TWIN TOWERS II vs. The Freedom Tower

[Jimbo Holland]

Hey all,

witch do you like the most?

The WORLD TR(ump)ADE CENTER [TWIN TOWER II]

or

The UGLY freedom tower....

Bye,

Jimbo.

[PHLguy]

Twin Towers, but they will never happen unfourtunatly.


The Freedom Tower is a joke, stupid 65 floors with 40-55 floor buildings around it.

[Jimbo Holland]

my own choice is the TWIN TOWERS II




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

TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT

[Jimbo Holland]

Twin Towers, but they will never happen unfourtunatly.


The Freedom Tower is a joke, stupid 65 floors with 40-55 floor buildings around it.

yes, that's so stupid, creat than a tower with all the floors to the top of the building and not like the design of the FT, it's roof is on 541 metres and the floors go only up to 65 or 70.

that's nothing for the city of NY

[ryan]

Is posting the same poll (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6269) going to be a regular Friday thing for you?

[Jimbo Holland]

yes that's mine.

ow, i had made such a tread before this one. i forget that.

no, that's a tread about taller twins and this is a tread about the new twins of Donald Trump!

[czsz]

Something tells me even a teetering tower of Jenga blocks would satisfy you height fanatics...

[ryan]

Something tells me even a teetering tower of Jenga blocks would satisfy you height fanatics...

not true - it would have to be two teetering towers of jenga blocks...

[PHLguy]

Something tells me even a teetering tower of Jenga blocks would satisfy you height fanatics...



We have a right to be height fanatics.


This is what makes a skyscraper cool.

40% Design
50% height
10% how it blends into the skyline

We are getting 60 floors towers were two 110 floor GIANTS stood. These towers are fat too, if theywere thin I would have less of a problem.

[Ninjahedge]

Don't like either.

I would liek the twin towers, but maybe a different color (black? Brushed steel?) and with a slight twist up the height of the building.

A slight angle at the roof section would also be interesting. Make it look like the TT, but like it had a modernization. Same basic verticality, no horizontal bands, and no all-aluminum 1970's facade.


Oh, also, no mention of Trump anywhere on it.

[ryan]

We have a right to be height fanatics.


This is what makes a skyscraper cool.

40% Design
50% height
10% how it blends into the skyline

We are getting 60 floors towers were two 110 floor GIANTS stood. These towers are fat too, if theywere thin I would have less of a problem.

obsession with arbitrary figures and statistics is

50% annoying
40% boring
10% intriguingly weird

[JMGarcia]

obsession with arbitrary figures and statistics is

50% annoying
40% boring
10% intriguingly wierd

LOL, except I'd change it to be only 5% intriguingly weird and 5% freudian penis envy. ;)

[kmistic]

Something tells me even a teetering tower of Jenga blocks would satisfy you height fanatics...

Actually thats why i DONT like the looks of the Freedom Tower.

[michelle1]

May 20, 2005 -- Donald Trump is a caricature of himself, and his arrogance is obnoxious ("Egghead in Trump's Face," May 18).
But I want him in charge of the rebuilding of the World Trade Center.

Period. End of story.

One the one hand, we have a showman with an enormous ego, but an even more enormous love of New York City.

On the other, we have a childish egghead, who has drafted a horrid blueprint for an embarrassingly ugly building.

It's not a tough choice.

After years of ridiculous infighting and inertia, I can think of no better person to lead this effort.



I'm on Trump's team, because someone who really loves New York has an innate knowledge of what is best for New York. Terrence Lavin

Manhattan

The Post is to be commended for keeping this issue in the spotlight.

Most of the rest of the media, including The New York Times, chooses to ignore it or chastise anyone who dares advocate the return of the Twin Towers. Boris Docevski

Manhattan

Building anything but the Twin Towers will be a trophy to the people that knocked them down.

Rebuilding the Twin Towers is truly the way to restore American Pride. Vincent Coscia

Staten Island

[JMGarcia]

Ratings of The Apprentice Finale were up last night. I doubt we will be hearing much more of this out of Trump. It will be interesting to see if he sticks with it.

[czsz]

The fact that the Post is spearheading this return the towers campaign says a lot. What a true testament to the idiocy of people that this newspaper and Donald Trump have managed successfully to peg David Childs' miserable Freedom Tower compromise on a real architect like Daniel Liebeskind, employing antiquated anti-intellectual terminology like "egghead" (last heard during the 1956 presidential campaign) in order to discredit not only Childs' Folly but whatever architecture remains aloof from the same sort who treasure their cheaply detailed, painfully crude suburban trophy homes. We might as well get it over with and just build a McMansion on the site tall enough to be appreciated from the lawn of Mr. Staten Island American Pride.

[TomAuch]

I wouldn't equate building McMansions with the FT or new Twin Towers. McMansions are usually built on small plots of land that had their previous houses torn down. They're also cookie-cutter and tacky. I don't think it is philosophically inconsistent to dislike McMansions while also liking skyscrapers.

[dtolman]

If you are going to keep posting the same poll... at least have the third option most people want:

NEITHER!!!

[citybug]

I would love to see the Twin Towers II done because of all these hindrances in the development of the Freedom Tower. I was there in the streets for 9/11 and saw the collapse. The Twin Towers stood for New York. Even from miles away on the NJ Turnpike, you could tell NYC was approaching because of the Twin Towers standing in the distance. I want them to rebuild them so my future children could enjoy them as I did!

[ablarc]

Let's hear it for Trump and the Twin Towers!

[Fabrizio]

Wanna hear it? Those aren´t the Twin Towers. All of the art of the original is gone in Trump´s proposal. Look at the banal skin that does away with the original´s delicate vertical ribbing. And what are those horizontal bands doing there? And the ugly stuff going on at the base?. Trumps propsal looks like a WTC interpretation for an Orlando theme park where the details don´t matter.... just something that vaguely reminds us of the original.... set next to the "Eiffel Tower" and the "Leaning Tower of Pisa". Pure kitsch.

[finnman69]

Hey all,

witch do you like the most?

The WORLD TR(ump)ADE CENTER [TWIN TOWER II]

or

The UGLY freedom tower....

Bye,

Jimbo.

The WTC towers. The ORIGINAL ones, not the bastardized ugly ones Trump used as a PR gimmick.

[Try2Live4God]

Bring back the Twin Towers.......the freedom tower is a pile of crap like Trump says! As mentioned before, unfortunately it most likely won't happen cause the terrorists won! (As much as these stupid political idiots keep claiming that they didn't win....the freedom tower proves that they won). :mad: :(

[PHLguy]

two 1475 foot tall boxes that would dwarf downtown would be the best thing that could ever happen to NY, I love boxes. Since it seems that FT will not be built I think Trump should BUY the land and build it, he has the money.

The more and more FT goes into a spiral of failure the more hope I have in this plan, which to me is still a dream but for god sakes I hope it becomes a reality. Please trump!

[NYatKNIGHT]

Keep dreaming.

The terrorists didn't win because the preliminary Freedom Tower designs aren't as bold as you think they should be; if anything, the terrorists won because we attacked a different country instead of going after those who attacked us. Let's keep things in perspective.

[PHLguy]

Well the fact that if there is a new FT at all at the end of jume it will not have over 60 floors, probably less primarily with the likely reduction of office space does not help at all.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Why live in constant speculation? It must be exhausting.

[ZippyTheChimp]

He should fix his hair.

[krulltime]

This one needs an option of a new design... It just seems no one wants that freedom tower built. Well me neither. But I chose the Twins although I dont think they should be built neither. Something else but these two options.

[Myron]

After 9-11, Pataki and Giuliani promised that the Twin Towers would be re-built as they were but 1 story higher to show the terrorists that we are not humbled. Then suddenly, they said they were accepting designs for a new, single tower. After forcing Libeskind's "Freedom Tower" on the citizens of New York without the people's consent; they are re-designing the edifice in secret and without any input from the people. To the bargain, Bloomberg wants to force a West Side Stadium on New York as a monument to his mayoralty. If he wants it, he can pay for it himself!

[TonyO]

Bloomberg and Guiliani never promised that.

[chris]

Ratings of The Apprentice Finale were up last night. I doubt we will be hearing much more of this out of Trump. It will be interesting to see if he sticks with it.

That is my sentiment. I would much prefer the return of twin towers, to what is proposed now, but I have that sinking feeling that the Donald was just blowing smoke to try to help the pathetic ratings of his Aprentice show's final episode.

[BrooklynRider]

The only Twin Towers he'll see are Melania's breasts when she's flat on her back during chilly weather.

[NewYorkYankee]

LOL Brooklyn, that wouldnt be too bad at all!

[NYguy]

Trump continues his quest for the Twins, or something...


NY POST

by Steve Cuozzo

Donald Trump has taken his campaign to rebuild the Twin Towers to the lobby of his flagship Trump Tower.

He's set up a big, leather-bound sign-in book next to the model of proposed new twins, advising visitors to "sign the petition to rebuild the Twin Towers . . . every voice counts!"

Yesterday, 113 pages of the 312-page volume were scribbled with about 40 signatures each.

[BrooklynRider]

I'm surprised he hasn't found an angle that would let him charge people a fee to sign it.

[Ninjahedge]

I would sign it...


But I don't think he would like my name...


(F' Offe Bawldie is not a verry common name ;) )

[Jonathan_Hakala]

In the latest issue of Forbes magazine, July 4, 2005, Steve Forbes endorses "rebuilding the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center site in lower Manhattan. ... Many risk-taking, want-to-get-ahead businesses and people are willing to move to and work in the new buildings."

http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2005/0704/031_2.html

Another nail in the so-called "Freedom" Tower's well-deserved coffin.

[Jake]

" Please log in to read all Forbes Magazine stories on Forbes.com."

LOL, luckily I have a subscription

I like Trump's idea, he should have that book full very fast, i'd take a trip there myself, does anyone know if it's before or behind the security checkpoints? I don't want to waste half a day there.

[TonyO]

Forbes.com opinion column text:

Let the Man Make It Happen Time to put Donald Trump in charge of rebuilding the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center site in lower Manhattan.

That New York has done virtually nothing there since 9/11 is outrageous testimony to its political incompetence. After all, the Pentagon--also a victim of 9/11--was quickly rebuilt. Never have New York's bureaucratic tendencies and inability to make decisions reached such sad, headshaking proportions as they have at Ground Zero.

The Donald knows how to get things done. In the mid-1980s he shamed the Big Apple by swiftly rebuilding the Wollman Rink in Central Park at a fraction of what the city would have spent, assuming it could ever have done the job. The rink had been in bureaucratic limbo for a dog's age. Trump recently unveiled an impressive model for the new Twin Towers at Ground Zero, including an appropriate memorial. Many risk-taking, want-to-get-ahead businesses and people are willing to move to and work in the new buildings. These structures would be a fitting memorial for those who lost their lives on 9/11 and a fantastic rebuke to the terrorists who destroyed the originals.

Trump has the tenacity to see this project through. He's instigated and managed the construction of numerous buildings. He has the iron-fisted stick-to-itiveness to surmount seemingly insurmountable political and economic difficulties. Let him loose on this task and there will be no stopping him--or it.

[Ninjahedge]

No, "The Donald" does not.

"The Donald" knows how to bang a drum. You think "The Bloomberg" got where he was by not knowing anything about buisness? And I do not mean his Mayoral position either...

I believe this to be more of a publicity stunt than anything else, and it is working in that respect.

[JonY]

yes, that's so stupid, creat than a tower with all the floors to the top of the building and not like the design of the FT, it's roof is on 541 metres and the floors go only up to 65 or 70.

that's nothing for the city of NYTotally agree Jimbo Holland. http://www.sayhey.co.uk/invboard/html/emoticons/thumbsup.gif

Although I love Libeskind (especially) and also (most of) SOM's work, I just had to vote Twin Towers Mark II.

They will be paying homage to the unfortunately lost ones, yet will be high-tech versions paying homage to the ones that are sorely missed.

The Trump proposal:

____________________http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/Muse11/worldtrade3.jpg


...and the old :( - which most of us would be familiar with...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/Muse11/worldtrade2.jpg

vs

the new :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/Muse11/wordtrade1.jpg

[Fabrizio]

Well it DOES look truck-bomb proof.

I just can´t help but admire that photo of the original WTC plaza posted above. Yeah... I know bad urbanism and all that... but it´s sooooo fabulously late 60´s space agey. You can imagine it as backdrop for a Vogue fashion shoot for Couregges or Pierre Cardin. It has culture. It speaks about it´s era.

Yet funny how Trump´s design takes the optimism of the original WTC and gives it a message too. The message being: "we are afraid".

[JonY]

.......I just can´t help but admire that photo of the original WTC plaza posted above. Yeah... I know bad urbanism and all that... but it´s sooooo fabulously late 60´s space agey. You can imagine it as backdrop for a Vogue fashion shoot for Couregges or Pierre Cardin. It has culture. It speaks about it´s era.Don't forget it also being a fabulous backdrop for late 60s Paco Rabanne:

__________________________________http://gastcla.free.fr/Mode/PacoRabanne67.JPG

Yet funny how Trump´s design takes the optimism of the original WTC and gives it a message too. The message being: "we are afraid".We are afraid of what?

[Fabrizio]

Yes, Paco!

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

Afraid of what?

You mean to tell me the artless Trump version doesn´t look like a defensive bomb-proof high-rise bunker? Afraid indeed... And I´m not saying it shouldn´t be bomb proof. It´s just that this thing wears it´s armour on it´s sleeve like a Brinks truck.

[Ninjahedge]

Well it DOES look truck-bomb proof.

You know the only way to proof a building?

Remove the threat.

You know what stands up well against car/truck bombs?

Hills.

All they need to do is build the site up and back from any commercial traffic. The larger the vehicle, the further away it should be from any critical sites and the more stuff should be between the two.

You get a good 10 foot escarpment around the edge, maybe in marble, with a single line of names of the people who died all around the entire site, and you will have a few things.

You will have a memorial that is simply stated, and serves a function to protect the structures from something similar happening to them again.

The names could be the barrier.


Hmmmm, I kinda like that......

[lofter1]

Note that the facade of the original TTs was all about VERTICALITY ...

Now look at the Trump(ed) up new buildings --

And all those the m a s s i v e h o r i z o n t a l b a n d s.

The new ones just don't work.

NO NO NO No no no no no no . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Ninjahedge]

Note that the facade of the original TTs was all about VERTICALITY ...

Now look at the Trump(ed) up new buildings --

And all those the m a s s i v e h o r i z o n t a l b a n d s.

The new ones just don't work.

NO NO NO No no no no no no . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .

They look sort of like large Bose speakers or something....


Maybe battery packs.

[wns808]

just curious, I know its been 1/2 year. I was at the teamtwintowers.org site and was wondering if this group is still pushing to get the twin towers rebuilt the way Trump would've wanted, or are plans for the Freedom Tower going full speed ahead?

[TonyO]

just curious, I know its been 1/2 year. I was at the teamtwintowers.org site and was wondering if this group is still pushing to get the twin towers rebuilt the way Trump would've wanted, or are plans for the Freedom Tower going full speed ahead?

They were still going forward following the release of the latest FT design. They pushed their own 'design competition' which didn't create much buzz. I also wanted to see some form of the towers rebuilt but I saw the latest Childs design as a good compromise - which they did not. Their former spokesperson started another group. This movement is essentially dormant and/or dead.

[Clarknt67]

Question: If only one of the towers had been destroyed do you think they would have rebuilt another twin? I've always sort of wondered about that.

[lofter1]

Given what happened to the nearby Deutsche Bank building, there is a good chance that even if only one tower had come down the other would have been damaged beyond usability. Then, due to damage and contamination, they would have been left with the problem of deconstructing a building more than 2X the size of Deutsche Bank. Nightmare scenario.

[Bob]

The Twin Towers make a (digital) appearance at the end of the recent Spielberg film, Munich. I don't think I was the only one in the theater who thought, "We need to rebuild those." As time passes it becomes even more evident the correct course of action is to do so. Better. Taller. Stronger. Safer.

[wns808]

Given what happened to the nearby Deutsche Bank building, there is a good chance that even if only one tower had come down the other would have been damaged beyond usability. Then, due to damage and contamination, they would have been left with the problem of deconstructing a building more than 2X the size of Deutsche Bank. Nightmare scenario.

I remember watching the Naudet brothers documentary on 9/11 and they were filming in the North Tower lobby. When the South Tower collapsed, the whole lobby of the North Tower turned pitch black and all dust when the fireman and cameraman had thier flashlights on. Imagine the whole dust cloud entering the North Tower and leaving its mark all over the inside of the North Tower. If it was just the South Tower that collapsed, I defintely think they'd rebuild it (if Silverstein had a brain), and restore the North Tower to its former glory.

[wns808]

+ if Chicago lost either the Sears Tower or the John Hancock Center the way the WTC was destroyed on 9/11, those would get rebuilt as they were. Even the Pentagon was restored as it once was pre-9/11

Too bad and no offense to any that Larry Silverstein chickened out and chose a different design for the WTC instead of rebuilding it pre 9/11.

:mad: forever at Silverstein not rebuilding the twin towers
:D to him for the new 7 WTC

[ZippyTheChimp]

No one can possibly say what Chicago would have done.

Only about 10% of the Pentagon was damaged. It would have been ridiculous to tear it down.

Give Silverstein a break. He was not the final word in what form the rebuilding took.

[wns808]

^^ sorry, just venting from a long day yesterday :)

hope to see some activity finally take place on the main site for '06

[wns808]

interesting pic I found on the teamtwintowers.org site, but will unlikely happen

http://www.teamtwintowers.org/phpwcms_tmp/thumb_preview/1_76_FAhBKZz0Wh.jpg

[purdue1983]

First off I would like to say that I am a supporter of rebuilding the towers as they were, but with many structural and fireproofing improvements. That being said, I realize that there is not much of a realistic chance of that ever happening, especially with the new Freedom Tower design. However, I was looking at the recent pictures and thought about building a second building identical to the Freedom Tower (minus the spire) adjacent to it. Please see the attached picture. These new "Twin Towers" (Freedom Tower and Liberty Tower, perhaps?) seem to be a pretty good compromise to me. What does everyone think?

[lofter1]

First you gotta dump the jingo-istic names. Then people MIGHT consider your proposal -- although it has been proposed previously by other posters.

You also have to reconsider the placement that you show -- as the only viable sites won't result in the configuration that you present.

[michael day]

I want to see the twin towers 2 build in new york and the freedom tower should not be build.

[granite61]

Sure it's not practical but as much as I dislike the Freedom Tower design, I don't stress because I know it is what is going to get built. I like the idea of two and would be very happy if they could bring into being something that actually gestured to the original twin behemoths on the skyline. Each tower had nearly an acre of floor space on each floor!

If they had rebuilt the originals, I long ago advocated them to be taller though, like actually 110 floors. Perhaps 115 and the towers themselves would be soooo cool to look at. Meaner, bolder more 21st Century. They would be the home of the new UN.

Alas, we have to make do with this final design. The first two Freedom towers , with less than 70 actual floors (I think) and a huge oil derrick on top, was like cheating calling it the world's tallest.....have you seen the bold designs of skyskrapers in Asia? This final design is better althoug it is very disappointing Mr. Libeskind's winning design is not getting built.

OK, Ok! After it is built I will be happy at least something is there and take it to heart. In two or three dozen years, most of us will be used to it and look to an even taller, bolder structure in Manhattan. Then again, the era of super tall office buildings in America may be over....

Lastly, I would think there would be at least a million people willing to stick that special finger to the types who destroyed or rejoiced in the destruction of the original twin towers and live and work up so high.

One way to show faith in local homeland security would be to get at least half the building rented to private as opposed to government tenants. A year after opening day, the building ought to be at least 85% leased, and if it isn't it will be because of economic conditions and not because too many chickens frightened away otherwise sturdy prospects.

Living or working 150 floors above the streets of Manhattan; I would if I could but while such a structure impresses, it is too impractical.


Its a big country with a lot of ballsy people and "ain't" everybody scared!

FU to the terrorists and their sympathizers.

[TallGuy]

I too was and still am a proponent of rebuilding the twins. If this were the plan, we would not be with the uncertainty and wrangling that we have now. It would be : 'they are beying rebuilt, that is what they looked like, how high they were', etc. There would be no 'well, we're rebuilding them at 950 feet each'. Rebuild. End of story. But that's not the case and we entered instead the world of politics, rbber spines, etc. So we are getting something, but don't know what.

[lofter1]

... show faith in local homeland security ...

Blind faith in that gang (http://www.voicechoice.com/images/3stooges.jpg) of stooges (http://www.movie-poster.ws/movies/wallpaper/comedy/three_stooges/stooges_orbit.jpg) ???

[lofter1]

What the DHS has (NOT) done for us ...

http://www.eff.org/doj/navimages/dhs-advisory-elevated-lg.gif

NY 1 (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=60283)

A Department of Homeland Security scorecard released Friday says New York is not fully prepared to respond to a major disaster.

The DHS’ analysis revealed 71 percent of the city's emergency plans were partially sufficient.

The report is based on the city's plans for evacuation, medical care, sheltering of victims, public alerts and other emergency priorities.

Copyright © 2006 NY1 News

[wns808]

is it still too late to get the twin towers (in original form, but at least 10 more stories and structurally stronger) back, or will we be stuck w/ the Freedom Tower until someone tries to knock that tower down?

IMO I'd love to see Twin FT's, minus the FT name, or move the FT on the Deutsche Bank site and bring the originals back.

[blackhawk08]

Hey everyone, i'm new here. To answer that last question, no it is not too late for the twin towers. the chances of the freedom tower being built are getting slimmer by the day.

[lofter1]

blackhawk08: ::snap:: WAKE-UP ;) and try a little research before you jump into this frying pan ...

[BPC]

The title of this thread is deceptive. There is no choice between Twin Towers and the Freedom Tower. The WTC Site has been allocated, and there is only room left for one building of great height. There is only a choice between the Freedom Tower and a much smaller (probably 60-story high) replacement.

[blackhawk08]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/n.../14rebuild.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/nyregion/14rebuild.html)
Freedom Tower Is in Doubt, Port Authority Chief Warns

By CHARLES V. BAGLI
Published: June 14, 2006

Although work is under way on the foundation of the Freedom Tower, a top official cast new doubt yesterday on whether the signature skyscraper's steel frame would ever rise above street level.

The 1,776-foot high tower will have to be reconsidered if state officials fail to obtain leases for one million square feet from federal agencies by September, Anthony R. Coscia, the chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, told a breakfast forum sponsored by Crain's New York Business.

Mr. Coscia has made similar statements before, but this was his most explicit warning to date, with the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11 soon approaching. Also yesterday, Senator Charles E. Schumer called on the two dozen insurers at ground zero to make good on their commitments to provide a total of $4.6 billion for rebuilding at the World Trade Center site.

Larry Silverstein, the developer who leased the trade center six weeks before 9/11, warned last month that some insurers were indicating they might cite a new plan put together by state and city officials to renege on their obligations. "Business-as-usual tactics like talking tough, threatening litigation and stalling are just not acceptable when it comes to rebuilding ground zero," Mr. Schumer said in a statement. "We have a plan to move forward. What we don't have is explicit certainty from all the relevant insurance companies that they will make the payouts necessary to finance rebuilding."

Both men's comments raised new questions about the Freedom Tower, a project long promoted by Gov. George E. Pataki, who leaves office in December.

The project has been criticized by some real estate executives and civic leaders, who have called it too big, in the wrong location and unlikely to attract corporate tenants. The Democratic nominee for governor, Eliot Spitzer, has expressed concern that it could turn into "a white elephant."

Under the latest arrangement at ground zero, Mr. Silverstein would build three towers on the site, but he surrendered the most financially troublesome project, the 2.6-million-square-foot Freedom Tower. Mr. Coscia, in turn, agreed that the Port Authority would build it, but only if it were financially feasible.

To get the project on a sound footing, the Pataki administration agreed in April to contribute $250 million and to round up leases for one million square feet from federal agencies — at market rates of up to $50 a square foot — by September. Those leases would allow the authority to get a mortgage, which, combined with $970 million in insurance proceeds, would cover most of the cost of the building.

Mr. Coscia, who said he remained hopeful, did not indicate specifically what would happen if the federal leases fail to materialize by September, although the tower's opponents hope a new governor will abandon it. Mr. Coscia said that the foundation work for the tower would have to be done anyway to bring the site up to street level.

"I think there's every reason to be optimistic that the state will get the leases," Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff said. "Coscia's just sounding the bell to remind people that we've got to get this done."

State officials also expressed confidence. "The Freedom Tower will serve as a testament to our resiliency as a people, a city and a country and will reclaim our city's skyline," said Joanna Rose, a spokeswoman for the governor.

Mr. Coscia also told the breakfast forum that the Port Authority was willing to take on construction of the 9/11 memorial as long as there is a financial plan for the project. The estimated cost of the memorial has swelled to $1 billion, but a report to Mr. Pataki due tomorrow is expected to outline a series of alternatives for a memorial that would stay within a $500 million budget.

"There should be an understanding of where all the money necessary to build the memorial is coming from and also a plan for its operating expense going forward," Mr. Coscia said. "I don't think the Port Authority should be responsible for cost overruns. I don't think we should be responsible for covering operating expenses."

[Citytect]

...I dislike the Freedom Tower design... I like the idea of two.

The whole post was rediculous. But this particular thought is just puzzling.

[antinimby]

What the DHS has (NOT) done for us ...
A Department of Homeland Security scorecard released Friday says New York is not fully prepared to respond to a major disaster.
The DHS’ analysis revealed 71 percent of the city's emergency plans were partially sufficient.
The report is based on the city's plans for evacuation, medical care, sheltering of victims, public alerts and other emergency priorities.I regard everything DHS says with a grain of salt. They have absolutely no credibility left as far as I'm concern. None, zero, zippo, nada, zilch.
The Department of Homeland Security. HA!

[antinimby]

...rediculous...Here you go again. ;)
You know what's amazing? I see that word spelled that way more often than the correct way.

[ZippyTheChimp]

The whole post was rediculous. But this particular thought is just puzzling.When confronted with an exceptionally ugly baby, just say to the parents:

He should be twins.

Rediculous
http://www.google.com/tools/firefox/toolbar/index.html

[wns808]

is this also going on still? :confused:

http://www.twintowersalliance.com/petition/

[michael day]

I like idea of having just one tower build at ground zero.

[ablarc]

I like idea of having just one tower build at ground zero.
OK...so tell us about it.

[michael day]

I like idea of having just one tower build at ground zero.I wont tell you.

[BryanSereny]

Its so sad that Twin Towers 2 will never happen. Anything short of building 2 huge towers, means we lost and they won.

[ablarc]

^ Sereny vs. Day.

[Bob]

I'm not so certain Twin Towers II is completely out of the question. After all, the footprints will still be there, and thus, readily available. If the economics of the situation warranted, and if there were powerful people willing to make it happen, the towers could rise again. A phalanx of new, taller and safer buildings would surround the new Twin Towers and offer some visible comfort for those scared of a possible repeat of 9/11.

[NYC244]

i want twins back...twins back...i hate ft.i always will!
twins are ny.something this city is known for.you can still see all this commercials with tt on it(on trucks,stores etc)so why not rebuild them.that would show the world we are not scared..not some few story ugly tower..:mad: :mad: :mad:

[NYC244]

besides,as far i can see..there are more people wanting tt back then ft..so why do they force with ft?????????????????

[wns808]

this was an email I rec'd from TwinTowersAlliance the other day:

"
Dear Twin Towers Supporters:

George Pataki has been doing his rotten best to force Governor-elect Spitzer into a corner regarding the WTC. On this Sunday 12/17 from 12-3 PM the public is invited to come to 200 North End Avenue, Battery Park City, to sign three of the steel beams they have ordered for the "Freedom Tower". THERE IS SURE TO BE MAJOR NEWS COVERAGE.

We got an encouraging "sign" of sorts on Friday. The NY Post printed six pro-Twin Towers letters! Five of them were written by TTA supporters. The Post is read by tens of thousands of people and many were bound to wonder why the paper would bother if there is nothing in play. Good question.

Please stand with us to the best of your ability. When people try to defeat the will of the people,* feel entitled to manipulate our system, and pay lip-service to freedom then they are rogues and must be challenged.
We have got to be very aware that most of the people there will be emotionally invested in the FT and WE DO NOT WANT TO APPEAR STRIDENT. But we want to be CLEAR. Our case stands on its own. We will have a leaflet with bullets on "Why the Freedom Tower is Wrong for New York and the Country." We respect the people who will be there. Most of them haven't been won over by Pataki, they have been fooled by him.


If you can't be there, ask yourself if you know anyone who could be, and if you do, please spend some time on the phone encouraging them to attend. If they tell you it's a lost cause point out that they have no way of knowing what could come of a successful showing on Sunday. It's going to be a warm, beautiful day and anyone who ever wanted to see the Towers rebuilt can afford to spend a couple of hours showing support -- not just for the benefit of the cameras, but also for Governor-elect Eliot Spitzer, who is still looking into our request to halt the construction. We spoke with his office just over a week ago and were told that it is being studied.

OUR PROSPECTS ARE A LOT BETTER THAN THEY SEEM AND WE ASK EVERYONE TO CLIMB INTO THE ARENA OF ACTION FOR THIS ONE DAY -- PARTICULARLY THOSE OF YOU WHO ATTENDED THE SEPTEMBER 10TH RALLY. If you can make up a simple sign on your computer, it can be printed inexpensively in Black & White on Kinko's wide format printers -- if not, please come anyway and help pass out leaflets. We recommend two 2' x 3' signs with a clear message that you can tape or staple onto both sides of a stiff piece of cardboard and hold high. At 75 cents per square foot that would cost $4.50 per side. The important thing is to get to Kinko's with your file as soon as you can, because they have so much going on at this time of year. A few ideas for signs are:

-- Attorney General Spitzer: Say NO to the Fraud 'Em Tower
-- It's Not Too Late to Do the Right Thing
-- WHY Aren't We Rebuilding the Towers?
-- New Yorkers DO NOT CARE About "The Street Grid"
-- Pataki Is No Friend of Freedom
-- WTC = TWIN TOWERS

If you can make it, PLEASE come dressed for the cameras -- you never know when you may be the one face that gets stamped on this movement. The Towers deserve our best.

It is hard to say where we will be allowed to gather but we should be visible by our signs. It would be great to know who is thinking of coming. Please consider sending a quick email to sunday@twintowersalliance.com (http://us.f333.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=sunday@twintowersalliance.com).

See http://www.twintowersalliance.com/nextsteps.html (http://www.twintowersalliance.com/nextsteps.html) for more a map of the location.

There is a lot happening which we will save for another email after the holidays.

Thank you for all your support.

Season's Greetings!




All of us at The Twin Towers Alliance

BACK WHERE THEY BELONG!
www.twintowersalliance.com (http://www.twintowersalliance.com/)



Because five years of the wrong plan for the wrong reasons is long enough!"

[TallGuy]

It's over. Let it go. My first choice was always for the Twins to be rebuilt, but it is NOT going to happen, and even if I had the power to snap my fingers and make the powers that be change their minds, to stop the current plan to switch to a design of new Twin Towers would add years to the rebuilding process and give us years more of an empty pit, and I don't want that.

[Jake]

I'm still somehow desperately hoping we can demolish something somewhere and build another FT without a spire. 101 barclay might be a candidate.

[BrooklynRider]

Trim the memorial.

[William]

"Trim the memorial"

Yeah they made it a bit too excessive. I don't want to reflect absence, I want to reflect presence.

The planned Arad memorial would disgrace the 2,999 killed in the attacks, they would want us to rebuild their towers better than before.

[Nordica]

Trim it? How 'bout "forget it" and not bother to reflect on its' absense. Just do something else someday-something not so troublesome and boring.

[Matysiak]

First I`m sorry if i made some uncorrects in spelling and grammar but i`m still learning english.

So the day when twin towers collapsed was the most horrible day in my life because together with twins gone one of my dreams.It happen before i saw manhattan on my own eyes and i knew this place like i was born there before i visited new york because I`m "New York City Maniac" and i was collecting books,albums,documentary movies,collectibles etc. just everything about this place.This is the thing which is putting this city on the top over every other metropoly on this planet,that each human being over the world know how this place looks and can recognize a lot of streets but they never even been there.So get the point.When I first time saw manhattan my heart started to beat faster but a few seconds later I felt hurtful lack of one most importand symbol of his landscape which I was seeing for 20 years at pictures,movies,posters,commercials,tv and everything what was connected with nyc.Only the midtown marvelous walk made I forgot this sad fact.I wish they rebuild twin towers but I know it propably never happen and true is that for me they always will be look at hudson river as invisible ghosts unconnected with this city like logo of "pan am" above Grand Central Terminal.

[scumonkey]

....logo of "pan am" above Grand Central Terminal.I Also miss that sign so very much- it was a big part of the building for me!
http://www.panamair.org/History/Building/oldbuild.jpg

[ZippyTheChimp]

I miss the Braniff flight attendants.

http://www.luxlotus.com/photos/uncategorized/pucciiii.jpg

[ablarc]

^ I miss all the former flight attendants. They were once picked for their looks.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Or miss the whole thing...flying in the Jet Age.

[TREPYE]

http://www.panamair.org/History/Building/oldbuild.jpg

Company names on top of scrapers= Tasteless
Is and will always be.

[scumonkey]

Is and will always be
I don't agree......If done right there is nothing wrong with it- like the old pan am sign- which suited the building- was a part of it.
I don't think the new met life sign should have replaced it though....
It doesn't have the same period look and clashes with the facade.
Looks like a bumper sticker.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Company names on top of scrapers= Tasteless
Is and will always be.Do you dislike 30 Rock more now, or more when it was RCA?

[pianoman11686]

Company names on top of scrapers= Tasteless
Is and will always be.

What do you suggest we do - outlaw it?

[scumonkey]

Do you dislike 30 Rock more now, or more when it was RCA?I really don't see that much difference between the two (both used/use the same red neon looking tubes).
I had gotten used to seeing the RCA up there (nostalgia), BUT-
I never thought either of them fit the building they were/are on.
This is a case where it doesn't work either.
It might just be a buildings from the sixties thing....Look at the pru in boston
(built around the same time as the pan am), that sign "fits" ( does not detract from, )the building as well. (imho)

[kz1000ps]

Sometimes a building almost needs some writing at the top in order to finish it. Case in point- the old State Street Bank building in Boston.

State Street moved into a new building a couple years back, and their sign made the switch along with them. The old tower, an unremarkable mid-60s brutalist design (somewhat similar in appearance to the MetLife), is completely lost among the downtown crowd now that it has no name at the top of it.

With (not the best angle to represent its skyline presence):
http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/7330/149425ut5.jpg

and without:
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/6969/521279kz2.jpg

[fluffypolly]

I'm still somehow desperately hoping we can demolish something somewhere and build another FT without a spire. 101 barclay might be a candidate.

I work at 101 barclay and its alot nicer than the crap around there, simply put hands off

[ZippyTheChimp]

I hope it's nice inside, because that's not the case on the outside. Gigantic sidewalks on three sides, and it offers absolutely nothing to the street except elbow room for smokers.

[TREPYE]

Do you dislike 30 Rock more now, or more when it was RCA?

I never said that it took away from the appeal from the tower as a whole. Please reread the post. The mere act of using the top of a tower as some uncontextual billboard is tasteless to me. The only exception to this is the screens at top 4 TS. I know it may sound contradictory but it doesnt bother me as much. Maybe because the fact that that is the purpose of the screens and they serve as a commemoration to the the advertiment flamboyancy of times square; so IMO there is some depth as to purpose and contextualism. Also the animation give it some interest, its not some letters pasted atop of the building trying to use its height as a marketing gimmick. :rolleyes:

I'd much rather the opposite and that is what New York Life does....use the building as part of its company logo.


What do you suggest we do - outlaw it?

I wouldn't vehemently oppose that.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I never said that it took away from the appeal from the tower as a whole.Which is why I asked about 30 Rock, which you didn't answer.

[fluffypolly]

I hope it's nice inside, because that's not the case on the outside. Gigantic sidewalks on three sides, and it offers absolutely nothing to the street except elbow room for smokers.

it is really nice, its an atrium building so light pours in from outside throughout the entire building. very clean and refreshing actually. its not the best looking from the outside but its a product of the 80's hardly bad looking. its massive floor plates make it a really good spot for financial companies to operate. the 16th floor is one of the best parts because the lunch room is there :). half of the floor is the serving areas, and the other have is the seating area where the buildings begins to step back from the street. so its about 40-60 feet of pure sunlight.

[TREPYE]

Which is why I asked about 30 Rock, which you didn't answer.

Because it is a mutually exclusive point. The principle that putting company names on top of a tower is tasteless has nothing to do with the design of the tower but rather what the tower is being used for. Case and point: I feel the same for both Metlife & 30 Rock (RCA or GE) regarding the lettering; as far as design, they are opposite of each other IMO.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Not mutually exclusive...

The mere act of using the top of a tower as some uncontextual billboard is tasteless to me.

I feel the same for both Metlife & 30 Rock (RCA or GE)

There's that bugaboo...uncontextual.

Remember, we weren't talking about MetLife, but the Pan Am sign.

Unlike RCA and GE wich migrated to 30 Rock, the Pan Am building was built for Pan Am. It took its shape from an airfoil; the roof was a heliport; the building represented the company when it was an American icon. It hardly needed advertising on its tower.

Three companies, more than any other, symbolized America in the late 60s. All three appear in 2001, A Space Odyssey

Probably why some of us here don't like to refer to it as MetLife.

[alonzo-ny]

Didnt MetLife sell it anyway?

[Optimus Prime]

To a group led by Tishman Speyer, yes.

[TREPYE]

Not mutually exclusive...

There's that bugaboo...uncontextual.
Remember, we weren't talking about MetLife, but the Pan Am sign.
Well I guess I should have put the Pan Am sign in the mix too. Same effect whether its the Metlife or Pan Am. Still tastelessly using the top of your tower as a billboard.

Unlike RCA and GE wich migrated to 30 Rock, the Pan Am building was built for Pan Am. It took its shape from an airfoil;

Airfoil.....eh, huh, I never knew that. But I though an airfoil is supposed to be asymmetrical with a smooth round side and a flat side?


http://www.fi.edu/fellows/fellow2/oct98/airfoil.gif
http://www.homeandabroad.com/s/siteImages/14/42923_NYNY_MetLife110.jpg

Maybe in abstract I guess. But anyways....

the roof was a heliport; the building represented the company when it was an American icon. It hardly needed advertising on its tower.


Right, so if your tower is a prominent representation of your company (as you suggest) why the overkill of putting your name on top of it too?? Perhaps marketing? Which then in that case it proves my point about being tasteless. Besides, it did not stop with Pan Am as this obviously was a tact that Metlife used also when they had the building.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
The point is that the significance of the Pan Am sign is tied to the building and its time, and might be difficult to understand if you weren't around at the time.

Not the same evocation as Met Life. Refer to the original post.

[TREPYE]

And like I said that was marketing overkill. Given the fact that using the top of towers as billboards does not bother you; taking into account the fact that the building was so tied to Pan Am, what Metlife did was pretty unscrupulous. Just like a lot of marketing schemes.

[ZippyTheChimp]

How about this? (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7055&page=5)

[ablarc]

Or how about Conde Nast? Rooftop billboards for hire.

[TREPYE]

How about this? (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7055&page=5)

That too.

Or how about Conde Nast? Rooftop billboards for hire.
Please find...

The mere act of using the top of a tower as some uncontextual billboard is tasteless to me. The only exception to this is the screens at top 4 TS. I know it may sound contradictory but it doesnt bother me as much. Maybe because the fact that that is the purpose of the screens and they serve as a commemoration to the the advertiment flamboyancy of times square; so IMO there is some depth as to purpose and contextualism. Also the animation give it some interest, its not some letters pasted atop of the building trying to use its height as a marketing gimmick. :rolleyes:

I'd much rather the opposite and that is what New York Life does....use the building as part of its company logo.

[pianoman11686]

I wouldn't vehemently oppose that.

Well, good luck getting the hotels to agree to that.

What confuses me about your "tasteless advertising" argument is: how can you be against a MetLife or a GE sign at the very top of a skyscraper (which you can't see unless you're in Manhattan and within a certain number of blocks) and for the Conde Nast screens, which you can see from New Jersey? Do you really think either MetLife or GE gain new customers because people can see the company's name when they look up at the building? I doubt it.

The reality is, it's not explicitly advertising. It's pasting your company's name on a building you own. Why? I don't know, but why not? I just don't see the harm.

If you think New York is bad when it comes to these things, you should take a look at other cities' skylines. Some have around half of their tallest buildings with the names of their occupants pasted at the top.

[TREPYE]

Well, good luck getting the hotels to agree to that.

They dont have to agree with it if its law. Besides, hotels (specially in NYC) do fine W/O em.

What confuses me about your "tasteless advertising" argument is: how can you be against a MetLife or a GE sign at the very top of a skyscraper (which you can't see unless you're in Manhattan and within a certain number of blocks) and for the Conde Nast screens, which you can see from New Jersey?

Explained that already; look a couple of posts above. You cant understand that logic or dont like it....oh well. And yes GE and Metlife signs are very visible from areas outside Manhattan to the south. Specially in higways in the NJ (I-78) and Brooklyn (BQE) sides.

Do you really think either MetLife or GE gain new customers because people can see the company's name when they look up at the building? I doubt it. The reality is, it's not explicitly advertising. It's pasting your company's name on a building you own. Why? I don't know, but why not? I just don't see the harm.

The same reason companies pay money to have commercial airtime, billboards next to the highway, SPAM; the more in consumers psyche you are in the most likely they will use your product when its needed.

If you think New York is bad when it comes to these things, you should take a look at other cities' skylines. Some have around half of their tallest buildings with the names of their occupants pasted at the top.

Oh, I know and the though of NYC ever looking like that perturbs me. The NYC skyline is above that and putting company names a top of scrapers is beneath a skyline that bears so much quality.

[pianoman11686]

They dont have to agree with it if its law. Besides, hotels (specially in NYC) do fine W/O em.

Oh, really? What about all these?

http://images1.snapfish.com/3476774%3A2%7Ffp343%3Enu%3D3247%3E4%3A5%3E9%3A%3B% 3EWSNRCG%3D3233965598467nu0mrj

http://pictures.exploitz.com/Grand-Hyatt-photo-New-York-City--_srcgpx10001x14674x110790e44.jpg

http://www.readio.com/new-york-hotel/pictures/essex-house-hotel-new-york-city-pictures.jpg

http://www.newyorkology.com/archives/images/hotelempire-thumb.jpg

http://www.preservenys.org/images/W%20Hotel.jpg

Explained that already; look a couple of posts above. You cant understand that logic or dont like it....oh well. And yes GE and Metlife signs are very visible from areas outside Manhattan to the south. Specially in higways in the NJ (I-78) and Brooklyn (BQE) sides.

You're right, I just don't understand your logic there. Doesn't make any sense. You even said: "it might sound contradictory." It does. And you've got to be kidding with the commemorative Times Square advertising nonsense.

The same reason companies pay money to have commercial airtime, billboards next to the highway, SPAM; the more in consumers psyche you are in the most likely they will use your product when its needed.

Like I said: I think you'll be hard-pressed to find people that bought more products and services from GE and MetLife because they saw the sign on top of their building. Not AT ALL the same as billboards and commercials.

[ablarc]

^ How new or old is the mansard on W Union Square?

[NewYorkDoc]

What is the building beside the W Union Square with the huge fire escape? Is it still there?

[ManhattanKnight]

^ How new or old is the mansard on W Union Square?
I'm pretty sure it's been there since the beginning (1910-11). The building started out as the headquarters of Germania Life Insurance Company, which changed its name to "Guardian Life Insurance Company" in a burst of patriotic fervor during World War One (in 1918). The building was topped by a huge, illuminated "Guardian Life" sign until the insurance company moved further downtown (around 1998) and the trendy hotel took over its building and sign. The building was designated a NYC landmark in 1988.

[TREPYE]

Oh, really? What about all these?

http://images1.snapfish.com/3476774%3A2%7Ffp343%3Enu%3D3247%3E4%3A5%3E9%3A%3B% 3EWSNRCG%3D3233965598467nu0mrj

http://pictures.exploitz.com/Grand-Hyatt-photo-New-York-City--_srcgpx10001x14674x110790e44.jpg

http://www.readio.com/new-york-hotel/pictures/essex-house-hotel-new-york-city-pictures.jpg

http://www.newyorkology.com/archives/images/hotelempire-thumb.jpg

http://www.preservenys.org/images/W%20Hotel.jpg

All Tacky (BTW Hyatt does not count cuz its on the bottom not at the top)

You're right, I just don't understand your logic there. Doesn't make any sense. You even said: "it might sound contradictory." It does. And you've got to be kidding with the commemorative Times Square advertising nonsense.

I never said it was a contradiction. I stated my reason in an "if you think about it" tone, which is something you dont do much of when you disagree with people. As far as agreeing on a reason....I am willing to accept the fact that you would be tasteless enought to put a sign atop of a building. Its ok, not everyone is the same. :D Perhaps you should accept the fact that it is something that I do not prefer.

Like I said: I think you'll be hard-pressed to find people that bought more products and services from GE and MetLife because they saw the sign on top of their building. Not AT ALL the same as billboards and commercials.
Yeah cuz you know it all.....:rolleyes:

[BrooklynRider]

The Mansard roof is part of the original Guardian Life Building built in 1911, which was converted to the W. The building next to it is the back of a building on East 18th (I think.)

[Daquan13]

The Freedom Tower.

The Twins are too outdated and unsafe, techwise. Plus, some of the families don't want them to be rebuilt. Too many painful memories of 09-11.

[CHAPINM1]

The Freedom Tower.

The twins are too outdated and unsafe, techwise. Plus, some of the families don't want them to be rebuilt. Too many painful memories of 09-11.

I totally agree with the technical aspects, plus the Freedom Tower is a modern version of the twins but in addition will have all those up-to-date features. I really do like the glass facade the Freedom Tower will have also. Overall, I'm glad that for the most part it will be what it will. After the Freedom Tower was redesigned to its current design 3 years ago, I was very grateful and thought that the skyline will look that much familiar again.

[Daquan13]

I totally agree with the technical aspects, plus the Freedom Tower is a modern version of the twins but in addition will have all those up-to-date features. I really do like the glass facade the Freedom Tower will have also. Overall, I'm glad that for the most part it will be what it will. After the Freedom Tower was redesigned to its current design 3 years ago, I was very grateful and thought that the skyline will look that much familiar again.



Yes, I also became pleased with the present design. It certainly puts the three other designs before it to shame!!

Those other designs were an embarrassment for Ground Zero! I'm so glad now that the NYPD had stepped in and said that the previous design is not safe, was terrorist-prone and unbuildable! It was also ugly wiith a birdcrap gage on top. A disgusting pile of junk!!