[.Hack]

Googling that for a few minutes... but nothing has really come up. I'll keep checking though. I dunno, I kind of like the idea of practically rebuilding the Twin Towers. It just seems natural to me. But I was rather surprised to find out that Donald Trump of all people was pushing this project. 'Nut says it all.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by Moogs Let's leave the President out of it. This is about New York first and foremost. Does anyone have the linkage to the competing proposals from before the Freedom Tower was selected?

So far I found, these,

[Moogs]

Yah. At one time the NYT had this comprehensive site dedicated to the whole process. I guess they bagged that for political reasons or whatever. Premium content maybe.

[BuonRotto]

One more note to tag onto my three arguments before: even if you wanted to rebuild the towers, you couldn't, at least nothing beyond a superficial interpretation of that idea. Would you really want these things built just like they were before? As good as their structure was, it won't pass muster to do the same old thing. New codes, new systems, new technology, new assemblies and a heaping helping of perception really amkes rebuilding nothing more than a pastiche job. Pastiche is mockery posing as sentimentalism. Fact is, even if you want the old towers back, you won't get them.

PS: I'll see if I can find time to dig up some of the old competition images at home. Foster's memorial is somewhat similar to the current incarnation.

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by BuonRotto One more note to tag onto my three arguments before: even if you wanted to rebuild the towers, you couldn't, at least nothing beyond a superficial interpretation of that idea. Would you really want these things built just like they were before? As good as their structure was, it won't pass muster to do the same old thing. New codes, new systems, new technology, new assemblies and a heaping helping of perception really amkes rebuilding nothing more than a pastiche job. Pastiche is mockery posing as sentimentalism. Fact is, even if you want the old towers back, you won't get them. PS: I'll see if I can find time to dig up some of the old competition images at home. Foster's memorial is somewhat similar to the current incarnation.

I don't think anyone is asking or proposing to rebuild them exactly the same. This Trump proposal is not even doing that. The interior is completely different, the materials and structure are different. The only thing that is similar is the appearance, the external shell. That is what everyone knows and misses.

[709]

Glass Steel and Stone has a collection of the proposed WTC designs.

[BuonRotto]

Originally Posted by The Return of the 'nut I don't think anyone is asking or proposing to rebuild them exactly the same. This Trump proposal is not even doing that. The interior is completely different, the materials and structure are different. The only thing that is similar is the appearance, the external shell. That is what everyone knows and misses.

Exactly. It's shallow.

[Moogs]

Of the proposals listed with that link I like the Peterson Littenberg buildings by far the best (although even they are just OK). Some of those structures have WTC-like characteristics but the whole scheme is original enough to stand on its own. Seems to me those weren't the finalists though; something is missing from that list that was part of the big competition I think.

The whole point IMHO is to build a new legacy, not try to resurrect the old one.

[rageous]

I'd be happy just to see something that doesn't appear to be some schizo architect's abstract nightmare or unoriginally representative of the old towers.

Where's the practical creativity?

[Moogs]

Yah. A couple of the designs really suck, clearly demonstrating the architects'... shall we say.... egomaniacal tendancies? Can't remember if Architects were on my Creative Asshole Index trend graph but I wouldn't be surprised.

Don't try to own the skyline you fucks, just make something impressive in scale, somewhat original in appearance and functionally elegant. Do your jobs, IOW.

Some of these guys are like Ugof from Burger King last year. That guy was wacky.

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by BuonRotto Exactly. It's shallow.

the idea that you love and support is shallow. you have been overly gung-ho on the freedom tower design since day one. why? I don't know.


The other proposals, as you can see, were even worse and it amazes me that the proposals above were the best that today's top architects could come up with. What a sad state of architecture we are in right now

[drewprops]

The assembled disdain for Trump aside, he's a brilliant marketeer and if he goes toe to toe with the Governor et al in the POPULAR press he's going to come away as a champ. He's fashioned himself, with smoke and mirrors, slam-cuts and whip-pans, into the symbol of American prosperity and economic resolve. Powerful, confident, aggressive and prescient; everything that theorist architects like Liebeskind are not. Who do you think that the public will identify with more?

I've personally never been to Manhattan and was never all that impressed with the look of the towers, but even from this far south I continually get a sense that native New Yorkers experience the towers as an amputee would phantom limbs. Does the amputee want a hook? No, he wants his damned hand back, warts and all.

It's really, honestly that simple.

What isn't simple is the politics and economies involved in making such a huge project actually happen. Does the New York real-estate market really NEED the extra office space? These are the questions and discussions that will not matter in the court of public opinion.

I say "go for it" Donald Trump. Who doesn't enjoy a little bit of street theater?

[Moogs]

Maybe we're all wrong. I say forget the old-school edifices that will undoubtedly remain half-occupied most of their life. Build the first Carbon Nano-tube elevator in the center of the entire property... "New York: first city into Space".

[johnq]

Then all the terrorists would need to do is change the orbit of the spacestation and use the carbon nanotube cables to slice though every tall building in New York, shaving the whole city like so much stubble. Maybe I read too much Niven as a kid...?

[BuonRotto]

My extreme disdain for this and similar rehash schemes has nothing to do with my preference for the Libeskind scheme. That's a red herring.

Like I said, nothing's going to be good enough, but I don't understand how this means that we should give up and just do the same old thing or some knock-off. That conclusion is fatalistic and intellectually lazy. I also said that it's going to take a very long time and a much longer more painful process to get to something really worthy of the site.

Moogs, I also really liked the Petersen Littenburg scheme a lot, at least from its plan. It's 3D attributes are what really hurt it. They're really "plan architects" and they just needed a lot of help on the elevations above about the third story. The massing of their towers was a rehashed Rockefeller Center, and a poor knock-off at that. But its plan was the most sophisticated and sensitive to the issues of scale, private space versus public space, "sacred" vs. "profane" space, the infrastructure of the site, and commercial interests. It was an excellent plan, if maybe too nuanced for a lot of people to grab onto with exception to their sucky tower massing.

Libeskind had a weaker plan but came in second of those presented and, more importantly, had a much better idea for the third dimension. If I seem gung ho about Libeskind's scheme, it's because it was the most complete overall and had simply addressed the memorial as its priority. Even if that was somewhat out of bounds for the master plan program, that really should have been the first order of business anyway. Actually, I had some friends who were finalists in the memorial competition, so I'm much more biased about that subject if you want to get into it. (Well, the winning entry was improved by an order of magnitude by the landscape architect Peter Walker, so my complaints have been mitigated to some degree on that count.)

[Moogs]

Some good observations, Buon... I think we're pretty much of like mind on this. Maybe the solution is more proposals from lesser knowns. Let all these Ugof people in their black-rimmed glasses steam for a while. That goes from Trumpet-mouth too. I say let some people with a real hunger to succeed in the business design this thing, not people who are already established. If the architects are already eating at 5 star restaurants all over town, they're not the ones we want.

[Trick Fall]

It really is amazing just how lame all of the designs are. I'd like to see something truly new, unique and inspiring built there, but out of all the proposed designs rebuilding them is the best. Not that I particularly want to see them rebuilt, but the other designs are just horrendous.

[rasmits]

At this rate, nothing will ever be built.

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by Trick Fall It really is amazing just how lame all of the designs are. I'd like to see something truly new, unique and inspiring built there, but out of all the proposed designs rebuilding them is the best. Not that I particularly want to see them rebuilt, but the other designs are just horrendous.

that's exactly the way I feel and exactly why I support Trump's latest efforts. Maybe rebuilding them is not the way to go. But Trump has successfully created new debate and more questions and doubts about the chosen design and hopefully, if anything, it will result in a new round of proposals or a redesign.

[drewprops]

I want to clarify that my post spoke toward the politics of the tower design, not to the aesthetics, innovation or intent of the next towers, should they actually ever occur.

I'm a little confused over how open the design competition was because I didn't follow the vetting of tower proposals much more than the occasional photo galleries posted on news portals. Wasn't the competition open to the world and not just to the anst-ridden archicrowd? Because I'd like to see designs from futurist artists tossed into the mix. The kids over at ILM designed an entire planet covered with towers and your standard Japanese futuristic animation is littered with exciting architecture.

And JohnQ? You could never read too much Niven as a kid~

[BuonRotto]

The master plan competition was not open, it was by invitation only. The memorial competition was open, but Maya Lin, someone I realy like and respect, was the cult of personality as far as the judging was concerned. Her viewpoint dominated the finalist and winning scheme selection.

Truth is, if all of this were truly open and it were design by committee in either, we wouldn't even be this far along in the process and the schemes would be even more watered down. There's a practical limit to the effectiveness of a truly democratic process, but you need these kinds of public checkpoints to get feedback and reevaluate your priorities. Going into a back room for extended periods of time can make you lose focus and limits the criticism you need to improve a design. There's still a filtering process that's needed, but both isolation and immersion will weaken a project.

As an aside, people's views of architects either coming into this or as a result of this is fascinating, really informative. I've felt for a while that the profession is desperately clinging to a 19th century view of itself as a kind of aristoracy, seeing itself as a kind of ivory tower, reinforced by the universities, and framing the architect as the auteur. Consequently, architects are becoming increasingly irrelevant while architecture is no less relevant to people's lives. It's not that I don't value most of what I've learned in college and in praxis, but I think how we go about our business, how we share and spread our values, how we interact with all these disciplines that intersect with architecture, and how we open ourselves to more "social mobility" for lack of a better term, is in need of an overhaul.