NEW YORK | What do you think of the new WTC?

[IMBY]

Originally Posted by Harley613

I'm glad somebody finally said it. I'm not impressed at all with all the glass and boredom. I have been visiting the site since 2000, before and after, and every year since..... I'm so uninspired.

Nothing wrong with an all-glass building, but why oh why, does the building have to be but one color of glass!!! Has anyone ever done an all-glass tower with a mosiac of glass? And what's stopping someone from doing so?

You can take one of those old square 60's, 70's glass buildings, give it a new lease on life, just pop out some panels and replace it with different colored glass!

All the skyscrapers I make out of Lego are envisioned using mult-colored glass.

The Harmon Hotel Tower, part of City Center here In Las Vegas, uses different colored glass, first time I've seen it done in a high rise and it looks fantastic!

I've seen lower-scaled projects with multi-colored glass, but never a big skyscraper!

Come on! Come on! Let's throw in more color! New York is a colorful city, so let's get on with it!

[ThatOneGuy]

Oh dear...

[Bill Ditnow]

The spire with the radome removed is a mediocrity, but a useful exclamation point to an utterly ordinary and banal building. It's too bad New York ended up with this mess (and I mean all the buildings, projected or built) as a replacement for the iconic twins. Honestly, it's disgusting. Great, cutting-edge architecture is being done all over the world. How's it possible that such architecture was not done at this site?

And, it's an antenna, not a spire. To count this thing toward the height of the building would be ludicrous.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by Bill Ditnow

The spire with the radome removed is a mediocrity, but a useful exclamation point to an utterly ordinary and banal building. It's too bad New York ended up with this mess (and I mean all the buildings, projected or built) as a replacement for the iconic twins. Honestly, it's disgusting. Great, cutting-edge architecture is being done all over the world. How's it possible that such architecture was not done at this site?

And, it's an antenna, not a spire. To count this thing toward the height of the building would be ludicrous.

I agree on the antenna, but I not on the building. Yes, the twins were bulky as hell and dominating, but they were the epitome of banal design. Although I would have liked to see a more iconic tower such as the Foster towers, I think the design itself is more interesting than a boring box. The problem was the initial design competitions didn't yield enough impressive designs besides the Foster proposal, which I found weird. Then again, I think they were going conservative all along and the Foster design really wasn't suitable for such a site. It was a pity that all of the other proposals were awful.

[Mamiamato24]

I like them
I mean that gap in NYC's skyline would eventually have to be filled in, and I think there is no better way to do it than the 4 WTC towers. The old ones weren't known for their architectural beauty, but rather their sheer height, size, and dominance compared to all other buildings in NYC. Another reason why I liked the old ones too is because they really depicted the definition "twin". They had the same height, looked the same, and were right next to each other. The new plan just takes that aspect away. All 4 towers look totally different. In conclusion, the WTC buildings would have to been rebuilt EVENTUALLY. Would be nice if they were all done and finished by 9/11's 15th anniversary (2016).

[TechTalkGuy]

I've met people like Bill Ditnow.
I won't mention names, but there is a guy who travels to NYC once in a while who's only desire is to rebuild the twin towers.

He often referred to the rebuilding efforts of One WTC as the "Fraud 'em Tower".

I was once a part of that movement until I gave up realizing that I was allowing an ignorant fool to use me to spread his message.

I will no longer be ignored.
One WTC is a very nice tower.
It is being built like a tank.

The complex, when completed will look very nice.

I am not a fan of the twin pools "reflecting absence" nonsense.
I own several miniature models of the twin towers in my home office.

Now, when will someone sell miniature models of the new WTC office complex?

[WTCman7301]

Originally Posted by fish

I've met people like Bill Ditnow.
I won't mention names, but there is a guy who travels to NYC once in a while who's only desire is to rebuild the twin towers.

He often referred to the rebuilding efforts of One WTC as the "Fraud 'em Tower".

I was once a part of that movement until I gave up realizing that I was allowing an ignorant fool to use me to spread his message.

I will no longer be ignored.
One WTC is a very nice tower.
It is being built like a tank.

The complex, when completed will look very nice.

I am not a fan of the twin pools "reflecting absence" nonsense.
I own several miniature models of the twin towers in my home office.

Now, when will someone sell miniature models of the new WTC office complex?

That used to be me too! I would always be in the streets saying rebuilt the Towers back. But it suddenly struck me that these new buildings were going to be build inevetiably. The new complex is nice, I like it. It's a beautiful complex. As I wanted the tein towers back so badly, I think the the Twin Towers are more important to history that its gone. That's my opinion.

[Dense_Electric]

Originally Posted by Davidsam52

Bad building? What is wrong with you?????

Don't mind Bill, the only reason he ever comes in this topic is to bitch and moan about how bad the building is. A sad individual with nothing better to do.

[Bill Ditnow]

Originally Posted by Dense_Electric

Don't mind Bill, the only reason he ever comes in this topic is to bitch and moan about how bad the building is. A sad individual with nothing better to do.

LOL, that would only be true, maybe, if I came here all the time and bitched, but I hardly ever post here at all. Go check how many posts I've made. And I've been registered here since, oh, about 2004. (ETA: 229 posts in ten years. Yeah, I've got nothing better to do, all right!)

The building is a piece of shit. It's a typical David Childs banality. He has even bragged about the banality of his buildings: giving soulless corporate clients what they want, as cheaply as possible. He knows the game.

He is the court architect of Silverstein. You think Larry knows anything about any topic other than money? You are naive.

I regard you and the others here as lemmings. All that interests you is that the thing is TALL. Sorry, tall is not enough. Also, this stupid building -- which, as the social critic James Howard Kunstler noted years ago, "lacks even the dignity of a common bowling trophy" -- does not even replace the twin towers. Seen from a distance it just looks like a bland rectangle, and it looks as if they got around to replacing one of the Twins and ran out of money to replace the other.

The gushiness over this silly thing displayed on this forum is just symptomatic of how desperately people wish to rally around some symbol, no matter how trite and empty it is. As a result, it is interesting to observe this forum from afar, as instructive on the oddities of human nature. And of course, anyone who has a different point of view from the cult mentality displayed on this thread is slandered as being "a sad individual with nothing better to do." Nothing better to do? Again, I hardly ever post here. I do like to observe the inanities of you all, though, and your desperate desire to believe that this idiot architecture is anything but cheap tinsel topped by a toothpick.

I live in NY and was here on 9/11. I resent that this banality has been foisted on us as a replacement for what used to be there. If you don't like a contrary opinion to your delusions, too bad for you. Suck it up.

[wong21fr]

It's always interesting when the thin,thin being quite the understatement, veneer of politeness falls away and the truly condescending nature of an inherently bitter individual with their ingrained sense of superiority comes into the light. Though it does serve to reflect on the banal nature of their negative outlook on life which I suspect has been honed in a now-diminished career as an old-media critic.

The statement, "Don't mind Bill, the only reason he ever comes in this topic is to bitch and moan about how bad the building is." is fairly apt, thought I don't think you are a " sad individual with nothing better to do." Rather, I suspect that you come on here as an occasional cathartic exercise to vent your frustrations with this redevelopment which is perfectly understandable.

[DURKEY427]

This is quite funny HAHA

[ThatOneGuy]

I visited NYC and saw 1WTC from New Jersey, it looked absolutely amazing, and huge, far more than what I had seen from the pictures.

[Yackemflaber69]

2 wtc will ruin the entire complex when it is complete

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Thaniel

I combined the two images and accounted for the difference in the camera angles. The first image is slightly further north than the second and also the first image is closer to the buildings than the second. See what you all think?

Definitely prefer the twins; no doubt about it. They blended in with their surroundings much better and completely overwhelmed the skyline with dominance, power, and brute force. The towers weren't fancy or elegant - they made their statement simply by standing tall and proud on their own merits of size and mass. They never pretended to be anything else but plain "no-frills" office buildings, yet they still left you awestruck at how they completely dominated and came to symbolize NYC at the time. They embodied everything a skyscraper should be, IMO.

[Matt]

I would also be interested in seeing a poll - broken down by age group - of those who prefer the "twins" or the new 1WTC. My gut instinct tells me the older age groups would nominate the original complex while younger age groups (i.e. those in their teenage years) would vote for 1WTC because that's all they know; they never had the opportunity to experience the glory that once was. At 33 years old, and having seen and lived with both, for me it's the original complex all the way. I would even go so far to say that the Twin Towers were more iconic than the ESB, as they were more recognizable to both Americans and the global population alike.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Matt

Definitely prefer the twins; no doubt about it. They blended in with their surroundings much better and completely overwhelmed the skyline with dominance, power, and brute force. The towers weren't fancy or elegant - they made their statement simply by standing tall and proud on their own merits of size and mass. They never pretended to be anything else but plain "no-frills" office buildings, yet they still left you awestruck at how they completely dominated and came to symbolize NYC at the time. They embodied everything a skyscraper should be, IMO.

Agreed

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by Matt

I would also be interested in seeing a poll - broken down by age group - of those who prefer the "twins" or the new 1WTC. My gut instinct tells me the older age groups would nominate the original complex while younger age groups (i.e. those in their teenage years) would vote for 1WTC because that's all they know; they never had the opportunity to experience the glory that once was. At 33 years old, and having seen and lived with both, for me it's the original complex all the way. I would even go so far to say that the Twin Towers were more iconic than the ESB, as they were more recognizable to both Americans and the global population alike.

You are so off on that Age thing. I find it insulting that you would think that young people would only prefer the new complex,

The new towers are far better, and I'm no teen. I was inside and all around those towers and I can tell you that they can't compare aesthetically. The glory you talk about must be lost on me because although impressive, their facades were dull and uninspired.

Then again, I'm an aficionado of modern and futuristic design and I'm always looking forward. I dont think you can generalize that older folks love the dull and grey twins over the new and fresh design, that is absurd. If so, many are probably sentimental votes rather than judgements that focus on design without historical influence.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by aquablue

You are so off on that Age thing. I find it insulting that you would think that young people would only prefer the new complex,

The new towers are far better, and I'm no teen. I was inside and all around those towers and I can tell you that they can't compare aesthetically. The glory you talk about must be lost on me because although impressive, their facades were dull and uninspired.

Then again, I'm an aficionado of modern and futuristic design and I'm always looking forward. I dont think you can generalize that older folks love the dull and grey twins over the new and fresh design, that is absurd. If so, many are probably sentimental votes rather than judgements that focus on design without historical influence.

You cannot fairly compare the merits of either complex until you've compared them apples to apples. For many younger people, seeing grainy pictures of the original WTC does not have the same impact as experiencing the new complex (whether in person or through higher quality pictures on this forum).

The only fair comparison can be made by people who have EXPERIENCED both complexes in the same way, and these people - as each day, week, month, year, decade passes - will ultimately fall into older age categories. That's simply fact.

I too am a fan of modern, futuristic architecture, but a building is more than just a facade. As for my personal affinity for the Twins, I never admired them because of their facades; I admired them for their skyline silhouette and the amazingly powerful impact they made as they dominated over the Lower Manhattan skyline. In fact, I posit that the lack of any fanciful facade (admittedly "dull and uninspired") is what helped the towers to become so monolithic and powerful in the first place, and firmly established them as a global landmark. That's how they touched my soul, and my preference is based not on sentiment (really, how long are we going to milk 9/11?), but on personal taste.

I was lucky enough to have experienced the original WTC in person almost every day, and fewer and fewer people in younger age categories can now actually say this - hence a fair comparison cannot be made by younger generations, just like I can't tell people "what Pearl Harbor was like". My only recollection of the 1941 attack is through grainy black-and-white film reels. Of course one can formulate an opinion based on pictures, but the full story of the Twin Towers - their ambiance, personality, mood, 3D aesthetics, the feeling you get when looking at the towers and how they personally touched you - can NEVER be ascertained from 1990s-vintage pictures. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but without having actually experienced the original, there simply isn't a level playing field for comparison.

[khaizer007]

Originally Posted by Matt

You cannot fairly compare the merits of either complex until you've compared them apples to apples. For many younger people, seeing grainy pictures of the original WTC does not have the same impact as experiencing the new complex (whether in person or through higher quality pictures on this forum).

The only fair comparison can be made by people who have EXPERIENCED both complexes in the same way, and these people - as each day, week, month, year, decade passes - will ultimately fall into older age categories. That's simply fact.

I too am a fan of modern, futuristic architecture, but a building is more than just a facade. As for my personal affinity for the Twins, I never admired them because of their facades; I admired them for their skyline silhouette and the amazingly powerful impact they made as they dominated over the Lower Manhattan skyline. In fact, I posit that the lack of any fanciful facade (admittedly "dull and uninspired") is what helped the towers to become so monolithic and powerful in the first place, and firmly established them as a global landmark. That's how they touched my soul, and my preference is based not on sentiment (really, how long are we going to milk 9/11?), but on personal taste.

I was lucky enough to have experienced the original WTC in person almost every day, and fewer and fewer people in younger age categories can now actually say this - hence a fair comparison cannot be made by younger generations, just like I can't tell people "what Pearl Harbor was like". My only recollection of the 1941 attack is through grainy black-and-white film reels. Of course one can formulate an opinion based on pictures, but the full story of the Twin Towers - their ambiance, personality, mood, 3D aesthetics, the feeling you get when looking at the towers and how they personally touched you - can NEVER be ascertained from 1990s-vintage pictures. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but without having actually experienced the original, there simply isn't a level playing field for comparison.

I understand what you're saying and for all of us who spent a lot of times around the original buildings, they represented more than a tall buildings or a dominant skyline. But what we are talking about is the design of the towers and how they relate to the downtown skyline, that's it and based on that I have to agree with the previous statement that the new towers not only look better but complement the skyline pretty well. I spent a lot of time at the WTC and I think most of us here wish the towers were still here but even then, I was never a fan of the design. Just my preference, I'm just comparing designs.

[Thaniel]

Originally Posted by Matt

I would also be interested in seeing a poll - broken down by age group - of those who prefer the "twins" or the new 1WTC. My gut instinct tells me the older age groups would nominate the original complex while younger age groups (i.e. those in their teenage years) would vote for 1WTC because that's all they know; they never had the opportunity to experience the glory that once was. At 33 years old, and having seen and lived with both, for me it's the original complex all the way. I would even go so far to say that the Twin Towers were more iconic than the ESB, as they were more recognizable to both Americans and the global population alike.

Originally Posted by aquablue

You are so off on that Age thing. I find it insulting that you would think that young people would only prefer the new complex,

The new towers are far better, and I'm no teen. I was inside and all around those towers and I can tell you that they can't compare aesthetically. The glory you talk about must be lost on me because although impressive, their facades were dull and uninspired.

Then again, I'm an aficionado of modern and futuristic design and I'm always looking forward. I dont think you can generalize that older folks love the dull and grey twins over the new and fresh design, that is absurd. If so, many are probably sentimental votes rather than judgements that focus on design without historical influence.

Years ago I wanted them to rebuild the original with modernized safety designs but nowadays I resoundingly would say I want the new buildings. Something I never thought I'd say actually. I disagree about the ESB vs. Twins. I think the ESB is the heart of the City itself. Years ago I would have probably agreed with you but I've come to appreciate the ESB after being on top of it a few times. It is to America what the Great Pyramid is to Egypt. And I've been inside both, so I would make that reference. lol

To rebuild the Twins after 9/11 would be creating a weird clone intended to be a symbol of rebuilding but it would have also been like denial of the tragedy itself. Covering up scars doesn't work. My closest best friend died a few years ago and I learned in the worst possible way that you have to let go to truly move on. I agree with Aquablue. A vote for the old towers would be out of sentimental value. The new 1WTC is the most expensive building ever built, and the most technologically advanced building ever built. It looks fucking sleek. 2WTC will look so cool next to it. Instead of 'two' supertall buildings towering above all the rest in Lower Manhattan we're going to have four! Each with it's own design and personality unlike the original twins.