Twin Towers part II
- Started
- Last post
- 12 Responses
- heliana
has anyone seen the Norman Fosters project for the newTwin Towers?
http://www.fosterworldtradecente…
maybe it's just me, but I really don't think it looks like another Fosters amazing design.
And i don't understand why is it that a british architect is redesigning what some people call the most important buildings in New York???
- Xentic0
I saw a new design from some Dutch architects. There are 7 teams working on a new design...
People in NY can choose the best...
- paul23580
i don't like it :P
- heliana0
well, I think they have a cool design, only they don't look like a good 'replacement' for the original buildings..meaning, I really DO NOT like Normie's design
- kpl0
the sad part is that this is one of the better building designs.
what, am I the only one who thought the original six designs were pretty good?
- Ctrl_Z0
form over function?
the look is kind of cool.
that can't be very airplane proof.
I don't even want to know how much the building sway is.
- dstlb0
Is there a site with all the new designs on it? I have to do a piece on it this afternoon so any links would be useful.
- unknown0
Why rebuild anything there??
It'll only be something else for the invading armies to flatten.....
- CyBrainX0
OnD, the reason we rebuild is because it is the most valuable real estate ever. Space was lost and all that use the WTC had didn't just go away.
Here's another reason: not building is just what Osama wants. Right now, he's winning.
Another reason: You're not honoring the dead by wasting space in Manhattan. If you died in there, would you want an empty lot in the financial district? Would it make your corpse rest easier?
Best reason: There is no reason not to rebuild.
- kpl0
dude...only your first reason made sense.
hey, what do we care what osama thinks? when we do, the terrorists have already won.
- sp0
All 7 submissions can be found at CNN.com.
And, without getting into an political reasons for rebuilding the site...I have to say that none of the new designs are well thought out, nor do they fit within the context of the city [especially the horrible Meier Eisenman Gwathmey Holl design].
One of the key functions of ANY large scale architecture project is to relate it to the context. Not one of these designs cares about the city scape around it, how the other structures relate or compare nor do they take into consideration interaction with people and city systems.
And, nothing pisses me off more than when architects [or any designer] get into this dick waving contest. What is the point in making it "bigger". This whole "mine is bigger than yours" concept is a bad perspective for the basis of a new building.
It seems that the participating architects have lost hold of their basic education and experiences.
I've chatted on the phone with a couple of my college professors [I studied architecture] recently about the designs and ideas behind a new site, and they don't even like what they see.
They are simply poor designs...
The question isn't whether we should or should not build, rather the question is should we build sensibly and realistically or should we try to see who has the bigger design ego?
The downtown NY area is a vital system to the city, leaving it empty could have long range affect on the city function [ANYONE who has read 'City of Bits' or any of W. Mitchell's theory would probably agree].
Cities are much like humans, in that all the intricate systems that make up the body must function both coherently and in good health.
Removing something like a vital commerce system could impact not only economics but moral of it's citizens.
Anyway, back to the designs...The only design I am even remotely interested in is THINK Team's "Great Room". A good idea, bringing the design back down to earth, adding a subtle ethos of 'family value' to it but desiging it as a large congregating area...THINK seems to be more interested in reasoning than just designing huge buildings...
- unknown0
CyBrainX, I didn't really need to check to see what your nationality is.
What about rebuilding Afgahnistan??
Sorry I forgot us europeans have been left that task, the americans are better at breaking things though, eh??Don't misunderstand me - what happened on 11th September 2001 was atrocious.
But since then America (and the sheep formerly known as Blair) have been conducting their own little terror sorties against just as innocent civilians as the ones on 11th September 2001 were.
If you want to build anything build a monument to all civillian casualties of such atrocities.
- mbr0
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/r…
That's the link to the projects. There is a description and imagery for each.
I agree with most that most of the proposals are less than special.
sp - as for contextual designs, architecture should always address the context and surroundings, but this does not mean that it must formally look like the surroundings. The issues of transportation, circulation, and societal relevance were key issues in all of the entries. If we were to just continue to build developer driven, spec office buildings there would not be any great buildings constructed. This is an opportunity to create something better than what is already Lower Manhattan.
None of these schemes present a 'dick waving contest', as suggested above. While I was personally very disappointed with the proposals, I do think that Libeskind's design complemented both the skyline and the street scape the best. THINK's street line was interesting, but the outlines of the large frame work looks too similar to the WTC.
This should be an opportunity for America to participate in great architecture. There are few examples in this country of large scale design that is beyond the spec crap of modern development. If this is a failure, on a design front, and just becomes reproduced rental space for the owners pockets (as the first schemes were), than this will be a great travesty for architecture in America.
I pray it doesn't come to that.