[macvillage.net]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid...d_trade_center



Personally, I like it...

No "high" offices (it's a latice like thing on top)...

High and symbolic that NYC will move on

It focuses on moving forward, and is a reminder... rather than other plans which focused on being a reminder, and weren't about moving forward and growing as a nation.

Looks clean and modern... something NYC doesn't really have yet... NYC is a real mix of styles. This would just round it off.


My other like is that it can be seen from across the water... Right now there is an empty hole. I like being able to see something again... it serves a a reminder, and a "Fuck you" to terrorists.

[Nicko]

I was hoping this was the one that would get picked!

There is an awsome flash presentation on nytimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/nyregion/26REBU.html


The 3d walkthough of the building looks breath taking! I am sure it will give other building such as the petronas towers in Kuala Lumpur a run for their money.

[scottiB]

I preferred the Libeskind proposal, but onward and upward!

[I Bent My Wookiee]

It looks neat but is it just hollow? One giant viewing platform?

[::maroma::]

Great choice! I hope they go with it. It's a very classy/modern way to rebuild that area. As said before, it will allow NY to move forward as well as to have a reminder, or monument if you will.

And I LOVE what it will look like at night. It looks as if it will incorporate that Towers of Light memorial that was there for a while. Perfect! It will look great and pay respects.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by I Bent My Wookiee:
It looks neat but is it just hollow? One giant viewing platform?

from what I heard, most of it is hollow from about 1/3 of the way and up.

So it looks impressive, but it's also a reminder. Reminds me of a skeleton of the old WTC towers... but then again, it's modern look is a bit of a rebirth... well done I think.

[anarkisst]

Sad. That is pure garbage. I did like the Peterson/Littenberg design. I guess that's too normal looking (calling their proposal an urban plan, not architecture). Not like the shopping mall/greenhouse **** they decided on here.

Look, call me old fashioned but we should have rebuilt the World Trade Towers. Including of course a memorial. But I'm also all for a new vision. IMHO...none, except the one I mentioned worked for me...they were a smaller architectural firm and I hoped they'd get the nod. Oh well, lets hear it for big bucks...

Here's the Peterson/Littenberg designs...

[I Bent My Wookiee]

anarkisst, that looks like it was designed in the 50's.

[Spheric Harlot]

I just saw those presentations at the NYTimes site for the first time....I looked at the Libeskind proposal and thought, wow, that's really, really nice. Makes sense, lots of nice details, very human.

But then I saw the walkthrough of the THINK design...that is just otherwordly. Good God.

I *so* want that to happen.

-s*

[Zero-thustra]

They are both quite amazing ideas.

Even from the Flash 3D presentations it's really hard to get a sense of them.

I'd probably prefer whichever incorporates the most open space and green. That part of Manhattan really could use it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by anarkisst:
Sad. That is pure garbage. I did like the Peterson/Littenberg design. I guess that's too normal looking (calling their proposal an urban plan, not architecture). Not like the shopping mall/greenhouse **** they decided on here.

Ooomf.

That design really reminds me of the monumental Stalinist architecture of the Soviet 50's. Moscow University and Hotel Moskva are two examples I've seen, and I'm sure there are many more throughout Russia.

Very dated, and *far* too heavy.

-spheric*

[Timo]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Ooomf.

That design really reminds me of the monumental Stalinist architecture of the Soviet 50's. Moscow University and Hotel Moskva are two examples I've seen, and I'm sure there are many more throughout Russia.

Very dated, and *far* too heavy.

-spheric*

Exactly. And they were reaching for Rock Center. Ugh.

NYTimes says that Think's proposal has been modified to be constructed out of stainless steel, making the whole thing lighter. Might just be very cool.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

So when do they plan on building these suckers?

[Joshua]

CNN Link

CNN is reporting that the Libeskind proposal got the final nod. Which is it?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Joshua:
CNN Link

CNN is reporting that the Libeskind proposal got the final nod. Which is it?

Yahoo has an AP story saying the same thing.

Looks like Libeskind gets it after the revisions.

[BlackGriffen]

CNN claims that the Libeskind design has been selected. If you listen to the audio on the NYT website, I think you'll find that this one had some very interesting ideas. Including a "wedge of light" where every year on Sept 11 between the hours when the first plane hit and when one of the towers fell (I think the second, don't quite remember, it's audio ) no shadows will fall on this wedge.

I can accept the plan they chose, though it wouldn't have been my first choice. My first choice would have been the United Architect's plan, and my second would have been the Norman Foster plan (though I find the idea of the "voids" questionable).

BlackGriffen

Edit: D'oh! Too slow...

[sworthy]

ew... both ugly

[CollinG3G4]

Originally posted by I Bent My Wookiee:
So when do they plan on building these suckers?

Because people like to spend money on stuff they don't need.

[roger_ramjet]

I prefer the Libeskind proposal. Strange how there's conflicting stories about this, though.

[zigzag]

The Think concept was my fave from the start, but the news reports are conflicting - there must be some serious politicking going on.

Hard to say if the Think concept would look as sharp in reality as it does on paper. I still can't quite get a handle on the Libeskind concept - it keeps reminding me of the Pennzoil buildings in Houston:

[BlackGriffen]

No conflict. Think was recommended by a panel, but Libeskind was selected. Just click on the link to the original article, and the top story is Libeskind's selection. Judging from this article [NYTimes] the panel's selection was used as a political bone to throw to the loser.

I didn't know that it had been narrowed to two already. Of those to, I prefer Libeskind's design, hands down.

BlackGriffen

[macvillage.net]

Libeskind is just to unimaginative...

It's a plain ordinary building. Nothing different, unique about it (but it's height).

It's boring. Designed by someone who's other works are also very "bla". Obviously not meant to impress, but blend in.

[UNTeMac]

I really liked the Foster design, but the Libeskind is defininitely better than THINK.

[Oneota]

Originally posted by CollinG3G4:
Because people like to spend money on stuff they don't need.

The question was when not why.

[Mediaman_12]

I am glad they chose the Libeskind proposal. He is a very 'realistic' archtect, and will work with and around any problems that arise.
The Think design just looked like a load of scafolding.

[starman]

It's not bad. It could be worse. Some of those first designs were awful and I'd have to look at them every day.

Mike

[MaxPower]

On a side note, did anyone see some of the more oddball entries that cnn.com had on their site?

There was one in particular that I wish I had saved a picture of. It looked like the original WTC towers, but spaced farther apart. In between the towers was this huge Star of David. The designer went so far as to detail the stars hidden potential; to strike incoming planes down with a death ray. I looked and looked but couldnt find it again. Has anyone else seen it before or know where the link is?