Reply With QuoteMaybe it's fitting that it has come to this. Let the cornerstone be the memorial and leave the site empty. Minimalism incarnate.
I am more than satisfied; I believe that the final design surpasses that of the original World Trade Center. 10/10
While nothing may ever live up to the Twin Towers, I am wholly satisfied with the new World Trade Center; it is a new symbol for a new era. 7/10
I have come to terms with the new World Trade Center; although it has a number of flaws, I find the design to be acceptable. 5/10
I am wholly disappointed with the New World Trade Center; we will live to regret the final design. 0/10
I am biased, but honest, and hate anything that is not a reincarnation of the original Twin Towers.
Guiliani officially wants the site to be all memorial.
Trump said basically he wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, the site is unrentable.
You've seen what Pataki has done already.
Maybe it's fitting that it has come to this. Let the cornerstone be the memorial and leave the site empty. Minimalism incarnate.
Hmmm, i wasn't in favor of the freedom tower, but i think that we really need to build something there. The site does hold an in surpasable amount of cultural and historical values and it cannot be undermined by a stingy memorial space. So after thinking about this for some time, i think that the space should be half memorial and half commerical and mainly cultural, i.e concert halls, plays, malls, all of that. Also, the huge stink that we made about the freedom tower is bitting us in the ass. We sparked a huge race for the tallest tower with Dubai, an arab city, and now with us in a sense backing out (all thought not yet official but probably will happen), it seems as if we backed out because we were affraid.
Very complicated, and overly so. Also thing that i'm trying to say is that there needs to be an appeasment of the needs of all; the family members, the astetics of the view, and the lost revenues of the city.
Silverstein Asks for More
By Barbara Jarvie
Last updated: April 25, 2005 08:02am
NEW YORK CITY-Silverstein Properties has applied for an additional $3.5 billion in Liberty Bond financing with the New York City Industrial Development Agency to go toward the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site. In January, the IDA gave the go ahead for $475 million of New York Liberty Bonds to be used for the reconstruction and permanent financing of 7 World Trade Center. The developer plans the 1,776-ft Freedom Tower, which will have 2.6 million sf of office space on 60 stories on the WTC site.
While not issuing any statement on this latest application, Silverstein has never made a secret of his belief that the rebuilding of the World Trade Center required substantial Liberty Bond financing. “Monies are absolutely essential. We will still need Liberty Bond financing. It will be absolutely critical to get it rebuilt,” he said earlier this year. And last year, during in a series of city council hearings on funding for Lower Manhattan redevelopment, John Lieber, senior vice president of World Trade Center LLC, a Silverstein Properties company, issued a call that the funds remaining in the Liberty Bond pool should be allocated and preserved for the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site.
It is anticipated that approximately $3.5 billion has not yet been earmarked for specific projects. The Liberty Bond Program is designed to provide tax-exempt bond financing for major projects to revitalize Lower Manhattan and New York City using $8 billion in bond issuance authority. It is part of the $21-billion package of spending and tax provisions that New York received in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.
© 2005 by GlobeSt.com
It already happened, the current tower and site plan is a wane shadow of the one we expected at the end of the design competition.Originally Posted by tonyo
I'm glad the subject, however moot, of rebuilding the twins is back on the table. That's what I'd most like to see.
Rebuilding "the twins" (OMG how sick I am of that phrase) is most definitely not back on the table. What would even give you that idea beyond a bout of wishful thinking?
April 24, 2005
NY TIMES
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Move the United Nations Downtown
By FRED A. BERNSTEIN
The Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center site is supposed to begin rising next year - and so far not a single tenant has signed on. At the same time, the United Nations desperately needs new office space in Manhattan.
Last fall, the State Senate voted against the United Nations' plan to build an office tower at First Avenue and 42nd Street. The plan was not only impractical, but also unimaginative. Instead, the United Nations should establish a foothold - physically and symbolically - at the site of the deadliest terrorist attack in history.
Clearly, the United Nations needs more space. It outgrew its iconic tower decades ago. Operations have spilled over into half a dozen buildings in Midtown. Consolidation would bring efficiency and savings and would help keep the organization in New York.
At the same time, the existing glass-walled headquarters, built in 1952, is in dire need of renovation. Leaky roofs, inadequate air-conditioning and the presence of asbestos, which has prevented stop-gap renovations, have made working there a nightmare for employees.
But before the United Nations can begin renovating, it needs some place to move thousands of employees.
In the late 1990's, it began making plans for a new tower on Robert Moses Playground on First Avenue, immediately south of its existing building. The idea was that workers would move there while the old Secretariat building was being renovated; when that project was complete, employees in far-flung offices would move to the new building.
Designed by the Japanese architect Fumihiko Maki, the 35-story building would cost hundreds of millions of dollars (guaranteed by American taxpayers), would take at least three years to build and would eliminate a much-used recreation area in a largely residential section of Manhattan.
But with that plan on hold, at least for now (the State Senate majority leader, Joseph Bruno, left open the idea that the project might be reconsidered), the United Nations needs to come up with another solution.
At the same time, 7 World Trade Center, with 1.7 million square feet of office space, is nearing completion. And the Freedom Tower, which will have 2.6 million square feet of office space, is supposed to be finished later this decade. When Larry Silverstein, the World Trade Center leaseholder, won a major court victory against his insurance companies last fall, the building's financing was assured.
So far, neither 7 World Trade Center nor the Freedom Tower has a single tenant (with the possible exception of Mr. Silverstein's own office).
And neither building is likely to find a tenant anytime soon. The downtown office market is weak. And what company would want to rent space at ground zero? The site will always be a tourist-clogged curiosity, and - sadly - a potential terrorist target.
Why would an employer move there, when so much other office space is going begging? But with the United Nations as the lead tenant, representatives of 191 countries would have a stake in the future of ground zero.
Alas, the United Nations' approach to its own space needs has been bland and bureaucratic. Reportedly, it has insisted on the 42nd Street site for reasons of security and convenience.
But the building - over the Queens-Midtown Tunnel and surrounded by ramps for the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive - would be difficult to secure. At the same time, any building at ground zero will have state-of-the-art security.
As to convenience, sure, United Nations' employees would prefer not to have to travel between the East Forties and Lower Manhattan. But shuttle buses to the inspiring new ground zero transportation hub could make the trip a pleasure.
By taking space at ground zero, the United Nations would solve its space problem, practically overnight. But more than that, it would capture the public's imagination.
The Freedom Tower could, in a way no one predicted, become a true symbol of freedom.
Fred A. Bernstein is the senior contributing editor at Metropolitan Home.
There seems to be no reason I can see that what was said in that article isn't completely true.
I haven't posted much on this topic lately. Living here and seeing this site every day has a grinding, cumulative, numbing effect on the mind. Maybe later I can gather thoughts into a rational post.
For now, I mostly agree with this post on the importance of the PATH station. With its underground connections and retail, it will bring people onto the site in a more normal environment. Some streets wil lbe constructed, so that the site will start to resemble more of a vacant cityscape than a giant meteor crater.
TOWER TERROR FEARS
By TOM TOPOUSIS and STEVE CUOZZO
April 26, 2005 -- Police concerns about protecting the Freedom Tower from terrorists have forced the developer of the world's tallest building to go back to the drawing board for significant design changes that could further delay the project.
Ground Zero developer Larry Silverstein was given the findings from NYPD counterterror experts three weeks ago, sources said yesterday.
NYPD spokesman Paul Browne declined to discuss the report because it involves counterterrorism strategies. But he said the department's concerns about protecting the 1,776-foot tower go back more than three weeks.
"The Freedom Tower must be built in a manner consistent with the highest safety and security standards and yet allow for a bold design that reclaims New York's skyline with an enduring symbol of freedom," said a spokeswoman for Gov. Pataki.
said design changes in the Freedom Tower won't slow other efforts to rebuild the area, including the groundbreaking for a new transit hub this summer and construction of the 9/11 memorial to begin in 2006.
A spokesman for Silverstein insisted that "safety and security are of the utmost importance" to the developer.
"The New York Police Department recently raised new questions, which we are now addressing with all our governmental partners, including the NYPD," said Silverstein's spokesman.
Published reports last year cited NYPD concerns about the location of the tower just 25 feet from the street and recommended moving it farther back.
Sources familiar with the project and the security issues said the design changes shouldn't set the project back more than several months and would not result in moving the building on the site.
Before the call for changes, the tower was slated to be complete in 2009, with steel rising next year.
One source cited frustration with the NYPD bringing up the security issue so late in the rebuilding process but said every effort would be made to ensure that the tower will be as safe and secure as possible.
Copyright 2005 NYP Holdings, Inc.
Would someone verify this: Isn't the footprint of the FT larger than what was called for in the master plan?Published reports last year cited NYPD concerns about the location of the tower just 25 feet from the street and recommended moving it farther back.
I remember the issue of the FT being too close to Vesey St came up late last year.
Yes, the footprint is much larger than what is called for in the master plan. There was supposed to be a small plaza/park along Fulton, not Vesey though, at least that I remember.
Gee I got the idea from an April 7th article posted April 22 by BrooklynRider titled "Rebuilding the Towers."
Also the NYPost very recently devoted their entire letters to the editor column to people favoring the idea.
I'll grant that it is an immense long shot. But why so hostile to a simple observation that the subject has indeed reappeared in the public dialogue?
The Post giving editorial space on the subject, which they've done all along, is a long way from anybody actually involved saying something about it. They have all, categorically, said that they will not be rebuilt. Eidtorial in the Post not withstanding.
I didn't SAY that anyone involved said anything about it.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks