Comments on: 2 WTC Finalists shortlisted

2 WTC Finalists shortlisted

MintSauce — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 11:22:09 -0800

The two finalists for the WTC site have reportedly been chosen. The Think design and the Daniel Libeskind submission. I just hope its the 'high funded' Think version. (Although I'm also sruprised (in a good way) that it actually made it through ... considering it doesn't replace the missing office space)

By: MintSauce

MintSauce — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 11:25:12 -0800

Grrr ... scuse typo :(

By: Yelling At Nothing

Yelling At Nothing — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 11:42:09 -0800

<dead horse> I still say that rebuilding the towers is the best possible memorial. Both these designs seem rather gaudy, and self-serving. </dead> I could be my browser, but the Libeskind site is hideously ugly. On further reading: I do like the Skypark design.

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 12:10:49 -0800

I posted about this an hour ago in my journal and opened it up for people to vote, based upon pictures of the Studio Libeskind and THINK team design, and a brief description of the height and contents of the buildings. So far, the results are 62.5% favoring Studio Libeskind, 37.5% International THINK team. (Twenty votes to twelve.)

By: matteo

matteo — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 12:20:21 -0800

THINK's idea is obviously the more similar (in spirit at least) to the original Twin Towers. Probably a factor -- if you miss the Twin Towers you're going to like THINK's project, it'll bring back those two big guys in Lower Manhattan's sky, sort of. Libeskind's is interesting but a tiny bit... weird, I think, for the average person

By: wanderingmind

wanderingmind — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 12:20:47 -0800

Y@N: I agree about the Libeskind site. "What's this, all text? ...Oh, these must be the links. I'll just see what GAAH!" Not vere nice, having the whole page vanish when you mouse over a link... Complaints aside, I like both of the designs, although the Libeskind one reminds me strongly of the Emerald City, and the World Cultural Center seems like a real waste of vertical space. And I'm glad that the one design that looked like a collection of buildings all leaned over into a gigantic shiny angular blob didn't win. That was frankly disturbing.

By: gottabefunky

gottabefunky — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 12:30:44 -0800

Think is nice, but the Great Hall would be opaque with pigeon poop in six months.

By: Cerebus

Cerebus — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 12:39:07 -0800

Personally I prefer the low-funded design. IMHO it does more for Manhattan overall. Office real estate is in a glut as it is.

By: yeahyeahyeahwhoo

yeahyeahyeahwhoo — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 12:54:59 -0800

christ! scary website! text appearing/dissappearing, all done without flash. amazing. i liked the think skypark design, seemed to be the most realistic one that had office space in it as well. i wouldnt want to be in the great hall in the middle of summer.

By: tiamat

tiamat — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 16:00:59 -0800

These are higher, and that is so right I can't even express it fully. It's the best possible revenge and memorial. To say that democracy will come build back bigger, taller and better even time evil strikes.

By: Denial of Service

Denial of Service — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 16:12:45 -0800

Both of these (especially the Think one) are overly emotional and short sighted responses to what happened that fall. in thirty years, when those who actually saw the whole thing first hand are no longer at the top of the food chain, 1700 feet of tribute will seem a lot less desirable. No, I am not missing the point.

By: hama7

hama7 — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 16:13:35 -0800

Yuck. One looks like a shopping cart with spotlights in it, and, well, even though I know the original towers were not so successful financially, the more I think about it the more I think they should be rebuilt similar to the way they were, but this time with anti-aircraft, or surface-to-air missiles on top. I still say that rebuilding the towers is the best possible memorial. Both these designs seem rather gaudy, and self-serving. Agreed. 'Hideous' springs to mind.

By: lazaruslong

lazaruslong — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 16:17:08 -0800

I like the skypark one as well, Y@N. Anything to bring more greenspace to NYC. Maybe it would give all those bald eagles in Manhattan a new place to hang, as well.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 16:20:58 -0800

Hama7: The NYPost described the THINK design as Elmhurst Gas Tanks redux Since no feeling human being will want to work at the site for the next 100 years, I think the THINK design is the best choice.

By: LoopSouth

LoopSouth — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 16:23:23 -0800

I like them... I like the Libeskind design because it is so different. Time to change, you know? What a better opportunity to change. Most people hated the original towers... now is the chance to do something different. We all aren't so conservitive, you know... some of us want to see us move forward and not get stuck in the past. (like if we just built the same towers again...)

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 16:41:51 -0800

I like the skypark one as well, which was also done by think. But this one by them is just UGLY, as far as I can tell. the German thing is pretty intresting.

By: andnbsp

andnbsp — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 17:31:03 -0800

The Libeskind is by far the coolest visually, but the sentimental hokum of the higher level Think designs will probably win. The lo-budget Skypark is very nice, though. The high end Think project supposedly will contain a 9/11 Interpretative Museum? What? Why? That sounds a bit heavy-handed and unnecessary to me: maybe in a century or so when we can look back on events objectively, but not now. There's too much potential for devolution into flag-wavey jingoistic crapola.

By: kliuless

kliuless — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 19:00:08 -0800

yeah, i like the skypark one too :) altho here's an impassioned defense of the libeskind design! One design breaks the rules and sets the priorities straight. Daniel Libeskind's powerful concept does not beg the issue of the memorial; it is the centerpiece of his proposal. Mr. Libeskind has done what he does superbly, like no one else, as anyone who has visited his Jewish Museum in Berlin knows; he has perfected an intensely individual, profoundly moving architecture of memory and loss of unsurpassed impact and meaning. The design struck a common nerve; one had the sense, at the presentation, of an end to an undefined yearning and search. You could tell by the sustained applause and tears that this is what people really wanted, and what New York needs. it might be that neither is chosen tho... Larry Silverstein, the leader of the group that holds the lease on the World Trade Center complex destroyed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., has written to a key redevelopment official, asserting his group's right to build 10 million square feet of office space and to pick the architect to design it.

By: sgt.serenity

sgt.serenity — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 21:22:51 -0800

In the letter, Mr. Silverstein pointedly cites the lease documents his group signed with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the complex's owner, in July 2001, weeks before the terrorist attacks that destroyed the Twin Towers. The leases "expressly contemplate" that his group has the right to build "substitute buildings," he said, if the complex was destroyed and it wasn't "feasible, prudent or commercially reasonable" to rebuild the old towers. get your conspiracy theory on...

By: alicesshoe

alicesshoe — Wed, 05 Feb 2003 06:43:56 -0800

I vote for the Libeskind design. If it is going to be anything as cool as the addition planned for the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Ontario [Canada], it would be awesome to see it! Imagine that! Same architect. If NY picks the THINK design, will they be happy to see a retro tv antenna that high? Ack! Conspire this, will NY be outdone by Toronto and choose the wrong design?? Here's a bird's eye view. Regarding office space, by the time it would be finished, I would hope that the economy would have turned around, the sun will be shining and all the previous tennants return to occupy the NWTC [New World Trade Centre]. I'm glad that HHHH type structure was dropped. That was gawdawful and reminded me of some city projects.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 05 Feb 2003 06:58:19 -0800

In the letter, Mr. Silverstein pointedly cites the lease documents his group signed with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, He has a point, but I have a superceding one: FORCE MAJEUR. The contract is gone. Alternative theory: eminent domain (except that one might cost the City/State/PA some $$$). Again, who in their right mind would want to work, shop or have "fun" on this site? The developer is blind in that respect. If you need to build additional square footage in lower Manhattan, there are plenty of horrible dark blocks on which to do it, on which the stigma/fear/stress/bad taste won't be an issue. Mr. Silverstein: you are no longer young. You already have all the money you will ever need. Why not do something meaningful and daring. Do the decent thing and don't build offices there.

By: Foosnark

Foosnark — Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:39:53 -0800

To me the Libeskind design looks broken, like shards of towers sticking up out of the ground. That bugs me :P