Page 18 of 968 FirstFirst ... 81415161718192021222868118518 ... LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 14513

Thread: WTC Tower One - by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

  1. #256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Wieland
    He's a hack, and you don't know jack.
    Cesar Pelli is quite a talented fellow. One need only look at shots of the WTC before vs. after the WFC enveloped it to see what a masterpiece he created in the Lower Manhattan skyline. That does not mean, however, that he is right for the WTC site. But he probably is the right architect for BPC Site 26, should Goldman Sachs go forward with its plans.

  2. #257

    Default

    The World Financial Center, the retro Lego Rock Center? What a masterpiece indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liz L
    Christian, I'm sorry I started a thread on an old topic - but it was the first time I'd heard about it. I guess I just won't assume anything I've just found out about is breaking news in the future. If I made any spelling mistakes, well, I was doing that post on my lunch break, so I was a little bit pressed for time.

    But saying I "don't know jack" is a little bit harsh, don't you think?

    And in my perhaps ignorant opinion, Pelli has designed some skyscrapers that are much nicer than Libeskind's; from the photos I've seen, I think his Bank of America Center in Charlotte is especially nice.
    Cesar Pelli is a commercial architect who produces formulaic corporate power fetishes with a lack of integrity reflected in his eclectic fašades, which is all this shallow designer is good for.

    And notice that Childs is the lead architect of the tower. No need to worry about concerns voiced by him as he is in a position to address them.

    I knew your "scoop" was intended to serve your reactionary agenda, hence my response.

  3. #258

    Default

    Hmm, Christian, so I have a "reactionary agenda?" Well, let's see...

    I must confess that, for the most part, I really dislike decconstructionist architecture, for the philosophy behind it as much as the buildings. I need to do more reading on the subject, but one of its basic ideas is that truth is only a construct determined by whichever elite is in power at any moment, which in turn means that words, including concepts like "beauty," have no real meanings. And when "decon" is expressed in architecture, that becomes glaringly obvious. I am thinking right now of most of the rebuilding concepts displayed at the Max Protech Gallery a while back, which I assume are examples of "decon," and which I consider some of the worst architectural trash I've yet seen. If they aren't specifically "decon," BTW, please feel free to correct me...

    I base that judgment on what I consider to be a basic part of beauty, the idea of unity without monotony and variety without chaos. And I hate to say this, but most of those plans are completely tilted towards chaos - in fact, they've slammed and crashed right into chaos as if chaos were a concrete wall, leaving huge piles of wreckage. So of course they also don't have something else I see as an important part of beauty, which is the harmonious relationship of the parts to the whole, and of the parts to each other.

    I also must confess, that while Mr. Libeskind's plan is, ironically, better than most of those other "decon" notions, it still has too much chaos and not enough harmony. I also understand that the annex to the Jewish museum in Berlin he designed is so alientating (starting with windows in odd places) that it makes people profoundly uncomfortable. Now "decon" might make sense here, as it hammers home the message "never forget!" But I don't think we need this in Manhattan - for starters, I don't think anyone visiting the site is going to need to be reminded not to slam planes into skyscrapers.

    I would also argue that "decon", with its denial of truth (and, I assume, of the idea that there are some things worth fighting for) has NO PLACE on the WTC site, of all places.

    Finally, I would like to see something rise on that site that somehow reflects and fits in with New York's architectural heritage, which includes, in its Art Deco towers, some of the most beautiful skyscrapers yet built....I'd like to see towers that soar proudly skyward with the class and confidence of the Empire State and Chrysler buildings...

    So, if that's "reactionary," well, I guess I'm guilty as charged!

    Final question - how would you say that a building's facade can show "integrity?" Just curious...

  4. #259

    Default

    If Liz's dislike of the current plans constitutes a "reactionary agenda", then it would seem that almost all of us who post here are "reactionaries" as well. As for Cesar Pelli, his work has been lauded by, among numerous others, the brilliant architectural critic and scholar Vincent Scully, who has more taste and knowledge on this subject in the grit of his pinky nail than you have in your entire extended family.

  5. #260

    Default

    Libeskind's towers are baloney. Here is Libeskind's exaggerated rendering.



    http://www.justinberzon.com/BRHome.htm


    MINORU YAMASAKI

    WORLD TRADE CENTER

    DANIEL LIBESKIND

    WORLD TRADE CENTER

    (with DAVID CHILDS HEIGHT REVISIONS)



    Occupiable height: 110 stories

    Office space onsite: 10 million sq. feet

    Height to the rooftop/structural top: 1,368 feet

    Height to the tip of antenna: 1,727 feet

    Main office footprint: 2 acres


    Occupiable height: 70 stories

    Office space onsite: Approx 8 million sq. feet

    Height to the rooftop/structural top: Est. 945 feet/1,776 feet

    Height to the tip of antenna: 2,000-2,100 feet

    Main office footprint: Approx. 8 acres

    In order to best comprehend the skyline impact of the new World Trade Center, these images should be viewed from a distance of ten feet. NOTE: The spire in the Libeskind image has been generously drawn to a height of 2,100 feet -- the top end of the range planners have so far suggested. When the final architectural plan for the Freedom Tower is unveiled on December 15, 2003, the spire is expected to be closer to 2,000 feet, as well as consist of an open-air steel latticework above the occupied office space, rather than the enclosed glass column proposed in the image above. In other words, it would appear even lighter and more spindly in reality. This image will be updated accordingly.



  6. #261

    Default

    http://www.justinberzon.com/BRHome.htm

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    DECEMBER 8, 2003

    Media Contact: (847) 727-6421, media@justinberzon.com

    NEWS ORGANIZATIONS MAY FREELY

    RETRANSMIT THIS ARTICLE


    World Trade Center master planner
    exaggerated skyline impact of new design

    originally published at justinberzon.com

    520 words

    GRAPHICS AVAILABLE


    NEW YORK – At the times when WTC master planner Daniel Libeskind presented both his initial designs and the winning version of his plan, the buildings in his widely published skyline rendering were significantly overscaled, falsely depicting their actual skyline impact.

    Libeskind’s office towers and signature 1,776-foot spire were exaggerated in height by approximately 13.4 to 34.7 percent.

    The height inaccuracies were first detailed in a study titled “The Berzon Report,” released by investigative journalist Justin Berzon. Berzon calculated the height discrepancies using simple rescaling tools within photo-editing computer software, checking Libeskind’s published dimensions against the known heights of the surrounding buildings.

    Libeskind’s 1,776-foot spire, christened Freedom Tower by New York Governor George Pataki and meant to symbolize America’s year of independence, was drawn to a height of approximately 2,168 feet, or 22.1 percent taller (approximately 392 feet) than it would appear in reality.

    “If that drawing is accurate, I guess we can all thank Daniel Libeskind for the next 165 years of British rule we apparently have to look forward to,” Berzon said.

    Libeskind’s tallest office tower, which according to his schematic blueprints was slated to top out at 920 feet (70 stories), was drawn to a height of approximately 1,120 feet – about the height of Chicago’s 100-story John Hancock Tower or to the base of the Empire State Building’s rooftop mast. Another of his office towers was exaggerated by more than 260 feet or about 19-22 stories.

    Libeskind’s responsibility for the inflated building heights is uncertain. Studio Libeskind would not respond to an interview request on the matter. But in July 2003, Libeskind told the New York Times: “At our studio, we've done all the working drawings for our buildings ourselves. I'm a great believer in not farming out those responsibilities to another office.”

    It is also notable that the shortest of the proposed office buildings, with a height that would not breach the skyline, was drawn to perfect scale. Only those buildings that were meant to peek out slightly over the surrounding buildings and make a visible skyline impact were exaggerated.

    The last wave of revisions to the Libeskind plan, announced in September 2003, called for a slight increase in the overall height of the office buildings, as well as the possibility of extending the Freedom Tower’s broadcast antenna to 2,000 feet. However, those extensions would still fail to cover the height discrepancy in the signature image.

    Although Libeskind may originally have planned for taller office buildings in his preliminary sketches, at no time during the competition was the Freedom Tower meant to exceed 1,776 feet, as it did by almost 400 feet in the image. Although Libeskind revised several of his signature images during the month when the two finalists revised their plans, the skyline image plan still contained both the overscaled tower and office buildings when presented in winning form.

    The overscaled skyline image depicts Libeskind’s structures against the backdrop of the Lower Manhattan skyline and has become one of the four main images used by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) to promote his plan. The LMDC is the city-state agency overseeing reconstruction efforts at Ground Zero.

  7. #262

    Default

    The skyline still looks so bare with this little dinky needle popping out :? It is not very prominent at all..It just reminds me of those big radio towers and now one will be popping out of Lower Manhattan...

  8. #263

    Default

    Of course Childs' design won't look like this at all. Plus the other towers will be designed by an array of architects so who knows what it will really look like.

  9. #264

    Default

    I hope we'll know by next week....

  10. #265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by finnman69
    This illustrates is what I think is baloney about the "it's the tallest building ever built" sell line. It's HALF the size of the Sears tower, people! What is really is IS the tallest Antennea ever built! YAY!

    It's insulting to the memory of the towers and the intelligence of the public. It's hypocritcal. If you're too afraid to build high, then don't try to pretend that you are building high. Make a squat little building and tell everyone, "We're replacing the most majestic towers ever build with a squat little hideous thing." Enjoy! :twisted:

  11. #266
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Harlem
    Posts
    2,805

    Default

    In case you didn't notice, that comparison is exaggerated and FT is smaller than it actually is.

  12. #267

    Default

    Yeah, the picture is definately exaggerated. I think the REAL roof of the freedom tower is supposed to surpass the whole chrysler building. But the picture is good at getting a point across. If this counts as the worlds WTB then huge antennas will have to be counted as well. But don't get too worried because the real design is coming out this monday, and I'm sure it won't look a thing like that.

  13. #268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulcrapek
    In case you didn't notice, that comparison is exaggerated and FT is smaller than it actually is.
    So the occupiable space is world class? it really has occupiable floors higher than other building in this world? NYC is setting a new standard and not just in antennea height?

  14. #269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulcrapek
    In case you didn't notice, that comparison is exaggerated and FT is smaller than it actually is.
    Not to mention that the ESB has 2.25 mill sq ft office space while the FT is proposed to have 2.6

  15. #270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Liz L
    Hmm, Christian, so I have a "reactionary agenda?" Well, let's see...

    I must confess that, for the most part, I really dislike decconstructionist architecture, for the philosophy behind it as much as the buildings. I need to do more reading on the subject, but one of its basic ideas is that truth is only a construct determined by whichever elite is in power at any moment, which in turn means that words, including concepts like "beauty," have no real meanings. And when "decon" is expressed in architecture, that becomes glaringly obvious. I am thinking right now of most of the rebuilding concepts displayed at the Max Protech Gallery a while back, which I assume are examples of "decon," and which I consider some of the worst architectural trash I've yet seen. If they aren't specifically "decon," BTW, please feel free to correct me...

    I base that judgment on what I consider to be a basic part of beauty, the idea of unity without monotony and variety without chaos. And I hate to say this, but most of those plans are completely tilted towards chaos - in fact, they've slammed and crashed right into chaos as if chaos were a concrete wall, leaving huge piles of wreckage. So of course they also don't have something else I see as an important part of beauty, which is the harmonious relationship of the parts to the whole, and of the parts to each other.

    I also must confess, that while Mr. Libeskind's plan is, ironically, better than most of those other "decon" notions, it still has too much chaos and not enough harmony. I also understand that the annex to the Jewish museum in Berlin he designed is so alientating (starting with windows in odd places) that it makes people profoundly uncomfortable. Now "decon" might make sense here, as it hammers home the message "never forget!" But I don't think we need this in Manhattan - for starters, I don't think anyone visiting the site is going to need to be reminded not to slam planes into skyscrapers.

    I would also argue that "decon", with its denial of truth (and, I assume, of the idea that there are some things worth fighting for) has NO PLACE on the WTC site, of all places.

    Finally, I would like to see something rise on that site that somehow reflects and fits in with New York's architectural heritage, which includes, in its Art Deco towers, some of the most beautiful skyscrapers yet built....I'd like to see towers that soar proudly skyward with the class and confidence of the Empire State and Chrysler buildings...

    So, if that's "reactionary," well, I guess I'm guilty as charged! :D

    Final question - how would you say that a building's facade can show "integrity?" Just curious... :D
    By not having a deceptive appearance - faking a material other than used - for instance.

    Libeskind's scheme is not deconstructivist (although some of his work has been described as such) nor were generally those at the gallery. You've just found a convenient term and theory to reject architecture that bothers you - whatever is incompatible with your rigid preconceptions, apparently. It's delirious bullshit.

    Quote Originally Posted by BPC
    If Liz's dislike of the current plans constitutes a "reactionary agenda", then it would seem that almost all of us who post here are "reactionaries" as well. As for Cesar Pelli, his work has been lauded by, among numerous others, the brilliant architectural critic and scholar Vincent Scully, who has more taste and knowledge on this subject in the grit of his pinky nail than you have in your entire extended family.
    I suppose I should bow before the critical authority you invoked, making you a windbag with a reference. Last time you complained about name-calling while doing the same and you now offer more of your offensive trash to a moderator. I base my characterizations on your words, whereas your petty insults are mere products of your imagination and stupidity - mention my family again and you're gone. Your attempt to take refuge among a majority of members is ironic considering one of the most common dislikes here is that of NIMBY bitches like you.

Similar Threads

  1. New 51-story tower Downtown
    By NYguy in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: January 17th, 2006, 09:20 PM
  2. Renderings CIBC Tower
    By NoyokA in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: July 19th, 2003, 07:17 PM
  3. 3 Buildings From 1830's Threatened By a Tower - Downtown
    By Kris in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 29th, 2003, 11:08 AM
  4. A Home Depot in the Bloomberg Tower?
    By NYguy in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 15th, 2003, 03:16 AM
  5. Special Issues for Merrill, the Landlord
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2002, 12:04 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