HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #441  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2013, 1:09 PM
hunser's Avatar
hunser hunser is offline
don't *meddle*...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York City / Wien
Posts: 4,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley613 View Post
i loved the original WTC. so iconic. the new complex bores me to tears, almost literally.
I know right? I mean we are still missing 3 huge towers (2,3 and 5WTC) but the judgement is always final (and premature) on this site. The Twins were an architectural masterpiece, designing two straight up boxes takes so much thought after all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #442  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2013, 4:14 PM
-Filipe-'s Avatar
-Filipe- -Filipe- is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by hunser View Post
I know right? I mean we are still missing 3 huge towers (2,3 and 5WTC) but the judgement is always final (and premature) on this site. The Twins were an architectural masterpiece, designing two straight up boxes takes so much thought after all.
lol
__________________
I LOVE NY!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #443  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2013, 6:36 PM
Chapelo's Avatar
Chapelo Chapelo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 324
I never saw them as just boxes. I'm sure Yamasaki didn't either, besides, he was designing them for two years before they were actually unveiled in 1964. Plus it was the 60s, that's what nearly everyone was designing highrises as, boxes. They (were) a byproduct of the era they were designed in, an era that also brought us buildings like the Sears Tower, Aon Center, JHC, General Motors, among others.

But yeah, I agree with you that judgement on the new site is a bit premature.
__________________
We spread out and occupy the cracks in the urban streets.

Last edited by Chapelo; Feb 3, 2013 at 7:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #444  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2013, 7:34 PM
Yackemflaber69's Avatar
Yackemflaber69 Yackemflaber69 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 681
get rid of 2 wtc then the complex will be good
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #445  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2013, 7:37 PM
hunser's Avatar
hunser hunser is offline
don't *meddle*...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York City / Wien
Posts: 4,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapelo View Post
I never saw them as just boxes. I'm sure Yamasaki didn't either, besides, he was designing them for two years before they were actually unveiled in 1964. Plus it was the 60s, that's what nearly everyone was designing highrises as, boxes. They (were) a byproduct of the era they were designed in, an era that also brought us buildings like the Sears Tower, Aon Center, JHC, General Motors, among others.

But yeah, I agree with you that judgement on the new site is a bit premature.
My words were a bit harsh, I'll admit that. I liked the Twins too. It's just that I'm getting tired of those premature judgements regarding the new WTC.

Let's sum it up:
1WTC: cladding not finished yet; antenna still missing; no base cladding.
2WTC: barely above street level; on hold.
3WTC: 8 stories up, for now a stump. Likely to continue construction.
4WTC: topped out, cladding nearing completion
5WTC: still in the planning phase
7WTC: completed

That's why we should wait some more time till we pass final judgement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #446  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2013, 7:48 PM
Chapelo's Avatar
Chapelo Chapelo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 324
Agreed!
__________________
We spread out and occupy the cracks in the urban streets.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #447  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2013, 9:23 PM
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
ThatOneGuy ThatOneGuy is offline
Come As You Are
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Constanta
Posts: 920
Most Twin Towers critics just hate boxy buildings in general. They're in their own special group. Even though said buildings are an important part of architecture.

BTW these 'boxy' buildings are called International Modernist, and aimed to use clean lines, simple shapes, and open plazas to create a smart looking tower that epitomized businesses and the aura of the city.
Postmodernism is taking away that smart feel.

Last edited by ThatOneGuy; Feb 3, 2013 at 9:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #448  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2013, 10:25 PM
DURKEY427 DURKEY427 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 212
I personally love both WTC complex's
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #449  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2013, 10:27 PM
Yackemflaber69's Avatar
Yackemflaber69 Yackemflaber69 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 681
i still think 2 wtc will ruin the whole complex
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #450  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2013, 11:13 PM
Guiltyspark's Avatar
Guiltyspark Guiltyspark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yackemflaber69 View Post
i still think 2 wtc will ruin the whole complex
We get it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #451  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 1:37 AM
THE BIG APPLE's Avatar
THE BIG APPLE THE BIG APPLE is offline
Khurram Parvaz
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 2,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by hunser View Post
My words were a bit harsh, I'll admit that. I liked the Twins too. It's just that I'm getting tired of those premature judgements regarding the new WTC.

Let's sum it up:
1WTC: cladding not finished yet; antenna still missing; no base cladding.
2WTC: barely above street level; on hold.
3WTC: 8 stories up, for now a stump. Likely to continue construction.
4WTC: topped out, cladding nearing completion
5WTC: still in the planning phase
7WTC: completed

That's why we should wait some more time till we pass final judgement.
What I don't like is you saying the NEW WTC is better than the Old. Look at the picture below.



JUST as the two arched doorways open each tower of the Brooklyn Bridge and let traffic through, the Twins did that for the panorama. But that picture will be replaced with THIS.



People wanted the old WTC, and people NEVER got it. You can call it architecturally superior ALL you want and I won't disagree, but never call it better. Better has many meanings, and translated by the 2006 NY Times poll better meant 79 percent of people (New Yorkers) wanted the Twins back. Will people learn to like the new complex, (not really) because it's NOT a complex. It's 4 buildings on their own individual parcel of land, separated by streets (which is good), so is Rockefeller Center. Street wise the new WTC is fantastic and gives us what the old one was lacking. BUT BUT BUT most importantly on the skyline the NEW WTC absolutely pales in comparison to the old WTC. In short is sucks! It's a bunch of different mirrors almost like a NYC version of Dubai Marina. The main building in the complex will be hidden. It's like a jumbled mess of lines and glass going all around when looking from the Brooklyn Bridge, and that IS the most important view.

It has just scientifically, mathematically, physically, verbally, ocular-wise been proven by me that you are false. When someone has an opinion don't say it's false. But when their opinion is fact in this case scenario then you shouldn't even respond.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #452  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 12:44 PM
hunser's Avatar
hunser hunser is offline
don't *meddle*...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York City / Wien
Posts: 4,016
--- meh, it's not worth it ---

Last edited by hunser; Feb 4, 2013 at 1:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #453  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 8:32 PM
THE BIG APPLE's Avatar
THE BIG APPLE THE BIG APPLE is offline
Khurram Parvaz
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 2,424
meh it's not worth it a.k.a OLD > NEW. Meh means I proved something.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #454  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2013, 12:03 AM
uaarkson's Avatar
uaarkson uaarkson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Back in Flint
Posts: 2,079
lmao.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #455  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2013, 12:30 AM
yankeesfan1000 yankeesfan1000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: 10014
Posts: 1,617
Boy this thread is brutal. Reminds me of the days of Kanto.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #456  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2013, 1:34 AM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,107
Look the Twin Towers were not bad buildings. The people that hate the Twin Towers do not hate them because they were not just boxed shape, but because they weren't covered in GLASS. Yes I said it. The majority of the people that hate the Twin Towers would be the same people that would have covered the Empire State Building in glass if the wanted to. They don't care as long as it is covered in glass.

Back then buildings require more than just glass to be consider a beauty. Today the worst architects and engineers will win all those critics as long as the building is covered in glass. What is with all love for glass. Glass isn't the greatest. It's bright, there are glares, it's blinding, and there is no beauty involved. What kind of buildings are these?

Listen the Twin Towers had something that new buildings today don't have, and it's not just dominance, but soul. Today's buildings have no flare. They are just a piece of glass. I can get that by breaking my window. What kind of art is that? It is so easy a four year old can break a piece of glass and call it an architectural master piece.

There was nothing wrong with the design of the Twin Towers, and even today they can be rebuilt although not at the World Trade Center. These new Twin Towers could have thinner tridents so the windows would be wider and the glass could be seen, and more safety upgrades to the design. It could feature more stairs for emergencies which are wider than the standards, it can adopt fire safety floors at the sky lobbies like in the Shanghai World Financial Center, it can have emergency elevators not located at the center core like at the Shanghai World Financial Center. but at it's corners along with stairs that would be protected against plane impacts, and there could be more emergency stairs and elevators in the core.

There is nothing wrong with Minoru Yamsaki's buildings, but if you can get over the box shape, and just narrow the tridents a bit and make the windows wider so the glass is visible the new Twin Towers would have a improved design over Minoru Yamasaki's. That is why it should have been rebuilt, and it still can, but not at the World Trade Center.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #457  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2013, 3:11 AM
uaarkson's Avatar
uaarkson uaarkson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Back in Flint
Posts: 2,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 View Post
Boy this thread is brutal. Reminds me of the days of Kanto.
There's a reason it was created!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #458  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2013, 3:54 AM
Jonboy1983's Avatar
Jonboy1983 Jonboy1983 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The absolute western-most point of the Philadelphia urbanized area. :)
Posts: 1,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 View Post
Look the Twin Towers were not bad buildings. The people that hate the Twin Towers do not hate them because they were not just boxed shape, but because they weren't covered in GLASS. Yes I said it. The majority of the people that hate the Twin Towers would be the same people that would have covered the Empire State Building in glass if the wanted to. They don't care as long as it is covered in glass.

Back then buildings require more than just glass to be consider a beauty. Today the worst architects and engineers will win all those critics as long as the building is covered in glass. What is with all love for glass. Glass isn't the greatest. It's bright, there are glares, it's blinding, and there is no beauty involved. What kind of buildings are these?

Listen the Twin Towers had something that new buildings today don't have, and it's not just dominance, but soul. Today's buildings have no flare. They are just a piece of glass. I can get that by breaking my window. What kind of art is that? It is so easy a four year old can break a piece of glass and call it an architectural master piece.

There was nothing wrong with the design of the Twin Towers, and even today they can be rebuilt although not at the World Trade Center. These new Twin Towers could have thinner tridents so the windows would be wider and the glass could be seen, and more safety upgrades to the design. It could feature more stairs for emergencies which are wider than the standards, it can adopt fire safety floors at the sky lobbies like in the Shanghai World Financial Center, it can have emergency elevators not located at the center core like at the Shanghai World Financial Center. but at it's corners along with stairs that would be protected against plane impacts, and there could be more emergency stairs and elevators in the core.

There is nothing wrong with Minoru Yamsaki's buildings, but if you can get over the box shape, and just narrow the tridents a bit and make the windows wider so the glass is visible the new Twin Towers would have a improved design over Minoru Yamasaki's. That is why it should have been rebuilt, and it still can, but not at the World Trade Center.
You do have a point, but I have to admit that the new building(s) is (are) growing on me. Even if the spire may not be included (which I have to say is a crock), this is an impressive building IMO.
__________________
Transportation planning, building better communities of tomorrow through superior connections between them today...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #459  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2013, 7:05 AM
marvelfannumber1's Avatar
marvelfannumber1 marvelfannumber1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 View Post
Look the Twin Towers were not bad buildings. The people that hate the Twin Towers do not hate them because they were not just boxed shape, but because they weren't covered in GLASS. Yes I said it. The majority of the people that hate the Twin Towers would be the same people that would have covered the Empire State Building in glass if the wanted to. They don't care as long as it is covered in glass.

Way to generalize EVERYONE who has a different opinion than you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #460  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2013, 7:40 AM
RCDC's Avatar
RCDC RCDC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: DC, an eruptive vent of wealth
Posts: 416
OK here's my view and I won't say any more. The original WTC twin towers were iconic in the way the pyramids are. Pure geometry, and the 2 towers were clearly the focus. The detail of their surface treatment and whatnot wasn't as important (nicely done as it was). Their relation to each other was strong and what was the key. The other buildings receded into the background and were part of the urban fabric of the rest of lower Manhattan. You didn't even notice them.

The new complex? Well you have WTC1 which isn't bad, but the complex of other buildings competes with it. The group looks like a set of buildings that don't quite belong together yet still stand out from the rest of lower Manhattan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:44 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.