NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS

[jsr]

Originally Posted by The North One

I have no idea how to properly post articles but I found this on Yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/banksy-nytimes...162728695.html

Ouch.

Pff... like that narcissistic hooligan knows anything about anything.

Very little substance behind that poorly written op-ed.

[gttx]

Originally Posted by jsr

Pff... like that narcissistic hooligan knows anything about anything.

Very little substance behind that poorly written op-ed.

Easy to criticize someone else's work. Harder to put your own out there for judgment.

Banksy is doing all sorts of things in the art world. Where's his redesign of the WTC? Until then there isn't much he can say about it.

[Traynor]

Originally Posted by gttx

Easy to criticize someone else's work. Harder to put your own out there for judgment.

Banksy is doing all sorts of things in the art world. Where's his redesign of the WTC? Until then there isn't much he can say about it.

Oh Puh-leeeease

That old chestnut?

So all movie critics must make their own movies? All art critics must paint their own masterpieces? And all critics of architecture must build their own buildings?

You seem to be approving of the new WTC without having built your own. What makes you not have to live up to your own standards?

[WonderlandPark]

I agree with him.

I have ALWAYS thought the Freedom Tower was, well, bland....sure its tall, but, er, that is about it.

and, yes, I have seen it recently and been to the memorial, which is great, but the tower...meh. Its particularly soulless, but all is not lost in NYC, there is the much better Hudson Yards project, the fantastic SHoP and Nouvel towers in Midtown. There is incredible depth and interest to the recent architecture in Manhattan. Sorry to say WTC 1 is not one of them.

Never cared for WTC 1, so shoot me.

[antinimby]

No building will ever satisfy everyone. If it was more extravagant, then you'd have critics saying it's too ostentatious and not respectful of the site. Too plain and you have people griping about not enough effort put into the design.

Just accept what we got and be grateful some of those cringeworthy early designs never saw the light of day.

[jsr]

Originally Posted by gttx

Easy to criticize someone else's work. Harder to put your own out there for judgment.

Banksy is doing all sorts of things in the art world. Where's his redesign of the WTC? Until then there isn't much he can say about it.

He's entitled to his opinion just like anyone else. It's juvenile and amateurish writing however... hardly worthy of the publicity he's apparently seeking.

[599GTO]

I just can't get over that antenna.

Why would anyone care what Banksy thinks? Most of his work is hideous and he is hardly an example of good taste. IMHO, One World Trade Center is/was a perfectly handsome (although a bit muted) tower, but that horrid exposed antenna at the top has pulled my opinion of the building way down.

In any case, there are so many exciting buildings going up in Manhattan.. and in a decade from now, One World Trade Center will be old news. It's just too bad that all of the action is Uptown rather than Downtown. It would be amazing if something much taller and more stylish than One World Trade Center went up Downtown and stole its crown.

[Traynor]

Originally Posted by jsr

He's entitled to his opinion just like anyone else. It's juvenile and amateurish writing however... hardly worthy of the publicity he's apparently seeking.

His writing skills are not the issue. Why is that even being considered? He delivered a cogent argument whether he crafted his prose worthy of a Pulitzer or not.

It is WHAT he is saying not HOW it's said that is important.

In an adult conversation we argue the facts at hand, not the way someone speaks. Challenge his viewpoint with an alternative viewpoint, don't call his mama fat just to win an argument.

[NYdude]

What's the point of arguing with opinions? There is no point. An opinion is just that, an opinion. And can't be argued.

[sw5710]

Everyone has the right to there opinion or point of view. Negative or positive. The same thing is happening over at SSC now. Can we get construction info again?

[jsr]

Originally Posted by Traynor

His writing skills are not the issue. Why is that even being considered? He delivered a cogent argument whether he crafted his prose worthy of a Pulitzer or not.

You really need to put up a better building up in front of it right away.

I'm sorry I was wrong. Controversy is his shtick, and I fell for it hook-line-and-sinker. His fake Times op-ed is really just another piece of attention whore art - cleverly crafted with seemingly outlandish, unsubstantiated, childish complaining. It's actually rather ingenious. He got me. Three posts of my life wasted.

[21bl0wed]

I dislike his art and dislike the spire. Everyone's opinion is equal unfortunately

[gramsjdg]

WTC-1, regardless of the fact that it is a result of a compromise, is a solid design to the parapet. The real issue is the unclad spire, and in my opinion, the unclad communication rings as well. People here seem to conveniently forget that the original intention of the spire and base (correct me if I am wrong, NYguy) was to create a "complement" to the Statue of Liberty's torch. To that end, not only is the radome on the spire crucial, but the original radome covering the communication rings which serves as the "sconce" which holds the "flame" of the spire.




These images show how far away the top of WTC-1 is from the coherent package of SOM's original design. Its actually like the frog and boiling water analogy as the architectural elements were removed piece by piece over time. If CTBUH counts this "thing" as a spire, then Willis towers' antennas should by all logic and reason be counted as well; otherwise its just willfull, blind patriotism like Traynor said...

[CityGuy87]

Is it possible that the CTBUH would rule it as spire under the condition that the developers complete the spire as originally planned or risk having the building's height demoted? I personally think that would be a great ultimatum but I don't think that's very likely. Anyone else have any thoughts on this idea?

[LMich]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Wow. To me this is the most amazing part of the rebuilt WTC site.

Totally agree. The underground "guts" of this site have always interested me. To me, the above-ground portion of 1WTC is probably one of the less interesting parts of the complex.

[Camstonisland]

I agree with him.

I have ALWAYS thought the Freedom Tower was, well, bland....sure its tall, but, er, that is about it.

and, yes, I have seen it recently and been to the memorial, which is great, but the tower...meh. Its particularly soulless, but all is not lost in NYC, there is the much better Hudson Yards project, the fantastic SHoP and Nouvel towers in Midtown. There is incredible depth and interest to the recent architecture in Manhattan. Sorry to say WTC 1 is not one of them.

Never cared for WTC 1, so shoot me.

Well, hopefully 2 and 3 WTC will balance out the blandness. Cant wait for them to be built!

[Guiltyspark]

One Thousand foot tall? Banksy doesn't even know the height of the tower he is trashing.

[Onn]

The design for 1WTC wasn't the greatest that could have been proposed for the site. However I blame that more on post 9/11 paranoia (huge factor in why the base is the way it is), than the failure of the architect or the creative process. There were only so many ways this tower could go, and it had to be somewhat representative of the twins without being a direct successor to them (explains the shape of the tower). The antenna was entirely botched up, biggest letdown of this entire project.

The good news is that appreciation of the tower will probably grow over time, much like it did for the Twin Towers.

[cadiomals]

Tower 2 will be this entire site's saving grace, it's too bad it's being built last. I think we should focus on how beautiful the entire complex is going to look once its all done, and how all the elements of it work together quite seamlessly, rather than focusing on the flaws of one building. Once everything's done the focal point will shift from Tower 1 to admiring the complex as a whole.

And let's all at least agree it could have turned out a LOT worse: http://en.wikiarquitectura.com/image...er_Primera.jpg

[Hudson11]

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

People here seem to conveniently forget that the original intention of the spire and base (correct me if I am wrong, NYguy) was to create a "complement" to the Statue of Liberty's torch. To that end, not only is the radome on the spire crucial, but the original radome covering the communication rings which serves as the "sconce" which holds the "flame" of the spire.

that design was done away with when Libeskind and Childs were forced back to the drawing board after this debacle.



The spire and the beacon was retained from the original Freedom Tower plan. What one could argue in favor of the mast being counted is that the mast was always part of the building's design, from the above design to this improved one



and of course now to this bare one



what most argue for against counting the mast is that by getting rid of the radome, you rid the mast of a critical architectural element to the point where it cannot be considered a spire by the standards of the CTBUH.