View Full Version : New Plans for the site of the World Trade Center- like any?

07-16-2002, 08:08 PM
Several firms have unveiled possible ways to develop the site of the former World Trade Center. View them here:


Several preserve the "footprints" of the twin towers. In one plan, the footprints would be filled with water. They all contain different buildings of differing heights, but nothing near 110 stories.

I personally like the buildings on Plan 4 (memorial garden) but I also like the idea of pools or fountains in the footprints.

What does everyone think about these different plans?

07-16-2002, 08:17 PM
They're kind of hard to really visualize, but I do like the last one "Promenade" or whatever. Most remeniscent of the original site while adding park area, something needed on southern Manhattan.

07-16-2002, 08:36 PM
Saw this on the news earlier today while all of you guys were probably sleeping. I'm glad something is being planned. I'm glad there will be buildings and some kind of memorial site. I just don't like the shapes these buildings make. There's nothing distinctive about them. They could be anywhere or anything. I don't think these buildings are a fitting tribute. I think all these plans are ugly from what I've seen so far.
I'm probably going to get told to butt out here, it's not my country, not my problem, yadda yadda yadda. heard it all before and it does concern me. There were enough of my fellow countrymen lost in the towers that day to warrant my opinions being valid here. I'd like this to be a fitting tribute to those of my country who perished too. And all those other countries who also lost sons and daughters. In a sense this site represents not only the gateway - true gateway to America, but the many races and diverse lifestyles that make up America in the modern world. It's the fist in the air of defiance. It needs this site to be a strong statement but also open and enclosed all at the same time. Like a crown. The closest to that would be the promenade choice. While it doesn't have the footprints of the towers it does have the boldest statement of defiance in the echoes the design holds of what was there before. It's the best overall use of the space. In terms of getting business back again it has what looks to be the largest amount of usable office space. There's enough green space there for it to be a contemplative space around the buildings. that promenade design It just calls out to me. I know a lot of folk want the footprints to remain but i don't see anyone forgetting this chapter of history in a hurry. The very fact of actually building there again is testament to the day so many gave their lives. I'm sure that they would want life to carry on not stop to dwell on their passing. It's a moot subject that will raise emotions all over again and I certainly do not want to fight with anyone over a dumb opinion of mine. I'm just sayin' it how I see it. Fell free to ignore me. I'm just a dumb crazy Brit, what do i know?

Jedi Knightrider
07-16-2002, 08:39 PM
I like the memorial park, with the obelisk in the green. I think that's pretty cool.

As soon as I heard rumblings of building anew there, I thought they should build a series of buildings in a circle, each one taller than the last, like steps up to the sky, with a memorial statue on top of each one commemorating the various people that gave their lives. For example, one would have a Police officer, a Firefighter, an airline pilot, and a plain clothes man and/or woman. The only logistical problem would be the fact that it would mark a ranking of importance to those that were commemorated on the tallest, and a decending order of importance from that, but I doubt that it would happen anyway. I just like the idea of big statues.

07-16-2002, 09:00 PM
I hear you Jargo. I always felt the World Trade Center was the perfect name for the site. Whenever I saw the towers I couldn't help but feel a sense of power, as though there was nothing beyond human ingenuity. In that sense, I always felt like you do, that the towers belonged to the world. I hope that the new buildings, however they look, recapture that feeling for me.

07-16-2002, 10:32 PM
They should just rebuild the two towers, what's so bad about that? IIRC, they have stated they don't want to rebuild the towers exactly like they were because they're afraid they could be targets again, well that's a big contradiction to all these "don't give into fear" speeches.

Everything's a target, they were just convient.

Exhaust Port
07-16-2002, 11:07 PM
What makes those same people think that anything the come up with as a replacement won't be a target as well? It's not the size that drew them there it was what they stood for.

I would like to see a couple of evolutions to the proprosed plans. Put out a couple ideas, hear what the people have to say and go back to the drawing board. I'm hearing a lot of people like the idea of preserving the towers footprints (myself included) but I would also like to see something that would restore the skyline of downtown Manhattan. Don't give us a couple short buildings, give us something that reaches the clouds. This time just put some guns or missles on top. That should make them think twice about do that again. ;)

07-16-2002, 11:21 PM
I like concepts 1 and 2.

07-16-2002, 11:21 PM
I voted on the site for the memorial park. The buildings didn't really impress me, but I like the obelisk memorial better than the footprints. As far as the buildings, I liked the cylindrical one, but hope they get over the "we don't want to be a giant target for airplanes" complaint, and build a 100+ story building that dominates the skyline again. Best way I can think of to show terrorists and other America / Western culture haters that we won't give in to them.

Jason B
07-16-2002, 11:27 PM
I don't really like any of them.
My plan: Have four towers, set it the corners of a square. Have the towers rise up, and gradually slope into a square structure, set up off the ground, that slopes up to a point.

07-16-2002, 11:35 PM
I work for an architectural firm and this was a huge topic of converstaion today once we seen the models. The office was split, some felt option 6 was the best of the lot, but weren't very impressed, but the rest of us thought they needed to go back to the drawing board.

I personally don't like any of the options and I think they fell short of doing the city of NY, the families, victims, and america a fitting tribute.

The buildings look too much like your every day skyscrapper "glass shoe box" and odds are will be indistinguishable from any of the other buildings around them in a few years. It's missing an architectural flair, something to make it identifiable, memorable, and make it stand out and be remembered.

I don't know what all the initial programming was, and what the budge was, but I think Beyer Blinder Belle, the firm that won the design competition, but I think they did their clients a big disservice by not getting them to think outside the normal skyscrapper bit. They had a chance to do something great, leave their mark further on the architectural world, but fell short. Now it looks and feel just like your every day business park, not a living memorial of people, materials, and space.

07-17-2002, 10:20 AM
I briefly saw a picture of one with two towers with spires - looking like two mini ESB (Empire State Building folks). Sort of a remembrance tribute, and a new touch - all at once.

07-17-2002, 01:42 PM
but I voted for 6 as the best of a bad lot. Even if these weren't quick mock-ups, I think they look unremarkable from the outside and as someone above said, just another concrete/glass tree in a concrete/galss jungle.

As far as feats of engineering go, if the US want to make a statement like that, then a huge pyramid should be made...it is still a mystery how those were built..... :sur:

Personally I understand the rallying-round spirit behind re-development of the site, but I think, from a spiritual/vibrational POV (regardless of religious persuasion or not) , the site should be solely and purely a memorial. But that's just me......;)


Jedi Knightrider
07-17-2002, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by jeddah
Personally I understand the rallying-round spirit behind re-development of the site, but I think, from a spiritual/vibrational POV (regardless of religious persuasion or not) , the site should be solely and purely a memorial. But that's just me......;)


I understand your feelings of a memorial site, but at the same time there were thousands upon thousands of businesses all over the WORLD that depended on the amount of TRADE that went on in that CENTER. I think development of that site into the center of commerce that it once was is the best testament and memorial to those that gave their lives, and the best statement to those that would do harm to us that they can kick us, but we will just stand up taller and stronger than before.

hmmm. Given that last statement, who thinks they should include one building there that is even TALLER than the originals?

Exhaust Port
07-17-2002, 02:26 PM
I think in all the proposals that the overall build architecture is the weakest part. Either they are the glass shoebox as mentioned by tjovonovich or some somewhat goofy short building that isn't fitting to the NYC skyline. Back to the drawing board guys!

07-17-2002, 02:42 PM
Not much enthusiasm for the new designs! Perhaps that is fitting... the twin towers were widely panned upon completion as being the dullest buildings imaginable. Their minimalism is what eventually set them apart.

07-17-2002, 02:49 PM
Is it just me or do the Promenade towers look like walkie talkies? Well..it is a remake. :eek:

07-17-2002, 06:08 PM
Well when you have a building that's taller than the surrounding buildings you need all this TV/Radio/Air control stuff on the upper floors for broadcasting and commercial jets. That's why a lot of current skyscrapers don't push that high anymore, no one wants to give up 5-10 floors for all that stuff. I think the walkie talkie bit is they are just going to split all that mechanical equiptment between the two. Sort of a mirror match for symetry and harmony.

I don't think they need to go taller than the originals, and I personally don't feel they should.

Large skyscrappers wreck havoc on wind patterns, and when it snows and ice forms on edges or ledges, it becomes a major hazard to people down below when that stuff falls off. The IDS's sidewalk in downtown Minneapolis is always roped off in winter for this reason as are some others.

Large glass boxes like that kill thousands of birds a year when they fly into them at high altitudes. There are a major buildings where the bird count per day is like 10-50 laying dead on the side walks.

The shadow the tower casts also has an impact on plant life and people it shadows.

There's a lot of issues with tall skyscrapers, and I could get into all the raw material, stone, wood, and exotic finishes something that big eats up, but society doesn't need to push 200 floors plus anymore.

Its just a huge waste of money, time, and resources.

Jedi Knightrider
07-18-2002, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by tjovonovich
There's a lot of issues with tall skyscrapers, and I could get into all the raw material, stone, wood, and exotic finishes something that big eats up, but society doesn't need to push 200 floors plus anymore.

Its just a huge waste of money, time, and resources.

This is true, with new lighter, stronger metals a building doesn't need as large a support structure as the older ones, which means larger internal area in a smaller external one.

It's also kinda cool to have the Empire State Building be the tallest in NY again...

07-18-2002, 06:53 PM
Yea that would be nice to have Empire State be the tallest again, but some building has to eclipse it due to the TV, Radio, FAA machinery that was destroyed with the WTC. The tallest building has to take over that roll again, and the Empire State Building would need massive retro fitting to pull that off.