Page 3 of 48 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 711

Thread: Proposed WTC Tower #5 on Liberty Street

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kliq6 View Post
    Im telling you and this is from various PA and LS sources that a garage will be built where that tower is, above ground. the underground garage may be killed complely as there is to much security risk. The deal is that PA will actually wind up selling 5 back to Larry, even though that may sound totally unbelievable after all we have been thru
    That's simply too good to be true. The underground garage is the absolute worst part of the WTC site plan. Thus, I don't believe it will change.

  2. #32
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by finnman69 View Post
    The others don't 'work' with each other at all, so no reason to expect WTC 5 would be any different. All are unrelated towers.
    It just amazes me why people would make such statements without even explaining:

    1. what exactly about the towers that makes them not "work with each other?"

    2. why there has to be a need to have the 5 towers "work" with each other, like there's suppose to be some kind of common cookie-cutter theme they must adhere.

    3. why is it better to have them all work with each other, again, whatever "that" might be.

  3. #33
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mumbles View Post
    Has anyone ever lived across from such a large building being built? 10 floors up, would you suppose the construction noise will be intense?
    Depends on what time of the day you want to sleep.

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    613

    Default

    Oddly enough, the old 5WTC was almost entirely occupied by Morgan Stanley. Different company, but a coincidence none the less.

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by finnman69 View Post
    The others don't 'work' with each other at all, so no reason to expect WTC 5 would be any different. All are unrelated towers.
    They 'work' because as part of the masterplan they were supposed to slope down in height, which they do.

  6. #36
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    finnman, I was going to reply to your post line-by-line but since most of the content of it is just a bunch of rehashed babble about (1) Libeskind, (2) the need for things to be uniform and (3) Rockefeller Center, I'll just address them in a summary to save readers from enduring any more pain.

    1) Libeskind is a clown and his act was summarily dismissed. His only advocate was Pataki and now, you. Enough said.

    Those towers in his masterplan were not finalized designs, they were meant to be massing models. What does it say about your tastes when you find massing models so desirable?


    2) Uniformity and commonality may be a desirable trait in breeding livestock but it doesn't work so well when it comes to skylines and skyscrapers. Your incessant and asinine obsession with buildings having to "relate" and "reacting" to each other is becoming tiresome.

    As taught by the examples given by the Empire State building and the Chrysler building, the look-at-me tops is a very important part of a skyscraper. They are what will separate these cluster of towers from being otherwise, a very tall single-themed office park.


    3) Rockefeller Center had a lot of things going for it and NONE of which is what you claimed, which was having the same proportions/mass/materials, etc.

    The reason for RC's success is:

    a) its location in the heart of the largest commercial district in the world. You can't beat being in the middle of Manhattan on Fifth Ave. in the 50's.

    b) the variety of attractions in its plazas. You've got shops, restaurants, ice skating rinks, world famous Christmas trees, NBC and the Today Show, concerts, Radio Music Hall, etc.

    So you see, all of these things make Rockefeller Center the way it is now, and certainly not because of the nonsense about the buildings' massing and proportions and having the same materials.

    Not a single person goes there because it's got nice proportions.


    Lastly finnman, it's hard for anyone who's read your inane ramblings, to take you seriously anymore.

    Why I even bother to take time out to respond to your BS is beyond me.

  7. #37
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    That's a good joke ^^^

    But you might be right ... the NBC store has more to do with the success of RC as a DESTINATION in the CITY than the overall sense of place + pleasure brought about by the massing / materials / layout of the complex .

  8. #38

    Default

    Actually antinimby, I tend to agree more with finnman than with your angry rant. My first reaction was that you're totally missing the point but instead I think there's something that's making you so angry that you're missing the obvious.

  9. #39
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    What's the obvious then?

    I understood his point perfectly well. That's why I was able to respond to each of them, however ridiculous they may be.

    Trust me, there's no anger, just frustration in hearing the same jargon over and over again in various other threads.

  10. #40

    Default

    Antinimby, I suspect that finnman is just as frustrated as you, but if you reread his post, you won't find phrases such as:

    a bunch of rehashed babble, or however ridiculous they may be.

  11. #41
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Hey, but that's what I think of his repertoire.

    Anyway, I can see how I might have crossed the smart reply vs. angry rant fine line now looking at it from a third-party perspective.

    I will try to keep the "adjectives" to a minimum.

  12. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    1) Libeskind is a clown and his act was summarily dismissed.
    After he sued Larry, and embarrassed himself of course.

    It always amazes when people think Libeskind's master plan meant he'd actually get to design the buildings, or that the buildings in fact had to resemble his own. Nonsense. In fact, Libeskind did try to include some of that into the WTC master plan, until the LMDC had to go back and change it. Afterall, it was known from the beginning that Larry Silverstein would be bringing in his own architects.

    But back to Libeskind's site plan, it's more than just a coincidence that all of the major delays in rebuilding are as a rusult of trying to follow it too closely.

    Months and months of Libeskind battling David Childs over the actual design of the Freedom Tower should have been avoided, but Pataki had higher office on his mind, and needed something sybolic at 1,776 ft. Afterall, it was he alone who picked the plan.

    But as if that wasn't enough, no alarms went off when Libeskind insisted that the Freedom Tower's western wall be "flush" or aligned with the slurry wall along West Street. Imagine the debacle if the tower were actually on the way up when someone suddenly realized the NYPD's warning.

    But enough about Libeskind's messes. He's been banished from the site, thankfully. He'll only return now and again for photo ops and quotes. At least we won't have to worry about Pataki.

  13. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
    Imagine the debacle if the tower were actually on the way up when someone suddenly realized the NYPD's warning.
    Nobody ever cared what the NYPD thought. That whole load of BS was a face-saving measure.

  14. #44
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default Don't get catty 'cause I proved you wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by finnman69 View Post
    BWAHAHAHAHAA!
    You say there is no uniformity in proportion and massing, detailing, materials at Rock Center?
    BWAAHAHAHAHA!
    Did I say there was no uniformity?

    Maybe you need to read my post again 'cause comprehension of other people's posts is obviously not your strong point.

    BWAHAHAHAHA!

    Quote Originally Posted by finnman69 View Post
    You just proved you don't have a clue what you are talking about. If you think my thoughtful reasoned and detailed response to your request for an elaboration was just a "bunch of rehashed babble" you really need to step away from these forums since you are unwilling to listen.
    Look at who's unable to listen now.

    Btw, I "listened" to all your talk and then even made a point by point reply dismissing all of it.

  15. #45

    Cool another point of view

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    ...
    1) Libeskind is a clown and his act was summarily dismissed. His only advocate was Pataki and now, you. Enough said.

    Those towers in his masterplan were not finalized designs, they were meant to be massing models. What does it say about your tastes when you find massing models so desirable?


    2) Uniformity and commonality may be a desirable trait in breeding livestock but it doesn't work so well when it comes to skylines and skyscrapers. Your incessant and asinine obsession with buildings having to "relate" and "reacting" to each other is becoming tiresome.

    As taught by the examples given by the Empire State building and the Chrysler building, the look-at-me tops is a very important part of a skyscraper. They are what will separate these cluster of towers from being otherwise, a very tall single-themed office park.


    3) Rockefeller Center had a lot of things going for it and NONE of which is what you claimed, which was having the same proportions/mass/materials, etc.

    The reason for RC's success is:

    a) its location in the heart of the largest commercial district in the world. You can't beat being in the middle of Manhattan on Fifth Ave. in the 50's.

    b) the variety of attractions in its plazas. You've got shops, restaurants, ice skating rinks, world famous Christmas trees, NBC and the Today Show, concerts, Radio Music Hall, etc.
    While I hesitate to enter the fray out of fear of the expletives that might ensue I should point out a few things about Rockefeller Center (which I do think is a very apt point of comparison with the WTC) and the new WTC towers...

    Let me point out, before I begin, that I am an architect, I am not a NIMBY, do not like 'contextulist buildings' (in the NY sense of the word), I like Renzo Piano and Diller & Scofidio, hate Liebeskind (and Gene Kaufman), think the WTC process until now has been a fiasco, I supported Atlantic Yards, like to walk in the rain, drink Pina Coladas, and go to the beach...

    with that in mind...

    A) When Rock Center was built, the area around it was not the largest commerical district in the world -- much of it, in fact, was occupied by tenements, garment shops, and slop houses ... it is RC's success that turned it into the central district it became... most of mid-town's earlier high rises were down further south, near 34th -- not up by 50th.

    B) RC has attracted so many of those events because, first and foremost, it is a GREAT SPACE. The quality of its streets and plazas has a lot to do with it being a unified urban scheme... unlike so much of NYC's grid which is a continuous fabric, RC has a series of well defined public spaces and this accounts for the festivals and activites that congregate there... this has nothing to do of course with it being in the Art Deco style or being stone instead of glass... but it has everything to do with the fact that buildings are conceived of as a means to define space as opposed to sculptural objects loosely thrown about the site.

    This is precisely what the WTC has become, with the latest round of designs.

    Love it or hate it (i disliked it, myself) the Liebeskind plan had one thing going for it: it was the only plan who's focus was more on the space defined by the 'spiral of towers' than by the shape of the towers themselves. This was, in fact, why it was picked. Any of the other masterplan designs would have to have been designed by the architect responsible for it (for example to pick Foster's plan, which i though was beautiful, required that foster design the towers). Liebeskind's massings were loose enough that the PA and silverstein knew they could get SOM to come in and finish...

    While the spaces defined by the spiral are poorly planned and formed, IMO, the fact remains that though the buildings needn't look the same, all of them should try to work to define those spaces -- since that is such an important part of the plan, and since quality urban space is so important to the success of any large urban complex. This isn't something that only operates in plan, but also in section... while the towers all seem to have the right locations in plan I would side with finnman in that I question whether they acknowledge the space in section...

    To come back to RC -- the parallels are striking... the complex was also designed by three of the most famous designers in new york (Harrison, Courbett and Hood) working together with two larger corporate offices (who's names escape me). There were endless arguments among the three, and the maneuvering of harrison around the other two is the stuff of legend... but in the end, by focusing on the spaces, a majestic result was achieved...

    if only we could be so fortunate here (i think not)...

    Sorry for the length... but I felt it was worth putting out there...

    Let's keep the blows above the belt (i know i'm tightening my stomach for one)... ;-)

Page 3 of 48 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New York Times Tower - 620 Eighth Avenue @ W. 41st Street - by Renzo Piano
    By noharmony in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 3237
    Last Post: June 4th, 2014, 03:39 PM
  2. Liberty Enlightening the World (Statue of Liberty)
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 175
    Last Post: June 30th, 2013, 10:57 PM
  3. 165 Charles Street @ West Street - by Richard Meier
    By ASchwarz in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: June 8th, 2010, 06:36 PM
  4. Liberty Bonds
    By BrooklynRider in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 12th, 2006, 11:06 AM
  5. Director's Guild of America Tower -110 West 57th Street
    By londonlawyer in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 18th, 2003, 12:37 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software