Replies

Zapata's design is the first I've seen that heads in the direction of an acceptable solution. The river is impractical, and I don't care for the narrowing of the base. But as someone else noted, it is graceful and elegant, respects the footprints, and returns to a dominant height and an iconic position.

There was one interesting idea in the collaboration of architects in the NYTimes Magazine this weekend. That was preserving one footprint, while building on the other, a mix of respect to the loss and defiance to the attackers. Other than that, what a waste that collaboration was, proving that most architects are self-infatuated blowhard followers, with only a few pioneers. Lots of liberal mush, and the inevitable invite of Frank Gehry do his assembly-line signature blobs of structural poop. All kinds of wavy, unstable appearing, spineless designs, a tribute to deconstructionism and relativism. Quirky, freaky, and shock value, not strong and solid. Then there was that bastard architect who used the event to promote his marxist philosophy, wanting to slap some ridiculous design on the NYSE to "Highlight the destruction capitalism has wrought". He ought to be horsewhipped, along with Eisenmann for his shrapnel design for the WTC(pictured above). Yeah, that's real appropriate.

There was one interesting idea in the collaboration of architects in the NYTimes Magazine this weekend. That was preserving one footprint, while building on the other, a mix of respect to the loss and defiance to the attackers.

Actually what they proposed was keeping both foot prints clear, and building one tower with the ground zero boundry and one on the site of the Deutsche Bank building south of Liberty Street. Preserving one footprint is an interesting idea but I suspect both foorprints will be remain clear except for memorial space.

After second glances I think Zapata's scheme has some attractive qualities, but I think it's scuplural ala Frank Gehry for the sake of being 'look at me' architecture. Not completely appropriate for the site. I happen to like the memorial promenade with the water but I wonder how that could be achieved with a highway below it. I also think that the tower is too massive for the site. There also seems to be too much fragmentation between the tower and the complex of buildings at the base.

That being said, it certainly is one of the more sensitive schemes I have seen. As is the Pedersen scheme. However I believe both are fatally flawed.

Then there was that bastard architect who used the event to promote his marxist philosophy, wanting to slap some ridiculous design on the NYSE to "Highlight the destruction capitalism has wrought".

WOW! LOL. FYI David Rockwell is a mega capitalist architect. His speciality is designing high end restaurants, he designed the new Oscar Theater in LA, the Mohegan Sun Casino in CT, Nobu in tribeca, and dozens of other high profile retail establishments in NYC ond other cities. He probably has 200 underpaid employees who slave for him. I agree the Hall of Risk idea is stoooopid. The worst part of the entire collaberation is in the end all they designed was turning the area into a gallery showcase of "look at me" avant garde architecture. Not only is the result incoherent but it misses the point of having architects collaborate on a masterplan. For the same reasons Herbert Muschamp (who organized the NY Times exercise) hates the buildings of Battery park City as drab, 90% of normal non-architects will hate the incoherent designs shown.