WTC Tower One - by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

[JCMAN320]

Fioco I couldn't agree with you more. We did luck out, this isn't as bad as it could've been, but still could've been better, but w/e. Also the fact that it will be forever tied to the memorial.

I honestly think no one will ever hold the 1,776 height to any iconic standard, it will just be useless fact.

[TallGuy]

Imagine if they swapped the future 1WTC/Freedom Tower and 200 Greenwhich, leaving Freedom tower at the same height and increasing Foster's tower another few hundred feet? Now that would be something.

[Alonzo-ny]

I actually prefer the new antenna, it looks more functional than the old weird geometric donut. and now i understand those sections veng leaked to us way back. I think you just have to lower your expectations of the 'spire' i see it as what the old antenna was so im happy with it as im not looking at it as an architecturally integrated part of the design.

[212]

Just dreaming.....

That's gorgeous. I like it even better than any of the Libeskind renderings.
Doesn't just replace the twins. It surpasses them.

Architects Rogers+Foster+Scumonkey ... I like the sound of that ...

[scumonkey]

That's gorgeous. I like it even better than any of the Libeskind renderings.

That's funny.....it IS Libeskinds original tower (with the other new beauties at it's side)!

[212]

Oops

Now I see, from the model Derek posted. I hadn't seen the Libeskind tower from that angle before ... nice.

[Scraperfannyc]

But we had the misfortune of having one of most uninspiring politicians in ages -- Mr. Potato Head Pataki -- calling the shots. While trying to position himself as a Presidential Contender he blew a great opportunity for all the rest of us. Look what good it did him.

But I recall that the roof height of WTC1 was going to be significantly much shorter (like less than 1000 feet) based on the architectural designs and Silverstein's plans, and during the last moments, wasn't it pataki that raised the roof height significantly to it's current 1360+ feet, giving us a much higher observation deck and restaurant? If so, Mr Potato head deserves some credibility here.

If the freedom tower's roof height was less than 1000 feet, I'd bet all other towers would have much shorter roof heights too. This is why it is so important to break the roof height barriers that we have so that other developers will want to build more boldly too.

[Alonzo-ny]

I dont think it was potato heads idea i think it was egghead childs.

[TomAuch]

Hindsight is 20-20, and if we knew what Lower Manhattan would look like six years after the attacks, we probably would have gotten something a lot more interesting. While the FT and buildings 2-3 (not 4 and 5, which are clearly bland) are interesting geometrically-speaking, they seem more fitted for Hong Kong than New York. However, the nature of the site is not just a symbolic reference to the rebuilding process, but one that emulates our cultural trends in this contemporary age. Our post-9/11 desire for more security was bonded with an emotional desire to respond with restoration, as well as a contestation over the nature of grief and its geographical nature. At the same time, the "design by committee" trend that gave us the LMDC, "Listening to the City" and various other public hearings, was contradicted by the actions of a small coterie (ie. Silverstein, Pataki, Childs and Libeskind) in that they ultimately decided what "the masses" would interact with. By the time Spitzer took over, he felt no choice but to honor the actions of his predecessor.
Also, keep in mind that the Pro-Rebuilders and Memorialists, the two most passionate and vocal groups in the early rebuilding process (with community groups a distant third) received concessions that would seem unimaginable in other circumstances, and yet neither group is entirely pleased with the outcome. What we have at the WTC Site is a bundle of compromises in urban planning that has lead to people being more apathetic of the rebuilding process than they were in the first two years after 9/11.

With the benefit of hindsight...

If events that transpired over the years had been in place at the outset, maybe we could have gotten a Libeskind tower, or something else that broke the mold of the ordinary.

Let's remember that it was Silverstein who first had the task of building the FT, not the PA as is now the case. It's asking a lot of a private developer - with a massive lease, trouble with insurance carriers, a recession that was already beginning before 09/11, and a business exodus from Lower Manhattan - to put up a tower that devotes so much space to non-business use.

Even the compromise "birdcage" FT, with its large base to satisfy Silverstein, and its mostly empty upper segment to satisfy the public, accomplished neither. The PA and Silverstein argued over who would pay for the birdcage.

It would have been great if someone with vision stepped forward at the outset, and proposed that The PA, which built the original towers, take on the task of the iconic tower, and given Silverstein the rest of the site to fulfill his lease and develop commercial property.

In that environment, an architectural competition to develop the site might have might have produced more spectacular (and pragmatic) results.

All in all, I agree with Fioco. We dodged a bullet.

[Scraperfannyc]

Well, I thought Pataki at least supported a bump up in height. Silverstein orginally supported shorter buildings. Regardless, Pataki voiced our need to get our skyline back. This is what we could have ended up with:

[TomAuch]

Silverstein gave in, but he obviously wanted out of any obligation to build the FT due to perceived risk of future attacks. While Maki's tower is a shameful example of mediocrity, it would have been even worse had Silverstein gotten his way post-9/11 to build a series of squat 50 and 60 story buildings. Imagine five 700-800 foot Maki-style towers instead of one! It took public pressure by way of attendance at public hearings and massive email responses to sway Pataki.

[Derek2k3]

The original WTC and the Freedom Tower complete the skyline. The Burj Dubai would destroy it.

[cysthead30]

I dont agree....the Empire State building had that kind've massive presence over Manahattan when it was first built and that is THE classic skyscraper of NYC. I think NYC needs to continue its fine tradition of building soaring towers and build something over 2000 ft as well.

[lofter1]

For that ^^^ image to come to pass you'd either have to:

1) Level a good number of blocks of Chinatown and / or Little Italy

2) Level the various Court buildings near Foley Square, or

3) Level City Hall / City Hall Park



4) Level One Police Plaza

[ablarc]

^ There's a thought.