[f1000]

Team Designing and Promoting New Design For World Trade Center

March 10, 2004

A team of activists and designers called �Team Twin Towers� recently unveiled a design for the World Trade Center that is an almost exact replica of the original Twin Towers.

The team, led by tv/film producer Randy Warner, with a design by engineer Ken Gardner and architect Herbert Belton, is lobbying aggressively for its design, called the �Plan of the People.� The idea consists of two towers whose sleek, rectangular designs are purposeful reminders of the originals. In fact one of the designers, Belton, worked on the Twin Towers' original construction drawings for New York firm Emory Roth and Sons. The towers will be two stories taller than the Twin Towers, and the north tower is designed with a 500-foot-high mast to make it the tallest building in the world.

While similar in form to the Twin Towers, the new design, the team says, is built to be much safer. It has a steel skin built in two layers � a tube within a tube- that has much heavier columns and much greater, and redundant, structural support. The design also calls for larger windows for comfort and much improved fireproofing over the original. Other elements include two five-story memorials made of the original steel skin (with replicated steel), access to bedrock, and a list of victims� names etched in granite.

The tower design, the team says, is a much more effective symbol of fortitude and hope than anything in the works right now.

�It stands for resolve, it stands for strength, it stands for renewal,� says Gardner. �To see the towers return would have an inspirational impact on the population. It's a living memorial, and I think it's more powerful than pretending 9/11 never happened.�

Does the team think their plan will actually take shape? �I think it�s pretty good chance. We know that in all polls the majority of people favor this,� says Gardner, who points to teams of people working on financing, engineering, and publicity for the project. Gardner adds that if Larry Silverstein loses his insurance case in court he will not have enough money to carry off his plans, making his team�s plan more realistic.

�This will be easier to do because you�ll have more people willing to contribute,� Gardner adds. The team is now shopping a presentation of their plan to corporations for possible funding. For more information visit www.teamtwintowers.org.

Sam Lubell, Architectural Record (http://archrecord.construction.com/n...10teamtwin.asp)


WTC II "Phoenix Towers":












The Original:





http://www.makenynyagain.com/


Demonhood: Instead of locking the thread again, could you please delete comments that have nothing to do with architecture and are a clear violation of Lounge policy (political/war posts)? Thanks.

[f1000]

Libeskind's "Freedom Tower":



http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev...r_elements.asp

[Landos Mustache]

What about the "French Fries towers"

[PacHead]

What's the point ? The plans have already been approved for another design, have they not ?.

Anyhow, I don't find anything original about merely copying what was there from before.

And those towers are only 2 stories bigger than the original WTC. Bigger and Taller = Better.

This plan seems lame, and it will never happen.

[Landos Mustache]

People absolutely HATED the trade towers when they were built in the 70's. Reviewers called it an eyesore and not a modern way of thinking.

Now that all this patriotism is floating around suddenly everyone likes it?

[f1000]

Originally posted by GoGoReggieXPowars:
Interesting, but where were they when proposals were going out?

Here's a quote from "The Guardian":

The Make New York New York Again plan was not submitted to the "innovative design study" launched in 2002 by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the newly created body charged with overseeing the rebuilding. This may have because their model wasn't ready, but Hakala claims other reasons. "The competition was not really a competition," he says. "Anybody who entered was required to surrender all of their intellectual property rights. So there were only about 400 entries, whereas with the major truly open architecture competitions in Europe, there are usually about 3,000 entrants. A lot of really big names said 'We're not going to play by those rules. This isn't what usually happens.'"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/featu...236355,00.html

[f1000]

Originally posted by Timo:
But that's the problem: there's nothing else to this design, besides the aggressive grid. I don't think building these buildings would be a good idea, and especially not with the wannabe Richard Meier marina buildings at the base.

As someone else posted, it just looks like yet-another-office block. That's not progress.

I disagree. The Phoenix design preserves Yama's prismatic twin towers with their unique massing instead of replacing them with a single tapering one. It was this massing, and not the facade, that was most impressive about the original twin towers.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
People absolutely HATED the trade towers when they were built in the 70's. Reviewers called it an eyesore and not a modern way of thinking.

My theory on this is that there were a lot of elite architects who were miffed at being passed over for a Japanese-American nobody. Yamasaki was chosen as the architect in the 1960's: not a time of great racial harmony in the U.S.

[f1000]

I'm not saying TTT's argument is sound, but here's their take on why their design might still have a chance:

Matters are further complicated by the fact that Pataki's announcement came just two days after Larry Silverstein, the property developer who holds the lease on the World Trade Centre site, lost an insurance case in which he tried to claim that the September 11 attacks on the twin towers constituted two separate incidents. He won't get the double payout he was counting on to fund the $8-$10bn redevelopment. With a maximum payout of $4.5bn, Silverstein's landlords, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, are nervous about his ability to pay. "The fact is, Silverstein doesn't have the money to build," Hakala insists.

With such financial uncertainty, "the groundbreaking ceremony is absolutely meaningless," Gardner says - except perhaps as a diversion from the real issue: Freedom Tower just isn't very popular. "You don't see it on a single mug, T-shirt, postcard or pin around the city," says Hakala. "People don't know what it is." Hakala believes that new twin towers would appeal to New Yorkers' pride and to tenants' loyalty and defiance, something Freedom Tower has failed to do in the 17 months since it was announced. Pataki will have his office there, but he might be quite lonely: not a single private sector tenant has signed up so far. With a downtown office vacancy rate of 14%, it's arguable whether 10m square feet of new space is really needed.

Other evidence of cracks in the masterplan for Ground Zero: Pataki can't find anyone to fund the September 11 memorial. Sanford Weill, chief executive of Tishman Speyer properties and Jerry Speyer, chairman of Citigroup, both turned down the offer to chair the fundraising board. "They're too smart to say why," Hakala hints darkly. "But the reason is that they don't want to attach their names to something that's about to collapse."

Hakala and Gardner say that they are having success lobbying top politicians and financiers in New York, and believe they are in with a chance of sneaking into Ground Zero. So are they? A source close to the redevelopment, who did not wish to be named, put that chance at "a million to one".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/featu...236355,00.html

[starman]

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
People absolutely HATED the trade towers when they were built in the 70's. Reviewers called it an eyesore and not a modern way of thinking.

Now that all this patriotism is floating around suddenly everyone likes it?

I think it was because there was nothing like it in the world. If you look at pictures of NYC back then, it was a lot of 20's and 30's-type art deco architechture, even on the Empire State Building. Then not one, but TWO silver boxes comes rising up and it really looked out of place. I think it wasn't until after some modern architecture was built around it that people started to like it.

It looked gorgeous at night. I used to spend time with my grandparents in Jersey City when I was a kid (back when JC was actually DECENT) and the towers at night were absolutely breathtaking. I think the Freedom Tower's gonna suck big time. It's not BAD, but it's not tickling me, either.

I went through a carousel of slides a few weeks ago and found a pic my dad took of the towers as they were being built. I'll have to scan it in and post it here.

Mike

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
People absolutely HATED the trade towers when they were built in the 70's. Reviewers called it an eyesore and not a modern way of thinking.

Now that all this patriotism is floating around suddenly everyone likes it?

The Parisians hated the Eiffel Tower when it was originally built too. It would have been torn down, except that it turned out to be useful as a radio antenna.

Hell, a lot of Mac users were up in arms about OS X when it came out. People don't like change.

[f1000]

Originally posted by starman:
Then not one, but TWO silver boxes comes rising up and it really looked out of place.

The eeriness of this twinning was even more pronounced from the vantage point of the Observation Deck,

[f1000]

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?


Comparison of the World's Tallest Buildings (Built or Under Construction)

Check the following (leave all other options blank):

Structure Type: Highrise
Status: built, construction, destroyed
Order By: 1 under "Roof height" instead of "Pinnacle height".
Buildings per page: 50


Comparison of Old and New World Trade Centers

Check the following (leave all other options blank):

Building: World Trade Center
City: New York City
Status: built, construction, proposed, destroyed
Order By: 1 under "Roof height" instead of "Pinnacle height"

[Sven G]

Rather than focusing on "freedom" for the new buildings, it would have been much better (IMHO) if they had focused on the relation between the world city and the ocean waterfront: that could have given some really beautiful (and far less "celebrative"!) projects, probably...

[Logic]

I'd vote for the "Freedom Tower" but change the name to "Phoenix tower".

But that's just me.

[Spheric Harlot]

That's not Libeskind's Tower, btw.

As someone wrote above, he had to surrender the entire rights.

The "Freedom Tower" doesn't have all that much to do with Libeskind's design.

It's a lot prettier than that imitation of the terminally ugly (except at night or in fog) WTC, though.

Impressive oversized man-made landmarks are not beautiful simply by virtue of their being big.

-s*

[sambeau]

I was never much of a fan of the World Trade Centre myself. But this new version is *even uglier* - seems to miss out the WTCs clean lines.

Seems like an exercise in Architectural Necrophilia to me.

[GoGoReggieXPowars]

Originally posted by starman:
I went through a carousel of slides a few weeks ago and found a pic my dad took of the towers as they were being built. I'll have to scan it in and post it here.

That'd be way cool, mang.

It was neat to see the under-construction towers while watching "The French Connection" last year.

Originally posted by sambeau:
Seems like an exercise in Architectural Necrophilia to me.

Ha, well said!

[turtle777]

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
What about the "French Fries towers"

Don't even go there.

It won't be long until the thread derails and Demonhood will close it. AGAIN.

-t

[starman]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Don't even go there.

It won't be long until the thread derails and Demonhood will close it. AGAIN.

-t

He can't help it. He forgets to take his ritalin.

Mike

[iCol]

I still think a replica of the original WTC would be the best way to go. Really, what could be the biggest message to rogue terrorists than if you try to destroy us, we will rebuild.

I think the WTC replacement design they are building is completely the wrong message, it seemed to me as though it was an admission of defeat.

I loved the design of the original WTC, such a brilliant example of post-modern design, almost hyper-modern in some respects. They were such a striking example, yet graceful and elegant at the same time.

I prey this idea will gain momentum before it's too late.

Or is it already too late?

[sambeau]

Originally posted by iCol:
Or is it already too late?

They've already started..

From the BBC:
A 20-ton granite block was laid as a cornerstone of Freedom Tower, planned to be one of the tallest buildings in the world at 1,776 feet (541m).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3864115.stm

[york28]

Here's some more info for anyone that is interested:

Interview with Libeskind

Finalist in the memorial contest

I guess I was confused about this, but are the building plans and the memorial plans being carried out seperately? I always liked the design by THINK, but it would be incompatible with the winning memorial design.

While I guess that I like the idea of a stronger resemblance to the original towers, I think that the newest design posted above needs to push the concept a little further.

[Psychonaut]

On the aniversaries of the attack, I've worn green business attire. Why? To honor the hard-working, honest American entrepreneurs lost on that day.

I find the selected design utterly innapropriate and un-American. It strives to be meek and humble, while neglecting the roots of what stood before it. I would much rather see a building which stands for all that the World Trade Center represented: American business and capitalism.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Psychonaut:
On the aniversaries of the attack, I've worn green business attire. Why? To honor the hard-working, honest American entrepreneurs lost on that day.

I appreciate that you forgot the 100+ other nationalities whose honest, hard-working representatives died alongside them.

Originally posted by Psychonaut:
I find the selected design utterly innapropriate and un-American. It strives to be meek and humble, while neglecting the roots of what stood before it. I would much rather see a building which stands for all that the World Trade Center represented: American business and capitalism.

"meek"?

It's TALLER than the original...

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by GoGoReggieXPowars:
That'd be way cool, mang.

It was neat to see the under-construction towers while watching "The French Connection" last year.

Heh.

"Freedom Connection"

"Freedom Tower"

Heh.

[scottiB]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Impressive oversized man-made landmarks are not beautiful simply by virtue of their being big.

-s*

I don't disagree, but, in regards to the WTC, its mass was realized due to the wishes of the client (square footage, etc.). While I'm sure that these things could've been satisfied by three (or more buildings) when planned in the 60s, building (not one but) two monolithic (using that adjective without negative connotation) structures fits what was needed. And, frankly, there is that innate human compulsion to create bigger, faster, stronger. Plus, it's NYC--where half-way or middling will just not cut it. Up to that time, the International Style was never thrust to the world in such scale, and it was a bit startling.

Whether the WTC was an aesthetic icon is debatable (I think it was*), but it was a NYC icon, and I believe (as a midwestern outsider) that its value to Gotham was its size, solidity, and support of the lower Manhattan skyline. And, obviously, the way it was lost makes the WTC towers more endearing. (As an aside, too much value is given to a building's exterior when the interior is as important--especially to those who are tenants--who pay the rent).

Again, as an outsider, to rebuild the WTC with an ersatz WTC isn't a good idea. It looks to the past too much. The idea of "Make NY NY Again" is false because it posits that NYC can't be NYC without the WTC. I don't think that's true (and I wouldn't think any New Yorker would believe that, either). Remaking the WTC favors defiance over creativity, patriotism over prudence, and symbolism over ingenuity.

While I'm not enthralled with Libeskind's project (or what will be left of it), if built it will, over time, be as acclimatized as the WTC (really, 1700+ feet is pretty damned tall).

*Of topic: Being a life-long Detroiter and by happenstance, I've had the fortune of experiencing a few Yamasaki buildings (his firm was based in a northern suburb). My alma mater, Wayne State University, has two buildings: 1 and 2. I worked near (and visited friends) in one (a tremendous lobby): 1 Woodward Avenue. And my SO worked for a design firm whose building was once Yamasaki's studio (and designed by him)--I can't find a picture, unfortunately. Many nights I would visit her after hours and walk through it silently--and be jealous that she would work every day in such a lovely space.

While I'm no architect, it was Yamasaki's buildings that built in me an initial appreciation in architecture, so I'm a bit partial to the WTC.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by scottiB:
Again, as an outsider, to rebuild the WTC with an ersatz WTC isn't a good idea. It looks to the past too much. The idea of "Make NY NY Again" is false because it posits that NYC can't be NYC without the WTC. I don't think that's true (and I wouldn't think any New Yorker would believe that, either). Remaking the WTC favors defiance over creativity, patriotism over prudence, and symbolism over ingenuity.

In addition, one of the hallmarks of New York was its ever-changing/growing skyline.

Change.

[scottiB]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
In addition, one of the hallmarks of New York was its ever-changing/growing skyline.

Change.

Yeah. You put it a bit more succinctly.

I need to lay off the coffee.

[PacHead]

In 5 years, NYC will once again have the tallest building in the world, and it will be a huge middle finger to all of the islamo fascists around the world, who brought the last towers down. It took them two attempts to do this. There will probably be some depraved idiots who will attempt to bring down this one also, but they will not succeed, since we are on to them and their plans now.

The new tower will be over 1776 feet, that's damn tall. I can't wait to go up to the top floor in that one and check it out.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally posted by starman:
I think it was because there was nothing like it in the world. If you look at pictures of NYC back then, it was a lot of 20's and 30's-type art deco architechture, even on the Empire State Building. Then not one, but TWO silver boxes comes rising up and it really looked out of place. I think it wasn't until after some modern architecture was built around it that people started to like it.

It looked gorgeous at night. I used to spend time with my grandparents in Jersey City when I was a kid (back when JC was actually DECENT) and the towers at night were absolutely breathtaking. I think the Freedom Tower's gonna suck big time. It's not BAD, but it's not tickling me, either.

I went through a carousel of slides a few weeks ago and found a pic my dad took of the towers as they were being built. I'll have to scan it in and post it here.

Mike

It was also because it is one of those designs that looks like it was not designed. Just 2 big gray blocks. It also represented something that the US was unfashionable at the time, wastefulness. They didn't even have light switches in most of the buildings and the entire thing was light up from top to bottom 24/7. People saw these 2 big cement monsters wasting a ton of money. They also didn't like the fact that they were designed by a non-American.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by PacHead:
The new tower will be over 1776 feet, that's damn tall. I can't wait to go up to the top floor in that one and check it out.

Also a darn tall target.
Hard to miss that one

-t

[Landos Mustache]

Originally posted by starman:
He can't help it. He forgets to take his ritalin.

Mike

You mean in the same way you were told not to reply to everything concerning me? You want some of my meds?

[starman]

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
You mean in the same way you were told not to reply to everything concerning me? You want some of my meds?

When was that?

[sambeau]

Originally posted by Psychonaut:
I would much rather see a building which stands for all that the World Trade Center represented: American business and capitalism.

Oh God. In my book that's reason enough to blow the bugger up.
Is there not something more decent to aspire to in the world..

[starman]

Originally posted by sambeau:
Oh God. In my book that's reason enough to blow the bugger up.
Is there not something more decent to aspire to in the world..

It's the World Trade Center, not American Trade Center.

Mike

[turtle777]

Originally posted by starman:
It's the World Trade Center, not American Trade Center.

Mike

But only because America = World, at least in their own minds

-t

[Landos Mustache]

I think the "Freedom Tower" looks really nice, but it is hard to tell from those pictures.

All that glass is sorta worrying if something else were to happen in the future.

[scottiB]

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
They also didn't like the fact that they were designed by a non-American.

Yamasaki was born in Seattle. Not that it would've mattered if people were anti-Japanese, regardless.

bio

[f1000]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
That's not Libeskind's Tower, btw.

As someone wrote above, he had to surrender the entire rights.

The "Freedom Tower" doesn't have all that much to do with Libeskind's design.

Libeskind's design was more of a massing study, anyway. I think LMDC always made it clear that the final design of the component buildings would probably differ from Libeskind's studies; after all, Libeskind doesn't have any experience designing tall buildings.

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Impressive oversized man-made landmarks are not beautiful simply by virtue of their being big.

Feeling inadequate?

[f1000]

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
It was also because it is one of those designs that looks like it was not designed. Just 2 big gray blocks. It also represented something that the US was unfashionable at the time, wastefulness. They didn't even have light switches in most of the buildings and the entire thing was light up from top to bottom 24/7. People saw these 2 big cement monsters wasting a ton of money.

The WTC was raking in $187 million NNN annually by 1987. By the 1990's, the center was also boasting enviably low, single-digit vacancy rates.

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
They also didn't like the fact that they were designed by a non-American.

Maybe you meant non-white American, since as somebody already pointed out, Yamasaki was born in and grew up in America.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by f1000:
Feeling inadequate?

<Shrek>
Looks like somebody's compensating for something, huh?
</Shrek>

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by f1000:
Maybe you meant non-white American, since as somebody already pointed out, Yamasaki was born in and grew up in America.

Ya, non-white, you see a pict of the guy and people think he is from out of town.