Ooohhh! Scary! :

I like option 5 the best out of those, nice and minimalistic.

I know it sounds tasteless and possibly offensive, but I quite like the idea of rebuilding the same towers as before, only with planes sticking out of them at the top.

(ooh tough crowd)

There's a building like that in Tokyo with a car sticking out of it, it looks cool!

Actually I'm with 2the9s, I like the ideas that aren't skyscrapers - more creative uses of the site are interesting. However I'd imagine New Yorkers would want to see the skyline somewhat restored... there's probably a few tourist souveneir companies counting on that fact, with mountains of old-New-York-skyline T-shirts and post cards filling up warehouses.

ian said:

Yeah, I can't imagine actually getting anyone to invest in comparable skyscrapers though. The risks are just too great.

That's not defeatist, just realistic.

Seriously, some of those designs are really nice.



.
[This message was edited Wed Dec 18 17:59:31 PST 2002 by 2the9s]

This one screams "Ikea!":

This one is called the World Learning Center. I wonder how many classes I would have to take there before I could learn to like it:





Thought of something funnier edit.
[This message was edited Wed Dec 18 21:21:17 PST 2002 by 2the9s]

I just skimmed this design, but I agree, it sucks! :

2the9s

You takin this one to the bank, eh?







peekin through the skyscrapers
[This message was edited Wed Dec 18 20:59:20 PST 2002 by LaVisHh]

Despite my previous comments about skyscrapers, I really like this one (I'm not sure how tall the main building is):

This is an interesting memorial that leaves the actual sixteen acre site untouched:

This one is called "Imagine":



Here's the architect's idea about what he's doing:



How maudlin. I can't imagine it not being horrible as anything except poster art.

LaVisHh said:

You trying to jack me back?

2the9s said:

I like "THINK: Empty Towers." It restores the skyline, memorializes the site, and creates a sort of disincentive for other lunatics to destroy them - the reason: no people to kill.

Ian, it may be too soon for me to have much of a sense of humor about the senseless crimes of September 11th.

TheMax said:

I must respectfully disagree.

Shortly after Sep/11/2001, people were saying, "Whatever we build there will definitely be shorter. Nobody will ever build such tall builings again." But I disagreed--I said, "Build something that's equally as tall, if not even taller. Why not build the tallest building in the world there?"

Now that the shock is wearing off and people are getting back into a "normal" mindset (for example, the Transportation Security Administration essentially admitted that some post-Sep/11 airport security procedures were "stupid"), they're once again considering putting mega-skyscrapers on the site. And I'm glad.

If tall buildings are a "target" to terrorists, should we just vacate and tear down the Sears Tower in Chicago? What about other skyscrapers, such as, say, the Bank One Tower in Indianapolis (currently the 89th tallest building in the world, according to skyscrapers.com)?

(Side note: my aunt in New York City said that if the Sep/11 hijackers really wanted to terrorize the nation even more, they should have crashed one last airplane into a place like downtown Indianapolis, where people feel relatively safe and isolated from obvious targets like NYC and Washington.)

I would be very surprised if anyone ever manages to pull off a similar type of attack. The old rule of thumb was, "Cooperate with hijackers and you'll probably survive." But Sep/11 changed that--for example, remember the "Let's roll" people on the fourth airplane? Or how about the passengers who stopped the alleged "shoe bomber"? If people figure that cooperating with hijackers means death for them, they'll do whatever it takes to stop the hijackers and disregard the risks of getting hurt/killed in the process.

2the9s said:

matt said:

Except that terrorism is only one of the reasons why not to build such mega-skyscrapers on the site again. There are other reasons too.

The towers, while providing a lot of square footage in the financial district, also blocked a lot of light and made for a traffic nightmare. Plus many of the floors in the towers were vacant. They were expensive to fill and the towers were expensive to maintain.

Some of those designs above seem to provide similar office space and yet manage to appeal to an aesthetic sense that has been sorely lacking in the area. And to contribute to a sense of community as well.

While I agree with you that we shouldn't take fear into consideration when considring how to rebuild, neither should we allow mere defiance (a petty emotion) to dictate design. To rebuild tall buildings just to spite the terrorists would be foolish and I hope that the architects and members of whatever family victim groups they have committee groups for would take that into consideration.






.
[This message was edited Thu Dec 19 10:16:50 PST 2002 by 2the9s]

matt said:

First they tried to bring one of the WTC towers down with explosives packed into a truck, parked in the underground garage. When that didn't work, they hatched the suicide/homicide commercial aircraft idea.

Devious minds with enough $$$ will come up with another attack strategy for a new WTC on that site. It is now the rallying site for AlQaeda and other anti-US types. If they rebuild the WTC to its former capacity, it will remain a tragic target for the derranged. I, for one, would be VERY uncomfortable setting up an office on the 92nd floor of the new WTC.

Regarding other tall buildings, I'd say we're not off the hook yet. I'm sure there are others who would like to devise plans for midtown Manhattan or Chicago. Tear the other skyscrapers down preemptively? That's ridiculous. But let's not relax our guard - ever.

Finally, I think your aunt is wrong. When Timothy McVeigh targeted downtown Oklahoma City, it shook the nation and took everyone by surprise, but it did not wreak economic and military chaos the way September 11th did. To borrow a phrase: it's "location, location, location." Destruction of our country's tallest buildings in our biggest and busiest city will trump almost ANY disaster in Indianapolis.

Here's one by Peter Eisenman

Precarious but nice:

The original WTC towers came to represent NYC in the way that the Eiffel Tower represents Paris and Big Ben does for London.

Now that they're gone, whatever replaces them has to be just as spectacular without being ridiculous.

They need to be tall, yet functional, and most of all, beautiful.

So far, none of the concepts that I've seen have managed to grasp all that.

New Year bump.

2 & 3 are the best, IMO...