Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Ditnow
As I see this go up every day, the more disappointed I am. It's exactly what the NY Times architecture critic wrote seven years ago when the final design was unveiled: a giant paperweight with a toothpick stuck on top.
Intended to evoke an obelisk, it is monstrously overscaled. The giant over-eleongated triangles that make up its facets are utterly boring, and provide no sense of a "twist" in the building, as I think was intended. From a distance, these facets are hardly noticeable anyhow, which means it looks much like one of the original twins but without the other. But the twins were iconic precisely because there were two of them and because of their stripped-down modernism, without hokey elongated triangles and gimmicks like toothpick spires to gussy them up.
If and when the other towers, equally mediocre, are finished, the result will be complete visual discordance. There is no relationship among the towers, though that was striven for. But the striving was unsuccessful.
This is what happens when you let politicians, a greedy and philistine leaseholder and his mediocre house architect drive the reconstruction of a site that demanded greatness and got dross.
|
Yeah, we get it man, you don't like it. In fact I'm half-convinced you're just a very calm troll, because every single post you've made has been going on about how much you don't like the new buildings when everyone else here at the very least doesn't
dislike it.
And that's fine, you're allowed to disagree, but don't you have something better to do than complain about it on the internet? Your incessant whining isn't going to change the design.
And in my opinion that's a good thing, because I happen to like this design better than any of the other ones that were submitted.