Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

2 Ground Zero design teams picked
MSNBC ^ | 02/04/2003 | Jan Herman

Posted on 02/04/2003 12:17:04 PM PST by montag813

2 Ground Zero design teams picked

Choices narrowed to Studio Daniel Libeskind and THINK

By Jan Herman
MSNBC

NEW YORK, Feb. 4 — As competing factions jockeyed to decide a Ground Zero template for the future, officials Tuesday narrowed their choice of urban-design proposals to two — one by Studio Daniel Libeskind and one by the THINK team. Libeskin’s design proposes a 1,776-foot tower and would make visible “the great slurry walls” that descend into the bedrock foundations of Ground Zero. THINK envisions a tower even higher, a lattice-work scaffolding that would soar 2,100 feet. Both towers would be the world’s tallest structure.

(this is an excerpt...for the full article click HERE)

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New Jersey; US: New York
KEYWORDS: 911; buildings; design; skyscraper; terror; wtc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: steve-b; MattinNJ
I was hoping we could discuss this just once without seeing that particular entry. (sigh)
61 posted on 02/04/2003 1:34:50 PM PST by Gil4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JoeSixPack1
Looks like he (Daniel Liebskind) cares way too much about exotic geometric structural design, name recognition, non-conformity to surroundings and showmanship, then he does about retail space, longevity and structural integrity.

I ask, where is the attention to scale, proportion, use of materials, sensitivity of details, clear ideas of space, integration into NYC's urban planning and too many other components that SHOULD be the primary goals of a GOOD design?!

He's too into making something weird and 'cool' shaped for the sake of coolness, slickness, and newness.

62 posted on 02/04/2003 1:38:10 PM PST by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
HERE IS WHAT lIEBSKIND'S BUILDINGS REALLY LOOK LIKE!


Oh...my...God...Please...don't...let...them...select...this.
63 posted on 02/04/2003 1:38:35 PM PST by GOP_Proud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
HERE IS WHAT lIEBSKIND'S BUILDINGS REALLY LOOK LIKE!


Oh...my...God...Please...don't...let...them...select...that.
64 posted on 02/04/2003 1:40:46 PM PST by GOP_Proud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Gil4
From an aesthetic point of view, it certainly is a lot better than that 70's euro trash look.

As someone who was born in Brooklyn, went to school in NYC, and lives across the river, I can only tell you that building would be a huge success. It's a NY thing (if it was in Philly there would be two buildings with both middle fingers extended). It's pure defiance. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

65 posted on 02/04/2003 1:43:14 PM PST by MattinNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
And I can't emphasize enough how wrong the NYC skyline looks downtown without those two towers there

Too true. I agree with you on the lattice work towers; I also thought they were the best of the lot, and certainly a lot better than Liebeskind's jagged, hostile-looking creation.

I think there is a plan for light to be projected up through them, btw, to keep those twin beams of light that we all liked so much.

66 posted on 02/04/2003 1:50:15 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
UGLY DECONSTRUCTIVIST CRAP!!!

What makes architects (and owners)like these think that garbage like that should be forced on ANY city, let alone this hallowed site? Wait, I know. Like "artists", they've abandoned truth and beauty for shock value. Remember the crucifix in the jar of urine? Art? No, it's nothing but an immature "intellectual" getting his jollies by riling up the public. There's no difference between that and Decon architecture no matter how much florid jargon the architect uses to land the comission.

History will not be kind to this foolishness.

67 posted on 02/04/2003 1:53:29 PM PST by AngryJawa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: unix
If you turned that one upside down, it would be a 'W'.

Hmmmm, I like that.
68 posted on 02/04/2003 1:55:57 PM PST by TC Rider (The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
He is also a naturalized American citizen, born in Poland. He's also an amazing @ss, but that's not really topical. He does happen to have an office in Berlin, with a very international staff of rich kids from the EU, US, Japan and the upper crust of Central and South America.
Whatever. Even if he's selected (please, no!), the design will look nothing like the competition entry due to cost, program, and functionality concerns as the design is developed.
69 posted on 02/04/2003 2:04:18 PM PST by absalom01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Oh really. Got proof of that? Are they abandoning the Sears Tower or the Transamerica Building?

I'll start by pointing out that (A) neither the Sears Tower nor the Transamerica Building have not been the targets of any terrorist attacks yet while the WTC was the target of two attacks designed to destroy it, one of which succeeded and (B) both of your examples probably benfit from long term leases that companies are reluctant to break.

That said, the Sears Tower has not been without occupancy and valuation problems since 9/11 (see http://www.suntimes.com/special_sections/sept11/illinois/searstower.html and http://www.conway.com/ssinsider/pwatch/pw021111.htm, for example). A more relevant example, the Empire State Building, has lost tenants but not terribly so (http://homes.wsj.com/columnists_com/bricks/20020912-bricks.html). It is, however, a very solid building that would be harder to hit, due to surrounding buildings like "the EIB Building" and the Chrysler Building nearby).

That said, it doesn't really matter what you are I think. What matters is what the owners think, since they are the ones gambling their income on the choice. They seem to believe that it will be unnecessarily difficult to find tenants for a really tall building. There is also the issue of insurance which will be, no doubt, higher for a tall landmark building that is likely to be a terrorist target. I think the latice work structure addresses that concern while giving NYC something tall and appropriate for its skyline.

70 posted on 02/04/2003 2:12:30 PM PST by Question_Assumptions (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
One thing that I hope stumps Liebskind, but should have already eliminated him, is capitalizm.

I don't see office space at such an abundance as to lose half the building design to a day dream and ignor the bolstering of retail square footage for lease that this guy puts out in a 5th dimension.

The old WTC was awesome and usefull. Liebskind's stuff looks like it should be reserved for Disney World. I-drive in Orlando has a Ripley's building, built upside down. His stuff would fit right in.

The next question is, how many years of retail leasing will it take to pay this thing off vs. something with useable space? And who foots the bill in the mean time?
71 posted on 02/04/2003 2:28:22 PM PST by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

Comment #72 Removed by Moderator

Comment #73 Removed by Moderator

To: seamole
Yes, and the city leases that public land to a person who expects to be able to make money off of it. If the city really doesn't need the money, they should feel free to break the lease and settle for two holes in the ground. Cheap, somber, and apparently what a lot of people who never worked down there or nearby seem to want.
74 posted on 02/04/2003 2:47:43 PM PST by Question_Assumptions (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: seamole
I don't agree that the latice towers would be "icy stasis". I think that the library, school, and peforming arts center, as well as the museum, ensure that it will serve a living purpose, as well as those memorial parks on top. And New York can use the tourism draw down there. Note that in addition to Central Park, NYC has its Museums (Natural History, MoMA, etc.), of which this would be one.

Since the two latice towers would be built on top of two spots that no one wants to put anything else on, it doesn't seem lake wasted space to me. If anything is the Anti-WTC to me, that's the two holes in the ground that everyone else seems to love. I'd personally like to see more commercial space within the latice work but it seems that the two holes have become "sacred ground" and people will fight commercial use. I think a museum, sky-high memorial park, performing arts center, and library are good uses, though. Note that I do expect more commercial space to be worked into the final proposal. I'm not opposed to that. But out of all of the proposals I've seen, this looks the most "right" to me.

75 posted on 02/04/2003 3:02:37 PM PST by Question_Assumptions (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

Comment #76 Removed by Moderator

To: unix
You know, I never saw that one. I also like it.

Eitherway...whatever direction they go...

It better be taller.
77 posted on 02/04/2003 5:59:27 PM PST by VaBthang4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Gil4
Unfortunately, the "official selections" keep making that "entry" look better and better by contrast....
78 posted on 02/05/2003 5:59:32 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Not a single person I've talked with about the designs likes ANY of them!

Why are they picking the best of the worst?

The two beams of light, outshine any of these buildings.

sw

79 posted on 02/05/2003 6:13:22 AM PST by spectre (spectre's wife (Buildings are Clinton Liebrary "ugly")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamole
As to New York's museums, I don't remember the last time I was in MoMA

You'll need to travel to Queens at the moment...

but the Frick, the Met, and the Natural History museum...all are among the top of their kind in the world. Furthermore, none of them waste space the way museums in political capitals like Washington, Ottawa and Paris tend to do (the pyramid at the Louvre, the gigantic opening hallway at the National Gallery, virtually every museum in Ottawa if you've ever been). Even the Guggenheim, with its unnecessary architectural components, places art on the sides of its ramps.

Keep in mind that putting the museum in the sky also doesn't waste space since it allow it to be built over the tower footprints, which would be impossible (given current sentiments about that space) on the ground. All of the alternatives wrap a museum or even more wasted memorial space around the footprints on the ground. Compared to the alternatives that have been proposed, I think this wastes much less space.

The "9/11 Interpretive Museum" has a revisionist sound to it; it would surely be a static exhibition.

Yes, the revisionist and "touchy feely" sound of a lot of the elements bothers me, too. But this is only a concept and it will be revisionist or not regardless of which proposal is chosen because all include a memorial and museum space. I see no reason to believe the exhibit must be static, but that will depend on the way the War on Terror goes and exactly what people decide to place there.

Placing a memorial at that exact height and position would only marginally increase the significance of the memorial.

Here I disagree. Given that as many as 175 people jumped to their deaths and firefighters managed to climb their way up to the fire, the height adds substantial significance to me. This is, of course, a subjective call and some people will find it significant and others will not. I do.

If anything, the exact spatial point of their deaths should be kept clear and sacred. Having 8 million visitors traversing that point every year seems lacking in reverence.

I disagree. The tower footprings are going to be traversed, too, I don't find that lacking in reverence. And, frankly, it is the idea that the site has to be kept "clear and sacred" to show reverence that is leading people to fight to keep the entire plot clear and to keep commercial space out.

Again, I find the proposed shape of the Museum obscene.

If you don't like the exact shape, that's fine. I simply see it as an attempt to cover the spots on the two towers where the impacts took place. Personally, I wouldn't connect the two towers the way the proposal does. But I don't consider it obscene, though I can understand why those who see an airplane in the shape do.

I'd prefer to see a higher viewing platform, not necessarily over the exact footprint of the towers, ideally again exposed to the elements.

The THINK proposal has that -- open memorial space at the height of the old towers, above the museums.

The library seems superfluous, given the size of the New York Public Library. I wonder what sort of parent would send his or her kids to school in a building that corporations shun out of fear? Libraries and classrooms are supposedly becoming obsolete. Why not invest the millions of dollars that would have been spent creating the library in a project to transcribe old books into online form?

The New York Public Library has branches all over the city but I don't think it has a good branch downtown. This could be a draw for more residential development. I considered the school more of a site for field trip lectures than a living public school though, again, that could be a draw for residential development. I suspect that is one detail that will change, and probably the library, too. Note that I don't personally believe that classrooms and libraries are going to become obsolete anytime in the near future and transcribing books would run into copyright problems, given Disney's drive for perpetual copyrights.

The performing arts center would be nice, but the egress time (20 minutes) seems annoying and there doesn't seem to be any parking available nearby. If the relatives of victims do not want commerce to occur on the site, what will they think of heavy metal concerts and lectures by Noam Chomsky? Restoring commerce to the site would honor the lives of the majority of victims.

You wouldn't need much parking because of the transit hub. It would be more convenient for me to get there from New Jersey than to, say, Broadway. The egress time for a full house isn't much worse than any other venue I've been to in the city of that size. Note that I don't disagree that restoring commerce to the site would be good. My own personal suggestion was to rebuild the towers up to a safe height and then top them with a latice or hollow tower to the old height. But the reality is that nothing is going to get built on those footprints unless it is elevated. If you tell me that you'd rather see office space than a school and library, I agree. Totally. But I'm looking for the best of what's proposed, not exactly what I want.

Again, it is a grotesque political statement to say that commerce is profane but art and learning and "interpretive museums" are sacred; all are profane. Is art "more" sacred than commerce? I submit that that depends solely on the performer of both. How did they decide that art was the best use they could make of the space? Why not a center of charity and "religious contemplation"? Turn it into a vertical monestary, homeless shelter and soup kitchen. They have confused the terms "sacred" and "profane" with "PC" and "non-PC".

No disagreement there. You are arguing with the wrong guy. Having been downtown before and after 9/11 on business, I miss the commercial space that was lost. I miss the newsstand where I'd buy a Wall Street Journal or the Mrs. Field's Cookies where I'd buy a breakfast that wasn't good for me. I want to see the commercial space restored. Putting all of thost cultural elements up in the air over the footprints will free up all of that space that is used in the other proposals and leave it free for the transit hub and commercial use. Remember, the museum will be there somewhere. If it is on the ground, you are wasting valuable commercial space accessible to foot traffic for a tourist destination that they would willingly travel up to see. This isn't a matter of thinking that the THINK proposal is perfect but that it is the best use of space I've seen.

The Foster design for the memorial (I'm not advocating the Foster twinned tower) doesn't allow anything to touch the space but air above and ground below. That is the only way to keep the site truly sacrosanct.

Actually, one of the more interesting concepts I saw was three towers that framed the space previously occupied by the two towers. But I do think it is important to get people up to that height to really think about how horrible it must have been for people to choose to jump.

To quote from the THINK proposal slideshow:

Ground Zero should emerge from this tragedy as the first truly Global Center, a place where people can gather to celebrate cultural diversity in peaceful and productive coexistence.... Inspired planning will rededicate our City to the ideals of diversity, democracy and optimism that have made New York the World's Center for the exchange not only of goods and services, but also of creativity and culture.

I'm not suggesting that I agree with all of their politics, either. I'm commenting on the design. Out of all of them, it's the best I've seen and has elements I'd actually like to see get built.

P.S. It appears from reviewing the proposal again that the Latticed towers aren't even a sure thing. THINK has proposed "three different planning concepts - the Sky Park ($300 million), the Great Room ($800 million) and the World Cultural Center ($1.0 billion) - in order to demonstrate the impact of these possible levels of investment." I wonder how much of the WCC cost is composed of the performing arts center, the library, and the school...

I believe that it is specifically the latice work towers that are being considered out of the three submitted by THINK, and not their other two proposals. This is why news reports have all been saying that both proposals call for the tallest buildings in the world.

80 posted on 02/05/2003 8:46:16 AM PST by Question_Assumptions (``)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson