View Full Version : Tall Towers Movement

February 27th, 2003, 06:01 PM
I noticed in recent threads, that the "Rebuilding Movement" has come under attack, due to the fact that some newcomers support rebuilding the same Twin Towers. Let me tell everyone this: SUPPORTERS OF YAMASAKI'S TWINS ARE ONLY ONE FACTION OF OUR "MOVEMENT" There are people who support differant designs, and personally, I think that the majority of rebuilders are willing to go with something other than what stood at the site before if we can't get what we had before.

February 27th, 2003, 06:06 PM
I fully support rebuilding 2 very tall towers but not of the original design. I also think that at this point it must be done withing the parameters of the Libeskind design. Calling for a replacement design is only going to marginalize the group and put them in the same category as those calling for low income housing and other such nonsense.

The 1776ft tower allows for very tall towers without either going higher than that tower itself. It also lends itself to dramatically increasing the height of the office tower attached to it.

NyC MaNiAc
February 27th, 2003, 07:02 PM
JM, do you think we will see Twin Towers incorporated into his site? Instead of having his 6 office towers spread out everywhere, why not just take 1, make it the WTB add a spire and give it a duplicate? I'd rather have that then 6 buildings of dismal height (and yes, even though 4-6 buildings are calling for heights of over 1,000 ft. I still would rather have just 2 much taller, identical towers) Then they could make the other buildings WTC 7 height and then add that anorexic spire right in the middle.

So, considering your much more intelligent on the whole project than me, do you think this is a possibility, or will the project stay the same? Thanks in advanced.

February 27th, 2003, 07:27 PM
The PA and especially Silverstein are the roadblocks here. They need to be dealt with if there is any hope.

I'm just glad the Libeskind, by all accounts and quotes, understands the need to restore the skyline properly.

February 27th, 2003, 08:07 PM
Actually I think that the real roadblocks is Pataki for hiring the LMDC. *These are the people who are not listening to us. *I wouldn't necessarily blame the PA and Sivlerstein for not wanting back the Twins. *It is true that having 2 big towers would take up less space then several smaller ones, but I doubt that the LMDC will even listen to that.

February 27th, 2003, 09:52 PM
I agree and am very angry that this plan was picked. It wasn't the most popular one according to many on-line polls and the spire is very unispirational.

February 28th, 2003, 03:54 AM
Tom Auch,

Just to let you know, I am no newcomer as far as rebuilding goes ;)

I've always thought - since day one - that the World Trade Center should be rebuilt just as it was. And even former NYC mayor Ed Koch has said the same thing.

And as I may have pointed out in my previous thread, the reason the site was built as it was is due to the fact that Yamasaki chose the Twin Tower development - not just to increase the office space, but to make things more proportional for the site. In a few of Yamasaki's original design plans, they bear a striking resemblance to the Libeskind plan. The reason they were not chosen is because it made the site look too cluttered, and moreso resembled a housing development rather than an office complex. Same goes for the tower designs. The first of the tower designs was a single 150 story tower, the second was a set of twin towers between eighty and ninety stories tall, and a third design included a set of three 70 story towers. The first and third plans were scrapped because one plan was too large, and the other was too crowded.

All of these plans are in essence no more than glorified and modified plans that were scrapped by the Yamasaki team back in the '60s. They didn't work then, and I doubt they'd work now.

And I'm not just a stereotypical rebuilder who thinks they should be rebuilt "just because." I put research and fact into each point I make across. I've studied the World Trade Center with great fervor the last three years (even before 9/11).

February 28th, 2003, 06:17 AM
Libeskind is the decision. Let's ALL deal with it! *They may make revisions or they may not, I am perfectly happy to live with whatever the outcome eventually is.

(Edited by amigo32 at 2:58 am on Mar. 2, 2003)

NyC MaNiAc
February 28th, 2003, 08:15 AM
See, I don't like the pessimistic attitude on the whole thing amigo 32, but your probably right...But, I still think you gotta have faith...we will get our skyline back....

February 28th, 2003, 08:20 AM
I hope so! *I hope they just go ballistic, and they do it right!

February 28th, 2003, 09:05 AM
I would like to hope so too, but hoping does absolutely no good here. *The LMDC won't listen to us directly, so we need to tell them through the media, through action.

February 28th, 2003, 10:42 AM
I think the LMDC has listened to the public quite well. The problem is that they also listened to Silverstein, the PA, Real Estate executives, Corporate Location experts, the victims families, the "anti-arrogance" crowd, and an assortment of other NIMBYS.

They tried to make the best compromise they could and that was that a very tall building would be built on the site but that it wouldn't be occupied with offices.

February 28th, 2003, 10:51 AM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 7:27 pm on Feb. 27, 2003
The PA and especially Silverstein are the roadblocks here. They need to be dealt with if there is any hope.

I'm just glad the Libeskind, by all accounts and quotes, understands the need to restore the skyline properly.

Last night on Charlie Rose Silverstein stated quite clearly that he was going to build the tallest building in the world as was presented in Libeskind's plan.

February 28th, 2003, 05:05 PM
What I fear is that Silverstein, Libeskind, and the PA will come under pressure to lower the floors or the amount of office space as the weeks go by. It's not something to be ignored.

February 28th, 2003, 05:24 PM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 10:42 am on Feb. 28, 2003
I think the LMDC has listened to the public quite well.

If the official records on responses to their plans were released, you would change your opinion. *Every opinion poll went directly against what they gave us. *I understand compromises, but this was a complete farce.

They tell us that this has the tallest building. *CNN, MSNBC and others actually quote that, which I think is amazing. *In time people will see through this hopefully.

February 28th, 2003, 05:46 PM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 10:42 am on Feb. 28, 2003
I think the LMDC has listened to the public quite well. The problem is that they also listened to Silverstein, the PA, Real Estate executives, Corporate Location experts, the victims families, the "anti-arrogance" crowd, and an assortment of other NIMBYS.

They tried to make the best compromise they could and that was that a very tall building would be built on the site but that it wouldn't be occupied with offices.

That is 100% false! *If the LMDC did listen to the public then they would have agreed to rebuild the Twins with better saftey modification which the majority of the public wanted them to. *I know that b/c I attended almost every public hearing and heard that plus I was with them on that. *The LMDC always hated the Twins and ignored anything that said that even their own public hearings. * The only reason why the original 6 were hated was b/c none of them were the WTC that everybody knew especially that they didn't have the Twins. *Did the LMDC listen? *The answer is no and instead made new plans that had more cultural space than office space rather than know that a lot of people wanted back the Twins. *Yesterday Alexander Garvin of the LMDC didn't even want to comment on the official poll that Imagine NY would give to him knowing that Libeskind's design was last. *Therefore, there was no true public input on this design and the LMDC chose it themselves.

February 28th, 2003, 05:49 PM
If such an important decision was to be based on popularity, some sort of refenendum would have been needed. And what would that be?
One person, one vote, or would NYC residents get more weight?
Registered voters only?
How about non-US citizens? They participated in polls.

In the end, do we really want architecture by popular vote?

February 28th, 2003, 06:38 PM
I hear you on the popular vote thing...but that is what they said they were doing. *Listening.

I would respect them a lot more if they just came out and said "we aren't really going to listen to anyone except ourselves. *we may satisfy a few of your concerns superficially, but in the end we will build what we interpret to be ideal."

Of course that would never happen. *Why? *Because the public SHOULD be involved. *But everything is too mirky now. *Maybe with more time people will wake up in this city.

People are going about their routines. *NY is just stagnant right now. *I cannot believe no major figures have even *suggested* that the twin towers could be rebuilt in a different form. *

THINK misses the mark, the radio spire in Libeskind's plan is not even a building. *Foster was the only one of these architects with any courage. *Guess what? *His was the most popular - in every poll hands down.

February 28th, 2003, 07:23 PM
Well, that's the nature of public agencies. No one wants to stick their neck out. If you want be angry at someone, direct it at Pataki. Besides having control (with NJ gov) over the PA, he appointed half of the LMDC members. More than anyone else, he was in a position to give this process some direction - but he has been a fence-sitting wuss from day one.

Give the LMDC some credit. They could have chosen P/L. Many on this board feared that. P/L was popular because of it's familiar design - no minor quality in stressful times.
In the end, the LMDC gave everyone a little. Family members
get a significant memorial space. The PA gets it's infrastructure underneath. Silverstein gets his office space. Westfield gets underground retail. Residents get street level retail and a good site plan. We all get something tall.

Of course, all of this is subject to change, and a year from now Edward might delete me from the board for my profanity-laced posts.

August 16th, 2003, 01:41 PM
* Gov. George Pataki is a real jerk and he's acting like a real arrogant dictator. *Aren't elected officials suppose to listen to the public majority?? (i.e. democracy)
I don't see the "freedom of choice" or "democracy" in what's been happening with the WTC rebuilding process. *The whole Libeskind design/effort is based on two men's ego (Pataki and Libeskind) and not on what the people want and/or the best solution for the majority of people involved in this. *Just go and read what the Team Twin Towers has to say about all this on their website...you'll see what I mean.

August 17th, 2003, 01:02 AM
I;mnot sorprised. Pataki is becoming a dictator, and his arrogance is extending far beyond the WTC... for all the obvious reasons. Bloomberg's wrong-headed agenda isn't helping either.

August 30th, 2003, 10:42 PM
August 31, 2003


Keep Your New Towers. They Want the Towers.


AT the food court beneath Grand Central Terminal, four radicals are gathered around a table plotting a revolution. Andrew Oliff is 35, lives in Bayside, Queens, and is a neuropathologist. Marcy Mellos is 48, lives in Murray Hill and works as a legal assistant. Joe Wright is 58, a Kentucky native who lives near Gramercy Park and designs voice mail systems. Louis Epstein is 42, lives in Rockland County and runs a small Internet service provider.

There are relatively few circumstances that might draw together people with seemingly so little in common. Jury duty is one, or an open call for game-show contestants. Group therapy is another, and that gets closer to the truth.

These four unlikely comrades are the leaders of the World Trade Center Restoration Movement. In close solidarity with one another, and in opposition to the city's political establishment, business leaders, academics and civic groups, and just about everyone else whose opinion matters, the W.T.C.R.M. demands that the World Trade Center towers be rebuilt. Not replaced by something new and supposedly better. Rebuilt, hewing as closely as possible to the design of the buildings that were lost on Sept. 11.

The members of the group may not be the only ones who dare to mention rebuilding the towers, but they are by far the most visible and the least afraid of humiliation. Their experiences at the public forums convened to discuss ground zero, however, have been painfully disillusioning.

"The process was a sham," said Ms. Mellos, whose previous political experience was organizing a rent strike in her neighborhood. "Early on, they decided that the high stories could not be tenanted, so they wouldn't bother trying." She paused for a deep breath, but emotion overtook her. "It was a business decision," she cried. "But they made it out like this was the right thing to do."

For the Restoration Movement, any decision to do anything other than rebuild the towers is the wrong thing to do. And the decision to adopt Daniel Libeskind's plan for a faceted glass tower is the wrongest thing of all.

Their setbacks have only fueled their resolve and hardened their rhetoric. They now refer to Mr. Libeskind's plan as "a death pit," and they declare, in press releases, that if the towers aren't rebuilt the terrorists will have won. None of this has endeared them to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, of course. But it has also enraged representatives of the victims' families. "Some people really think that the towers killed their loved ones," Mr. Wright said. "So for supporting the rebuilding of the towers, I was called a murderer."

Sensing that their ideas were being dismissed, the members began holding meetings at one another's apartments and in coffee shops. They drew up a 1,500-person e-mail list and sent out frequent updates. And they took to the streets, collecting signatures and handing out stickers that read, "YES I'd work on the 110th floor!"

On July 26, they held a rally at City Hall Park that was preserved on videotape by one of the members. It was an exercise in civil obedience. Competing with the roar of passing buses and the general torpor of a hot summer day, a succession of supporters made heartfelt speeches. The proceedings hit their sharpest edge when Jonathan Hakala, who worked on the 77th floor of 1 World Trade Center, dismissed Mr. Libeskind's tower as "anorexic spires that resemble large drinking straws."

According to Mr. Oliff, "a lot of passers-by stopped to see what was happening." And at a coffee shop afterward, two tourists told the rally's organizers that the memorial for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was already suffering a drop-off in attendance. That only confirmed the group's belief that Americans have a short attention span, and formal, somber memorials are a waste of time.

"You know that joke, `Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?' " Mr. Epstein said. "It became a joke because over time, nobody went there anymore It was forgotten. Because that's what happens when you build things for the dead and not for the living."

Lately, the group has been fixated on the slurry wall, a part of the twin towers' original foundation that Mr. Libeskind proposes to leave intact and exposed. The Restoration Movement regards that move as structurally unsound and symbolically inappropriate a way, Mr. Epstein said, of "setting the terrorists' act in stone and forcing us to live with the emptiness they imposed on us."

Three members of the group knew people who died on Sept. 11, but they say that's not what drives their crusade. Ms. Mellos is motivated by a deep sentimental attachment to the landmarks of the city where she has lived her entire life. Mr. Oliff feels betrayed by politicians who initially supported rebuilding. Mr. Wright, who describes himself as an "Ayn Rand objectivist," views the towers as an expression of "the city's individuality." For Mr. Epstein, who has never lived in New York and didn't know anyone who worked in the towers, rebuilding them is a larger, abstract cause, a matter of patriotism.

They know that the original World Trade Center was built over the opposition of grass-roots groups like theirs, but that doesn't bother them; once the towers went up, the group says, they became a kind of public trust, and that trust must be defended.

The Restoration Movement is now trying to organize its own renegade architectural competition, one that posits two tall towers as its starting point. But before a call for submissions can be issued, a jury must be chosen, and that has proved difficult. Mr. Epstein said he has received commitments from two architects and an architectural historian, but he won't name them because "they haven't given me authorization yet."

Mr. Epstein shook his head. "I don't think there's any doubt that people are afraid of being associated with us," he said. "At the moment, we are the losing team."

Asked if they believed they would eventually prevail, all four members offered an obligatory yes. Then Ms. Mello recanted. "No," she said. "They will build what they want to build, and they will not care what we say."

Her colleagues around the table nodded stoically. Then Mr. Epstein piped up. "She's right, we won't win," he said. "Not right away. They will build something like they say they're going to build, because there's too much riding on it for them to back out. The victims groups are still too powerful, too determined to let their personal grief speak for all of us. But it will be a huge failure and everyone will know it, and they will tear it down and rebuild the towers at least as tall as the old ones."

There were vigorous nods around the table. At last, they had struck upon the blueprint for victory. *

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

August 30th, 2003, 11:37 PM
Group therapy is another, and that gets closer to the truth. That says it all IMO.

"They will build what they want to build, and they will not care what we say." The question they should be asking is why they should care what you say.

One thing I do agree with is that the tourist "boom" that the memorial is likely to draw is probably vastly over estimated. If there is one it'll probably be for some other attraction at the site.

September 2nd, 2003, 01:39 AM
Once again America walks away with it's tail between its legs. Thats at least the way the future WTC design looks. I think that the Twin tower design should have been rebuilt with some design improvements.
Anything less is a coward's solution.