View Single Post
  #36014  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2014, 11:22 PM
ArtDecoRevival ArtDecoRevival is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 108
The NY Times article has some valid points, but all stuff we've heard before (should have been more open and residential in keeping with urban trends, Silverstein's greed, Pataki's lack of vision and self-interest, Durst's awful compromises, endless red-tape and bickering, etc). There's nothing particularly insightful and new (ironic because those are the same criticisms he makes of the tower). And you have to love his rose-colored view of the old WTC, talking about how the lines on them shimmered orange during duskā€¦ lol, oh please. And I'm not sure what angles he's looking at, when he says the new WTC is static and never changes shape. That's one of its best points! It DOES look different from different angles.

I think everyone's in a rush to trash it. Could it have been better? Obviously. That goes without saying. Should it have been better? Of course. Could it also have been much, much worse? Yes. I agree with the architect quoted in the beginning who says "it's not so bad." I'd give the new One WTC like a B-. I think in 5 or 10 years we'll forget all the missed opportunities and flaws and it'll grow on a lot of us as it cements its place in the NY skyline.