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

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Thaniel

I agree with Aquablue. A vote for the old towers would be out of sentimental value.

Well, here is one vote cast for the original towers that is NOT out of "sentimental value". I truly believe the twins looked much better in the skyline than the "designed by committee", "value engineered" new WTC complex.

There was something magical about the twins - how the south tower would cast this 1,300' shadow on the north tower; the two towers proudly matching each other in height (approx); the solid "no frills" facade that drew attention to the size and mass of the buildings rather their architecture (or lack thereof); the sight of two mighty pillars anchoring lower Manhattan and declaring it one of the main financial centers of the world; the antenna on the north tower to differentiate one tower from the other; the battleship gray silhouette of the buildings during all times of the day; the array of aircraft obstruction lights at night that would gently fade in and out without sync; the global acclaim they enjoyed in movies, TV shows, etc.

Yeah, absolutely no doubt... Twins all the way. My adoration is not "sentimental", they were some really cool buildings and looked absolutely stunning as the centerpiece(s) of the lower Manhattan skyline. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and mine is that the Twins were more aesthetically pleasing in the skyline compared to the mish-mash of conflicting architectural styles we're getting now. In my humble opinion, the entire complex looks tacky and cheap (enormous price tag aside) and doesn't complement the context of its surroundings very well at all (WFC complex, Woolworth, et al). At least Foster's tower was streamlined to sort of blend in better with its counterparts, but the Twins didn't have to worry about that. They were as simple as simple gets, and through their sheer size and mass, their presence and dominance alone is what made them absolutely stunning IMO.

And lest we forget, the Twins were built when the United States (and particularly New York) were still contenders in the "World's Tallest" race, when American developers had vision, ambition and egos to satiate. To me, achieving a height of 1,776' through some value-engineered toothpick spire (remember the original spire? I rest my case.) is just plain ridiculous. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have had the opportunity to experience the majesty of the original World Trade Center in person, on a daily basis. As the demographic of the forum continues to change and the Bieber Nation joins us, fewer and fewer people will be able to say that -relying solely on fading pictures to draw contrasts and parallels between the two iterations of the World Trade Center complex.

[599GTO]

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.

Twins were ugly compared to this new tower. Can not stand that gloomy vibe it gave off. It's striking how drab they looked when compared to the gleaming modern 1 WTC. So happy it isn't the 1970s anymore; what a horrendous decade architecturally wise.

It has done wonders for Downtown's skyline as it clearly looks more beautiful new WTC towers. Not only is it more beautiful, inviting and playful, but it also single-handedly makes the skyline look so much more fresh and brings New York into the 21st Century.

[deepen915]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

Twins were ugly compared to this new tower. Can not stand that gloomy vibe it gave off. It's striking how drab they looked when compared to the gleaming modern 1 WTC. So happy it isn't the 1970s anymore; what a horrendous decade architecturally wise.

It has done wonders for Downtown's skyline as it clearly looks more beautiful new WTC towers. Not only is it more beautiful, inviting and playful, but it also single-handedly makes the skyline look so much more fresh and brings New York into the 21st Century.

AMEN to this..

[deepen915]

I went to the top of the old WTC, once in 2001, before the attacks. I just have to say, they were amazing and an architectural feat back then. But saying they are better looking/fitting the skyline better than One WTC is just wrong. One WTC is absolutely amazing the way it is designed. The glass facade, and the high tech look of it is much better in so many ways. As sad as the 9/11 tragedy was, I feel that it is somehow a good thing (as much as it hurts me to say), that we have a chance to rebuild the skyline to make it even better with One WTC and the future towers, 2 and 3 being built. I feel really bad to be saying that statement, however, I'm sure many of you would agree partially. Downtown has a chance to shine even brighter than it ever did before. With WTC 2 and 3 being built hopefully in the next 4-5 years, the new skyline will look breathtaking to anyone who gets a look at it.

[deepen915]

Originally Posted by NYdude

I completely agree with this. This tower is very fitting. I would not want the originals built. Why should we act like it ever happened. By looking at this tower, along with the others, we see the beauty of it, and we are reminded of the change of Lower Manhattan during the past 12 years or so.

this ^

[photoLith]

Originally Posted by IMBY

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!

Uh yeah... no.

[06hdfxdwg]

Well i'm almost 50 and actually watched Nelson and David rise from my school across the river in North Bergen. They aren't just sentimental to me but they also had an "in your face" presence about them that the new building just doesn't have. Sure,they were boxy but that was the thing. Their simplicity is what made them outstanding and the view they afforded from the NJ Turnpike in late afternoon,when the setting sun was hitting them just right gave them a golden glow that just doesn't compare. I can remember visiting them and basically bellying up to the South Tower and looking straight up in awe and of course the view from the rooftop platform was breathtaking. I can remember as a kid begging my father to take the Lincoln Tunnel as opposed to the Verrazano when we'd go visit relatives in Long Island or Brooklyn just so we'd have to go down the West Side Highway and pass right by them and then craning my neck to see the top. Perhaps if they would have built two of these new buildings,i might feel differently. I think the new one is nice but im sorry,Nelson and david will always be #1 to me. ;-)

[06hdfxdwg]

By the way: How many pieces of the mast have been set thus far? 2 or 3??

[M.K.]

here is a overlap from what was the very old blocks buildings with the what supposed to be new one, if they still construct the #3 in that way which i expect not, because it is boring. More colors instead of all 4 blue blocks would be nicier, more color, for example Freedom Tower in 2-tons of blue-greenish, the other behind tower in violet, ... well, i would never had built the number #3 and #4 because are just square uninteresting as form block buildings.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Roadcruiser1]

Originally Posted by Thaniel

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.

That fear is a moot point. In Europe after World War 2 many structures that were destroyed were rebuilt. This wasn't a denial of what was lost, but to help induce healing.

For example look at this article from Berlin, Germany to rebuild something destroyed in World War 2 from 1947. You would find such a similar comparison if the Twin Towers were ever rebuilt.

AP

The 1947 dispute over the rebuilding of the birthplace of the famous German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe in Frankfurt is a classic example of the ideologically charged postwar rhetoric -- and one that typifies Germany's difficult relationship to its largely destroyed historical architecture.

The row struck at the heart of culture-loving Germany, the country that coined the phrase Weltliteratur. Fires started by the Allied bombing of Frankfurt gutted the house Goethe was born in -- a mid-18th-century, three-story, half-timbered structure -- and it collapsed a few months later. The building had served as a Goethe museum since the 19th century; all of its historically valuable contents had been removed prior to its devastation.

In 1947, two years before the 200th anniversary of Goethe's birth, Ernst Butler, a literary scholar who was also the museum's curator, lobbied Germany's intellectual elite to lend their voices to calls to rebuild the museum.

Hermann Hesse, who had received the Nobel Prize in literature in 1946, wrote: "Should it be rebuilt? I must answer that with a wholehearted yes." Agreeing with Hesse were poet Hans Carossa, novelist Ernst Robert Curtius, physicist Max Planck, philosopher Karl Jaspers and many other German intellectual celebrities.

'Facsimiles Can Never Replace an Original'

But the German Work Federation, an influential alliance of artists, architects and entrepreneurs, conducted its own straw poll among a group of German intellectuals who subscribed to the tenets of modernism. Not surprisingly, they opposed reconstruction. "Facsimiles of precious relics can never replace an original," said art historian Richard Hamann, whose stance is espoused by hard-line curators even to this day.

The prominent critic Walter Dirks, by contrast, adopted a more argumentative point of view. "If the land of thinkers and poets -- and, with it, the rest of Europe -- hadn't turned away from Goethe's spirit of moderation and humanity, it wouldn't have embarked upon this war or provoked the destruction of this house," Dirks wrote in the magazine Frankfurter Hefte. "This demise is correct, which is why it should be accepted."

In the end, Hesse and his supporters finally got their way, and the rebuilding of Goethe's birthplace was completed in 1951. It did not, however, mark a seminal moment in post-war Germany. Although there were a few exceptions -- such as in Freiburg, Freudenstadt and Münster (where the baroque gable-roofed houses on Prinzipalmarkt were rebuilt in simplified form shortly after the end of the war) -- the modernizers generally held sway.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-702856-2.html

[Roadcruiser1]

Most of the critics that criticize the Twin Towers haven't seen it from HD. Luckily there is a recording of them in HD from a news channel back in 1999. Watch it first before making any final judgement.

• Video Link

Set it to 1080P by clicking on the gear shape on the lower right corner.

[Chapelo]

I always loved the originals, but there was only one way to rebuild them (if that had happened), and that's as they were, maybe with some aesthetic, code, and engineering updates and a reinforced concrete core.

I always thought Twin 1WTCs would have also suited the skyline nicely.

original

P-2012-12-USA (340) by yacan546, on Flickr

photoshopped. I'm aware this will never happen, mostly created this to see what it would look like. This is probably not very accurate, as Tower 1 would block Tower 2 from this vantage point.

[THE BIG APPLE]

Twin 1WTCs would have also suited the skyline nicely.

That would be a waste of money and space. The original Twins has the same amount of space on EACH floor. Twin 1 WTCs would be loosing space for each ascending floor since the design is tapering and that would not be feasible. That's why it's ALWAYS been New WTC or Old WTC, no collaboration, no twin 1WTCs.

[Chapelo]

Good point, didn't think about the tapering. No other building aside from the original had two towers that shot straight up 110 floors without setbacks, with the same amount of space on each floor.

In fact, the higher you got in the towers, the leasable floor space increased slightly, as there were progressively thinner columns (the core columns tapered after the 67th floor) and less elevators to take up that space. The 107th floor was probably the biggest floor in either tower, with only a few columns, stairwells and elevators breaking up one massive floor-plate nearly an acre in size.

I think I remember reading somewhere the 90th floor of 1WTC (last office floor) is approximately 30% smaller than the 107th floor in the original towers. I'll see if I can create a comparison...

[THE BIG APPLE]

^ Feasibly what would be the point of creating what was lost but with less space (tapering design). If the idea was always to do twins (which it wasn't) then rebuild. BUT that's why we got ONE 1WTC and three sidekicks. The three sidekicks (2, 3, and 4 WTC) BARELY added up with 1WTCs floor space to produce the equivalent of what was lost. I STRESS barely, I think the new WTC has a million or so sq feet less than the original complex.

[Dale]

I agree with Architectural Record on the new WTC: 'Meh'

[THE BIG APPLE]

^ Meh is an understatement. It's way below expectations.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Matt

Well, here is one vote cast for the original towers that is NOT out of "sentimental value". I truly believe the twins looked much better in the skyline than the "designed by committee", "value engineered" new WTC complex.

There was something magical about the twins - how the south tower would cast this 1,300' shadow on the north tower; the two towers proudly matching each other in height (approx); the solid "no frills" facade that drew attention to the size and mass of the buildings rather their architecture (or lack thereof); the sight of two mighty pillars anchoring lower Manhattan and declaring it one of the main financial centers of the world; the antenna on the north tower to differentiate one tower from the other; the battleship gray silhouette of the buildings during all times of the day; the array of aircraft obstruction lights at night that would gently fade in and out without sync; the global acclaim they enjoyed in movies, TV shows, etc.

Yeah, absolutely no doubt... Twins all the way. My adoration is not "sentimental", they were some really cool buildings and looked absolutely stunning as the centerpiece(s) of the lower Manhattan skyline. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and mine is that the Twins were more aesthetically pleasing in the skyline compared to the mish-mash of conflicting architectural styles we're getting now. In my humble opinion, the entire complex looks tacky and cheap (enormous price tag aside) and doesn't complement the context of its surroundings very well at all (WFC complex, Woolworth, et al). At least Foster's tower was streamlined to sort of blend in better with its counterparts, but the Twins didn't have to worry about that. They were as simple as simple gets, and through their sheer size and mass, their presence and dominance alone is what made them absolutely stunning IMO.

And lest we forget, the Twins were built when the United States (and particularly New York) were still contenders in the "World's Tallest" race, when American developers had vision, ambition and egos to satiate. To me, achieving a height of 1,776' through some value-engineered toothpick spire (remember the original spire? I rest my case.) is just plain ridiculous. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have had the opportunity to experience the majesty of the original World Trade Center in person, on a daily basis. As the demographic of the forum continues to change and the Bieber Nation joins us, fewer and fewer people will be able to say that -relying solely on fading pictures to draw contrasts and parallels between the two iterations of the World Trade Center complex.

I agree with this completely. To be honest, I never really cared about the attractiveness of the old WTC. The Twin Towers were the simplest,most abstract manifestation of NYC of the time they existed, as the ESB was a symbol of the city during its own time. If you actually saw them in real life or in any form of media, you would understand that beauty was never intended. There were already examples laying around from the early highrise periods. What they were is what they were. Tall,proud, and dominant. I can explain in words, but it will not guarantee you having respect for the old WTC.

[Harley613]

i loved the original WTC. so iconic. the new complex bores me to tears, almost literally.

[marvelfannumber1]

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

Most of the critics that criticize the Twin Towers haven't seen it from HD. Luckily there is a recording of them in HD from a news channel back in 1999. Watch it first before making any final judgement.

• Video Link

Set it to 1080P by clicking on the gear shape on the lower right corner.

Yeah, you're right I have changed my mind. It looks even uglier in HD.