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."

Comments

[Brian Erst]

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.

[Brian Erst]

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.

[Lollia]

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)

[Madog]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Mark Draughn]

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.

[Richard Scott]

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

[Jon H]

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.

[Nora S. Pambino]

DID WE OVERLOOK THIS ONE?
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-080102A

(Seems to be the best of all worlds)

[Anonymous]

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!!

[Geyer Laura Talley]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
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.