Comments on: Comments on 10841

Post number 10841

moz — Wed, 26 Sep 2001 10:19:55 -0800

From safety to where. This article provides a great, in-depth look at the World Trade Center from an architectural standpoint. Beginning with its lead architect, a Japanese man who suffered himself from the racism of the WW2 era, it goes over the structure of the buildings and reasons why the center withstood the 1993 bombing -- and, for a while, the impacts of the two hijacked planes -- and what the future for New York and the businesses affected may hold. (Thanks to overmorgen for the link.)

By: mrbula

mrbula — Wed, 26 Sep 2001 12:34:18 -0800

While much of this article seems well-reasoned, I can't help but find it defeatist. The landmark skyscraper is a source of pride for many corporations; moving away from such structures isn't a change for safety or convenience reasons as much as it is a movement away from the legitimacy of an organization's work and its people. This is somewhat cliché, but if we abandon centralized offices like this article expects we will, we've lost. Decentralizing work and living space is no more than a new manifestation of fear. Besides, the suburbs are big enough as it is. We don't need to encourage their continued expansion.

By: shoepal

shoepal — Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:25:51 -0800

Nice Joy Division reference.

By: moz

moz — Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:00:57 -0800

mrbula: i agree with you, on the point of the defeatist tone in the article. still, the consequences of centralizing a large portion of corporate america should be considered in light of the world trade center bombings. that is not to say that you should, by necessity, decide to move your corporation out to the suburbs in light of the events. i feel safe in saying that a number of corporations will feel more inclined to move out to the 'burbs now, sadly. (i love the downtown sections of cities, particularly my city, so it would be sad to see people leave -- but i do understand the reasoning behind these moves.)

By: moz

moz — Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:07:43 -0800

shoepal: thanks, by the way. thought it was appropriate.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Wed, 26 Sep 2001 15:36:53 -0800

Much of the outcome depends on whether or not the plane-bomb technique is used again. If not, perhaps we'll return to a sense of normalcy¹. If it turns out to be a favorite technique of these groups, we'll have to reconsider things along the lines of this article. Certainly in recent years we've had to reconsider the design of embassies and courthouses, and Sandia Labs has developed a new engineering discipline around the concept of disaster-resistant architecture. A good example is the new federal courthouse in Oklahoma City, which is designed to dissipate the effects of a truck bomb while assuring the safety of inhabitants. ¹ normalcy -- Harding's derided neologism -- seems the very best word for this purpose.