* has been a scant 2 years in the making, with topping off of the structure scheduled for another 2 years from now. The other scrapers *will* be added pending the economic health of this country, i.e. the architects might wish to strike while the iron's hot and not wait a decade.

7 WT's also rising. Other downtown projects are most likely on the way and downtown Brooklyn's looking up (Jerset City keeps grinding along, as will be the Queens riverfront, NY Times, 1 Bryant Park and the area around the UN secretariat). Freedom Tower's going to be quite a sight of a centerpiece for all of that to revolve around.

2¢ rant mode off.

Jasonik

December 16th, 2003, 04:38 PM

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2002-01/1758580.jpg

"The Libeskind Vision, 01/23/02"

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-protetchgallery,0,5396309.photogallery?index=11

Freedom Tower

December 16th, 2003, 04:45 PM

Ewww, was that monstrosity (excuse my spelling) really proposed by Libeskind?!?! If it was then I am very fearful of what this new tower will look like.

NYguy

December 16th, 2003, 06:18 PM

JMGarcia

December 16th, 2003, 06:33 PM

It still could be quite a building. I just wish I trusted Childs more.

Its not Childs you have to worry about. What will be unvieled on Friday is NOT Childs' building (as we are aware now), but a much watered down version that is meant to resemble Libeskind's asymetrical "liberty" tower. I do hope that once this rendering is released, we get to see all previous versions of Childs design so I can finally rest my case.

Libeskind has screwed all of NY.

You mean "Pataki" has screwed all of NY - or at least all of NY that thinks massiveness is what is needed at the site. ;) j/k Libeskind would have got nowhere if Pataki didn't support him and we all know it.

Childs is bound to have had a lot of input in the tower. The 2 single largest pieces, the twisting tower and its facade and the wind farm are all Childs. A 276 foot off center spire cannot completely ruin the 1500 foot building underneath it.

JMGarcia

December 16th, 2003, 06:34 PM

BTW, JM, can you add the data for the Twins (esp with respect to the North Tower's height to the antenna)? It's out of sheer interest on my part.

1 WTC was 1368 feet to the roof and the antenna went up to 1726 feet.

NYguy

December 16th, 2003, 06:50 PM

A drawing by Knarfor at the skyscraperpage gives an idea of the proportions of where the different sections will appear. The tower will probably look a little more asymetrical. Its not clear if Childs' 400 ft structure will twist as the building below does, but...

http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=23&drawingID=18471 http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/3194/73twist_small_lattice_tower_final.jpghttp://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=15&drawingID=16946

Now, imagine Childs' structure rising to the top where Libeskind's spire rises, and that's what we have lost with Libeskind's input.

NyC MaNiAc

December 16th, 2003, 07:10 PM

Eh...It all seems a little underwhelming...

What happened to that 2001 foot number I heard not that long ago?

Either Way, I'm gonna stop complaining and wait till Friday.

JMGarcia

December 16th, 2003, 07:14 PM

NYGuy,
All I'm trying to say is that we don't know if Childs' design was better. It may well have been but then again maybe not. No one has seen it. So, it is possible we haven't lost anything that great. So don't stress. :D

NYguy

December 16th, 2003, 07:32 PM

Well, like I said ealier, they can do what they want. And I'm sure they will, but its a shame that Libeskind and Pataki had to meddle with this tower. If I'm any one of the other architects, I walk away now before anything begins...

Freedom Tower

December 16th, 2003, 08:00 PM

If the FT looks anything like the picture NYguy got off of skyscraperpage.com then I'm am going to be very unhappy :cry:

Friday is either going to be a great or horrible day for me. I'm sure the same goes for many of the forumers here.(if forumers is a word ;))

JMGarcia

December 16th, 2003, 11:35 PM

Architects reach compromise for World Trade Center site
BY BLAIR KAMIN
Chicago Tribune

CHICAGO - (KRT) - After months of feuding, the architects designing a new world's tallest building at the former World Trade Center in New York have reached what appears to be a compromise - a twisting, spire-topped skyscraper that will include a two-level observation deck and a restaurant like the one that topped the old twin towers, people familiar with the design said Tuesday.

The plan, which will be made public Friday by New York Gov. George Pataki and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, would produce a 1,776-foot skyscraper with a sloped roof and an off-center spire that evokes the upraised arm of the nearby Statue of Liberty.

That would retain key elements of architect Daniel Libeskind's embattled master plan for the 16-acre trade center site, which redevelopment officials selected in February after a heated design competition.

Immediately beneath the spire would be an unoccupied, open-air structure housing wind turbines, the sources said. The turbines would be enclosed in a lacy network of cables like those on the Brooklyn Bridge. They were suggested by David Childs, architect for Larry Silverstein, the developer who holds the commercial lease for the trade center.

In announcing the compromise late Monday, New York redevelopment officials said Libeskind's original plan was "given form by" Childs following what they politely referred to as "an often spirited design effort."

The architects publicly battled for months, with Libeskind pressing for a slender, asymmetrical tower and Childs urging a more muscular, twisting form. Pataki told them to stop the squabbling and gave them a Monday deadline for the project, which he dubbed "Freedom Tower."

The compromise "really came together … over the last weekend," people familiar with the design said. The architects are now rushing to build models and prepare drawings for Friday's presentation.

Until the design is unveiled, it will be impossible to assess which architect had the upper hand and whether the design truly is a compromise. But these are the plan's broad outlines, sources said:

_Ample ground-floor lobbies to handle the large crowds that are expected to visit the tower's observation deck.

_The portion of the tower with office space reaches 1,100 feet high. This part of the tower would twist as it rose, as Childs desired. Yet it would be topped by a sloping roof - a concession to Libeskind's master plan, which called for the tower to culminate the upward spiral of a group of slice-topped office buildings.

_A two-level observation deck located atop the building's commercial zone, and a large-scale restaurant, recalling Windows on the World, the famous restaurant atop the north tower of the former World Trade Center.

Above the commercial area would be a high-rise wind farm with turbines that would generate some of the building's electricity. The turbines would be set in a network of cables that would allow the wind to come through. This zone would rise to 1,500 feet.

The final 276 feet would consist of a spire, located on the southwest side of the tower, as Libeskind suggested. It would house communications antennas.

The unusual design would allow Pataki and Bloomberg to claim that they had rebuilt lower Manhattan's skyline after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks while not forcing office workers to toil in a perceived danger zone - hundreds of feet above nearby skyscrapers.

At 1,776 feet, Freedom Tower would be more than 400 feet taller than the destroyed twin towers and nearly 300 feet taller than the Petronas Towers in Malaysia, currently the world's tallest buildings.

---

© 2003, Chicago Tribune.

Jasonik

December 17th, 2003, 12:03 AM

December 17, 2003

Compromise Leads Architect to Lower His Sights, and the Trade Center Tower

By DAVID W. DUNLAP

In the end, the magic number for resolving the design impasse over the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center site turned out to be 276 feet.

That was how much the architect David M. Childs reduced the height of the tower he is designing for the developer Larry A. Silverstein, one of several gestures that allowed Mr. Childs's counterpart, Daniel Libeskind, to certify that the Freedom Tower would fit in with his overall master plan for the site.

But the compromise did not emerge until the final few hours before a deadline on Monday, after Gov. George E. Pataki jumped in as a referee and cheerleader between architects who were barely speaking to each other. He met with Mr. Childs on Friday, said others who attended the meeting, telephoned his encouragement for the redesign over the weekend and then put the matter to Mr. Libeskind.

Rather than describe the resulting design as a collaboration, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation called it an "idea" by Mr. Libeskind that was "given form" by Mr. Childs. It will be unveiled on Friday by Mr. Pataki and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg at Federal Hall National Memorial on Wall Street.

Mr. Pataki did not tell the architects how to design the tower, said those who heard the recent conversations, but made it plain that he expected them to meet the Monday deadline, which the governor set in a speech two months ago.

The design by Mr. Childs, a partner in Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, called for a hybrid tower of 68 occupied floors, with east and west facades curving gently to create a torqued effect. That would be topped by an enormous open-air structure supported on twin concrete cores studded with electricity-generating windmills and surrounded by a network of cables.

Mr. Childs proposed that the whole tower structure — enclosed and open-air — rise to 1,776 feet, the symbolic benchmark set by Mr. Libeskind's master plan.

But Mr. Libeskind, whose own version of the Freedom Tower had a slender spire at the 1,776-foot mark, worried that a structure almost 30 percent taller than the twin towers would be too massive and incongruent with his master plan.

"I want to build you a great tower, Governor," Mr. Childs was said to have told Mr. Pataki during their meeting in the governor's office, at 633 Third Avenue.

"Well, don't do it for me," Mr. Pataki answered. "Do it for the people we lost, so no one forgets what happened."

As described by those who have seen the compromise version, the tower structure would be 1,500 feet tall — 1,100 feet enclosed and 400 feet open — with a 276-foot spire to claim the symbolic height, and an antenna reaching beyond that, perhaps to 2,000 feet.

Exactly where this hybrid will rank among the world's tallest structures remains to be seen.

Neither Mr. Libeskind nor Mr. Childs would comment yesterday. Mr. Pataki's office issued a statement saying simply that he "has been supportive of the process and the exchange of ideas" and "looks forward to the unveiling."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

JMGarcia

December 17th, 2003, 12:37 AM

I disappointed about the observation deck but happy to hear about the re still being possibilities of 2000 feet with the antenna. I don't really know whether I care if it is the spire or the cables that reach to 1776. I'll have to see the actual design to judge which would have looked better going to that height. I think a lot will depend on the size and shape of the spire and the size and shape of the cableing.

JMC

December 17th, 2003, 12:48 AM

Huh? We get a windmill?

A Windmill?!?! Turbines suspended in cables!? Are these people completely nuts? Add some lasers and maybe a pirate themed resturant, then we'll really have something to be proud of.

emmeka

December 17th, 2003, 04:32 AM

yeah, its starting to sound like a bit of a mess.

Zzed

December 17th, 2003, 07:34 AM

yeah, its starting to sound like a bit of a mess.

anything is possible, even if a stunted compromise is "unveiled".

prayer might help.

NYguy

December 17th, 2003, 09:01 AM

Compromise Leads Architect to Lower His Sights, and the Trade Center Tower

By DAVID W. DUNLAP
The New York Times

In the end, the magic number for resolving the design impasse over the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center site turned out to be 276 feet. That was how much the architect David M. Childs reduced the height of the tower he is designing for....

The design by Mr. Childs, a partner in Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, called for a hybrid tower of 68 occupied floors, with east and west facades curving gently to create a torqued effect. That would be topped by an enormous open-air structure supported on twin concrete cores studded with electricity-generating windmills and surrounded by a network of cables.

Mr. Childs proposed that the whole tower structure — enclosed and open-air — rise to 1,776 feet, the symbolic benchmark set by Mr. Libeskind's master plan.

But Mr. Libeskind, whose own version of the Freedom Tower had a slender spire at the 1,776-foot mark, worried that a structure almost 30 percent taller than the twin towers would be too massive and incongruent with his master plan.

Well, I keep saying it, and I'm gonna keep saying it until I get it into everyone's brain _ Libeskind ruined this tower. Who cares if it would have been too tall to fit into his "master plan". That could have been solved by raising the height of the other towers.

NYguy

December 17th, 2003, 09:05 AM

II don't really know whether I care if it is the spire or the cables that reach to 1776.

There it is for you. It wasn't just the cables, but the entire tower that was to reach 1,776 ft. That was too tall and too massive for Libeskind and his site plan. It can't be made any clearer than that, Libeskind wanted the "smaller" tower. The tower was going to look basically the same (this was the compromised version), its just that now it will be shorter than Childs was planning.

JMGarcia

December 17th, 2003, 09:12 AM

JMGarcia

December 17th, 2003, 09:17 AM

TAKE BACK THE SKY
By STEVE CUOZZO
NY POST

December 17, 2003 -- THIS Friday, the world will get to see the first large building ever designed by two architects and a governor: the Freedom Tower at Ground Zero. And, short of an outright debacle, I'm ready to love whatever corkscrew-shaped compromise David Childs, Daniel Libeskind and George Pataki cook up.

Notwithstanding inevitable bellyaching from architects, real-estate moguls and eggheads - and everyone's likely disappointment over a real-world design bucking unreal expectations - it is time to fix the literal hole in our city and take back the sky above it.

To a lifelong New Yorker fortunate enough to write about the town's bricks and mortar on a regular basis, the Freedom Tower is its own justification. We are a dense city possessed of a uniquely rich urban fabric. Great mass and height are integral to the fabric.

A new spire where the World Trade Center stood will only begin to restore the commercial core that was lost on 9/11. But it will end the awful ache over a skyline with its two front teeth punched out.

Real-estate people grumble that the project isn't viable because it does not yet have tenants. The ugly truth is that with the obvious exception of Larry Silverstein, most every landlord in town would rather see the site rot rather than see new office buildings rise to threaten the profitability of their own holdings.

The Freedom Tower's 2.8 million square feet of office space, little more than half of what each Twin Tower had, will fill up soon enough in a rising economy. But in any event, the Freedom Tower isn't about business as usual.

Nor is it about "sending the terrorists a message" - the only message anyone with a brain wants to send terrorists is a well-aimed bullet.

Nor is it about architecture. No one comes to New York to see the Seagram Building; people come to see the Empire State and Chrysler buildings, which architectural purists humor as scarcely better than crowd-pleasing kitsch.

The Freedom Tower - a tacky name certain to be scrapped for the tenant bold enough to claim it - has one purpose: to make the city fabric whole again, on the ground and in the clouds.

This can yet happen swiftly after two years of political dithering. Everything is in place: a landowner (the Port Authority) eager for action, a developer apparently with enough money and a governor with a legacy to protect.

Great or mediocre, the Childs-Libeskind-Pataki product can only be better than its predecessor. We miss the Twin Towers - mainly because their absence painfully reminds us of the lives taken from us on 9/11, not because we loved them in their own right.

I would happily take them back if it would restore even one life. But they were big, bad buildings that looked nothing like the rest of Downtown or anything else in New York. Tolerable after dark as pillars of light, their minimal charm faded with dawn.

Their facades were unforgivably banal, their plaza a windswept horror. Their windows were too narrow for those inside to enjoy the view.

No New Yorker will ever forget the towers; some well-meaning citizens can't imagine Downtown without them and actually hope to restore them. But all it will take to get us over their memory is the vision of even one terrific new skyscraper.

Or an imperfect one that's good enough. Let's hope for greatness when the design is unveiled this week. But let's understand that where critics can wait forever for perfection, cities - and those who love New York with all its flaws - cannot.

Liz L

December 17th, 2003, 09:19 AM

Christian, you make a good point about integrity in using materials. You're also very right about correctly defining what I'm talking about, and speaking of that, if you've seen them, are many of the plans displayed at the Max Protech Gallery awhile back (and published in a book called "A New World Trade Center") deconstructionist? Or could you mention some prominent examples of the style?

As for my rigid preconceptions, well, I try to judge each building on its merits, and as for architecture that makes me uncomfortable, I usually admit to myself that it's so unusual that I simply can't quite "wrap my eyes around it," so to speak, and make a fair judgment. Besides, you really need to see a building in person, and there are different traditions and styles in different cultures.

I appreciate just about every other style of architecture, though I like some more than others. The reason I'm so inflexible about "decon," as I've said before, is the philosophy behind it as much as the buildings. But if I come accross any deconstructionist buildings I like, which for starters would have to show unity without monotony and variety without chaos, I'll gladly admit it.

More on the decon philosophy of architecure later, as soon as I collect some quotes....

NYguy

December 17th, 2003, 09:23 AM

NoyokA

December 17th, 2003, 09:27 AM

But Mr. Libeskind, whose own version of the Freedom Tower had a slender spire at the 1,776-foot mark, worried that a structure almost 30 percent taller than the twin towers would be too massive and incongruent with his master plan.

That would've been 2,300 feet. That's would've been perfect. Context is such bullshit. This building should've been designed with the "right" New York attitude.

NYguy

December 17th, 2003, 09:31 AM

STAR LEDGER...

Tower will be 1,776 feet, windmill included
Redesign of future Ground Zero landmark, to be shown to public Friday, settles a feud

Wednesday, December 17, 2003
BY RON MARSICO

The 1,776-foot Freedom Tower to be built at Ground Zero is likely to show "a substantial refinement to the original concept design" when the revised drawings are unveiled Friday, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Chairman Anthony Coscia said yesterday.

Coscia, who has been updated on the plans, made the comment after the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. revealed that the two architects feuding over the design of what will be the world's tallest building have reached a compromise.

The Freedom Tower is expected to have a torque design, a spire and occupied office space only to the 70th floor. Windmills are planned atop the structure within an enclosed grating, to provide a power source. A major television antenna also has been proposed for the building.

"I think that refinement will reflect substantial work by the design team," said Coscia, referring to architects Daniel Libeskind, who proposed the tower, and David Childs. "I think the changes that are being made keep the original spirit of the plan ... but flush them out in a way that makes the building more impressive, really."

Coscia noted that he saw the design plans last week and that additional changes have been made since.

The LMDC, which is charting Ground Zero's future, issued a statement that Libeskind's idea has been "given form" by Childs.

"As Libeskind proposed, it will soar 1,776 feet in the sky, culminating in a spire that evokes another great symbol of our nation's commitment to freedom -- the Statue of Liberty," said the LMDC. "And as Childs proposed, it will incorporate innovative cable technology, adhere to the highest standards of safety and security, and generate much of its own electricity."

JMGarcia

December 17th, 2003, 09:35 AM

As I've said, I agree that it seems that the new design reduced the massiveness of the tower. But, also as I've said, the masiveness of the tower was not my top priority. I'll need to see the design to see if the spire has ruined the design or added to it.

Its time to face the music JMGarcia. We both know that Libeskind ruined this tower. Childs was going to design the office portion of the building regardless, so that's not what I'm talking about. Its the upper half of the building, the only part of the building that matters (or why are they building tall in the first place?) and Libeskind has scaled it back. That is NOT in the spirit of the World Trade Center. BIGGER was the better option here.

We don't both know any such thing because neither of us has seen it! When I see it if I think it would have been a better building without the spire and the cables hanging from the twin concrete pillars going all the way to 1776 feet then I'll say it.

It still comes down to the fact that what you and I want in the building is DIFFERENT. You want massiveness. I'm more concerned with the design. As I've said, the massiveness has been reduced but I DO NOT NECESSARILY care. Therefore a reduction in massiveness has NOT necessarily ruined the building IMO.

JMGarcia

December 17th, 2003, 09:39 AM

I do not consider hany of the buildings to have been RUINED because of their tops are less massive than their bodies.

http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=5&drawingID=19281http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=18&drawingID=19230http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=22&drawingID=19165http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=23&drawingID=18471

NYguy

December 17th, 2003, 09:44 AM

NY Observer...
http://nyobserver.com/pages/frontpage5.asp

http://nyobserver.com/images/mainimages/front122203.jpg

(From the article...)

The Two Towers

In the final days before the compromise was reached, it was politics, not design, that was the essential element, as Mr. Libeskind mustered the aid of his lawyer and Pataki confidant, Ed Hayes, in an attempt to force Mr. Childs to bring his design more in line with the master plan.

Specifically, Mr. Libeskind was seeking to get Mr. Childs to reduce the massing and height of the tower.

According to sources familiar with the situation, Friday the 12th was apparently the turning point. On that day, Port Authority vice chairman Charles Gargano, Port Authority executive director Joe Seymour, LMDC president Kevin Rampe and LMDC chief operating officer Matthew Higgins met with Mr. Childs in Governor Pataki’s midtown offices.

They implored Mr. Childs to bring down the height of his cabling section from what was then 1,776 feet. At some point during the day, the Governor himself showed up and made the same plea. Within a few days, Mr. Childs agreed to lower the cabling section to 1,500 feet—and allow the spire to rise to 1,776 feet. It was a compromise Mr. Libeskind could live with, and it removed the last significant obstacle to the plan.

But the Libeskind camp had wanted the building to have setbacks, as opposed to the sheer façade that now covers the building. They also had to forgo putting gardens, restaurants and other public program-type elements in the building’s spire—which will now be left empty.

That much about Mr. Libeskind’s regrets are publicly known; they were all part of the presentation that he made in February after being chosen by Governor Pataki to work up a master plan for the site. What is not as publicly known, however, is just how much Mr. Childs has had to compromise, as he never publicly presented iterations of his plan for the tower.

That’s where a look at the original renderings produced by S.O.M. becomes helpful.

The renderings were created by Mr. Childs’ staff at the behest of his client, Mr. Silverstein. They show the torqued body, the bank of windmills encased by the cabling structure rising to 1,776 feet, and an open lattice system of antennas rising above the cables to reach 2,000 feet.

The renderings are dated Aug. 12, 2003, less than a month after Mr. Childs and Mr. Libeskind agreed to collaborate on the design of the tower.

However, Mr. Childs has been thinking about the design of the Freedom Tower almost from the very day of Sept. 11. His firm, which had to flee its downtown office on the day of the attack, had already been retained by Mr. Silverstein do some renovation work on the World Trade Center before it was destroyed.

In the immediate wake of Sept. 11, Mr. Childs and his staffers began informally working up ideas to replace what was lost. The idea behind the torqued design was one that had been suggested to Mr. Childs mere days after Sept. 11 by another architect, Richard Dattner; the idea gained momentum almost a year later when Guy Nordenstrom, an engineer working for Mr. Silverstein, submitted a version of the torqued design to Herbert Muschamp for inclusion in his portfolio of ideas for the reconstruction of Ground Zero that appeared in the New York Times Magazine on Sept. 8, 2002.

Now that the compromise is complete, rebuilding authorities have only to face one more obstacle: the ornery public. Fed throughout the process on the idea that public input had guided the design of the new World Trade Center, they will be presented not with several tower designs to consider, but one. Messrs. Childs and Libeskind are not the only ones for whom everything rides on the public’s reaction to that tower.

Mr. Pataki hopes to drive a spade into the foundations of the tower in time for the Republican National Convention next August. There’s no time left, for him, to be sent back to the drawing board.

NYguy

December 17th, 2003, 09:48 AM

I do not consider hany of the buildings to have been RUINED because of their tops are less massive than their bodies.

Nobody is saying the tower is ruined because the top is less massive than the body. I'm saying its ruined because it was PLANNED to have a massive top (before Libeskind), in the spirit of the WTC. Those buildings posted are irrelevant, none of those towers are replacing the WTC, and are final products of their own.

NYatKNIGHT

December 17th, 2003, 09:55 AM

with a 276-foot spire to claim the symbolic height, and an antenna reaching beyond that, perhaps to 2,000 feet.

Libeskind brought the height down 276' :x and replaced it with a spire instead of more of Childs' open cable segment. What is the spire I wonder? Is it more open lattice with nothing inside or.......what is it?

Exactly where this hybrid will rank among the world's tallest structures remains to be seen.
Because of this "spire".

An observation deck more than 200 feet lower than the twin towers had is disappointing, especially when there is still at least 400 feet of the building above you.

with east and west facades curving gently to create a torqued effect
So it doesn't twist, it has a "torqued effect".

NYguy

December 17th, 2003, 09:59 AM

Libeskind brought the height down 276' :x and replaced it with a spire instead of more of Childs' open cable segment. What is the spire I wonder? Is it more open lattice with nothing inside or.......what is it?

I'm assuming it is more lattice, but it will be offcenter, and house antennas rather than windmills...

JMGarcia

December 17th, 2003, 10:25 AM

But the Libeskind camp had wanted the building to have setbacks, as opposed to the sheer façade that now covers the building. They also had to forgo putting gardens, restaurants and other public program-type elements in the building’s spire—which will now be left empty.

I am much more disappointed that the public spaces were removed from an enclosed spire and moved down to the 70th floor than I am that the last 15% of the building is thinner than it might have been.

NYguy

December 17th, 2003, 10:41 AM

Libeskind's spire is much to thin for those public spaces....

kliq6

December 17th, 2003, 10:47 AM

we will all find out Friday

JMGarcia

December 17th, 2003, 10:47 AM

Liz L

December 17th, 2003, 10:53 AM

Very true, JMGarcia - IMHO, most of the best skyscrapers are those that do become less massive as they rise - this can give them graceful elegance and soaring height... :D And it's one reason I'm so partial to Art Deco. :D

NYguy

December 17th, 2003, 10:59 AM

Libeskind's spire is much to thin for those public spaces....I guess people working in the Woolworth building should be told that it is much too thin for them to be working in and those in the Millenium Hilton that it is much to thin for them to sleep in.

I guess Libeskind just such a bad architect and his staff and outside engineers are just too stupid to have realized this. What was the sq. footage of the spire's floor plates?

Perhaps they should be told that, if they expect the volume the WTC had. Those buildings won't be the focal point for thousands of tourist that might want to get to the top. Its a ridiculous comparison.

None of those buildings were built to replace the WTC, with the promise of restoring the skyline. As it is, we were only getting ONE tower to replace TWO MASSIVE ones in the first place. Replacing it with Libeskind's weak spire is a joke.

.................................................. ..................................................

I have a strong suspicion that Libeskind was worried that Childs' tower had too much of a resemblance to Foster's kissing towers (the favorite). As he himself was the "winner" of the site plan competition, why would Libeskind want a tower that lhad more in common with one of his competitors' towers than his own "winning" design?

(not the actual building, but from all accounts, it was Foster's tower revisited...)

http://nyobserver.com/images/mainimages/front122203.jpg

http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/Images/US/NY/NYC/WTC/2-2FosterOne.jpg?

JMGarcia

December 17th, 2003, 11:56 AM

None of those buildings were built to replace the WTC, with the promise of restoring the skyline. As it is, we were only getting ONE tower to replace TWO MASSIVE ones in the first place. Replacing it with Libeskind's weak spire is a joke.

.................................................. ..................................................

I have a strong suspicion that Libeskind was worried that Childs' tower had too much of a resemblance to Foster's kissing towers (the favorite). As he himself was the "winner" of the site plan competition, why would Libeskind want a tower that lhad more in common with one of his competitors' towers than his own "winning" design?

(not the actual building, but from all accounts, it was Foster's tower revisited...)

http://nyobserver.com/images/mainimages/front122203.jpg

http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/Images/US/NY/NYC/WTC/2-2FosterOne.jpg?

Well, maybe half of Foster's tower revisted. ;)

Again, MASSIVENESS is your priority not mine. I'd rather a good design and something that compliments the existing downtown skyline.

Love that cartoon BTW, especially where Libeskind is aiming that spire. It is all about "size" after all. :lol:

I'm beginning to wonder too if the 2 concrete cores (like the vertical structure of one of the bridge pylons) supporting the cableing and the comparisons to the Brooklyn Bridge means that Childs' design is more like a Bridge pylon. In other words, a large triangle on top of the building rather than a box.

Like one of these.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/bridge-cs1.jpg

http://www.putrajaya.net.my/iis2/photo/bridges/seriwawasan.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/images/bridge/basics/sunshineskyway_bridge_1.jpg

Or this maybe....

http://syllabus.syr.edu/ecs/spclemen/ecs318/BROOKLYN.JPG

In other words, will it have that drapeing feel?

Jasonik

December 17th, 2003, 01:18 PM

http://nyobserver.com/images/mainimages/front122203.jpg

JMGarcia:

Love that cartoon BTW, especially where Libeskind is aiming that spire. It is all about "size" after all. :D

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/10/23/nyregion/23REBU1184.jpg

David (Incredulous): "How big?!"

Danny (Gesturing): "About this much."

Larry (Dismisive): "Danny stop exagerating."

*****

Liz L.

deconstructivist architects :: \Tschumi, Hadid, Coop, Eisenman, Behnisch, Libeskind, Morphosis, Woods... (http://www.kmtspace.com/deconstructivistarch.htm)

Freedom Tower

December 17th, 2003, 04:10 PM

There is something I do like about the windmill idea. The windmill will really contribute to it being a "Freedom Tower". It will help, at least for one building, ease our reliance on foreign oil, imported from the people who hate us. The less power the building requires from the city, the less oil that must be burned in oil power plants, etc. I like that about it. I just hope they can pull it off without making it look like a mess.

Zzed

December 17th, 2003, 04:54 PM

as the compromise was apparently reached some days ago, why the delay in releasing the drawings? the only reason i can think of is to somehow set the whole shebang hard in concrete so no one can reject it. i have a bad feeling about all this :(

JMGarcia

December 17th, 2003, 05:09 PM

It does take some time to do architectural renderings, especially good ones. Furthermore, Pataki needs to have a speech written and he and Bloomberg have to schedule time and so on and so forth. Finally, Childs and Libeskind have to create a presentation with all the necessary bells and whistles. A three day turnaround isn't that bad IMO.

Gulcrapek

December 17th, 2003, 05:17 PM

They need to put supernatural lighting effects on the renderings.

Jasonik

December 17th, 2003, 05:19 PM

Like a halo above the Freedom Tower.

fioco

December 17th, 2003, 05:28 PM

Dont jest Gulcrapek and Jasonik. Are you free Thursday to assist in this ethereal light? Has no one thought about a musical score? This is New York!

Liz L

December 17th, 2003, 06:13 PM

The problem with wind mills, Freedom Tower, is that they only produce power when there's wind - and since , if I'm correct, you can't store electricity, they seem like they'd be very unreliable - unless the wind is stronger and more consistent at the height they'd be at?

JMGarcia

December 17th, 2003, 06:46 PM

There's probably a system that pulls more electricity from the regular grid when the windmills aren't working and less when there are. Therefore, given average wind over a period of time the estimate how much electricity they will save.

NYguy

December 17th, 2003, 07:19 PM

http://nyobserver.com/images/mainimages/front122203.jpg

http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/Images/US/NY/NYC/WTC/2-2FosterOne.jpg?

Well, maybe half of Foster's tower revisted. ;)

Again, MASSIVENESS is your priority not mine. I'd rather a good design and something that compliments the existing downtown skyline.

Well, as you know, I was in love with Foster's tower, and had it yanked away because it was "too tall" (ironic considering Libeskinds tower is taller). I was also a fan of THINK's WCC towers, only to have the LMDC reduce the height and occupancy of those towers, rendering them useless. Now the thought of a tower similar in scale to Foster's tower being taken away again is too much. 1,500 ft is nothing to laught at, but why can't we have the full 1,776 ft version? (its the same tower). The antena on top could have been designed to resemble Libeskind's slanted spire (Trump had a similar antenna proposed for the top of his TV City tower). The scale would have been off, but its going to be off anyway...

TonyO

December 17th, 2003, 07:34 PM

Wind is much more consistent off land and higher than land level. Wind is also more efficient to produce than solar (for now).

krulltime

December 17th, 2003, 08:27 PM

'I am so excited that I can't hide it. I am about to loose control and I think I like it...I like it!' ~ Flashbacks :wink:

I can't wait for the real thing!!!

ZippyTheChimp

December 17th, 2003, 09:06 PM

Since the windmills are not going to supply the total building demand, there is no need for them to operating full time. However, they might. I have been on the roof of the WTC many times, and it was always windy.

Electricity can be converted to DC and stored in batteries, and later converted to AC.

krulltime

December 18th, 2003, 12:35 AM

One more day...and still waiting for answers... :roll:

krulltime

December 18th, 2003, 12:38 AM

http://nyobserver.com/images/mainimages/front122203.jpg

:lol: Yeah Kill each other!!!

Freedom Tower

December 18th, 2003, 05:35 AM

Yeah, what Zippy, tonyo, and JMGarcia all said was right. From what I have heard the windmill will supply more power at night, because the offices aren't being used and there will be a much smaller demand for power at that time. Any excess wind may be stored on batteries. Also, it will be so high up, and right along the river that the wind will probably be pretty strong. And since it isn't the buildings only supply of power there isn't too much to fret about. And another great reason for it is the fact that Libeskind and Childs wanted half the building to be useless anyway! At least they've now found a use for all that open space!

BPC

December 18th, 2003, 08:27 AM

ZippyTheChimp

December 18th, 2003, 08:58 AM

Windmills are not necessarily of the Don Quixote type. You need to broaden your perception of things.

But on a symbolic tone, who started Lower Manhattan as a buisiness venture?

NYguy

December 18th, 2003, 09:18 AM

Libeskind didn't want any windmills in the tower at all. For that reason, there will be no windmills in his spire...

NY1...

Foundation Of Freedom Tower To Be Complete By Third Anniversary Of Attacks

DECEMBER 17TH, 2003

World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein says the foundation of the Freedom tower will be complete by the third anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Silverstein addressed members of the New York Building Congress at a luncheon Wednesday, discussing redevelopment status at the site.

Silverstein says the Freedom Tower will stand 1,776 feet high as planned, but will only be occupied up to the 73rd floor.

He says all five buildings will be built according to the highest safety standards. Silverstein says building seven and the Freedom Tower will be financed by the insurance company.

“What we hope to do is to launch a tower for completion every year thereafter,” said Silverstein. “So with the completion of the Freedom Tower in the end of ‘08/beginning of ‘09, we hope to have the second tower beginning of 2010, and the third ‘11, and the fourth ‘12, and the fifth and final tower in ’13, approximately ten years from today. I promised the governor the next 10 years of my life, I'm 72 right now, after 82, I quit.”

On Friday morning, Governor George Pataki and Mayor Michael Bloomberg are scheduled to publicly unveil the final design for the Freedom Tower.

JMGarcia

December 18th, 2003, 04:56 PM

Brooklyn Bridge inspired WTC plan
By Christopher Grimes in New York
Published: December 18 2003 18:11 | Last Updated: December 18 2003 18:11

Drawings of the main building on the former World Trade Center site, which are to be unveiled on Thursday for the first time, will show a modernist structure inspired by two New York landmarks: the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty.

A latticework of cables, reminiscent of the suspension system that made the Brooklyn Bridge an engineering marvel in the 19th century, will crown the 1,776-foot building.

Inside the cable structure will be a series of windmills to capture the strong gusts from the nearby Hudson River and convert them into electricity for the building, according to people involved in the redevelopment process.

A spire rising from the top is meant to evoke the torch in the raised hand of the Statue of Liberty, according to spare details provided by the Lower Manhattan Development Corp.

The windmills could be a selling point for the design, which undoubtably will be debated as fiercely as proposals for a memorial and the site plan have been. Using wind power could make a resonant political point about lessening reliance on imported fuel. But the windmills could also raise questions about noise and whether they will pose a threat to birds.

The design is the result of an uneasy collaboration between Daniel Libeskind, the architect overseeing the layout of the 16-acre World Trade Center site, and David Childs, the veteran Manhattan architect hired by the leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, to come up with a workable blueprint for what will be the world's tallest building.

Conflicts over the design stalled the process several times since the two men were ordered to work together in July.

Mr Libeskind had favored an asymmetrical building, which Mr Childs opposed on the grounds that it did not conform to the New York grid. Finally, New York Governor George Pataki intervened by setting a deadline of December 15 - which was extended slightly as the two architects wrestled over last-minute details.

Mr Libeskind won the competition in February to design the World Trade Center site plan. For most of the public, it seemed that Mr Libeskind's famous renderings - including the signature structure, which was dubbed "Freedom Tower" - would eventually become part of the New York skyline.

But Mr Silverstein, who stands to collect billions of dollars in insurance, has brought in Mr Childs and other renowned architects - including Sir Norman Foster of the UK - to design the actual commercial buildings on the site.

Mr Libeskind has been dubbed "collaborating architect" and has been reassured that his concepts will be incorporated into final designs of all five buildings planned for the site.

NYguy

December 18th, 2003, 05:18 PM

So are the drawings coming out today?

JMGarcia

December 18th, 2003, 05:24 PM

Just another example of inaccuracy in the press probably.

NyC MaNiAc

December 18th, 2003, 07:26 PM

Geez, the whole thing won't be done until 2013?

I hope I live that long! :roll:

Liz L

December 18th, 2003, 07:45 PM

It would REALLY be great if they had something done in time for NYC's 400th anniversary in 2009....

I mean, Starrett Bros. & Eken got the Empire State up in 1 1/2 years or less (depending on what date you use as the start of construction), and got her done about a month ahead of schedule....And as rapidly as they worked, they still did a superb job...

NYguy

December 18th, 2003, 08:22 PM

A little treat for you all

'Twas the eve before Freedom Tower
in the heart of the Apple,
Pataki sat patiently
and sipped of his Snapple

His architects at peace,
their squabble now dead
but New Yorkers were overcome
with a feeling of dread

"What" they asked
"would be built in the sky?"
would the promise of world's tallest
be naught but a lie?

Would it twist and then taper
as it rose to the sky?
And what of the observation deck?
Exactly how high?

Alas, we must wait,
the revelation tomorrow
let us hope we're not left
with a feeling of sorrow

NYguy

http://www.pbase.com/image/24253617/medium.jpg

NoyokA

December 18th, 2003, 08:24 PM

VERY GOOD! :lol:

Liz L

December 18th, 2003, 08:26 PM

You go, NYguy! :D :lol:

NYguy

December 18th, 2003, 08:29 PM

LOL!

Thanks!

NYguy

December 18th, 2003, 08:56 PM

NEWSDAY...

WTC Tower Plans To Be Unveiled

By Glenn Thrush
December 18, 2003, 8:42 PM EST

The public will get its first glimpse of the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower's final design at 8:05 on Friday morning's "Today Show." And like everything else about Ground Zero, even that decision involved a nasty backroom dustup.

Gov. George Pataki and Mayor Michael Bloomberg are slated to present drawings of the tower on TV in the morning.

As late as Friday afternoon, however, officials with the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. were saying Pataki would appear alone.

When members of Bloomberg's staff caught wind of the governor's plan, they exploded and demanded a joint appearance, sources close to the situation told Newsday.

Bloomberg's staffers "were not going to let the mayor get walked over," said an official familiar with the dispute who requested anonymity. Late Thursday afternoon, Pataki agreed to a joint appearance.

Earlier, reporters had been told that the first public viewing of the revised tower design would be at 9 a.m. today during a news conference at Federal Hall, a few blocks from the World Trade Center site.

Feuding architects Daniel Libeskind and David Childs, who will appear on TV with Bloomberg and Pataki, dueled for weeks over the tower's final form.

This week, they agreed on a hybrid design that incorporates Libeskind's vision of a jagged spire and Childs' plan to top it with an open framework that includes an electricity-generating windmill.

krulltime

December 18th, 2003, 09:01 PM

:lol: I am falling and I can't get up!! Nobody could it said it better NYguy...

krulltime

December 18th, 2003, 09:07 PM

This week, they agreed on a hybrid design that incorporates Libeskind's vision of a jagged spire and Childs' plan to top it with an open framework that includes an electricity-generating windmill.

I just got a feeling that this tower is going to take longer to construct because of all the new implementations in the new so called design. Problems do occur while a project is being built and it takes years to resolve. :? But I have my finger cross :wink:

Gulcrapek

December 18th, 2003, 09:24 PM

There's a poster among us
Who comes from NY
With the smallest of suffix -
A mere, simple "Guy"

A poem he penned
Made everyone giggle
'Twas so good even -
My eyes gave a wiggle

__

That means I thought your poem was amusing.

Kris

December 19th, 2003, 05:34 AM

May the architects be as inspired as you two.

Derek2k3

December 19th, 2003, 08:18 AM

i like it!, the night rendering was unbelievable. It also makes the other buildings in the master plan look really small and the spiral is lost. So I can see where Libeskind was coming from.

TAFisher123

December 19th, 2003, 08:31 AM

from what the today show had....it looks like childs buidling with libeskinds skinny off center spire....didnt seemuch twisting but they only had one day time rendering

JMGarcia

December 19th, 2003, 08:32 AM

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/12/19/nyregion/Tower1.jpg

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-12/10685603.jpg

First image. Better ones were shown on TV.

NYguy

December 19th, 2003, 08:55 AM

All I will say is - I am VERY disappointed in that spire. Libeskind had the height taken from 1,776 fto to 1,500 ft for THIS? Unbelievable. Now I definitely have to see Childs' earlier design. I can't believe I waited all these months for this. Its a 1,500 ft tower, I don't want to hear them telling me its 1,776 ft (even if it is by today's skyscraper standards). As far as the building goes, maybe it will look better in the actual renderings...

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-12/10685603.jpg

Zzed

December 19th, 2003, 09:00 AM

hmmmm ... perhaps it's the angle but the towers seem more tightly packed together than previously ... my initial reaction about the main tower was ... "ok, it could have been worse" if it stays as an opaque white rendering it may pass, yet somehow i think that's not the final cladding :>

reduced to a number for what it's worth, as a tower ... 8/10 as the response to 911 ... 6/10

great job getting the images posted so fast!

NYguy

December 19th, 2003, 09:23 AM

billyblancoNYC

December 19th, 2003, 09:29 AM

Looks like Libeskind's other, slanted roof buildings with a mesh top and toothpick. Oh yeah, there's a slight curve. Woo hoo.

BrooklynRider

December 19th, 2003, 09:32 AM

Gut reaction:

I am totally disappointed. This "collaboration" was a failure. It is a "memorial to 9/11" in that it represents how high we will no longer build. That "lattice" work is nothing but a void - a void of creativity, a void of inspiration, a monumental objectification of "fear".

The spire is laughable. If Liebskind fought tooth and nail for its inclusion, by its looks, it wasn't worth the effot. He comes out of this looking like a clod. He fought for "that" - it looks silly. Yet, it is pitiful, unremarkable and a pretty lame way to reach the 1776' height.

The rush job on this design process will forever be an imprint on our skyline. What a shame. I cannot believe my anticipation was met by this "thing". How incredibly anti-climactic.

I think that will be the immediate impact on this forum. Posters will inevitably begin employing the phrase, "at least it's better than Freeedom Tower" all over the place.

At least we have promising news on BoA Tower. Single Controlling Developer + Major Tenant + World Class Architect = Better Than Freedom Tower.

So ends my rant.

JMGarcia

December 19th, 2003, 09:36 AM

As pics of the model dribble out...

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/12/19/international/tower-big.jpg

NYguy

December 19th, 2003, 09:40 AM

I still think it will look better than the model, but I agree that the "collaboration" was a joke. In fact, this entire rebuiding process was a lesson on how NOT to rebuild...

NYguy

December 19th, 2003, 09:44 AM

http://www.nynewsday.com/media/photo/2003-12/10685831.jpg

http://www.nynewsday.com/media/photo/2003-12/10685834.jpg

http://www.nynewsday.com/media/photo/2003-12/10685885.jpg

http://www.nynewsday.com/media/photo/2003-12/10685888.jpg

BrooklynRider

December 19th, 2003, 09:52 AM

The second photo in the last post further proves that Liebskind is a friggin nut job. Someone help me out with how the spire is "evoking" the Statue of Liberty. Friggin sham. Liebskind is a windbag and tosses around phrases and sound bites that his designs and plans fail to give any definition to.

Wow, I can't believe how angry and betrayed I am feeling over this sham of a building. Let's face it, it's a very average 70 story building with an ugly tiara and hairpin.

Forgive me world for the venom I will release today.

Patrick

December 19th, 2003, 09:54 AM

I'm disappointed. This antenna makes it a fake 'Worlds Highest Building'. If they are afraid of height, why not build something with 10 floors and a much higher antenna? :?

Definitively the final cut?

Patrick

JayW

December 19th, 2003, 09:57 AM

...I actually like it alot. The first rendering picture is the most detailed rendering of what I see as something that demonstrates the best possible compromise given the roller-coaster of emotions that has plagued this process.
The lattice work to me appears rather decent...not at all flimsy.
Child seems to have done a rather nice job with the tapering aspect of the building. It makes a transition from solid building to "monument in the sky" in a surprisingly clean and subtle manner.
With regards to shape, I like the John Hancock-ish way it thins out towarst the top. As a whole, this building will perhaps satisfactorily address most people's massiveness requirements. For if you hearken back to Mr. Libeskind's original plan, the off-center "needle" had been somewhat derided for adding a "wimpy" presence to the skyline. This, IMO, has more "bang for the buck". It does make the spire look small in comparison, but look again and you see no antenna. This will IMO be akin to Conde nast before it's larger antenna was added. In the beginning, *its* spire looked rather stumpy in comparison to the rest of the structure..that is, until now.
So yes, perhaps more could have been done with the spire if you see it that way. If, in fact, antennae is supposed to bring the whole thing to an even 2K', the spire, it will be argued, looks skimpy for that purpose. Perhaps adding an edditional thin arm that angles out from the antenna could work to support this.
Just trying to make a silk purse from what many perhaps look at as a sow's ear...

PS: Since more pics have been added since my last rant, I see it this way: excellent job given the circumstances involved. I said before that the whole process could have been more centralized; but clashing egos, no matter what, could not have been avoided. Perhaps to most of you, this structure *will* serve as a monument on how *not* to steer a rebuilding process; but FWIW, it's elegant.

Think about it though...people *hated* the twins for *years*, even after BPC was built, citing brutalism, monolithicism, what have you. It was only after they went down in a blaze of non-glory when these same people started eulogizing them. I don't mean to trivialize the loss of the people *in* those buildings. Believe me. But you'd be surprised at how opinions and first impressions (to wit, here) can change and perhaps how something even such as this can grow on a person with time.

robertwash

December 19th, 2003, 10:01 AM

Its terrible, all air and a symbol of our intimidation.

dtolman

December 19th, 2003, 10:03 AM

TonyO

December 19th, 2003, 10:04 AM

My initial reaction is that I like the lines and angles, the twist works for the building. But, and that's a big but, it looks empty at the top (not a huge surprise). I hope this changes.

BrooklynRider

December 19th, 2003, 10:05 AM

Just trying to make a silk purse from what many perhaps look at as a sow's ear...

Good choice of words. That phrase is meant to portray the futility in some efforts.

Well, at least I'M inspired. I wrote letters to LMDC and Silverstein Properties. I'll probably only get more incensed as they will surely ignore me. ME!

NYguy

December 19th, 2003, 10:08 AM

NYguy

December 19th, 2003, 10:09 AM

My initial reaction is that I like the lines and angles, the twist works for the building. But, and that's a big but, it looks empty at the top (not a huge surprise). I hope this changes.

It can't possibly look as empty as that when built. Maybe the rush job done on the renderings left out what it would look like, or maybe they aren't even sure about that yet...

dtolman

December 19th, 2003, 10:12 AM

ZippyTheChimp

December 19th, 2003, 10:27 AM

It's difficult to make a good comparison without having seen any rendering, but from the numbers released for Child's original design -
1100 to the roof
1776 to the top of the lattice,
I didn't like the proportion of lattice to the building height.

This compromise has the lattice at 1500, a more balanced relationship - but I still think it's too much. The office portion should be a little higher.

I like the tapering, twisting - it gives the building visual interest.

The spire as rendered looks ridiculous. However, as renderings sometimes leave out, there is no structure supporting it.

JayW

December 19th, 2003, 10:28 AM

Maybe its a Huntington NY thing, but I like the new look of the tower as well... The renderings are pretty good - especially the nighttime one. If only it looks that nice in reality (doubtful)...

While it is dissapointing that they wimped out on the upper stories by leaving it an empty shell, based off the criteria already layed out by Silverstein this is no suprise. I remember that he has insisted on only having a 70 story occupied tower for some time now - this is probably as good as its going to get. Particularly compared to some of the horrible sketches posted here over the last few weeks of potential towers...

Daniel

On the second point, reluctantly agreed. But with all due respect to my neighbor, As long as this "empty shell" A) is visible from at least 15 miles away and B) can support an antenna structure that (hopefuly) can bring this puppy up to 2000, I'm OK with it.

One or two more points:

We're in store for *four* more towers that will be architecturally centered around this. I have a feeling that people who've been looking at this tower tend to comment on it as an independent structure. The previous pics show what we should be talking about IMO: it's ability (or inability depending on your view) to complement the rest of the cityscape. The other four, all shoo-ins for comstruction, will assuredly help.

Don't forget either, some of the drawings we's seen posted here were based on *conjecture*, if not stong hunch. I had a feeling all along that the whole "twisting vs tapering" was going to lead to all manner of confusion. To me it *would* have been worse if we were to see *twisting*. I stand by my assertion that Childs did the right thing with the *tapering* aspect.

At the end of the day, I suspect that most New Yorkers will see this tower *holistically* and not get bogged down over height to highest occupied floor and all that...as long as it's *big*. And to me, it looks *bigger* than Mr. Libeskind's original premise for FT.

TAFisher123

December 19th, 2003, 10:32 AM

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas....I think the end product is great tower.....everyone knew ahead of time roughly what it would incorporate....solid job even though the renderings are purposefully vague

Jasonik

December 19th, 2003, 10:35 AM

ZippyTheChimp

December 19th, 2003, 10:36 AM

Is there a Robert Frost flu going around? 8)

JayW

December 19th, 2003, 10:38 AM

The most disappointing thing here is the spire - even in Libeskind's worst imaginings, it was a sloped spire that appeared to at least be a part of the mass of the building. I at least thought I would have that to fall back on, but no. Its a 1,500 ft building. It may reach 2,000 ft, but don't sell it as a 1,776 ft building.

I would submit respectfully here that there is maybe great confusion between the words "building" and "structure". I don't mean to be patronizing here, butthese two words to tend to get thrown around rather casually to the point at which both become synonymous.
This ought to be seen (and *is* by me AFAIC) as a potential 2000' *structure*, combining skyscraper, monument and broadcast distribution site.
This is, agreed, *not* a 1776' *building*. In future, I wish people would use these terms more circumspectly.

BTW, the night shot of FT is *stunning*. I mean that. I also hope the final product matches the renderings as true to life as possible. I have faith.

Zoe

December 19th, 2003, 10:39 AM

I was expecting a lot more detail in these renderings. What is the skin going to look like? I can't even make out the twist well or if there is any set-backs. Overall I am not impressed. I hope that with the other towers, Libeskind will not be allowed to participate and we get some better architects (bring on Foster!!)

NYguy

December 19th, 2003, 10:42 AM

dtolman

December 19th, 2003, 10:43 AM

I was expecting a lot more detail in these renderings. What is the skin going to look like? I can't even make out the twist well or if there is any set-backs.

I think in this case the model is a better representation of the towers appearance than the renderings. You can make out the twist, and that apparently it is going to be a smoothly tapered facade...

They only agreed on the form this week- I doubt they have had time to decide on how the skin is going to look or more details (the renderings even appear incomplete compared to the model).

NYguy

December 19th, 2003, 10:44 AM

I hope that with the other towers, Libeskind will not be allowed to participate and we get some better architects (bring on Foster!!)

I think there was a lesson learned here. As far as the other towers, there really won't be one big thing for Libeskind to object to. Freedom tower had the asymetrical spire, I'm not sure how slanted the roofs of the other towers will be...

JayW

December 19th, 2003, 10:45 AM

Zippy-

The spire as rendered looks ridiculous.

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/12/19/international/tower-big.jpg

It looks like a cruel bayonette, or perhaps Wolverine giving NJ the razor.

I want to see some plan views.

Jason-

Perhaps this view (and your rather apt description) is meant to be *deliberately* intimidating, a dare of sorts especially aimed at the minds of those who have evil designs on *its* ruination??? I'm looking at it and it says to me "C'mon...knock me down. I dare youse...but you're %#^!&@^#*$ed if you try."

NYatKNIGHT

December 19th, 2003, 10:51 AM

JayW

December 19th, 2003, 10:55 AM

This ought to be seen (and *is* by me AFAIC) as a potential 2000' *structure*, combining skyscraper, monument and broadcast distribution site.
This is, agreed, *not* a 1776' *building*. In future, I wish people would use these terms more circumspectly.

BTW, the night shot of FT is *stunning*. I mean that. I also hope the final product matches the renderings as true to life as possible. I have faith.

It will be seen as a 2,000 ft structure. However, the height for the tower given is 1,776 ft (its the height that will lay claim to tallest building in the world). It's the 1,776 ft that is the "symbolic" height of the building.

Granted...but as practical and blunt as New Yorkers *are*, symbolism isn't really going to cut it. To me it reads thus: "Is it 1776' to the *top of the spire??* Yeah? Great. I like the number there...nice idea."

*BUT *BUT *BUT*...

"Antennas gonna go up to 2000', huh? Yeah, That's the ticket!"

When I would see the North Tower with his big old 300' antenna, I counted that antenna with the overall height, because it *fulfilled a specific purpose necessary for the building's use*. The additional antennae on this baby's going to meet that function.

Bottom line: I see it as a 2000' multi-purpose *structure*, and a pretty doggoned elegant one at that.

NYguy

December 19th, 2003, 11:06 AM

When I would see the North Tower with his big old 300' antenna, I counted that antenna with the overall height, because it *fulfilled a specific purpose necessary for the building's use*. The additional antennae on this baby's going to meet that function.

Bottom line: I see it as a 2000' multi-purpose *structure*, and a pretty doggoned elegant one at that.

That's fine, but when I saw the WTC, I saw 2 equally LARGE towers. The antenna was just an afterthought (important though it was), not something necessary to reach the great heights. Likewise, when I see the Freedom Tower, I'll see a large building (hopefully), but what I will see will be the 1,500 ft building, not the spire/antenna that sits on top. 1,500 ft is nothing to laugh at....just build another tower Downtown in the 1,300 ft range (that's if they really want to restore the skyline)...

JayW

December 19th, 2003, 11:35 AM

Kris

December 19th, 2003, 11:36 AM

December 19, 2003

Architects Unveil Revised Freedom Tower Design

By CHRISTINE HAUSER

Slide Show: The Freedom Tower Design (http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2003/12/19/nyregion/19TOWER.slideshow_1.html)

Officials presented today the final design of the building to be constructed on the World Trade Center site, revealing a slender curving tower that will rise 1,776 feet above downtown New York City, a height symbolic of the year of America's independence.

The model of the Freedom Tower, as it is called, was presented by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York and Gov. George E. Pataki at Federal Hall National Memorial on Wall Street.

"This is a wonderful day not just for New York but for America," Mr. Bloomberg said. He said construction of the tower would represent a dramatic reclaiming of a part of the New York City skyline that was lost on Sept. 11, 2001, and that it formed an important milestone in the redevelopment of Lower Manhattan.

Mr. Pataki, in a speech before a white curtain was drawn back to reveal the design model in its first official presentation, said the tower was intended to serve as a memorial to those who died in the terror attacks and to show that "freedom will always triumph over terror."

The 70 occupied stories will rise 1,000 to 1,100 feet, more than 200 feet shorter than the twin towers. They will be capped by a mesh-like network of open levels intended to capture the wind flowing off the Hudson River that will feed a nest of wind turbines to produce energy for the building.

The tower area is 2.6 million square feet; at the crown there will be an observation deck and public place. While the open-air structure would reach 1,776 feet, the Freedom Tower's antenna would reach 2,000 feet.

Its spire is intended to be evocative of the Statue of Liberty's upraised arm, David M. Childs, the architect, said.

"It must be iconic," Mr. Childs said. "Simple and pure in its form. That would proclaim the resiliency and spirit of our democracy."

"This is a momentous day," said Daniel Libeskind, the master planner of the site. He said the site must symbolize a memorial for the heroes who died there and it was also pertinent to the resurgence of Lower Manhattan.

The final design evolved after a compromise was reached and several design impasses were cleared.

Mr. Childs reduced the height of the tower he was designing for the developer Larry A. Silverstein by 276 feet, one of several gestures that allowed Mr. Childs's counterpart, Mr. Libeskind, to certify that the Freedom Tower would fit in with his overall master plan for the site.

Officials said that it would be the tallest structure in the world. The cornerstone will be laid by the third anniversary of the attacks next year.

The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation had called the design an "idea" by Mr. Libeskind that was "given form" by Mr. Childs, a partner in Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.

The east and west facades of the occupied parts of the tower will curve gently to create a torqued effect. They will be topped by the enormous open-air structure supported on twin concrete cores studded with the electricity-generating windmills and surrounded by a network of cables.

The windmills may generate 20 percent of the electrical power needed by the building.

Mr. Childs and Mr. Libeskind had disagreed about aesthetics, engineering and their own respective roles. They are also working for different clients whose interests sometimes conflict sharply.

As described by the development corporation, the tower will bear Mr. Libeskind's influence in its height.

Mr. Childs's contributions include the open-air structure at the top of the building, framed in cables reminiscent of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

JMGarcia

December 19th, 2003, 11:39 AM

^But it's facing west not east.

The spire needs work. There seems to be little demarcation of where the spire ends and the antenna begins - a critical point in a "1776 foot" tower. Perhaps if the twisting tower reached up the spire more, broadening it...? The "roof" of the open section doesn't need to be flat, swoop it up the spire.

The transition from the cableing to the spire is the designs very weakest point. Considering it was only decided upon 2 days before this renderings were done I imagine that there will be some "refinement" to the structure.

I agree completely that there should be a swoop or angle up into the spire.

This rendering almost has it.

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/12/19/nyregion/tower.2.450.jpg

NYatKNIGHT

December 19th, 2003, 11:45 AM

Any reference to the Statue of Liberty is ridiculous.

JMGarcia

December 19th, 2003, 11:48 AM

Any reference to the Statue of Liberty is ridiculous.

:lol: Even Childs is on that bandwagon now saying he made the tower to twist just like the Statue does.

BPC

December 19th, 2003, 12:21 PM

The building might be OK if they got rid of the spire and filled in the top translucent part with an actual building. As depicted, however, the design is a Frankensteinian creation.

Agglomeration

December 19th, 2003, 12:34 PM

I've never seen such a more ridiculous 'supertall'. It's essentially only 70 floors tall (about 1,070 feet), with latticework on top with a windmill within. It looks like the original North Tower (with the TV antenna) that has been stripped of all office floors above the 75th sky lobby and replaced with empty latticework. I'm sorry but this low-rise deconstructionism shown plainly in this design makes me sick.

NYatKNIGHT

December 19th, 2003, 12:34 PM

More photos and images:

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20031219/i/r3417080362.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20031219/capt.xnyr60212191551.attacks_freedom_tower_xnyr602 .jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20031219/capt.xnyr60312191605.freedom_tower_xnyr603.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20031219/capt.sge.qcb14.191203160613.photo00.default-287x355.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20031219/capt.xnyr60112191553.attacks_freedom_tower_xnyr601 .jpg

NYatKNIGHT

December 19th, 2003, 12:37 PM

It's not that bad for a 1,100 foot tower, but it's not what the WTC site deserves - better suited for 1 Bryant Park.

JMGarcia

December 19th, 2003, 12:45 PM

Now that is sunk in just a bit here are my first impressions. Overall they are mixed. As with all of Childs' building I am somewhat underwhelmed.

1. The Facade
The facade hasn't really been rendered out yet so I can't really say. It does seem clear though that it will be cross-hatched as has been shown in all the Libeskind renderings. Surprisingly this is Childs' input has the diagonal bracings give support to the structure as explained in the LMDC's press release. One thing for sure, even when we get renderings, the facade will look different in reality.

2. The Twisting and Tapering
I expected it to look more twisted. I'm OK with the twisting and it supposedly helps deal with wind loads on the building. It does add some interest. The tapering needs to work better with the spire but more on that later. The tapering also makes the building seem especially thin compared to the other tower on the site. Of course, these are not final designs so that'll be irrelevant.

3. The slanted office roof
I'm all for the slanted office roof (some people like flat roofs some people don't. I don't) but the cableing needs to reflect this also. It looks bad having them different IMO.

4. The Cableing
Too soon to tell from the renderings. More details is needed. In theory it is a good compromise as a way to get apparent height. More detail will make this clearer. It also looks like it will be really spectacular at night. I wonder if they'll shoot fireworks out of it like the Eiffel Tower or Harbor Bridge.

I've also decide that bringing the cableing higher probably would make the cabled area seem out of proportion to the actual building underneath it. Therefore, I'm not too disappointed that it ends at 1500 rather than 1776. It makes the building more attractive IMO. I can't wait to hear the arguments about why the cableing should be included in the official height but the spire shouldn't. ;)

5. The Spire
The spire as is just doesn't work with the rest of the building. It has been noted that the spire is not finalized and an outside artist will work with the architects and engineers to redesign it thankfully. It needs to swoop or angle into the building much better.

All in all it has some potential. I'm happy with the statistics. It needs refinement at the top most of all which will probably happen. At least I hope so.

JMGarcia

December 19th, 2003, 12:49 PM

This is definitely its best angle.
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20031219/i/r3417080362.jpg

This thing really does taper. I can see the beginnings of a slant at the top of the lattice. It already is different than the renderings. Looks like is getting closer to the Transamerica Pyramid all the time. ;)

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20031219/capt.xnyr60112191553.attacks_freedom_tower_xnyr601 .jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20031219/capt.sge.qcb14.191203160613.photo00.default-287x355.jpg

NYatKNIGHT

December 19th, 2003, 12:52 PM

the spire is not finalized

Good, it needs work.

Jasonik

December 19th, 2003, 12:53 PM

************************************************** ***************************************
The lattice and the spire: one flowing sculptural element (swooping up), or spire as internal element emerging out throught the twisting skin?

I have to go with the latter. I want to see the spire expressed further down the tower as a continuous vertical element slicing through the skin and presenting itself as a triumphant spur in the skyline.

The two architects should embrace their different styles and use the contrast to define the two elements (spire and tower). After all, Libeskind wanted the spire to look like a seperate element attached to the side of the office tower. I think this separation can still be achieved by defining and expressing the spire in a way that causes one to see it as springing out of the tower and its latticework top.
************************************************** ***************************************

larven

December 19th, 2003, 12:57 PM

I like it a lot and the more I see it the more I like it.

The tapering, twisting effect will be stunning when translated into a building of this scale and height and it will present a constantly changing profile as you walk around it. There looks like there still needs to be some refinement to the design but overall thumbs up to Libeskind and Childs.

Just get on and build the damn thing now!

TLOZ Link5

December 19th, 2003, 12:59 PM

I'd be happier with more floors. An 80-story building of the same height, perhaps, like the Aon Center in Chicago.

JMGarcia

December 19th, 2003, 01:01 PM

Large detailed images here..

http://www.renewnyc.org/images_WMS/freedom_tower/freedom_tower_model_south_night.jpg

http://www.renewnyc.org/images_WMS/freedom_tower/freedom_tower_night.jpg

http://www.renewnyc.org/images_WMS/freedom_tower/freedom_tower_model_south.jpg

http://www.renewnyc.org/images_WMS/freedom_tower/freedom_tower_BrooklynBridge.jpg

http://www.renewnyc.org/images_WMS/freedom_tower/freedom_tower_chrysler.jpg

http://www.renewnyc.org/images_WMS/freedom_tower/freedom_tower_hudson.jpg

JMGarcia

December 19th, 2003, 01:02 PM

I'd be happier with more floors. An 80-story building of the same height, perhaps, like the Aon Center in Chicago.

The 70 story office portion of the building is taller than AON already.

Kommissar

December 19th, 2003, 01:02 PM

Regardless of aesthetic debates of whether or not the top looks good (I actually think it looks cool) it looks like a total cop-out. Are we supposed to be crowing about a building that "wins" the height contest that, when it's built, will be functionally smaller than at least a dozen other structures? If that's what they have in their budget, so be it, but I'd rather them call it a kick-ass 70 story building than claiming it to be the tallest building in the world.

How embarrassing. Can you imagine what people living in Asia (where development is really happening) must think of New Yorkers after seeing this? It doesn't say America's spirit is indomitable or our aspirations are higher than anywhere else in the world. It says we champion hollow PR releases and unwilling to acknowledge the greatness acheived by other peoples.

I just wish they would dial down the rhetoric about this otherwise kick-ass 70 story building.

NoyokA

December 19th, 2003, 01:11 PM

Lots of interesting angles and a certain coherence, fully modern. My first impression are good.

yanni111

December 19th, 2003, 01:12 PM

the slope of the cables to the needle needs to be much more like in Citicorp. It looks way too falt, i really like the slope of the original libesking freedom tower. The flatness of the top of the cables section looks awkward. MORE SLOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But im wondering if that will be possible. Adding a greater slope while still ending the cable section at 1500 would make that section more narrow, which would perhaps be insufficient to fit that windmill? Or they can just slope it up to about 1600 ft. It would remind me more of the spikyness of the original hong kong Union Square tower.

JayW

December 19th, 2003, 01:14 PM

JM:
1. The Facade
The facade hasn't really been rendered out yet so I can't really say. It does seem clear though that it will be cross-hatched as has been shown in all the Libeskind renderings. Surprisingly this is Childs' input has the diagonal bracings give support to the structure as explained in the LMDC's press release. One thing for sure, even when we get renderings, the facade will look different in reality.

Me: Based on whqat I've seen, this cross-hatching looks rather interesting for a structure like this. I'm sure that whatever façade work there should be done will be minor.

JM:
2. The Twisting and Tapering
I expected it to look more twisted. I'm OK with the twisting and it supposedly helps deal with wind loads on the building. It does add some interest. The tapering needs to work better with the spire but more on that later. The tapering also makes the building seem especially thin compared to the other tower on the site. Of course, these are not final designs so that'll be irrelevant.

Me: I think the twisting element is just right for the shape of the structure. I think it would look better of it to thin out as it rises (is this what is actually meant by "tapering", BTW, or is it germaine to the transition to the laticework?). From the looks of it, there seems to be a massiveness--but not overly so--at a level of the building that doesn't throw everything off balance.

JM:
3. The slanted office roof
I'm all for the slanted office roof (some people like flat roofs some people don't. I don't) but the cableing needs to reflect this also. It looks bad having them different IMO.

Me: I see nothing wrong with the latticework even at this level. However, I do believe that the angularity of the top should be more in concord with the skyward trajectory set by the roofs of the other towers. Right now, the slight shift as demonstrated by FT's top interrupts this flow, albeit slightly.

JM:
4. The Cableing
Too soon to tell from the renderings. More details is needed. In theory it is a good compromise as a way to get apparent height. More detail will make this clearer. It also looks like it will be really spectacular at night. I wonder if they'll shoot fireworks out of it like the Eiffel Tower or Harbor Bridge.

Me: I agree with thre night views. Perhaps there seems to be an overly abrupt line of demarcation between the top floor of the building and the base of the latticework. I might reccomend---if I could--using darker colors at the base of the latticework, or even enclosing the lattice in progressively brighter shades of colored glass till a certain point at which the frames remain a plain white.

JM:
I've also decide that bringing the cableing higher probably would make the cabled area seem out of proportion to the actual building underneath it. Therefore, I'm not too disappointed that it ends at 1500 rather than 1776. It makes the building more attractive IMO. I can't wait to hear the arguments about why the cableing should be included in the official height but the spire shouldn't. ;)

Me: Just MHO, but I'd prefer to steer clear of official height debates.

JM:
5. The Spire
The spire as is just doesn't work with the rest of the building. It has been noted that the spire is not finalized and an outside artist will work with the architects and engineers to redesign it thankfully. It needs to swoop or angle into the building much better.

Me: I suppose it does need a bit more work to bolster its appearance, just as was done with Conde Nast. I'm confident that it'll make the antenna more prominent. Tweaked designs at this point are a million times better than starting all over again for the second time.

ZippyTheChimp

December 19th, 2003, 01:15 PM

http://www.renewnyc.org/images_WMS/freedom_tower/freedom_tower_model_south_night.jpg

This shows what I said earlier. The spire has to be anchored to the concrete core, not attached to the top of the lattice as shown in the rendering.

JayW

December 19th, 2003, 01:23 PM

I've just had a chance to see on TV a realistic close-up of the model. The surface looks fascinating with the network of braces. If you get a chance to see a close-up like the one I just described, you might see something very similar in design to the undulating, zig-zag look of ord Foster's Kissing Towers, albeit on a much smoother level.
Visual Illustration (of sorts ;) ):
\
/
\
/
\
/
etc...

NoyokA

December 19th, 2003, 01:48 PM

This design was thrown together in a frenzy. I suspect the Libeskind artist and Childs will “torque” the spire with the lattice-work, and iron out the other important smaller details.

JMGarcia

December 19th, 2003, 01:49 PM

IMO this is closer to what needs to be done with the spire:

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20031219/capt.xnyr60112191553.attacks_freedom_tower_xnyr601 .jpg

than this:

http://www.nynewsday.com/media/photo/2003-12/10685888.jpg

The tapering (getting thinner) and angleing of the cableing helps immensely.

finnman69

December 19th, 2003, 01:51 PM

I still think the twin towers is so much stronger. I mirrored it and also raised the height of the neighboring towers and made them less massive.

Liz L

December 19th, 2003, 01:56 PM

Well, it sure as heck AIN'T no Empire State!

Yeah, it's slender and soars well, and it has a nice, shiney glass curtain wall that should really dance with the light...

BUT:

The curves in the facade as it attempts to do a corkscrew number are not at all graceful; a flat roof at a crazy angle is worse than a horizontal flat roof, and that lattice work gee gaw whimmydiddle looks like it's trying to do a corkscrew number too, just as ungracefully as the lower part of the facade.

In spite of its height, the tower comes across as slouching and slipshod because its lines don't seem to have any pride or elegance at all.

And only 70 or so stories, just over 1,000 ft. of the structure?
I can still hear the architects mumbling to each other, "Well, if we build anything really tall and impressive, nobody will want to work there, becuase terrorists will probably take it out too, and our insurance rates will go through the roof, so maybe if we just build a nice, safe, short, bland tower, and put a great big geegaw-whimmydiddle on top, nobody will notice how scared we are...."

And the other towers are, just as before, a cluster of icebergs huddling together; they don't even attempt to soar, and once again, those strange roofs...

Well, I don't care how tall that whatsit is, the Empire State and Chrysler will still be the true stadt kronen (city crowns) of the NYC skyline!! I was really hoping til the bitter end that we'd see something worthy of being another city crown, but no such luck...

**SIGH**

krulltime

December 19th, 2003, 01:59 PM

:x Not what I was expecting...but i will learn to like it.

finnman69

December 19th, 2003, 02:07 PM

could be good

BPC

December 19th, 2003, 02:11 PM

I still think the twin towers is so much stronger. I mirrored it and also raised the height of the neighboring towers and made them less massive.
http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b3cc38b3127cce84084d562f400000001610http://www.nynewsday.com/media/photo/2003-12/10685834.jpg

Good work. You're right. That does improve it. Get yourself appointed to the LMDC's Board already.

NYatKNIGHT

December 19th, 2003, 02:11 PM

That doesn't help the mediocrity of the towers.

(Plus it will never happen)

finnman69

December 19th, 2003, 02:11 PM

where have we seen the sloped roofs before......Penzoil Place
http://jade.ccccd.edu/Andrade/britlit/wwIpoets/images/09.jpg
http://www.photohome.com/pictures/texas-pictures/houston/chase-tower-pennzoil-1a.jpg

finnman69

December 19th, 2003, 02:13 PM

That doesn't help the mediocrity of the towers.

(Plus it will never happen)

I know.... :cry:

krulltime

December 19th, 2003, 02:32 PM

Wait...It looks better with 2. I can see it now! :shock: Then again...

BPC

December 19th, 2003, 03:02 PM

BrooklynRider

December 19th, 2003, 03:05 PM

For one thing, it would violate the "sanctity" of the North "footprint" (which I believe is where you have the second tower). Keep up the lobbying, pal, and the widows will be at your doorstep!

Actually, they might sell me on the whole "lattice work top" if they referred to it as "Monica Iken's Cage".

Also, everyone seems wowed by the night rendering as if that is how the city looks at night. Look at the Statue of Liberty. Does she really glow like that on the best of nights? They should've just drawn a giant manger around her and put a 40 foot baby Jesus at her feet to complete the silly picture. That building will never look like that, because the city NEVER looks like that. There's a quarter moon in the sky. Where's all that blue shimmering light coming from. Marketing crap!

dbhstockton

December 19th, 2003, 03:07 PM

What a total crock of shit that "design competition" last year was, eh? I'd feel a lot better if they'd just just fire Libeskind -- instead of jerking us around. I'm mad.

dbhstockton

December 19th, 2003, 03:21 PM

http://www.gothamgazette.com/rebuilding_nyc/graphics/sixplans/plan4.medium.jpg

http://www.gothamgazette.com/rebuilding_nyc/graphics/sixplans/plan1.medium.jpg

TonyO

December 19th, 2003, 03:25 PM

Just like anything, when you lack substance its all in the packaging. "New!", "Tallest building in the world!", "Iconic", "Healing the skyline!". CNN has a poll running on the front page and by the looks of it, the packaging is winning over substance 77% to 23%.

dbhstockton

December 19th, 2003, 03:27 PM

I'm heading over to CNN.com. Who's coming with me?

dbhstockton

December 19th, 2003, 03:31 PM

http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/8009.html

finnman69

December 19th, 2003, 03:43 PM

That doesn't help the mediocrity of the towers.

(Plus it will never happen)

I know.... :cry:

For one thing, it would violate the "sanctity" of the North "footprint" (which I believe is where you have the second tower). Keep up the lobbying, pal, and the widows will be at your doorstep!

I think the other one could go where SOM had it in the green and white siteplans.
http://www.gothamgazette.com/rebuilding_nyc/graphics/sixplans/plan4.medium.jpg

TomAuch

December 19th, 2003, 03:56 PM

My opinion on this:

Believe it or not, I actually like this building. It has a nice facade and I like the tapering effect. However, I still believe the office hight needs to be raised, or at least put something in that will make the FT count as a legitimate skyscraper. My suggestion to improve the spire would be to have it slope more, so it doesn't look so blunt on the side. Unfortunately, for Reconstructionists/Yamasaki-holics, the Twins arn't coming back now, but we still have a chance to get something tall that counts.

BTW, can we close this thread and open a new one? It's getting harder to read the posts.

Derek2k3

December 19th, 2003, 04:18 PM

http://galleries.soaringtowers.org/albums/Derek2k3/Freedom_Tower_2_5_LMDC_SOM_Studio_Daniel_Libeskind .jpg
:P

DougGold

December 19th, 2003, 04:22 PM

I can't imagine anyone think's we're ending up with a better skyline than what we had before 9/11. In that regard, the terrorists won--permanently lessening what New York City is.

NoyokA

December 19th, 2003, 04:24 PM

Ironically some of the same people who hate this design, had liked this one:

http://www.nymetro.com/images/news/02/09/wtc/wtc_7architects/pederson1_420.jpg

That being said, the lattice is disconnected from the building. It is to the "ghost" tower effect, but the flatroof is nauseating. The two entities clash, and its distasteful. If the lattice were to slope It create a better building.

Gulcrapek

December 19th, 2003, 04:35 PM

I've supressed most of my initial thoughts, here are my as-of-now views:

The spire does not fit well at all with the building (but this will be worked on).

The hollow space is not as bad as I had predicted, but in my opinion it should be a bit denser and I don't understand where the windmills are, I don't see them in models or renderings.

I wish the occupied space was higher, but that's a dead point.

I don't like the two architects' visions merged; neither made any concession to the other, and now in this forced marriage the combination is awkward. Childs's main building does not work with Liveskind's asymmetrical spire.

NoyokA

December 19th, 2003, 04:38 PM

CNN:

Freedom Tower to rise 1,776 feet from ashes
Architect says it will be an 'exclamation point' on the skyline
From Phil Hirschkorn
CNN

NEW YORK (CNN) --The Freedom Tower to be built at the site of the devastated World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan is still planned as the world's tallest building, according to a revised model unveiled Friday by the architects collaborating on its design.

The tower, to be a centerpiece of the rebuilding plan for the World Trade Center site, is to rise 1,776 feet -- a nod to the year the United States declared its independence. The height was originally proposed a year ago by architect Daniel Libeskind, since designated the site's master planner.

But the tower's angular shape and appearance has been altered as a result of Libeskind's work with David Childs, the architect for real estate developer Larry Silverstein, the trade center leaseholder who aspires to replace all 10 million square feet of commercial space lost in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The intentional crashes of hijacked passenger jets leveled the 110-story twin towers and five smaller buildings, and killed 2,752 people.

Libeskind and Childs, forced to work together by rebuilding officials, were asked to submit a final design this week by New York Gov. George Pataki, who wants to break ground on the Freedom Tower before the Republican National Convention concludes next September.

"We will build it in honor of the memories of the heroes we lost," Pataki said at the unveiling ceremony at historic Federal Hall, just blocks from Ground Zero. "We will build it to show the world that freedom will always triumph over terror and that we will face the 21st century and beyond with tremendous confidence."

Childs said the tower would satisfy the public's expressed desire for an "exclamation point" on the skyline.

"It must be iconic. Simple and pure in its form, a memorable form, that would proclaim the resiliency and the spirit of our democracy," he said.

He and Libeskind quarreled over the design in recent weeks but were all smiles Friday.

Libeskind said, "It's not just easy. It's not just a couple of meetings. It's a struggle to create something great."

Topped by wind turbines
Freedom Tower is to rise 70 floors and be topped by wind-harvesting turbines that designers predict will provide 20 percent of the building's energy.

The tower's height of 1,776 feet, symbolic for the year of American independence, includes a 276-foot spire.

In addition, a broadcast antenna attached to the tower is to bring the structure's total height above 2,000 feet.

The torqued tower -- its east and west sides twist as they rise -- and the spire are meant to echo the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor.

The tower is to have a concrete core and be encased in a steel cable netting that will brace the building. Childs likened the cables to suspension bridge cables, such as those holding up the Brooklyn Bridge.

The building is to include 2.6 million square feet of commercial space, which would be on the market when the tower is completed in 2008.

Silverstein said he is not worried that no tenants are yet committed to move in.

"We have a hiatus of five years before the building is finished. It's early to be talking about occupancy five years hence," Silverstein said."However, there are sufficient number of discussions with potential major space users, with significant needs in excess of a million square feet."

Charles Gargano, the vice chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the transportation agency that built the original trade center and owns the 16-acre site, said the agency would occupy as much as a third of the building.
Gargano estimated the tower's construction would cost $1.5 billion, or $1 million per 500 square feet. Besides the public lobby, two concourse levels will house retail stores and provide pedestrian access to mass transit.

More than 60 floors will contain office space, capped by an indoor observation deck, a restaurant above that, and event space on top.

JMGarcia

December 19th, 2003, 04:44 PM

The whole top of this building doesn't work right for me. The flat top just doesn't work with the twist and taper in the building IMO. It either needs to twist more or get an angled top to the cabled area.

The cableing, office top, and spire need to work much better together IMO.

The cabled area is also much more ethereal than the lattice work pictured here:
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/12/10/nyregion/10TOWE.jpg

I guess it is just bridge cable after all and not a real solid structure.

NoyokA

December 19th, 2003, 05:01 PM

The whole top of this building doesn't work right for me. The flat top just doesn't work with the twist and taper in the building IMO. It either needs to twist more or get an angled top to the cabled area.

The cableing, office top, and spire need to work much better together IMO.

JM I wholeheartedly agree, something like this would do the trick IMO.

http://galleries.soaringtowers.org/albums/Stern/wtc.sized.jpg

NyC MaNiAc

December 19th, 2003, 05:21 PM

So, they're saying a broadcast antenna will also be added to bring the height to 2000 feet...

Exactly where would it be placed?

On another note, I really like this tower, and it's continues to grow on me...

Plus, it's so shiny! :lol:

I'm more then pleased.

JMGarcia

December 19th, 2003, 05:31 PM

JayW

December 19th, 2003, 06:05 PM

JM I wholeheartedly agree, something like this would do the trick IMO.

http://galleries.soaringtowers.org/albums/Stern/wtc.sized.jpg

A huge improvement Stern.

But with that its starting to look like this.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/libnewrender.jpg

apropos Stern's pic:

I'm more in favor of the idea that suggests more support for the spire, as they did with a building in Dallas that was once its tallest.

I fear that if the top of the latticework becomes angularized *to that degree*, it may throw off the flow of the whole complex's rooftop swoop principle (I may me wrong, considering that this pic demonstrates but one vantage point).

Perhaps I might be more amenable to something of lesser angularity on the lattices.

Pottebaum

December 19th, 2003, 06:36 PM

I have actually been dreading seeing these renderings, but now that I see them, I am pretty happy.

JMGarcia

December 19th, 2003, 06:46 PM

Our Critic: Far From A Finished Work

By Justin Davidson
Staff Writer

December 20, 2003

With the Freedom Tower, the 1,776-foot skyscraper designated as the architectural retort to terrorist barbarism, David Childs has found a form that draws its strength from altitude.

In recent years, as developers and architects around the world, and especially in Asia, have climbed the ladder to the top of the sky, they have produced buildings that didn't really want to be as high as they were: stacked pagodas, regional kitsch, upended slabs, sand castle fantasies elongated to preposterous dimensions. Childs, however, has created a structure that tapers, twists and evanesces — a tower that needs to be a tower.

That it is the world's tallest is not incidental. There's the facile numerology of its height, which Daniel Libeskind insisted on as a crucial element of his master plan, and also the need to satisfy New York City's ambitions and its history as the skyscraper's cradle. But Childs has made practical sense of that skyward stretch: He has topped the building with a high-elevation sun-, rain- and wind-farm, a structure intended to harvest the elements for energy and express the hope that this country might one day be free of its addiction to Middle Eastern oil. The wind-powered turbines will furnish the building with only a fraction of its energy needs, but it will also function as a beacon of our aspirations.

The model presented yesterday is a start — closer to the hundredth draft than to the first, but still far from a finished work. It represents a hurried compromise between architects with radically different sources of inspiration. Libeskind, whose master plan called for the world's tallest building in the first place, begins with metaphors and then finds a way to incarnate them. Childs, who is the tower's architect of record, works logically from the specifics of the site — the layout of the streets, the proximity of water, the intensity of wind.

The result leans towards the rational but can be read poetically, too. Childs' design begins with a vertical line that rises from the building's southwest corner to the top of the needle. Aside from its concrete core, the rest of the building is a web of diagonals. The three remaining corners tilt towards each other, like teepee poles. The floor plan forms a parallelogram. A sturdy diamond pattern of beams knits the structure together, supporting its glass skin. At street level, the building rests on an arcade of V-shaped pillars. At the top, the latticework of cables hangs from a set of angled trusses.

This play of diagonals makes the building dynamic and asymmetrical. It is not the agglomeration of irregular shapes that Libeskind had originally imagined, but a structure derived from the confines of a city block and the rakish orientation of Lower Manhattan. Two of the facades twist around, so that while one wall starts out facing southwest by the time it has reached the top, it is more directly turned towards California. (Childs originally wanted the building to rise to 2,000 feet to accentuate the motion even more.)

To Childs, this is an interpretation of Libeskind's idea that the Freedom Tower should converse with the Statue of Liberty. Libeskind saw the spire as an architectural version of the upraised torch. Childs sees the building's torque as an abstraction of the great lady's dynamic stance, the athletic twist of a body in mid-march. It is also the extension of the spiraling skyline that Libeskind had decreed for the whole World Trade Center site, the corkscrewing procession of office buildings with sloping roofs.

As Libeskind demanded, the Freedom Tower, too, has a canted roof, though it comes just two-thirds of the way up. The 70 occupied stories terminate 1,000 feet up in several levels of public spaces, including an observation deck, party rooms and a restaurant, a reborn Windows on the World. That ceiling forms the base of the latticework above: a second tower made mostly of air and cables, enclosing the whirring blades of wind-catching turbines. This high-rise spider's web echoes the filigree of the Brooklyn Bridge, just across town, but also the skeletal towers of trusses proposed by the THINK team last year.

In practical terms, this design solves the problem of how to erect the world's tallest tower in a city where nobody would want to occupy the uppermost floors. But it also helps the Freedom Tower to support its symbolic burden: embodying the resiliency, transparency and pride of liberal democracy.

The weakest elements of the design are those at the borders where Childs' method and Libeskind's literary ideas meet. The tower's three levels — solid base, airy torso and slender needle — are well articulated but need to be better glued together. For now the top third of the building looks a bit like a nutcracker soldier's tall hat adorned with a wispy feather that is practically begging to be knocked off.

There are questions at the bottom of the building, too. The high-ceilinged, un-partitioned lobby might end up feeling palatial or cavernous, depending on the details. On the eastern side, the lower stories of the skyscraper might be joined to a performing arts center, a building that has yet to be commissioned or conceived, much less designed, so it's impossible to know how the tower will present itself to the throngs who flow westward from the new transit hub.

Today's version of the Freedom Tower is, as Child readily acknowledges, more a conceptual rendering than a set of executable plans. For now, the building still has the feeling of a compromise cobbled together between two architects' separate menus of ideas. The next phases of design will help determine how visible the supporting concrete masts will look within the latticework structure, whether the windmills can produce enough electricity to justify building them, and how the skyscraper feels to those who view it, not from an airplane or from Hoboken, but from across the street. The billion-dollar question is whether the design can be honed in enough of a hurry for everyone to gather again outside next September and lay the first stone.

Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.

JMGarcia

December 19th, 2003, 07:24 PM

Separated at birth???
hmmm ;)

http://www.nynewsday.com/media/photo/2003-12/10685834.jpghttp://www.londonbridgetower.com/images/building/intro_pic.jpg

JayW

December 19th, 2003, 07:38 PM

It seems to be pointing to the aspect of the structure that most of us find most controversial.
I am, in fact, surprised at how much of preponderance of actual good things to say that there is. I suppose many of us have come to expect reflexive negativity.
When you get down to it, this reviewer seems to reiterate what should have been known all along: Childs, as a skyscraper designer, had been entrusted with the task of executing the monument planner-Libeskind theory. There never at all should have been this run-amuck misconstruction of a battle pitting demigod visionaries. This is purely the (IMO) laudable result of a grand human enndeavor involving human ideas and human ideals and too often frought with human nature.
On the whole, I've come to see it as a great success (call me nucking futs, but I do). The finishing touches will come about with a both architects' blessing, and these tweaks should add well to an already revolutionary and extra-bold structure.

::pretentious mode off::

Kris

December 19th, 2003, 09:26 PM

http://renewnyc.org/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/freedom_tower/freedom_tower_dec_19.asp

Kris

December 19th, 2003, 10:10 PM

The concept is interesting and the architects are able, but the execution so far is poor.

"It must be iconic," Mr. Childs said. "Simple and pure in its form."
Then do it.

Gulcrapek

December 19th, 2003, 10:32 PM

I get the feeling he wanted to, but was restricted by Libeskind.

Kris

December 19th, 2003, 10:35 PM

It does look like a clumsy hybrid.

TLOZ Link5

December 19th, 2003, 10:38 PM

I really like it, though.

Kris

December 19th, 2003, 10:50 PM

December 20, 2003

1,776-Foot Design Is Unveiled for World Trade Center Tower

By DAVID W. DUNLAP

After fervent public debate over how to mend the New York City skyline and a five-month effort by competing architectural giants that was one part collaboration and two parts quarrel, the design of the first tower of the new World Trade Center was unveiled yesterday.

The torqued and tapering skyscraper, called the Freedom Tower, would rise some 70 stories, then dematerialize in its upper reaches among cables, windmills and antennas before piercing the clouds at 1,776 feet. At this height, it might be the world's tallest building upon completion in 2008 or 2009.

"We will build it to show the world that freedom will always triumph over terror and that we will face the 21st century with confidence," Gov. George E. Pataki said. "This is not just a building. This is a symbol of New York. This is a symbol of America. This is a symbol of freedom."

Only a week ago, the governor had to intervene personally to ensure that the relationship between the two architects, Daniel Libeskind and David M. Childs of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, would stay on track long enough to yield a design to which they could both lay claim.

Yesterday, Mr. Childs and Mr. Libeskind joined Mr. Pataki in pulling a cord at Federal Hall National Memorial to reveal a glistening, nine-foot acrylic model of the Freedom Tower. There was room enough along the cord for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the developer, Larry A. Silverstein, to join them.

The new design retains hallmarks from Mr. Libeskind's original vision of Freedom Tower, which has been in the public eye for a year as part of his master plan for the trade center site. Above a slanting roof, an offset spire would reach 1,776 feet.

But the design more clearly shows the hand of Mr. Childs, who is working for Mr. Silverstein. Its basic parallelogram plan would follow the downtown street grid. The facade, without setbacks, would twist on two ends as it rose. Atop the enclosed building would be an open-air superstructure framed in cables and supported by twin pillars on which large windmills would be mounted. These might generate 20 percent of the building's electricity. Beneath the superstructure, diners at a new Windows on the World might sit under skylights looking up at the intricate cable network stretching hundreds of feet above, Mr. Childs said.

David Emil, whose company ran the restaurant atop the north tower of the trade center, welcomed the idea. "Windows had a place in the imagination of New York," he said. "When the time is right, we would love to talk with Larry Silverstein about leasing the space. We'd love to work on creating a great new restaurant there, though we couldn't recreate the original."

Mr. Childs brought the cabled imagery of the Brooklyn Bridge to a tower that Mr. Libeskind meant to conjure the Statue of Liberty, with its upraised, torch-bearing arm. Mr. Childs suggested that the Freedom Tower's newfound torque would complement the dynamic, striding form of the colossus in the harbor.

For his part, Mr. Libeskind said yesterday that the building that had emerged from his creative struggle with Mr. Childs would be a "beacon of light and hope in a world that is often dark."

Silvery and permeable, perhaps even ghostly and ethereal, the Freedom Tower would also inevitably be a reminder of what was lost on Sept. 11, 2001.

In its hybrid design, Freedom Tower is meant to do two things: re-establish a skyscraping pinnacle at the tip of Manhattan, which still seems so bereft, while acknowledging how few people would feel comfortable working or visiting at the altitude of the twin towers, which were 1,368 and 1,362 feet.

The highest point of the occupied part of the Freedom Tower would be about 1,150 feet. Even the crownlike truss of the superstructure, at 1,500 feet, would fall below the antenna atop 1 World Trade Center, which rose to 1,750 feet.

But the 276-foot spire on the southwest corner would break the city's record and, if counted as part of the building, would exceed Taipei 101 in Taiwan.

Freedom Tower would have 2.6 million square feet of office space — more than the Empire State Building — with a total approaching 2.8 million square feet if mechanical and below-ground spaces are counted. It would cost more than $1 billion, financed by insurance proceeds. It would be built by the Tishman Construction Corporation, which constructed the original twin towers.

Mr. Silverstein said yesterday that Governor Pataki had asked that the cornerstone for the Freedom Tower be laid by the third anniversary of the attack. Though this falls within two weeks of the Republican National Convention, Mr. Pataki said in a telephone interview that there was "zero" connection.

"We have to continue to have timelines here," the governor said. "The middle of September is something that's extremely ambitious. It obviously has nothing to do with the convention, which will be long gone."

"This is not a political structure," Mr. Pataki said, "and it will not be a political event."

The governor's next milestone is Sept. 11, 2006, for the topping out, or completion, of the steel framework. Mr. Silverstein said he would do his "damnedest" to meet it. He said the tower would be finished in 2008 or 2009, to be followed annually by the four other office buildings planned at the site.

Freedom Tower would rise north of the planned memorial, on a block bounded by West and Vesey Streets and the recreated Greenwich and Fulton Streets.

Though the design is still preliminary — it was being substantively revised as recently as last weekend — the unveiling permitted the first meaningful glimpse around and inside what would be a modern landmark.

Under the tower would be a shopping concourse and a network of passageways, including a connection to the new PATH terminal.

Offices would occupy about 60 floors. Carl Weisbrod, the president of the Alliance for Downtown New York, said the Freedom Tower would be marketable to traditional downtown tenants like financial and law firms and new tenants like media companies and advertising agencies.

At the summit of the building, plans show a broadcast center, an observation deck and three floors of restaurant and event space under the sloping roof. There might be another observation platform within the superstructure.

The facade would be a faceted grid of narrow diagonal crisscrosses formed by cables in the superstructure and slender columns across the main facade. The north and south sides would rise up as sheer planes. The east and west ends would twist. The core of the building would be concrete.

These features would contribute to stability and structural resilience, Mr. Childs said, referring obliquely to an ever-present but virtually unspoken concern about the high vulnerability of such a tower to a terrorist attack. It would "probably be the safest building in the world," he said.

News of the design was carried first on the "Today" program yesterday morning before the unveiling at Federal Hall on Wall Street. A spokeswoman for Governor Pataki, who was on the program, said NBC was the only national or local news outlet to request his appearance.

Those who gathered at Federal Hall generally gave the Childs-Libeskind collaboration high — or at least passing — marks. "Though it was a forced marriage, I think it worked out astonishingly well," said Kent L. Barwick, the president of the Municipal Art Society.

Madelyn Wils, the chairwoman of the Lower Manhattan community board, said the building represented the resilient spirit of "all those people who put their feet down and said, `This is the place where I want to be.' "

As to the wind turbines high in the sky, she said, "There is no better place than that to include windmills, because it's one of the windiest spots in New York."

Glenn Collins contributed reporting for this article.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

NYguy

December 19th, 2003, 10:51 PM

From the LMDC website...

On top of the truss at 1,500 feet, the spire will rise another 276 feet to 1,776. As the building develops, it is intended that an artist will collaborate to design the spire with the architects and the engineers, placing a sculpture in the sky.

That leaves a little hope for the spire. Maybe it will be something truly nice.....

Kris

December 19th, 2003, 10:56 PM

December 20, 2003

The Tallest Building in the World: It's a Boast That Invites an Argument

By DAVID W. DUNLAP

It will certainly be the world's tallest cable-framed, open-air, windmill-filled, spire-studded superstructure, rising atop 70 stories of offices, restaurants, a broadcast center and an observation deck.

Whether that makes it the world's tallest building is another matter.

No fewer than a half-dozen times at the unveiling yesterday, the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center site was called the world's tallest building. But the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, a recognized arbiter, has not yet ruled. And it may be a tough group to persuade.

That is because the Freedom Tower will be a hybrid structure with several pinnacles: the top of its enclosed, occupied space is to be at about 1,150 feet; the top of the superstructure at 1,500 feet; and the top of its slender spire at 1,776 feet.

In other words, about one-third of the Freedom Tower will be more of a structural framework than a habitable building.

"There are strong feelings on both sides of this," said Ron Klemencic, a structural engineer in Seattle and the chairman of the tall buildings council, which is affiliated with the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago.

"There's a camp that would say that since so much of the structure is not available to be occupied, it should not be considered the tallest building in the world," he said in a telephone interview on Thursday.

Strong feelings, indeed. One outspoken critic of the redevelopment at ground zero, John Lumea of the Phoenix Project, said, "The world's tallest building moniker is a shibboleth of feel-good boosterism perpetrated by rebuilding officials who have nothing else to offer the public but a P.R. campaign."

Never mind the Freedom Tower — you can get an argument today about just what is the world's tallest building, even after disallowing cable-supported broadcast towers and agreeing not to count rooftop antennas.

The CN Tower in Toronto unhesitatingly describes itself as the world's tallest building, at 1,815 feet. But some see it is as more of a mast, with a relatively small amount of occupied space. To the council, it is the tallest free-standing structure in the world.

Then comes Taipei 101, a 101-story tower nearing completion in Taiwan, at 1,667 feet, with the top occupied floor at 1,470 feet. The council is inclined to award it the tallest designation, Mr. Klemencic said, but not until it is available for occupancy sometime in late 2004.

That leaves as the reigning champion the 88-story twin Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, which measure 1,483 feet at the top of their spires but only 1,229 feet at their top occupied floors.

The fact that the bulk of these towers is lower than the Sears Tower in Chicago (1,450 feet over all but occupied to 1,431 feet) gave the council pause. But it decided to recognize spires as the "top of the architecture"; that is, a feature without which the building would look fundamentally different.

Paradoxically, Mr. Klemencic said, the "top of the architecture" criterion had been proposed by an earlier council chairman, Fazlur R. Khan, the engineer at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill who was largely responsible for the Sears Tower.

The Skidmore firm is in competition with itself in the perpetual world's-tallest race, since it is also designing a project known as Burj Dubai in Dubai.

Another contender is the Shanghai World Financial Center by Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates of New York.

Whatever it is that Freedom Tower turns out to be the tallest of, in other words, it may not be for long.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Kris

December 19th, 2003, 10:58 PM

December 20, 2003

AN APPRAISAL

Tower Design Overshadows Complications

By HERBERT MUSCHAMP

The surprise of yesterday's unveiling is that in its present form Freedom Tower is much closer to being a piece of architecture than the public had any right to expect. The forced collaboration between David M. Childs, of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, and Daniel Libeskind might have brought out the worst instincts of each, resulting in a corporate gloss on the apocalypse. Instead, the architects have come close to transcending what's left of their battered selves. With some shrewd editing, the design could become one of the noblest skyscrapers ever realized in New York.

These refinements should not be difficult to achieve. They will flow from an understanding of the different approaches that the two architects have taken toward their common task and by analyzing the areas where these approaches have already meshed. Thankfully it is now possible, for the first time in two years, to think about ground zero in something like architectural terms. And this process should help to clarify the boundaries that the design guidelines of any master plan should respect if architecture is to occur.

Freedom Tower's envelope is a torqued wedge that rises 1,776 feet from a trapezoidal base to the tip of a broadcasting mast that is anchored asymmetrically at the summit. Rentable office space occupies an estimated 60 floors of the tower. Above is an open, latticework structure that houses an observation platform and a wind farm for generating most of the building's electricity.

The building's strongest feature is the adaptability of its structural system to different site conditions. That is why it makes no sense to parse the design for signs of which architect won this or lost that. The design we see, in its entirety, takes its cue from Mr. Libeskind's incomplete master plan. The building's irregular contours are precisely determined by the size, shape and location specified by that plan. If these specifications were to be changed, so would the architectural expression. I'd call that win-win so far.

The second major strength is the balance that the design almost achieves between delicacy and toughness. The glass skin and the cable structure create an ethereal quality that one might have thought impossible, given the prospect of fortress architecture that rose up in the aftermath of 9/11. Yet the rigor of the structure is tough, exactly as the Brooklyn Bridge and the Eiffel Tower are tough. Freedom Tower's structure is derived from bridge design, like that of the Eiffel Tower. The span connects heaven and earth.

Adaptability and conceptual balance are the essential qualities of the design. Its success as architecture is contingent on the integrity with which these qualities are maintained throughout. The design's weaknesses represent lapses from the consistency of its own internal logic.

There are two of them: the sloped roof at the summit of the building's inhabited portion, and the broadcasting mast that rises from the open-lattice superstructure above. These features are both concessions to weak ideas that Mr. Libeskind presented a year ago. Sloped roofs are common to all the towers in the "spiral of skyscrapers," a feature of Mr. Libeskind's design concept. The antenna stems from a primitive desire to one-up the Statue of Liberty by constructing a high-rise version of it.

Here's the paradox. These concessions to Mr. Libeskind actually prevent the design from achieving the symbolic status he sought with his initial ideas. They deprive the design of its integrity and sharply curtail its effectiveness as symbolic form.

To understand these problems and potentially resolve them, it helps to grasp that the two architects are coming from very different places. They employ two different systems of communication. With the assistance of the structural engineer Guy Nordenson, who first presented the concept of torqued outrigger walls in a special issue of The New York Times Magazine last year, Mr. Childs has developed a vocabulary of structural expression and abstract form. Mr. Libeskind works with a language of visual and literary symbolism.

The good news is that the architects have come so very close to fusing these two approaches. The frustration is that they've stopped before the miracle could happen. This shortcoming may owe something to clashing egos. But it owes more to the breakneck timetable that Gov. George E. Pataki has set for the planning process. Don't forget that the design presented yesterday was not entirely shaped by architecture. It also bears the traces of strong-arm legal tactics that were deployed to accelerate the project's completion.

Ostensibly undertaken to protect Mr. Libeskind's interests, these tactics may actually have prevented him from seeing what to me is plainly obvious. Even in its present, compromised form, the Skidmore vocabulary fulfills Mr. Libeskind's symbolic intentions far more effectively than his own initial sketches for the tower.

Let's look at the design in the context of Memory Foundations, as Mr. Libeskind's design concept was called. Freedom Tower stands at the pinnacle of the "spiral of skyscrapers," a semicircular composition of five towers of gradually increasing heights. Astute historians will inevitably recognize the spiral of skyscrapers as a version of the temple to Marduk, the Babylonian "bull calf of the sun."

Hello, liberty. Begone, Babylonian bull calf. With this substitution, the message becomes: Democracy Redeems Worldly Desires. This is not an architectural language I much care for, but at least it is contextual. The financial district's skyline is already packed with pagan motifs.

The problem with figurative symbolism is not the meanings it invites, however, but the ones it refuses. The 20th century taught us a few things about cognition. Forms in space are screens for the projection of individual fantasies. An abstract screen enlarges the possibility for multiple readings. It is precisely through abstraction that modern audiences have developed new eyes for the ancient art that Mr. Libeskind is clearly keen to evoke.

Brancusi's "Bird" soars higher without wings than it would be able to with them. His "Endless Column" would go nowhere if you stuck an infinity sign on top. And the idea of freedom would be conveyed with far greater conviction by a tower that did not try to dictate the meanings that people might see reflected in it.

For me, a simplified design would be a metaphor for resilience. The tower absorbed an impact, passed it down to the ground and reasserted itself in the skyline. In the process it has been transformed by death and by the desire for rebirth. Were the antenna to be housed within the lattice superstructure, the entire building would be a spire. It wouldn't need a spare one stuck in the top like a martini toothpick.

The point is that with abstraction meanings can expand without limit. In this sense abstraction is democratic. It reinforces the concept of the public realm.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

MidnightRambler

December 19th, 2003, 11:29 PM

This is one of the ugliest buildings I've ever seen. For it to be built anywhere anywhere in the world would be very unfortunate, but as the WTC replacement it's downright insulting.

MidnightRambler

December 19th, 2003, 11:33 PM

And that article from the Times is just ridiculous. It's the journalistic equivalent of giving Childs and Liebskind a handjob.

billyblancoNYC

December 20th, 2003, 12:32 AM

1300 ft of occupied space, denser lattice work rising to at least 1776ft, unless better integrated... forget that torch crap.

It does have promise. I hope Child's building "accidentally" escapes to the media. Would be nice to see. I think it would be much better.

F Libeskind.

Agglomeration

December 20th, 2003, 01:34 AM

I know I should have said this a long time ago, but Pataki clearly forced through the 'Freedom Tower' with his strict deadline, and the end result is a pathetic version of the proposed new WTC. If the Twin Towers sat on an underused plaza, The prospect of a latticework tower standing next to an empty pit is even worse. Ultimately Pataki is to blame for this debacle, and he deserves to be bashed and insulted more than anyone else.

Is it me or has skyscraper architecture in NYC become this politically depressing?

Patrick

December 20th, 2003, 05:21 AM

Is it the final version? No more changes?

Patrick

Kris

December 20th, 2003, 08:14 AM

Muschamp's article's title changed to "A Skyscraper Has a Chance to Be Nobler."

December 20, 2003

Rising Above Ground Zero

The twin towers at the World Trade Center and the skyline they anchored feel like memories from a very distant era. Now, here we are with a new tower looming in the future, the one presented yesterday morning by Gov. George Pataki, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the architects Daniel Libeskind and David Childs. This new tower, which will rise, pivoting gracefully, from the northwest corner of the World Trade Center site, is much, much better than we had any right to expect, given the widely reported differences between Mr. Childs, who is responsible for the tower's design, and Mr. Libeskind, who is responsible for the master plan.

Both Mr. Childs and Mr. Libeskind are supremely articulate in explaining the purposes of this tower, but it will eventually begin to speak for itself in ways that are hard for us to imagine at the beginning of the process. The building will mark the place on the skyline where the twin towers stood and fell. It will recast the light of Lower Manhattan and recreate, on its own terms, the old feeling that the World Trade Center was looking over your shoulder, no matter where you stood downtown.

The builders say that at 1,776 feet, this new tower would be the tallest in the world. What matters isn't its height but its quality. Mr. Childs has rightly grasped the importance of making it not only a figurative icon, but a technological one as well.

New York's many critics may well differ over his plan to incorporate electricity-generating windmills within the webbed structure above the occupied floors. But he is certainly right in striving to make this building a landmark of environmentally innovative technology. The notion of harnessing the inherent capabilities of the tower's site — within the wind stream along the Hudson River — makes a great deal of sense.

Governor Pataki noted at the tower's formal unveiling that "everything we do at ground zero is a memorial, a tribute." He is right — the very position the building occupies, and what surrounds it, guarantees that it will never lack symbolic importance. Adding unnecessary symbolic freight would detract from the overall power of the design. In particular, Mr. Libeskind's insistence on building the tower exactly 1,776 feet — or 541.3 meters — high ought to be reconsidered. That requirement could complicate the construction process while adding little to the visual impact of the tower.

While the two architects were the stars of the tower's unveiling, Governor Pataki also deserves a great deal of credit for making certain that the project did not dissolve into artistic squabbling along the way.

If the governor needs to continue using his negotiating skills to get this tower built, it will be well worth the effort. The scale and the beauty of this building remind us of what we hoped could be accomplished in Lower Manhattan.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

NYguy

December 20th, 2003, 09:37 AM

Predictable front page news...

http://www.nypost.com/images/front122003.gif...http://www.nydailynews.com/ips_rich_content/555-FRONT_BIG.jpg

I've been reading all the comments, everyone mostly talking about the upper portion of the building. But there really isn't too much you can say about Freedom Tower other than the basic shape and what the office portion looks like. I like the look of the office tower, the base, the twist, etc., but the spire is a work in progress and the antenna was a no show.

Details of the superstructure that reaches 1,500 ft were intentionally left vague or not shown at all in the renderings because it too is a work in progress. It will NOT look as empty as it does in the renderings. So what the upper half of the tower will look like requires a little imagination until more details come out...

NYguy

December 20th, 2003, 09:47 AM

DAILY NEWS...

At last, skyline begins to heal
Freedom Tower design revealed

By MAGGIE HABERMAN

Here it is.

New Yorkers finally got to see the design for the world's tallest building yesterday, a twisting "Freedom Tower" with a latticework top that will soar 1,776 feet over Ground Zero.

Unlike the jagged, garden-filled glass spindle attached to an office building proposed a year ago, the new design is a single structure that tapers, reminiscent of the Statue of Liberty, as it rises.

The building will have a whopping 2.6 million square feet of office space, spread out among nearly 70 stories.

The top third of the tower will be 400 feet of open space filled with tension cables and trusses to brace against the wind - and to complement the graceful cables of the nearby Brooklyn Bridge. The cabled space will hold windmills to generate energy for the building.

The building will end in a 276-foot spire that holds new TV antennas to replace those destroyed when the twin towers collapsed.

The new design emerged after weeks of feuding between Ground Zero master planner Daniel Libeskind and the tower's lead architect, David Childs, threatened to derail the project.

And although rebuilding officials vowed that this "essentially" is what the actual tower will look like, the design faces major technical challenges and engineering studies - leaving unresolved how much it may change.

Childs said it will be the safest in the world, with features such as separate elevators for rescue workers and wider stairwells.

"This is a symbol of New York, this is a symbol of America, this is a symbol of freedom," Gov. Pataki said at the unveiling at Federal Hall in lower Manhattan. Mayor Bloomberg said the tower will "dramatically reclaim a part of the New York City skyline that was lost on 9/11."

Childs said that if the tower is a failure, the rebirth of lower Manhattan will never happen.

"This tower must be successful," he said.

An agreement on the design was reached last Monday, meeting Pataki's deadline after the two architects had a major blowup over what the top of the tower would look like.

Libeskind alluded to the fight, saying, "It's a challenge, working with David Childs [and his firm]. ... It's a struggle to create something great."

The new design met with mixed reviews.

Some gave it high marks, especially for the attempt to make it environmentally friendly with the windmills. But there were lingering questions about some design elements and how it will affect street life.

"We're still interested in taking a look at the ground level since it's a bulkier tower than originally proposed," said Bob Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association.

Mark Ginsberg, an architect with the design group New York New Visions, questioned how the spire will fit in, saying, "It looks a little stuck on right now."

The fight between Libeskind and Childs, who works for Larry Silverstein, the developer paying for the tower, was mostly a clash of personalities and styles.

Libeskind, who has never designed an office tower, saw himself as the visionary. In turn, Childs thought he was the one with the right experience under his belt, sources said.

And while Libeskind reminded people that the tower was his idea, yesterday was Childs' show. He gave the detailed presentations, including one at the Daily News, and only mentioned Libeskind's signature element - the spire - in passing.

Libeskind all but acknowledged that his role in the tower is done now, but painted himself as the guardian of the site plan.

"When the developers and politicians and architects are long gone to other projects, I'll still be [here] ... making sure 10 years from now, or 12 or 15, that everything on this site is important, that this is not just business as usual," Libeskind said.

The sources said it's possible that some battles, such as the tower's height, will be revisited.

Silverstein said he expects it will "essentially" stay the same, but added, "Design always changes and modifies. ... You're going from the end of schematics, to the beginning of design developments, and that's when the rubber hits the road."

***************************************

Highlights:

- Rises to 1,776 feet, becoming the world's tallest skyscraper, surpassing the current highest building, Taiwan's Taipei 101, which is 1,676 feet tall.

- It includes a 276-foot-tall spire that Daniel Libeskind believes is evocative of the Statue of Liberty.

- Nearly 70 stories and 2.6 million square feet of office space.

- About 400 feet of open space at the top, made of a latticed structure of tension cables and trusses similar to the Brooklyn Bridge. The structure will help support the building.

- A floor plate of 52,000 square feet at the base, nearly 25% bigger than what existed at the twin towers.

NYguy

December 20th, 2003, 10:02 AM

The highest point of the occupied part of the Freedom Tower would be about 1,150 feet. Even the crownlike truss of the superstructure, at 1,500 feet, would fall below the antenna atop 1 World Trade Center, which rose to 1,750 feet.

But the 276-foot spire on the southwest corner would break the city's record and, if counted as part of the building, would exceed Taipei 101 in Taiwan.

btw, I belive the antenna atop 1WTC was 1,728 ft, slightly shorter than the spire of Freedom Tower.

NYguy

December 20th, 2003, 10:12 AM

NEWSDAY (condensed)

Sources: Pataki Mediated Architects' Battle

By Justin Davidson
December 20, 2003

Daniel Libeskind, the master planner of the World Trade Center site, distanced himself yesterday from the design of the Freedom Tower, the results of tumultuous collaboration with architect David Childs.

"I am not the architect of this building," Libeskind said yesterday, shortly after the unveiling. "My role was to guard the principles of my master plan and to make sure they were upheld."

The relationship between Childs, who was charged with designing the tower, and Libeskind, the master planner of the site, was so difficult, both sides agreed, that several weeks ago the two architects practically stopped speaking and Gov. George Pataki had to mediate.

The process reached its nadir on Dec. 8, when the two design teams, which had been cohabiting in the offices of Childs' firm, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, essentially got a divorce. As in any angry split, versions of what happened vary: Libeskind said that he and his staff were told to move out so that SOM could "regroup." Childs claimed that Libeskind left of his own accord.

The two architects had substantive differences. Childs favored a twisting tower 2,000-feet high, culminating in a pair of latticework structures like a two-part crown. Libeskind insisted that the building top out at the symbolic height of 1,776 feet with a narrow spire, and that a lower portion have a slanted roof.

But beyond the conflicts over design, the need for cooperation forced together two men of profoundly different temperament: Libeskind, whose approach to architecture is openly emotional and who speaks in metaphors and anecdotes, and Childs, a consummate professional who is more comfortable discussing the technical aspects of a building.

In some ways, the friction may have resulted in a design that neither man could have produced alone. "David is very much into engineering, and Dan is more conceptual," another source close to the process said. "Clearly David is the guy who can get this built, but Daniel pushed David in a way that David never pushed before. He made David think more out of the box."

ZippyTheChimp

December 20th, 2003, 10:32 AM

From the Daily News Article:

"We're still interested in taking a look at the ground level since it's a bulkier tower than originally proposed," said Bob Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association.
In his presentation, Childs described the site as a parallelogram, but it is actually a trapezoid. The northern side is the longest, and the building already looks a little chunky in views from the south. I'd like to see some street views, especially from the north.

JMGarcia

December 20th, 2003, 10:35 AM

The tower will share the block it is on with the preforming arts center.

I have no problem with buildings taking up entire blocks in NY whether its 1, 2 or 10 buildings. In the end run the block is full and a good street wall is created.

JMGarcia

December 20th, 2003, 10:42 AM

Some pictures I got from the dbox website. Nothing new really but a good size.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/FT1.jpg

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/FT2.jpg

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/FT3.jpg

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/FT4.jpg

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/FT5.jpg

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/FT6.jpg

STT757

December 20th, 2003, 11:51 AM

I've got a question , it's been mentioned in several articles that an observation deck and restaraunt will indeed be incorporated into the building. My question is WHERE?

In the upper Latice part, or in the actual "Office" Building part. If it's the "Office" part it's not going to have much of a view except for of the Hudson, it needs to be "higher".

Kris

December 20th, 2003, 11:52 AM

This is off-topic, but is the cluster in the distance to the left Starrett City?

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/FT1.jpg

I wish the publication of basic architectural tools like plans, sections and elevations in the media was less of a rarity. I'd also like to see a detailed shot of the large model.

Gulcrapek

December 20th, 2003, 12:12 PM

Christian, I think that's the clump of mid-high rises in Brighton Beach. The clump to the right is Trump Village/Coney Island.

Agglomeration

December 20th, 2003, 12:24 PM

Back to the renderings shown here. Here's my main gripe: It looks like the WTC North Tower (the one with the antenna) has had all its floors above the 75th sky lobby stripped clean of all but its exoskeleton and the antenna and replaced on top with some wind turbine. That's essentially the 'Freedom Tower'. The main office section is about 1,160 feet tops, with 300 feet of latticework and 400 feet of the spire. I for one simply can't call this one the WTB. There is fierce competition from new towers being proposed in Shanghai and Abu Dhabi, which we all know about.

James Kovata

December 20th, 2003, 12:33 PM

JMGarcia

December 20th, 2003, 12:55 PM

I don't think the observation deck has been finalized but it seems to be at the top of the office portion at about 1150 feet which would make it slightl higher than the one on the Empire State.

a tidbit from the LMDC website:

Supporting the cables like the masts of a sailboat are two circular structural cores containing elevators and stairs. Formed without cranes, these concrete masts will greatly improve the speed and safety of construction.

So there will definitely be a way to get higher if they decide to put public space any higher.

NyC MaNiAc

December 20th, 2003, 12:58 PM

What about the other 4 buildings that are really clumped together?

Is this the "final design" for them too?

JMGarcia

December 20th, 2003, 01:00 PM

What about the other 4 buildings that are really clumped together?

Is this the "final design" for them too?
No.

They will be done by different architects and started in a few years.

Zzed

December 20th, 2003, 01:23 PM

these new renderings invoke ghostly memories, i don't like them.

if Liebskind really thinks that a symbolic height is so important, how about a more meaningful number such as 2,752 feet, corresponding to the number of victims that died in the 911 atrocity.

Zzed

December 20th, 2003, 01:42 PM

and a well informed piece tucked away in Slate ...

Sneak Preview
The unveiling of the Freedom Tower at Ground Zero.
By Christopher Hawthorne
Posted Friday, Dec. 19, 2003, at 3:34 PM PT

It has been dubbed, somewhat inanely, the Freedom Tower, but there isn't a whole lot of design freedom visible in the images released today of the skyscraper that Daniel Libeskind and David Childs have jointly produced for the World Trade Center site. Instead, the torqued, 1,776-foot tower looks the way most of us expected it would: like a gritted-teeth collaboration between two architects whose styles couldn't be more different.

Libeskind is a highly theoretical architect with only a handful of designs to his credit, most of them aggressively shardlike and cutting-edge. The far more experienced Childs, from the huge firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, has produced countless commercial projects—most recently the huge twinned towers of the Time Warner headquarters on Columbus Circle—that are elegant in a smooth, corporate way. In hammering out a final compromise on the skyscraper, the relationship between Libeskind and Childs by all accounts grew increasingly testy. Reading about it, one thinks of those movies where two people who can't stand each other are handcuffed or duct-taped together and forced to struggle free and then jointly accomplish some heroic task, like foiling a robbery or defusing a crude nuclear bomb.

In this case, the task was to design a tower that will surely be among the most closely scrutinized buildings in American architectural history. The division of labor has been awkward, to say the least: Childs is serving as "lead architect," while Libeskind, despite having won a competition to create a master plan for the whole Ground Zero project, has been forced to act as "collaborating architect." (The reason for this is that Childs is working for Larry Silverstein, who holds the lease on the site and has a line on the forthcoming insurance payment that is financing the project.) The Lower Manhattan Development Corp.'s spin on the arrangement was that Childs' job has been to give "form" to a design "proposed" by Libeskind.

Then, earlier this month, things got really wacky, with reports in the New York Post and New York Observer that Libeskind sent staffers to SOM to take digital photographs of the Freedom Tower models—which they did over the protests of employees there—ostensibly so that Libeskind could go to New York Gov. George Pataki with visual proof that Childs was hijacking the design. Though Libeskind's office has downplayed the incident, saying it has been misreported, some in the Childs camp reportedly dubbed it "the Watergate break-in."

Thanks to the Byzantine control structure for the Ground Zero site, Pataki has more power in the rebuilding process than any other politician, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has done his best to keep the design moving unrelentingly forward, like a forced march, because he wants to time the Freedom Tower's groundbreaking to coincide with the Republican Convention in New York City next summer. It seems, though, at least to judge from the renderings released today, that the architects have not made enough progress to produce the fully realized unveiling we'd been expecting. This was more like a sneak preview.

As a result, it's possible at this point to analyze only a few elements in detail. Even so, Libeskind and Childs' uneasy relationship is clearly visible in the Freedom Tower's design. The building has three different sections, stacked vertically in a way that suggests a softening, though not a complete rounding off, of Libeskind's jagged aesthetic. A twisting lower section will contain 2.6 million square feet of office space on approximately 70 stories, with lobbies and two concourse levels at the base. Above that will be an area rising 400 feet that will hold wind turbines. It is enclosed by a lattice of cables meant to evoke those of the Brooklyn Bridge. The structure is topped by a 276-foot spire, bringing the tower's total height to the symbolic number of 1,776. That will make it the world's tallest building, though because of its open-air top it may seem shorter than numerous skyscrapers around the world. (The Twin Towers were 1,368- and 1,362-feet high but much bulkier than the Freedom Tower.)

Libeskind is responsible for the saccharine decision to make the building 1,776-feet tall and for several elements of the tower's body, especially its sharp asymmetry and sloping roof. He's also behind the spire, which is meant to suggest the Statue of Liberty's upraised arm. (The torquing, which will strengthen the building against wind loads, is the addition of Guy Nordenson, the engineer who has been working with Childs and Silverstein. Apparently it has its roots in a design that architect Richard Dattner sketched out in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11.) The lattice structure is Childs' idea; it will hold turbines that will capture the wind and provide about 20 percent of the building's operating energy. (The wind turbines will turn the building, or its least its upper third, into an advertisement for the growing field of sustainable, or "green," architecture.) These turbines replaced the hanging gardens Libeskind wanted to include in the upper portion of the tower—a significant loss for Libeskind. Childs, for his part, apparently has compromised on his desire to have the lattice section rise to the very top of the building.

It is tough to tell from the surprisingly small selection of images that were made available this morning precisely how the lower section of the tower will look. (There is also unavoidable symbolism in the fact that SOM, not the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., handled most of the PR duties for today's events.) All the renderings show the building from a distance—as it will be seen from Brooklyn or about 50th Street in Manhattan, for example—instead of giving close-up views of the facade or of the building at street level.

Still, the day did provide yet more fodder for the ongoing Childs-Libeskind soap opera. On the Today show this morning, Pataki, Childs, and Libeskind appeared together for an interview by Katie Couric. When she asked about reports that the two architects didn't much like one another, Childs awkwardly patted Libeskind on the knee, and, calling him Danny, responded that their working relationship had been "spectacular."

That was a particularly evocative word choice: It sounds cheery but also suggests the extent to which each of the key players has already made a spectacle of himself, as well as the way the process is unfolding as if inside a fish bowl. Maybe Childs—or whoever preps him for his TV appearances—should get a crack at coming up with a less bluntly jingoistic name for the tower. After all, he has already been allowed to redesign it.

slate.msn.com/id/2092959/