Final WTC Design Chosen

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 7:54 am

They decided on Daniel Libeskind's design. You can view a slide show of it here.

Comments, thoughts, opinions? Do we have an architects on this forum? Or any New Yorkers?

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 8:05 am

I thought they should have made it into a park, of course that could never happen with such a prime real estate piece of land.

Bloodmist · Post by **Bloodmist** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 8:12 am

That's very cool... But I also tend to like futuristic architecture.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 9:01 am

I think the loss of life on 9/11 was horrible, and the attacks were a terrible blow to America. I'd like for someone to erect an appropriate memorial to honor the fallen and the rescuers. However, I'm afraid that the new World Trade Center will not be able to meet our symbolic needs, because the commercial needs of the developers will always take precedence. Maybe I'm just cynical, but one reason I say that is because our government has failed to honor the promises it made at the time of the attack. IMHO, symbolism loses a lot of its value when it isn't backed up by something more substantive than empty words and broken promises, and I'll think of that every time I see the new WTC. That's my two cents. As for the design itself, I'd rather not comment.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 1:20 pm

Could anything live up to the hopes, could anything provide balm to the wound that still bleeds. The architecture is striking, but I can't help feeling sad. I guess, if it were up to me, I would rebuild the Towers, as they stood, on 9/10, but even then, there is no way to ever turn back the hands of time, so that there was never a 9/11.....

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 3:11 pm

I don't like the new "future" look. I find it almost comical to look at the pictures they had.

A park, or a memorial would have been much better...

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 4:56 pm

Ugly buildings, they will look like a bad joke in five years time.

I think that a small area of grass where the towers stood would have been a much more sensitive and sensible idea.

And something dedicated to remembering and celebrating the people who died there, human spirit, and peace.

Not another architectural dollar sign.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 5:01 pm

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
I thought they should have made it into a park, of course that could never happen with such a prime real estate piece of land.

Or something reminiscent of "Hallowed Ground"

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 5:17 pm

Originally posted by frogus
...Not another architectural dollar sign.

But I like dollar signs!

Interesting that most people think the area should be left as a park. I guess I'm of another opinion. I like the idea of building another tall structure. I don't know that I like the Libeskind design (I'm not real hip to any of Libeskind's stuff, actually), but I'm glad they decided on something that will give the Manhatten skyline a distinctive and forceful look. There will be a large memorial area included on the grounds, though, too.

Some interesting things about the design: the tall structure next to the lower structures will have big garden areas on the higher floors. The height will be 1,776 feet - in memory of the year America claimed independance. That tall stucture next to the lower structure is meant to echo the look of the statue of liberty holding up her torch. There is a "gallery of light" (or something like that) that will be illuminated fully and perfectly by the alignment of the sun each September 11th.

@Vondondu: feel free to comment on the design. That's what the thread is for. Comment on anything you wish - I didn't even specify no spam, so ...

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 5:24 pm

Originally posted by Lazarus
But I like dollar signs!

Interesting that most people think the area should be left as a park. I guess I'm of another opinion. I like the idea of building another tall structure. I don't know that I like the Libeskind design (I'm not real hip to any of Libeskind's stuff, actually), but I'm glad they decided on something that will give the Manhatten skyline a distinctive and forceful look. There will be a large memorial area included on the grounds, though, too.

Some interesting things about the design: the tall structure next to the lower structures will have big garden areas on the higher floors. The height will be 1,776 feet - in memory of the year America claimed independance. That tall stucture next to the lower structure is meant to echo the look of the statue of liberty holding up her torch. There is a "gallery of light" (or something like that) that will be illuminated fully and perfectly by the alignment of the sun each September 11th.

@Vondondu: feel free to comment on the design. That's what the thread is for. Comment on anything you wish - I didn't even specify no spam, so ...

While I like the open pavillion, and the spire is a powerful archetectural statement...the circlet of buildings remind me somewhat of broken crystals.....and I feel depressed when I look at them.....I would, as I said before...prefer two magnificent towers.......along with a pavillion. An area, sacred, and hallowed..it is a grave yard after all

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 5:28 pm

That's funny, Scayde - someone in my office said the exact same thing about the design looking like broken crystals! The image he was reminded of was from the Superman movies, and that lair that Superman had in the arctic, with all the crystals sticking all over at odd angles ... and I agree. There is something just a bit "crooked" about Libeskind's design (and many of his designs) that makes me step back, scratch my head, and feel sorta sad and lost. Don't know why ...

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 5:39 pm

Originally posted by Lazarus
That's funny, Scayde - someone in my office said the exact same thing about the design looking like broken crystals! The image he was reminded of was from the Superman movies, and that lair that Superman had in the arctic, with all the crystals sticking all over at odd angles ... and I agree. There is something just a bit "crooked" about Libeskind's design (and many of his designs) that makes me step back, scratch my head, and feel sorta sad and lost. Don't know why ...

Hmm.Interesting......I kinda remember the movie.I was a kid whenit came out.....

I am ont sure why it makes me think of broken crystals, but the whole thing just looks ..well....shattered to me...

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 6:23 pm

Nice. Something unique for the NY skyline, evoking memories but new at the same time.

der Moench · Post by **der Moench** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 8:52 pm

Well, this is from the German (online) magazine "Der Spiegel." Even if you don't speak German, it has some nice pictures (better, I think, than the slide show linked above), and you can enlarge them by clicking on them.

I can't quite tell, but it almost looks like those shorter buildings will be all glass over the roof area. That would be pretty awesome.

Peace.

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 9:01 pm

I know most people what some sort of memorial park and I want one too. But I really want the twin towers back. The same thing, exact same from outside. They were stunning to look from NJ shore. There wasn't really anything greater than to look at them tower over the city. NYC had the greatest skyline in the world and those two defined it. I really want them back, but it doesn't look like thats happening.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 9:04 pm

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield
I know most people what some sort of memorial park and I want one too. But I really want the twin towers back. The same thing, exact same from outside. They were stunning to look from NJ shore. There wasn't really anything greater than to look at them tower over the city. NYC had the greatest skyline in the world and those two defined it. I really want them back, but it doesn't look like thats happening.

I knoiw what you mean..the skyline looks ......scarred with them gone......it is a constant reminder of what happened, everytime I see, what is no longer there.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 10:11 pm

Historically speaking, the design of the original twin towers was a bit of a fiasco. Of course, that was long before they had acquired their current "hallowed" status. The original idea was to maximize square footage (hence the HUGE towers) and to use a structure that created lots of unobstructed space inside. The trouble was, the towers, in the opinion of many, ruined the Manhattan skyline because of their size, and the structure limited the width of every window to two feet, which pretty much ruined the view from the inside. IMHO, the towers looked like buck teeth (or viper's fangs) on the horizon. They always looked out of place to me.

The Libeskind design doesn't make sense to me. I'd have to study it more closely to give it its due, but at first glance, I don't see the connection between the original parti (such as it is) and the final design. Frankly, the symbolism they intended to convey (as expressed in their little handwritten blurbs) just doesn't come across to me the way it should. As for the angularity, it creates a fractured appearance that is not appropriate for the site (for obvious reasons). Aesthetically, the sharp angles (which seem to be based on "rays of light") clash with the circular walkway as well as everything else in the area. In comparison, Stonehenge does a much better job of integrating rays of light within a circular structure while maintaining harmony with the environment. And again, the type of geometrical game-playing involved in the design just doesn't seem to have any relation to the symbolism intended, in my humble opinion. It's not "futuristic"; it's actually about twenty years behind the avant-garde. It seems like novelty just for novelty's sake to me, and I don't think it will have lasting appeal.

Personally, I would have chosen a more conservative design that respected the grid(s) of Manhattan and took a much lower profile. What I have in mind would be "chunkier", but more majestic. I would have left voids where the orginal towers stood to mark their "footprints". I would also have considered a way to mark 3-dimensional space. If you'll remember, the attacks didn't take place on the ground; they took place high up in the air, and that's where most of the victims died. Sure, you can mark the ground below and most people would say that serves the purpose, but personally, I prefer to think in 3-D.

Littiz · Post by **Littiz** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 4:58 am

When something dies, dies. I think they had no other choice than make them different.
Anyway, I like them, somehow.
They're a bit futuristic, but after all we won't see them before 10 years.
Of course things like this move a large amount of money, we can't expect things
to be completely clean and ideal..

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 5:58 am

Hmm, yet another contentious issue. Well, the decisions made.

They're towers and they're big, so thats something for the "build 'em back" and the floorspace people. They're not so huge as to be obscene and they have left the footprints or wells for a later memorial TBA so that's the remembrance crowd catered for. They're different, so people who want a change and hated the old ones have something different.

Half full or half empty, people? It must be so difficult to build this stuff and make those decisions in committee yet still manage to be creative. Personally, I have enough problems with depression I find it such a lot of hard work to be unhappy about everything - its so much easier to be optomistic.

Unless I'm flaming people of course

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 6:45 am

I was considering last night that one thing will do is create a large amount of jobs which will be a good thing, apparently they still have to find funding for this whole project though.