New York's Future Skyline

|

Take a look at the spectacular designs for rebuilding on the World Trade Center site. My favorites are the Daniel Libeskind (1776 feet tall) and United Architects (1620 feet tall) proposals. The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation's website features extensive slide shows of each proposal. Although rebuilding the WTC has to be commercially viable, the LMDC and Mayor Bloomberg must not forget that the buildings are also symbols of America. Call me sentimental, but Daniel Libeskind got it just right during his presentation when he declared, "A skyscraper rises above its predecessors, reasserting the pre-eminence of freedom and beauty, restoring the spiritual peak to the city, creating an icon that speaks of our vitality in the face of danger and our optimism in the aftermath of tragedy. Life victorious."

Advertisement

NEXT: Fraud? In the E-Rate Boondoggle? No.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m sure opinions will range widely, but I thought the best total presentation was the Petersen/Littenberg design. The buildings and layout seemed very classic (perhaps to much so for the modernist crowd) and would hold up well over the years.

    In my book, Libeskind would come in second (the garden spire is gorgeous), but most of the other designs looked like something to be oohed over when built, and embarrassed about 10 years later.

  2. I’m sure opinions will range widely, but I thought the best total presentation was the Petersen/Littenberg design. The buildings and layout seemed very classic (perhaps too much so for the modernist crowd) and would hold up well over the years.

    In my book, Libeskind would come in second (the garden spire is gorgeous), but most of the other designs looked like something to be oohed over when built, and embarrassed about 10 years later.

  3. Do they know if some of these structures will withstand the physical pressures of their height? Some of them look like they are swaying already.

    How about a simple, sleek rectangular tower…or two.

    (The Littenberg one is best of the bunch though)

  4. The subject’s so controversial that whatever’s built will be disliked by a large and probably vocal number of people. Like most buildings it will probably be considered tastless in a decade or two, but if it survives long enough our great grandchildren will be learning about it as the greatest architectural masterpieces of the early 21st century.

  5. For some real scary ideas, check out these.

    http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/wtc.ideas/designs/page.110/
    Personally, I don’t think there should be any towers. Why memoralize buildings? We should memorialize the dead, but the greatest part of the development should look to the future and be useful. Not a mall, not all business, but mixed use space- residential of mixed income, commercial, park, something that will make lower Manhattan alive again.

  6. For some real scary ideas, check out these.

    http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/wtc.ideas/designs/page.110/
    Personally, I don’t think there should be any towers. Why memoralize buildings? We should memorialize the dead, but the greatest part of the development should look to the future and be useful. Not a mall, not all business, but mixed use space- residential of mixed income, commercial, park, something that will make lower Manhattan alive again.

  7. What I find fascinating is that so many of the designs have connections and pathways between the highest parts of the tallest buildings. Whatever the justification, these are also obvious escape routes to keep people from being trapped in case of large fires. I wonder if such features will become common in future building designs, like wind bracing.

  8. I wonder if companies will be reluctant to rent space in one of these designs.

  9. I liked the most conservative design the best,
    in particular their realistic and nice park
    design. That was the only one that looked like
    a place I’d want to spend an autumn afternoon.
    Actually, it reminded me a little of Grant Park
    in Chicago.

    Most of the other designs simply radiated
    weakness. They’re all melty, slouchy, slumpy.
    The park-in-the-sky ideas are marred by one
    fatal flaw – nobody will use them but tourists.
    Having to go schlep my butt up to some rooftop
    park- it’s not going to happen. The highrise
    terrarium is even less useful of an idea.

    I can’t imagine spending any time around any of
    the other designs than the one I liked.

    Ironically, the one I thought was best was
    by the same outfit that created the original
    batch of awful sketches.

  10. Okay, now come on!! How practical is a spire filled with plants?? Gimme a break.. who is going to maintain this monstrosity?? What a waste!!

  11. EMAIL: draime_2000@yahoo.com
    IP: 62.213.67.122
    URL: http://www.pills-for-penis.com
    DATE: 01/25/2004 08:31:51
    God had some serious quality-control problems.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.