Ronald Bailey | June 29, 2005
Hooray! The new design for the Freedom Tower at the WTC site is gorgeous. Images here and here. It replaces the hideous Libeskind design with its stupid windmills. I just wish that the new tower would rise at least 111 stories (the Twin Towers rose 110 stories).
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Amusingly, some of my friends on livejournal are bitching about the change. 'Cause see, the new design has more office space than the old one, so it was motivated by greeeeeeed! "Our flag should have dollar signs instead of stars." Sheesh.
Since Bush is still using the destruction of the WTC as our
"defining moment", I have to wonder if he'll even notice a new one
going up.
Also, does anyone here actually "define" themselves by a beating
they took?
"I just wish that the new tower would rise at least 111 stories
(the Twin Towers rose 110 stories)."
What the hell, right? You won't be working there.
Beautiful new building, but what it really needs are people living in it! Mixed use is much better for the urban fabric and street life.
I like it. It's almost...Roarkish.
*Having invoked That Woman, I'll drop back into the shadows.*
I like the tower geometry, but we can do without the "Luxor" night-light. But rather than one tower I want a "hydra" plan. They knocked down two towers, so four towers grow back in their place. The new towers would be of ascending height.
My favorite part:
No tenants, other than the governor and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the transportation agency that owns the site land, have expressed interest in moving offices into the tower.
Give it up, midtown's where everyone wants to be. I can't wait
until NY loses the 2012 Olympics. Take that, Gloomberg!
the new design has more office space than the old
one
It does? I thought it has the same:
Given those requirements, and the goal of maintaining the
building's overall 2.6 million square foot floor area, the
redesigned Freedom Tower almost naturally assumed some dimensions
of the original twin towers, Mr. Childs said in an
interview.
- from the NYT
Anyway, I like the design much better than the previous one; it
looks like a real building now instead of the product of some
starchitects' "bold vision". I am a bit disappointed by the
200-foot- tall blank pedestal, though. I guess that's the trade-off
you have to make for safety.
The new towers would be of ascending height.
As opposed to descending height?
Also, does anyone here actually "define" themselves by a
beating they took?
Some in the South.
Many (most? all?) current civil rights activists.
More people than you'd think.
Anyway, I like the building and I'm glad it's going up. Neener
neener neener, Osama.
The only bitch I have is location. They should build it at
Justice Souter's house. Kill two birds with one stone.
Paul
Give it up, midtown's where everyone wants to be.
Feh! You can have it. I am so glad my company's president is
staying downtown.
does anyone here actually "define" themselves by a beating
they took?
Remember the Alamo! (and the Crusades!)
That it happens all the time doesn't mean that it's necessarily a
good idea.
Well, it's not just about beatings. In the case of "Remember the Alamo", the defenders stood their ground and took out roughly half of Santa Anna's forces, assisting in the of later victory at San Jacinto.
Also much of Eastern Europe. The reason Kosovo is important to
the Serbs is because they got their asses cut off and handed to
them by the Turks around 500 years ago in a battle there. So in
order to preserve an area that not many of them live in, they were
willing to risk going up against NATO.
Never underestimate the power of a great defeat to cause a nation
to do stupid things.
Not that I'm making comparisons (*coughBushliedcough*) or
anything.
I just wish that the new tower would rise at least 111
stories
and that there were another one right next to it.
For whatever it is worth, as an architect, I think it stinks. David Childs is a master of designing spec. office space, and thats what we get. A tower thats looks like it was designed for downtown 1980's Houston, and not in the cool retro-gold-glam sense. Sorry, but don't know where people are getting "beautiful" out of it. The renderings are the best the thing will ever look. That is unless you like living behind a 200' foot tall impenetrable wall. But from day one we knew with the number of cooks in the room it was going to be a marginal design by commitee.
I've always thought making ground zero a park would be more tasteful and significant.
Um.... 112 stories? I'm thinking more of double plus one = 221!
Right after 9/11 the Swiss Ambasador to the US said "I wouldn't be
surprised it they rebuilt it twice as tall."
That to me is the true Spirit of America.
Motto: Double plus One...
I like that Hydra idea. How's this for a 4 tower
structure.
. _
. | |
_| |_ _
| | | | |
| | | | |
It looks a little like a giant squarish pen with the cap
on.
It would have been fun if they'd shown Bloomberg a gag design that
looked like an enormous smoking cigarette.
I didn't like the original. It looked to me like it was shattered
and falling.
If it were up to me, they would have done something Deco like the Chrysler building. But there's no way they'd do that, so this is about as good as it's likely to get.
I didn't like the original. It looked to me like it was
shattered and falling.
Mf. For a second there, I thought this was a very macabre joke
about the original WTC.
I'm getting too dark. Time to break for dinner and coffee.
Patrick,
What sort of design would you prefer? Did you prefer the old
design? Or something completely different? I agree, the new design
is not "beautiful" but I thought the old one stunk.
Stevo writes: "For a second there, I thought this was a very
macabre joke about the original WTC."
Yeah, I wondered if it would look like that...
I meant the original artsy rebuild.
I just wish that the new tower would rise at least 111 stories
(the Twin Towers rose 110 stories).
"Its main roof will be the same height as the fallen World Trade
Center."
Quibble, quibble. The point is that another skyscaper is a giant
fuck you to Osama and his lot. For that, I love it.
Too bad they never built the proposed Gaudi skyscraper on that very site. More info.
Great headline.
"Freedom Tower design aims for beauty, blast resistance"
One of bin Laden's many, bizarre rants was that he ordered 9/11
because he wanted the US to know what it's like to be in a conflict
zone.
The terrorists have won!
It's the nicest, tenantless, #1 terrorist-target-in-the-world
design thus far.
What they should do is build a bunch of 50-story apartment
buildings. Manhattan isn't short on office space, it's short on
living space.
They should then build some sort of 21st century Eiffel tower in
the center to rebalance the skyline.
Yes, I agree this design is much much better than the first design. It is simple yet striking - somewhat like the original WTC. The square geometry of the top and base is also reminiscent of the WTC, but the 45 degree offset between top and base allowing for the triangular faces is a nice touch. The first design struck me as almost fragile, somewhat timid perhaps, which didn't seem an appropriate message or symbol for the location. This design is indeed bolder and clearly more substantial. Short of my preferred choice of rebuilding the original towers (albeit with modern construction and safety enhancements, to the extent possible) this is about as good as I could hope for. The only thing I would do differently with this design is add a second one right next to it.
"What they should do is build a bunch of 50-story apartment
buildings"
Co-op City, all over again...
Too bad they never built the proposed Gaudi skyscraper on
that very site.
As long as they build our new tower faster than that monster Gaudi
cathedral in Barcelona (La Grada Familia).
Being captured ... now that would be a "giant fuck you". Of course, it's not gonna happen. Neener, neener.
I didn't think the original design was perfect by any means, but there was at least some boldness and daring to the lines and shapes. A genuine attempt to create something that was appeared new and modern, and in some ways would look like a symbol of defiance - you might even say rebirth - to anyone viewing it from a distance. The new design, by contrast, appears conservative and defensive, the building almost withdrawn into itself. And to the extent it'll conjure up memories of the Twin Towers, it'll do so with a reminder that there used to be two there instead of one. But these are the kinds of things that usually happen when you start second-guessing big ideas.
Sandy: "The reason Kosovo is important to the Serbs is because
they got their asses cut off and handed to them by the Turks around
500 years ago in a battle there."
Actually, it is by no means clear that the Serbs lost in 1389.
Thomas A. Emmert has written (in *Serbian Golgotha Kosovo 1389*
[New York: Columbia University Press 1990], p. 42):
"The historian is faced with a perplexingly difficult problem when
he
attempts to discover what occurred in the Battle of Kosovo. There
are no
eyewitness accounts of the battle, and rather significant
differences
exist among those contemporary sources which do mention the event.
There
is little doubt that the confrontation occurred on the field of
Kosovo on
28 (15) June 1389 between Christian forces led by Prince Lazar of
Serbia
and Turkish forces led by Sultan Murad I. When it was over, both
leaders
were dead and Murad's son, Bayezid, returned to Edirne to secure
his
succession. The picture becomes very cloudy beyond these meager
details.
The early documents are not particularly concerned with
armaments,
tactics, size of forces, and the general course of the
battle.
Surprisingly enough, it is not even possible to know with certainty
from
the extant contemporary material whether one or the other side
was
victorious on the field. There is certainly little to indicate that
it was
a great Serbian defeat; and the earliest reports of the conflict
suggest,
on the contrary, that the Christian forces had won."
PapayaSF - that Gaudi design is awesome. I love the park he did (in Barcelona, I think...)
It stinks that the designers, state, and city all think the
tower's appearance from New Jersey is more important that its
impact on the people who are going to be walking by it on a daily
basis. Midtown Manhatten isn't a freaking sculpture garden to send
people messages.
And as has been mentioned, it is idiotic to be building all that
office space, which isn't needed, when there is a sever housing
crunch in the region.
Well, here's two things I hope we can all agree on:
a) the original WTC was ugly as hell
b) Donald Trump is an idiot
Being captured ... now that would be a "giant fuck you". Of
course, it's not gonna happen. Neener, neener.
Hey, Ozzy, say hello to Manny Goldstein for me, willya?
Carl,
I agree with (a) - which is why I can't understand why so many
people are advocating duplicating its design. The WTC was the
product of everything that was wrong with 60's design and planning,
from the monotonous design of the buildings to the destruction of
16 city blocks to the removal of all street life to a subterranean
warren of shops. The only motivation seems to be as a big "fuck
you" to Al Qaeda, which is fine - but we can do better.
I have no opinion on (b).
It stinks that the designers, state, and city all think the
tower's appearance from New Jersey is more important that its
impact on the people who are going to be walking by it on a daily
basis. Midtown Manhatten isn't a freaking sculpture garden to send
people messages.
Well, it's lower Manhattan, so I'm sure the people down there are
quite used to walking the narrow "concrete canyons" of that part of
the city where you can hardly see the sky anyway. I cannot imagine
they are going to be too put out by this (or any other, for that
matter) design
Besides, if we are going to worry about how the building makes
people feel, then all individuals ought to matter equally, whether
they live in New Jersey and have to look at it every day and/or
work in Manhattan and walk by it. And while were bothering to
consider psychological and/or aesthetic impacts, certainly its
symbolism to tens or hundreds of millions of Americans, given the
national tragedy that took place there, ought to count for
something.
As for office space, no sense worrying about whether it's needed or
not; the price of office space will adjust to take care of that. If
rents fall then tenants are made better off and more companies will
be able to afford Manhattan offices, not such a bad thing for the
city. Of course landlords are made worse off, but who cares about
them anyway. :-)
Oh, and if housing demand is outstripping housing supply resulting
in a housing crunch, as it were, one wonders what is stopping
anyone from building more housing. Hmmmm, let me guess.
With regards to how this would affect people in the area, interested parties with a background in image manipulation could take pictures of the area (or use existing ones, if sufficient) and produce decent views of what the new building would look like from ground level. If the obstructed views and shadows strike enough people as excessive, back to the drawing board.
And I still like the primary latice-towers and "sky park" THINK team designs, shown here...
I'm in an especially grouchy mood this morning..
What really fucking irritates me are all these victim groups
whining that building something commercial "violates" their sacred
ground.
Okay, to be fair, losing love ones at 9/11 is something that only
they could understand, but FOR FUCK'S SAKE, THE WORLD IS NOT
CENTERED AROUND YOUR GRIEF!
If we were stupid enough to make the whole fucking thing into some
stupid ass park, no one would give a fuck a hundred years from now.
Who's crying today about the victims of the Titanic?
A boring design, I did not like the old one, but a least it was different. Look at the cool buildings going up in China - obviously we need more central planning.
Mr. Nice -
I can see where you got your internet handle.
It goes without saying that I agree 100%. When some future Gibbon
writes about the decline and fall of America, I think he will
likely finger the perplexing rise of the
"victim-as-privileged-class" meme as one of the key causes.
With Larry Silverstein saying that about $5 billion of the cost of the project will be coming from government sources, I don't care what they put there, it's going to look ugly to me.
Who's crying today about the victims of the
Titanic?
MNG,
Only James Cameron. I agree with you, I feel bad for those people
who lost loved ones, but how much pull should they have over the
use of the site for all eternity.
Well, it's lower Manhattan, so I'm sure the people down
there are quite used to walking the narrow "concrete canyons" of
that part of the city where you can hardly see the sky
anyway.
Yes, but no other building in Manhattan presents a 200-foot blank
wall to passers-by. Granted, this building will be located in a
park-like setting rather than being "part of the city", and
therefore can plausibly do without the usual shops and businesses
that one would expect on the ground floor, but I would hate to see
this design set a precedent. Oh wait, too late - I've heard the new
7 WTC presents a blank wall to the street too. Welcome to Fortress
NYC.
the decline and fall of America, I think he will likely
finger the perplexing rise of the "victim-as-privileged-class" meme
as one of the key causes.
I point to the rise of the use of the word "meme!"
-Keith
You're right, Patrick; it's a foolish design. Self-conscious,
immature, harnessed to politics, already trendy and outdated. To
MNC's (and OBL's) point, this (post-modern, dependent,
chicken-shit, self-consumed) nation is obsessing WAY too much about
this.
Dream: A libertarian website posts pics of a major new building
going up where another was torn down. Folks gather 'round and
discuss how the thing serves capitalism, makes money, and fits the
purpose and not the damn America-in-decline image we can't even
define. No mayors, senators, power-fights, or "starchitects" (good
one, that.) Just unabashed capitalism and private enterprise. No
egos and navel-gazing.
Then I woke up.
Sadly, as long as our beloved nation continues in its interventionist ways you might as well just paint a big target on the damn thing.
I like the tower geometry, but we can do without the "Luxor"
night-light. But rather than one tower I want a "hydra" plan. They
knocked down two towers, so four towers grow back in their place.
The new towers would be of ascending height.
I like the idea of the hydra plan.
Will it have a thirteenth floor? Talk about tempting
fate...
No, but it will have a 14 1/2 floor, a la Being John
Malkovich , as a tribute to his contributions to the Hollywood
acting community.
Swiss Ambasador to the US said "I wouldn't be surprised it they
rebuilt it twice as tall."
Are you sure he was saying that as a compliment to the American
way? Or do you think he might have been insinuating that we are
rebuilding the Tower of Babel or some pseudo-religious allusion to
our willfullness such as that?
Yes, but no other building in Manhattan presents a 200-foot
blank wall to passers-by.
I think that if the blank wall makes people feel like they are in a
"conflict zone" or a prison, that perhaps they should decorate it
with name placards of the people who died in the building/ from the
9/11 attacks. Or, they should paint huge murals on them. That would
be cool-looking (much like the Berlin Wall). And much more of an
attraction. Or have collage murals on them - artwork done by family
members, community members, etc.
I like the tower geometry, but we can do without the "Luxor"
night-light. But rather than one tower I want a "hydra" plan. They
knocked down two towers, so four towers grow back in their place.
The new towers would be of ascending height.
I like the idea of the hydra plan.
Will it have a thirteenth floor? Talk about tempting
fate...
No, but it will have a 14 1/2 floor, a la Being John
Malkovich , as a tribute to his contributions to the Hollywood
acting community.
Swiss Ambasador to the US said "I wouldn't be surprised it they
rebuilt it twice as tall."
Are you sure he was saying that as a compliment to the American
way? Or do you think he might have been insinuating that we are
rebuilding the Tower of Babel or some pseudo-religious allusion to
our willfullness such as that?
Yes, but no other building in Manhattan presents a 200-foot
blank wall to passers-by.
I think that if the blank wall makes people feel like they are in a
"conflict zone" or a prison, that perhaps they should decorate it
with name placards of the people who died in the building/ from the
9/11 attacks. Or, they should paint huge murals on them. That would
be cool-looking (much like the Berlin Wall). And much more of an
attraction. Or have collage murals on them - artwork done by family
members, community members, etc.
Sorry for the double post (now a triple post). I just had to fix my internet handle.
smacky, who is expecting a beating from a number of H&R
posters
Dammit! Of all the days to leave my ass-paddle downstairs in the
car!
I love the hydra concept. This one is bland, but better than the
sucky windmills.
And for joe:
1) Let 'em build whatever they want without subsidy. Maybe the big
state handjob this project gets is the hidden true symbol of
America.
2) Urban sprawl can go up as well as out.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245