Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtDecoRevival
His criticism is focused more on the so-called "bunker mentality" of it, which to me is kinda silly when you compare the appearance of the former twin towers with the current One WTC. While less secure, the old twin towers definitely seemed on the surface to be more utilitarian, vanilla and clinical than the new tower. Their attachment comes mostly through their absence.
|
I disagree that the attachment to the original WTC comes from their absence. They were by far my favorite buildings while they stood. I was only a child but I was pretty obsessed with them. Yes they were 60s modern grey boxes, but they were revolutionary in a multitude of ways and beyond that, they stood as a defiant contrast against the slender bank towers which dominated downtown. They were the first true "super tall" buildings, and there was 2 of them. Everyone has differing opinions but I consider the loss on 9/11 one of the worst architectural losses in history. For all it's gritty grandeur, I don't think the old Penn Station held a candle to the WTC complex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtDecoRevival
Citigroup Center (and that almost collapsed due to a shoddy structural design).
|
The Citigroup Center never 'almost collapsed' nor was the issue structural
design. The fabricators decided to cut corners and use bolted joints instead of welded joints as the engineer had specified. No one bothered to recalculate the loads after the switch. After the building was constructed, the engineer found out about the switch, locked himself in a room for a week, and figured out that if 70mph winds hit the building at a 45-degree angle, the bolts would sheer and the tower could fall over killing thousands. They secretly welded thick steel plates over every single bolted joint in the building to reinforce it. If welded joints had been used in construction, there would have been no issue despite the recalculated loads.