Skip to comments.
Plans for rebuilding at the World Trade Center site - SEE HERE!
CNN ^
| 7/16/02
Posted on 07/16/2002 9:35:53 AM PDT by finnman69
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:00:51 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: architecture; plans; worldtradecenter; wtc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 161-176 next last
To: Militiaman7
This is the only good one i've seen so far.
81
posted on
07/16/2002 10:24:00 AM PDT
by
Hamza01
To: rintense
Impressive
To: NYC GOP Chick
Actually, I worked a few blocks away and the shadow was definitely noticeable. And as for the park, I don't think a park is inevitably a scene of drug dealing and crime. If the police let it get that way, yes, it will be. But I think the important thing will be to make sure from the start that any public space there is kept clean, well policed, etc. Look at Bryant Park, which was a total turn-around project.
Besides, given the WTC location, I don't think a park would be a problem, especially if a few nice eating places were included at ground level. It's a beautiful location, there's good housing around there with an increasing (and financially comfortable) resident population, and I think it could provide a sort of focus for downtown.
83
posted on
07/16/2002 10:24:07 AM PDT
by
livius
To: jocwhales
This is by far the best suggestion I have seen.
Here is a clickable link: WTC Suggestion to the URL you posted.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
84
posted on
07/16/2002 10:25:20 AM PDT
by
LonePalm
To: finnman69
Awful ! Dreadful ! Uninspiring ! Garbage ! They're hell-bent on making the WTC site look like the ghastly Stalinistic monstrosity known as the Empire State Plaza in Albany ! These people should be flogged !
Just say NO to the new WTC plans ! Urge them to build them bigger, higher, and more majestic than ever before !
To: finnman69
Actually, I think you're right. I liked #6 because I like pathways and tiny greenswards. But I think that you're right that the designs that just have a broad sweep of green are more impressive. And more useful for things like 4th of July celebrations!
86
posted on
07/16/2002 10:28:51 AM PDT
by
livius
To: finnman69
fine start to the process........plenty of great ideas put forth in the 6 schemes.........
from a strict urban design standpoint #6 is the winner (look how it creates a linear park linking the battery w/ Ground Zero).....but it is a disaster from a memorial POV.
Vis a Vie #1-#4....The decision to revive Greenwhich turns out to have been brilliant......The 'sacred' Memorial Grounds can be effectively seperated from the 'profane' Commercial Buildings.
I must comment on the desire to rebuild the WTC. They were socialist in spirit and design and were not meant to represent American Free Enterprise.....rather the triumph of central planning.......
87
posted on
07/16/2002 10:28:59 AM PDT
by
ehoxha
To: Willie Green
Burrow DOWN 110 stories! The cost of cooling such an underground structure would likely be prohibitive. The deeper you go, the warmer it gets, geo-thermally speaking.
To: wheezer
My gut tells me this is going to play out very similarly to how the Vietnam Memorial in Wash DC played out.....initially people are going to freak over the design/plans, but upon visiting the place will realize that the planners got it absolutely right.There is very little good that comes from losing a war. However, because memorials to losing wars need only have a single message, a message of mourning, it may be easier to make a good memorial to a lost war than to one won. I have not seen them first hand, but several of the German memorials to World War II are reputed to be, like the Vietnam memorial, highly effective.
I agree that whatever is planned for the WTC site, no matter how outstanding, lots of people will dislike the plans. The danger is that we won't much like the finished project either. In order for people to like the result, it must feature a spectacular soaring element which unambiguously shows that we have not been defeated. If people would be reluctant to work there, the focus could be a tower mostly built for visitors.
To: finnman69
Last one.
To: finnman69
4,5, and 6 are tolerable.
First three are horrible.
None of them are tall enough.
This is an architectural surrender to terrorism.
To: rintense
That's pretty cool. I like it.
To: GoreIsLove
Then people working on the bottom floors will get the bends every day when they leave work.Should be no different than those who had to travel to the top when it was 110 stories in the air. The "bends" only factors in when air pressure has to be dramaticly increased because of water pressure. Seal the sides of the hole to prevent groundwater seepage and use pumps to get rid of what does get through. WaaLaaa: no problemo with pressure!
To: finnman69
The football field amidst the buildings is a nice touch. Where are the goal posts?
To: rintense
I like the WTC 2002 plan nuch better, too.
For one thing, there's an in-your-face element to making it 111 stories tall, and overall-taller than the original WTC.
However, isn't it dead in the water with the height restrictions that are supposed to be in place?
To: Bloody Sam Roberts
The cost of cooling such an underground structure would likely be prohibitive. The deeper you go, the warmer it gets, geo-thermally speaking.Pump the heat to above ground Manhatten buildings.
Conserve fuel used for hot water heating and/or building heating in winter.
To: finnman69
I would love to see the towers rebuilt taller, but just because we can do something does not mean we should.
I am curious as to exactly what the demand for this rebuilt space will be, is it cost effective, and the time span of building say 4 40 story buildings instead of 2 110 story buildings.
What concerns me... will demand diminish substantially from ground breaking to completion if one decides to construct a couple large buildings.
I suppose I just consider creating a large building and not being able to rent all floor area much worse than a step down in height but at full occupancy.
97
posted on
07/16/2002 10:44:20 AM PDT
by
VetoBill
To: Steve Eisenberg
"In order for people to like the result, it must feature a spectacular soaring element which unambiguously shows that we have not been defeated" That's it in a nutshell. The designers are being pragmatic because they want high occupancy but most of us see it as a sort of capitulation.
To: Willie Green
Pump the heat to above ground Manhatten buildings. Good idea but the costs would be about the same.
Although, it probably would still be cheaper than air conditioning something like the original WTC.
To: finnman69
Where's Aero Saarinen when you need him?
100
posted on
07/16/2002 10:47:12 AM PDT
by
piasa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 161-176 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson