The New World Trade Center Design
TV ClubHouse: Archives: 2003 February:
The New World Trade Center Design
Grooch | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 07:06 am     Berlin-based architect's design picked for WTC site With 1,776-foot spire, Ground Zero development would be tallest in world By Josh Getlin & Suzanne Muchnic Baltimore Sun Posted February 27 2003, 10:05 AM EST NEW YORK - A soaring spire, angular office buildings and a deep pit marking the foundation of the World Trade Center was chosen last night as the winning design for a major rebuilding of the site, according to sources familiar with the decision quoted in news reports. Ending an intense, monthlong competition between two teams of world-renowned architects, a blue ribbon panel selected the Studio Daniel Libeskind plan for the site over the offering by the THINK group led by Rafael Vinoly and Frederic Schwartz. The final decision, set to be formally announced today, was made late yesterday by New York Gov. George E. Pataki, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and members of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. John Whitehead, chairman of the development corporation, telephoned Libeskind with the news, telling him that his "vision has brought hope and inspiration to a city still recovering from a terrible tragedy," according to the Associated Press. Libeskind, who did not return phone calls from the Los Angeles Times after the news became known, reportedly said that being chosen to redesign the site of the Sept. 11 terror attacks was a "life-changing experience." In a concession statement, Schwartz said: "I am honored to have participated in this process and will continue to help the city, the state and other planners in any way I can. Since 9/11 I have been dedicated to working with my city and my country to the best of my ability." The decision, made on the 10th anniversary of the 1993 bombing attack on the World Trade Center, ended a fierce tug-of-war that dominated the architectural competition. The Libeskind proposal, which features a 1,776-foot spire as well as office buildings, will cost an estimated $350 million to construct. It was thought to be the front-runner, largely because it had been endorsed by Pataki and Bloomberg. But the THINK plan, which called for two distinctive, steel lattice towers, had unexpectedly won the endorsement of a development corporation planning committee Tuesday, and seemed to be picking up momentum. "I can tell you that it was a unanimous decision, and the decision was clear," said development corporation spokesman Matt Higgins, who declined to comment on the choice as the decision-makers left their evening meeting. "We still don't know what happened," said Ric Bell, executive director of the American Institute of Architects New York chapter, during an interview on the local all-news channel NY1. "But I'm very happy with the selection," added Bell, who speculated that the Libeskind proposal - which, like Vinoly's plan, was one of nine competing proposals unveiled weeks ago - was chosen because of "how the site would be integrated into the neighborhoods surrounding it, and with public transportation." Planners cautioned, however, that economic pressures, engineering requirements and other unforeseen factors will force changes in the winning design. A separate international competition to design a memorial on the ground once occupied by the fallen towers will be held later this year. Both architectural teams had extraordinary credentials, and received strong public support for their plans to rebuild on the World Trade Center's hallowed ground. But Libeskind's design had enormous appeal for those who wanted to ensure that the replacement for the World Trade Center would include a powerful memorial as well as new office buildings. Josh Getlin and Suzanne Muchnic write for the Los Angeles Times, a Tribune Publishing newspaper. |
Grooch | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 07:07 am      |
Bastable | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 07:43 am     As a Manhattan resident, I do not like it. I don't know anyone in this city who wants to work above 50 stories anymore, so the decision to create the world's tallest structure is so symbolic it's nearly arrogant. Frankly, it's that kind of wealthy arrogance that made the Twin Towers (which never really suited the style of this city) a target to begin with. The buildings are also too spiky and ugly for a city like this one--they don't fit our mode at all. New York buildings have a machinist's grace of form. The plan also calls for the walls of the "bathtub" to be left uncovered. Not nuts about that either... the bathtub was the retaining wall in the understructure of the complex. It that's their idea of a memorial, I'm not sold. |
Conejo | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 07:50 am     OMG that looks hiddeous. IMHO! |
Kaili | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 07:53 am     I've never been to New York and I don't know the style of the city (except from TV) but I think these designs are ugly. All of the proposed designs I thought were ugly. I don't know- too modern, too angular... More appropriate for a newer city like Phoenix. They wouldn't fit in a lot of the older cities- it would be hideous in Milwaukee. |
Northstar | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 07:54 am     As a non-Manhattan resident, I wasn't impressed with the other design either. |
Dahli | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 07:55 am     Wow - that's the best they could do?? Yikes! |
Rissa | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 08:07 am     Bastable, I am not sure whether the original twin towers were built with an arrogant mindset.. I will reserve judgement on that, but I do agree that replacing them with even taller bldgs is. It's thumbing their nose, tempting fate, etc., etc., etc. I can't stand the design either, not at all attractive and seems to clash with it's surroundings. I would have loved to have seen them go the opposite direction, "a machinist's grace of form" {I love that description). Go back to the origin of New York and rebuild in the style of that era, very simple and unopposing... let the bulk of the corporations who were in the towers move elsewhere and not build an echo. I am doing twenty things at once here, not expressing myself very well. LOLOL Bottom line... celebrate what made New York great, not what made it a target. |
Marysafan | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 08:08 am     Bastable...I am once again agreeing with everything you just said. My inital reaction was why on earth do they have to build it so high. It isn't safe and it will only make someone want to take it down again. When will they ever learn? |
Grooch | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 08:11 am     This isn't meant to be an insensitive question, but here it goes anyway. The first twin towers were built to withstand a 737 hitting into them. Since they want to make these towers so tall again, are they going to be built to withstand a 747 or even a 777? Personally, I wouldn't want to work in a highrise at all. |
Bastable | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 08:41 am     Clarification: I don't think that people will be inside the tallest part of the new WTC. It will be a spire. And Rissa, I can assure you that when they were first built, the original Twin Towers were much criticized for their daunting proportions, inhuman scale, and desolate central courtyard. Many times, the original developers and the Port Authority announced in press materials they were intentionally creating buildings that would signal the rest of the world that the US is an economic powerhouse to be reckoned with. It was that arrogance that eventually made them targets. |
Cyn | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 09:02 am     Let the people work at home with their families. I have no opinion on liking this or not. I have too much emotion involved and I really have no feeling about liking it or not liking it. I just know that I really like the way that the historical aspects have been kept in Hiroshima. I would have liked to have seen something with a few more of these elements involved. virtual tour of Peace Park - central Hiroshima - Japan When/if you get to this site: 1) scroll down to the bottom to you get to the Table of Contents; 2) click on: “From the exhibits of the Peace Memorial Museum” and “Tour around the Peace Park.” Each of these will take you to another page that is filled with jpeg photos from around the city and how the memory of that historical significance was preserved. |
Squaredsc | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 09:08 am     i don't live in nyc, but it looks ok, very modern, but too tall for me. i would not want to be above 20 stories. maybe if they can scale it down? |
Bastable | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 09:53 am     Squaredsc, the problem is that the people who own the land don't want to give up one square inch of rentable space. They want to be able to make just as much money as they did before the attack. As if! |
Maris | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 10:02 am     Larry Silverstein doesnt own the land, he leases it from the Port Authority. Think about it you lease land for a heft fee from the Port Authority and you want to recoup your investment. He does not want to put towers in that space either because nobody will want to rent there. I would nto be surprised to see Larry Silverstein try to break his lease and I think he will have a pretty good case since he apparently doesnt have any input over decisions being made. |
Fruitbat | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 10:52 am     This hideous in appearance and I agree with all you have said Bastable. I will add that the top floors of the Trade Center were frequently evacuated due to winds. Above a certain floor for some speeds and as low as 40th floor for higher winds. (I have forgotton the exact floors and wind speeds) This happened with great regularity. A friend of mine worked there and said it was nuts, scary and inefficient for a business to say the least. |
Crazydog | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 10:54 am     I think both the winning design and the other one (which looked like two open steel structures, like the Eiffel Tower) are both ugly. Some of the other proposals in the earlier rounds which were posted by CNN.com were much better. |
Maris | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 11:05 am     Where this proposal wins over the others is it maintains the footprints of the two towers and also the pit in one. Additionally the way the buildings are laid out the Sun will shine on the bit between the hours of 8am 10 10:30 am. One point of the pit will house the new millenium hotel, one point an arts center, another point a musuem and another a memorial. Further this design more than any other allows for the greatest creativity for the memorial contest. It meets the needs of the families by preserving the pit including the slope and also meets the needs of the area by preserving the commercial space. I suspect the buildings will be modified but the architects focus was on preserving the footprints of the two fallen towers and he achieved that and more. |
Bastable | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 11:11 am     Maris, I thought the other designs also preserved the footprints of the original towers. Am I wrong? I saw a bereaved family member on TV accusing this design of being poorly conceived, too--apparently there will be a train station somewhere underneath and she feels violated. I wonder if there's a happy medium between consecrating a space and giving it back to a living city? |
Maris | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 11:26 am     No bastable they didnt all preseve the exact footprint of both buildings. The train station will be at one corner. The descent and the pit will remain the same. |
Cyn | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 11:38 am     "I wonder if there's a happy medium between consecrating a space and giving it back to a living city?" Yes, Bastable - they acheived that goal in Hiroshima. Please look through the TOC of the above link - "Virtual Tour of Peace Park - Central Hiroshima - Japan." |
Fruitbat | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 11:38 am     >>>> and she feels violated.<<<< ...........groan, here we go................... |
Ginger1218 | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 11:46 am     Maris wasn't there some discussion about a bus garage underneath? |
Maris | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 12:05 pm     There will be a major transportation hub at one corner. In any event there always was a huge train station underneath the WTC so why she would feel violated is beyond me. |
Twiggyish | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 02:38 pm     I also think the idea of the original footprint being preserved is a good one. I don't like the tall tower, though. The other buildings would like fine without it..just my opinion. From a symbolic point of view, I see the spire as almost "church-like". The skyline will never be the same, unless they rebuild exactly the same. It is a very heart breaking process, and I wish they would allow more discussion. |
Crazydog | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 03:13 pm     What is that greenish/blackish stuff inside the spire? I thought they were going to have entire floors of gardens - are these them? What's the point of having gardens if no one can get to them? That entire spire section with the shredded paper looking attachments, it's not going to be actually inhabitable, is it? I agree with Bastable that the design looks a little too trendy for New York. I don't think I like this architect in general. There was a story in Business Week recently showcasing some of his other work, and they are all the same angle-y, post-modern, hip buildings. The very modern addition to London's famed Victoria and Albert Museum looks hideous. |
Mosessupposes | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 05:36 pm     A husband and wife architectural team submitted a beautiful design that preserved the footprints of the towers as a beautiful park. The footprints were to be outlined with a border of stones (one stone representing each victim of 9/11). The park was going to have beautiful walkways, flowers, and trees. Benches were going to be placed along the edge of the memorial stones. Four medium sized office towers were going to surround the park. They were laid out so as not to obstruct any views of the park or the ocean. It was beautiful and had just the right finishing touches. The design they chose is inexcuseable. |
Bastable | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 06:21 pm     Buildings with diagonal swipes cut off the type went out of fashion in the '70s. Chicago has one and NYC already has the Citicorp center. I think the new WTC should hark to the distant past--something Art Deco, like the Chrysler Building or the Empire State Building would suit the city far better than this Eurojunk. |
Sbw | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 06:27 pm     The Memorial in Oklahoma City preserves part of the original Murrah Building. To be blunt, it is ugly. However, at its opening when many victims and family were present it was obvious they seemed to appreciate that part of it. I can see why some people are wanting to preserve the "pit". |
Maris | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 06:51 pm     I watched the archictects presentation and also saw an interview with him and what impressed me about him more than any of the other designers is his passion for what he is trying to achieve. I believe he will be flexible enough to make changes and I as totally impressed with is view to allowing as much space as possible for the people competing the contest for creating the memorial. So give me an architect full of passion over an architect with a logical cold view and this man was passionate about his vision. |
Willsfan | Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 11:25 pm     I got this information from CNN. Daniel Libeskind has been chosen to be the lead architect for rebuilding on the World Trade Center site. "Libeskind says that having calculated the arc of the sun, a wedge of natural light would funnel visitors to the memorial site, and that every September 11 between 8:46 a.m., when the first tower was struck by a plane, and 10:28 a.m., when the second tower collapsed, no shadows will be cast by his buildings." I will reserve my judgement until I see the finished WTC. I think what he sees in his design is something beautiful, maybe it will be. I didn't like the original twin towers (thought they were unattractive) but now that they are gone I look for them in movies that were filmed in New York and think how beautiful they were. This is so wierd that I could be so interested in catching a glimpse of the towers as they once were. |
Ketchuplover | Friday, February 28, 2003 - 04:24 am     Is the architect a descendant of Superman? |
Dahli | Friday, February 28, 2003 - 06:31 am     Willsfan - I'm the same way I look for the towers as well, and the feeling I get is totally strange. They mesmerize me, perhaps because they represent that 'time' before it all changed. |
|