Taller Twintowers vs. Freedom Tower

[Jimbo Holland]

hey all,
i'm back from www.skyscrapercity.com and there is the same poll, but here are more new-yorkers. now is my question for the new-yorkers on this site;

what is better?

Taller Twins: (with floors to around 1776' FT, that's are +-150 floors)
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/SolForceJxn/TallerTwinsNight.jpg

Freedom Tower:
you all does know how it looks...

[yyy]

I don't mind if they are taller or a little bit shorter - the Twin Towers design is simple but brilliant. It has been one of the symbols of NYC for many years so I think it should stay that way.
The Freedom Tower looks nice but not more than that.

[Fabrizio]

I agree the Twin Towers design was brilliant. Cold, steely, noble and sophisticated ... but also very comforting to see.

And look how they work (style wise at least) with Cesar Pelli´s additions and with the formality of Battery Park City.

Those overwrought twisting-turning, slant-roofed propsals all look forced and "2005 designer-trendy" compared to the old WTC.

[I LOVE THE SOCCER]

Taller twins!!!!

[dbhstockton]

Get a life.

[ryan]

The original WTC was horrible urban planning. The view of the skyline from Staten Island is one thing, but the streetlife-killing superblock is really not something to pine for. Did anyone ever spend any time down there? Really unpleasant - not at all city, and definitely an example of what to avoid in large-scale urban developments... rehash Rockefeller center (again) if you must look to the past, but not WTC.

[yyy]

And look how they work (style wise at least) with Cesar Pelli´s additions and with the formality of Battery Park City.


Yes - I agree with that. This was the most beautiful view in Manhattan. It still looks nice but without the WTC towers something's missing.

[Fabrizio]

Ryan : Yes, it was a grid busting, street-life killing superblock ....as much as Lincoln Center is. But it was tucked away downtown on blocks that the average New Yorker or out-of-towner never set foot on pre-WTC. I can´t talk for people who actually lived down there or worked at the WTC, but I always found the plaza to be awe-inspiring (although awfully windy at times). Even the Seagrams building ( regarded as one of the world´s masterpieces of architecture ) has a plaza that stands rather aloof. If the WTC were to be duplicated today, I would hope that the complex would be a more pedestrian friendly.... but a big, open, spare plaza lined with cafes and resturaunts, as seen in so many European cities, would be a nice asset to the city.

[dtolman]

Both of the designs are a mess. Time to start over and let a real visionary who as an eye for design, and experience (Foster?) take over.

[antinimby]

Have you guys forgotten about the difficulty of getting tenants to occupy those towers if they were to be rebuilt again?

[ZippyTheChimp]

The original WTC was horrible urban planning. The view of the skyline from Staten Island is one thing, but the streetlife-killing superblock is really not something to pine for. Did anyone ever spend any time down there? Really unpleasant - not at all city, and definitely an example of what to avoid in large-scale urban developments... rehash Rockefeller center (again) if you must look to the past, but not WTC.
Absolutely correct.

Many of the comments and inaccurate observations about the streetscape I am reading here are what I'll call postcard views. Yes, there is something missing in the skyline, but how it looks from Brooklyn or Jersey City is not the only criteria for evaluating a building complex.

I began working in Lower Manhattan when the WTC was built, and know firsthand what it did to the neighborhood.

But it was tucked away downtown on blocks that the average New Yorker or out-of-towner never set foot on pre-WTC.
Incorrect.

[MidtownGuy]

I would have very mixed feelings about this. Happy for the victorious fact that they are there again, my old friends who I miss so much. And taller- that would be great. I loved them before they were gone, so how could I not be happy to see them again. They looked great. But also I would feel a remorse, that a second chance to do them should involve more creativity. Keeping the same duality, same symbolism.

Basically, I am saying rebuild the twins but taller, better, and with an improved design. This is not an improvement because I saw another rendering of this proposal in daylight that shows the windows as boxy- HORRIBLE idea. One of my favorite things about the Towers was the use of shiny metal bands that branched up into the heavens, and gave them an incredible glow in the different light conditions. Those new horizontal things suck.

By the way, my last memory of the plaza everyone loves to hate-
It was a gorgeous sunny afternoon in August 2001, one of those New York days when the sky is a solid arc of brilliant blue that the buildings seem to bounce off of.
A Salsa performer, la India, was singing from the stage that had been set up between the Towers. People were dancing everywhere, those that came specifically for the concert, like myself, and those that stumbled into it. And all I can say, is that for my friend Claudia and I ,it was not a dead plaza but
one filled with joy and music, happiness to be in NEW YORK and dancing in the midst of those giants. Summer ended, and on September 11 so did they.

[TomAuch]

Absolutely correct.

Many of the comments and inaccurate observations about the streetscape I am reading here are what I'll call postcard views. Yes, there is something missing in the skyline, but how it looks from Brooklyn or Jersey City is not the only criteria for evaluating a building complex.

I began working in Lower Manhattan when the WTC was built, and know firsthand what it did to the neighborhood.


Incorrect.

I agree with Zippy. I would love to see the old towers back, but realistically it's not going to happen. While I agree that the old plaza should not be replicated, breaking up the superblock itself is not necesarily a good thing. Rockefeller Center and South St. Seaport are superblocks, but unlike the old WTC and Lincoln Center, they weren't sterile, and have been sucessful with facilitating street life for pedestrians. Keeping the superblock with pedestrian/bike/light-rail streets instead of vehicular traffic would be a good option (if we do light rail then it should be expanded by the rest of Fulton and Liberty).

[Coleridge]

The Twin Towers were ugly boxy designs that cut off city life in Lower Manhattan. Thank God they're gone. They were a crime against architecture and made New York look cold, stiff, and arrogant. You guys must be crazy to go for 150+ floors. Only those with super size egos would want to build something even taller than the twin towers.

Good design and beauty matters more than height. 150+ floors is impractical for today's business world. What if all those floors remain unoccupied? It's a waste of space, no one would want to work in the very upper floors high up in the sky, and even if people did want to work up there, it would be a logistical nightmare to evacuate everyone in all the floors to ground level.

105 floors is acceptable, but 150? I've heard crazy people with megalomaniac delusions going for 200+.

The Twin Towers, along with the MetLife building ranks up there as the worst architecture in the history of New York.

The Empire State, the Chrysler, the Flatiron, the Woolworth, the Seagram, Grand Central, the Metropolitan Life Insurance Tower, Rockefeller Center, and the future New York Times Tower are what New York architecture should be about.

[MidtownGuy]

The Twin Towers were ugly boxy designs that cut off city life in Lower Manhattan. Thank God they're gone. They were a crime against architecture and made New York look cold, stiff, and arrogant.

whatevah

[ryan]

Rockefeller Center and South St. Seaport are superblocks, but unlike the old WTC and Lincoln Center, they weren't sterile, and have been sucessful with facilitating street life for pedestrians. Keeping the superblock with pedestrian/bike/light-rail streets instead of vehicular traffic would be a good option (if we do light rail then it should be expanded by the rest of Fulton and Liberty).

Rockefeller actually has more streets running through it than other blocks in the area - not fewer, so while it takes up most of a couple of blocks, it doesn't block flow like a superblock.

[Fabrizio]

Interesting that all of the great buildings you´ve mentioned were built before WWII (well over 65 yrs ago) with the exception of the "cold, stiff, and arrogant" Seagrams building. That´s not saying much for NY is it? ( BTW doesn´t "cold, stiff and arogant" describe the international style?)

The WTC was a product of it´s time. The UN, Lincoln Center, the Seagrams building, the CBS building on it´s sunken plaza... the list goes on...modern architecture that really didn´t give a damn about the street and that was, in effect, "bad urbanism" ......even so, some of them like the WTC were very very beautiful.

[Fabrizio]

sorry... above post addressed to Coleridge.

[ZippyTheChimp]

The WTC was a product of it´s time.
That is true. Discussing the significance of the twin towers in that context is different than the theme of this thread, because now is not their time.

[Jake]

The current design for the FT basically would always remind us that there was something better there once and now it's gone. The twins might not have been beautiful to some people but who are you to say that buildings like that should be. The point was that they were giants, they showed that new york and america are powerful and arrogant. Arrogance is often a good thing. The World Financial Center buildings are huge and yet the WTC made them look tiny and insignificant. Buildings that are pretty to look at don't usually inspire and awe people. I will never forget what it's like to be walking up the stairs out of the Cortland Street R station and people would look ahead and there were these giants and they would have to tilt their heads back just to try to see the top. Those buildings said that no project was too difficult for us. Whatever is built there has to be visible for dozens of miles around, has to be taller than everything else downtown and by a lot, and it has to have purpose. It must be an office building or otherwise it will just say that not only did we lose those two buildings but we also erected a structure to commemorate the fact that we did. I don't want a monument to the terrorist's achievement, I want a monument to our ability to recover and build bigger.

[gonzea]

The twin towers were 100% right for where it was. That's why most people want to see it back. It was NYC to the fullest. I could just look at them for hours in there beauty. They were art in it's purest form. Wondering how anything could ever be built that high and if it would ever come down.
Of couse they should be rebuilt they represented a strength nyc HAD, Which in a way is now gone. Anyone who says they were ugly is not a true new yorker or is just repeating what they heard someone else say.

[Zoe]

I don't understand why some people on this forum get so worked up whenever a dialog begins about rebuilding the twin towers in some capacity. I want good architecture there, whatever the design; and I want it to be at least as tall as before. The public debate has started all over again in the media since the current FT design has been scrapped, and part of that debate has involved looking at the original design to some degree (ak Trump). That said, if people don't want to revisit the twins theme, then don't read this thread and stop argueing with people who do have interest in it. There is so much good information and discussion on other threads. Let the dreams flow, geez

[MidtownGuy]

every time someone posts in one of these threads about their desire to see some sort of twin towers rebuilt, they are attacked as unrealistic, told it will never happen. Why should the mere mention of this concept be so immediately trashed as unworthy. These threads are for discussion, are they not? This very discussion has been renewed on a national scope in the mainstream media, and we are criticised here, in an architectural forum, everytime it is brought up. Perhaps it is unlikely that they will be rebuilt in any form, but this issue is garnering national attention again, being a topic at MSNBC and so on. Of course they won't be built if people are discouraged from the very thought. But the fact is that a debate HAS opened up again, and that is a GOOD thing. Some of the nazi-like thought police on this website should just get over themselves and stop trying to make anyone who mentions it feel like a pariah.

[ZippyTheChimp]

One of the reasons these threads degenerate into arguments is because of the two posts above. The topic of this thread is not for Twin Towers Fans Only. Why do you view criticism of the concept as an attack upon yourself?

Some of the nazi-like thought police on this website should just get over themselves and stop trying to make anyone who mentions it feel like a pariah.
Is this not an attack on some of the members of this forum? If we were Nazi thought-police, this thread would have been immediately deleted. Those who cannot accept criticism are the ones who should get over themselves.

[alex ballard]

every time someone posts in one of these threads about their desire to see some sort of twin towers rebuilt, they are attacked as unrealistic, told it will never happen. Why should the mere mention of this concept be so immediately trashed as unworthy. These threads are for discussion, are they not? This very discussion has been renewed on a national scope in the mainstream media, and we are criticised here, in an architectural forum, everytime it is brought up. Perhaps it is unlikely that they will be rebuilt in any form, but this issue is garnering national attention again, being a topic at MSNBC and so on. Of course they won't be built if people are discouraged from the very thought. But the fact is that a debate HAS opened up again, and that is a GOOD thing. Some of the nazi-like thought police on this website should just get over themselves and stop trying to make anyone who mentions it feel like a pariah.






Becasue people deal with dreams in two ways:

-Either they hold out hope (however false it is) on something

Or

-They deny their dream a chance to grow to protect themsleves from letdown. If you never dream about being a scientist or rock star or dream about anything, then how can you be hurt by not getting it? Sucks, but true...

[Fabrizio]

I´m always amazed that people immediately criticse the WTC as street-life-killing "bad urbanism" yet rarely mention Lincoln Center or how about the UN? The CBS building is often given high marks as a fine example of modern architecture, but it might as well have a moat around it. And what about the Whitney? The Seagrams is THE modern masterpiece, yet no one today would set a building so far from the street, and front it with such a stark plaza. The WTC´s design was "boxy"? Well, what about every other modern skyscaper built during the popularity of the international style?

The poll question asks "which is better" a 150 floor twin tower or the Freedom Tower. What does "which is better" mean? Stylewise I´ll take the Twin Towers built on the same spot, instead of the over-wrought Freedom Tower with the "twin toilettes" next it .....but in any case, we all know it´s going to be very hard to get tenants and workers willing to sit at a desk day after day in ANY tower that´s built there. Would you relocate?

[MidtownGuy]

One of the reasons these threads degenerate into arguments is because of the two posts above. The topic of this thread is not for Twin Towers Fans Only. Why do you view criticism of the concept as an attack upon yourself?


Is this not an attack on some of the members of this forum? If we were Nazi thought-police, this thread would have been immediately deleted. Those who cannot accept criticism are the ones who should get over themselves.

Nothing in my post was a personal attack, but an observation on what has been happening. I have read it countless times. People who have mentioned rebuilding the twins HAVE been IMMEDIATELY reproached and I don't like people who try to put a muzzle on anyone, not just myself- I wasn't taking it quite so personally as you seem to have. I would defend just as fiercely the rights of those who say they hate the towers.
My criticism was toward the overzealous moderation of ideas, especially regarding the WTC site. And no, it would not be immediately deleted . Fascism these days is a little more subtle.

[ZippyTheChimp]

The Seagrams conforms to the street. It is merely set back with a plaza in front. It is hardly the same as the WTC plaza.

Lincoln Center has problems on its perimeter that are supposedly being corrected in the renovation.

Style is irrelevant when discussing the choices between the FT and the Twin Towers, because it is not the appearance that makes the towers unworkable. Where would you put them? The original location is out of the question. Forcing them onto other locations, besides looking forced, would require a complete redesign of the transit retail complex that is scheduled to begin construction this summer. That is also never going to happen.

[PHLguy]

Taller twins, FT's 65 floors is a joke.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Nothing in my post was a personal attack, but an observation on what has been happening. I have read it countless times. People who have mentioned rebuilding the twins HAVE been IMMEDIATELY reproached and I don't like people who try to put a muzzle on anyone, not just myself- I wasn't taking it quite so personally as you seem to have. I would defend just as fiercely the rights of those who say they hate the towers.
My criticism was toward the overzealous moderation of ideas, especially regarding the WTC site. And no, it would not be immediately deleted . Fascism these days is a little more subtle.

Nothing in your post was a personal attack? Since you have ignored the comment, I'll requote:
Some of the nazi-like thought police on this website should just get over themselves and stop trying to make anyone who mentions it feel like a pariah.
So who are the thought-police on this forum? The moderators? The administrator? The software?

In fact, there has been NO moderation in this thread, and no one attacked you personally, but you seem to have transferred criticism of the twin towers to criticism of yourself.

[MidtownGuy]

Nothing in your post was a personal attack? Since you have ignored the comment, I'll requote:

So who are the thought-police on this forum? The moderators? The administrator? The software?

In fact, there has been NO moderation in this thread, and no one attacked you personally, but you seem to have transferred criticism of the twin towers to criticism of yourself.

That's right. No personal attack. Who's the person I attacked? did I name a PERSON? usually that's what's meant by PERSONAL. And I was quite clear in indicating that it has happened in various threads, not just this one.
Calm down Zippy. And If you reread my post without hysterically filling in your own assumptions, you will see that I never accused anyone of attacking ME personally. I was speaking in more general terms. We can go on with this all day, but I have more pressing obligations at the moment. I'm through with this particular exchange.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Why would I need to calm down. My responses here were measured and rational. My observation of why these threads degenerate into ridiculous arguments seems to have been verified, and the only reason I am continuing this dialogue is that I am not going to allow your inflammatory statements to go unchallenged.

While you stated that you never indicated that you were attacked personally, your tone was set by your first response in this thread. To a post by Coleridge that had nothing to do with you, you responded with:
whatevah

A personal attack does not have to be aimed at one specific individual. Your statement was directed at those of us who run this forum. Since there is no evidence of any undue moderation in this thread, and you stated that you were...
quite clear in indicating that it has happened in various threads,
there was no reason to make such an observation here. If you have a problem with the operation of this forum, I offer 4 choices:

1. PM Edward.
2. Open a thread in Forum Issues.
3. Endure the pain.
4. Leave.
We can go on with this all day
No, we won't.

[alonzo-ny]

Hows this for an idea, have south tower almost identical except taller with modernised top and north tower the same for bottom 50% then a brand new modern design on top, best of both

[PHLguy]

Nah, I like the twins the way they were, sure they were plain, but that's what was good about them IMO.

[BrooklynRider]

I'm really not into either of these options. I voted for the exclamation point (which is always exciting to see).

[PHLguy]

Taller twins would be insane, since the freedom tower will most likely not pass 1000 feet to it's highest occupied floor the twins would be about 700+ feet taller and much more porportioned, look at FT, we get about 1000 feet of occupied area with 1000 feet of hollow spiderweb, If this is what NY is becoming I want not to be a part of it!

[alex ballard]

Taller twins would be insane, since the freedom tower will most likely not pass 1000 feet to it's highest occupied floor the twins would be about 700+ feet taller and much more porportioned, look at FT, we get about 1000 feet of occupied area with 1000 feet of hollow spiderweb, If this is what NY is becoming I want not to be a part of it!

Logically, isn't it a proportion issue rather than a height thing. Logically, the towers collapsed becasue they didn't have enough support for the upper floors above the impact zone.


If you had a 3,000 ft building (200 floors) but it was 300x300 ft, wouldn't the same impact on 9/11 be lessend becasue there would be twice as many lateral supports to hold up the floors? Also, couldn't you build the steel in such a way as to be strong enough to support the floors above it? Think about it, it would be a straight building but have the stablity of a pyramid. This still allows for flexing for earthquakes and hurricanes but also makes the building stronger. And better constructed floors would also help.




But no one thinks of these things. Oklahoma City involved a 9 story building, so should we ban everything under 10 floors?

[TonyO]

There has been a lot of reaction to the latest at the WTC site in favor of rebuilding. NYTimes, daily in AM New York, and the Wall Street Journal. Here is one from today's WSJ:

We Want the Towers Back: Let's Hire You-Know-Who

Thank you for your editorial regarding the ongoing delays at World Trade Center site ("Trump's Towers," May 10). Longtime New Yorkers such as myself know that you are on the mark in pointing to Donald Trump as the right man to take over the reconstruction of the World Trade Center.

We well remember that it was Mr. Trump who promptly completed the restoration of Wollman Rink in Central Park after seven years of city government mismanagement and failure. And we all know well Mr. Trump's proven record at working with the government, the trade unions, financiers and other interested parties to get large construction jobs completed in this most complex of all American cities.

We can be grateful for the delays as they have prevented the construction of Daniel Libeskind's buildings at that hallowed ground. New Yorkers want the Towers back, as the polls have shown since September 11th.

Let's let a man who knows how to build in New York get the job done. We want results. We want the Towers back.

H. Terrence Riley III

New York

[Ninjahedge]

Logically, isn't it a proportion issue rather than a height thing. Logically, the towers collapsed becasue they didn't have enough support for the upper floors above the impact zone.

Incorrect. they collapase because they lost about 1/3 to 1/2 of their columnar support and the remaining columns in the transfer zone were deformed. As they heated up, they became less stiff, deformed more until the P-delta loadings on them forced them to buckle. they load was transfered to the next set of columns, which did not hold, and it failed along the perimeter in zipper-like fasion around the whole building.

Once the building above started moving, it crushed the building below, destroying the intermediate steel structure holding the perimeter together, and peeled large chunks off of it like some sort of demonized bananna.

If you had a 3,000 ft building (200 floors) but it was 300x300 ft, wouldn't the same impact on 9/11 be lessend becasue there would be twice as many lateral supports to hold up the floors?

It was not the lateral support that held up the building, it was the vertical. I think you just used the wrong word. LATERAL means sideways, and is used to resist wind and seismic loadings. And if the building was a larger footprint, it may have survived, but it would also have never been built. As it was, the buildings footpribt was huge, to build a monolith of that nature that high would be prohibitively expensive. Also, what is the point of building a 105 story tower if 1/2 of it does not get a view out the windows?

Also, couldn't you build the steel in such a way as to be strong enough to support the floors above it? Think about it, it would be a straight building but have the stablity of a pyramid.

Nope. That is a gravity-minded monolithic construction. One thing that worked well with the building wa staht it had a tubular construction that offered a lot of stability and lateral strength by having a rather stiff moment frame around its entire perimeter. Problems that it had with deflection were because steel is pretty flexible, and when you get to be that big a building, motion (and perception of that motion by looking out the windows) gets exaggerated more than a simple deflection calculation will predict.

This still allows for flexing for earthquakes and hurricanes but also makes the building stronger. And better constructed floors would also help.

It does not quite work that way. We can discuss it further, but if you were really interested, look as some books, shoot, i had them on my desk, but they are not here now...


most of them are handbooks for seismic design or "design of tall structures". They will give you a better insight as to how these things are actually built.


But no one thinks of these things. Oklahoma City involved a 9 story building, so should we ban everything under 10 floors?


Nope, OK was because of a large transfer beam in the front of the building that predicated a progressive collapse when its supporting columns were destroyes. Different animal. try not to get rediculous with your analogies alex, they do not reflect well on the rest of your statement... ;)




As for what i would like? I would like a set of twin towers back, but slightly different. Modernized, but not totally changed. No horizontal trump-bands, no blocky aluminum structures.

Maybe the same with a slight twist, a slight roof tilt and a different finish. Nothing bastardizing the original content (no extreme twisties or poligonization as seen in some of the more radical ill-fitting designs), but something that stil acnowledges what WAS there, and that destroying it simply makes us build something better.