WTC v2.1

June 29, 2005 6:09 PM

A new design for the "Freedom Tower"-- the skyscraper that will form the heart of the rebuilt World Trade Center in New York-- has been unveiled. The new tower will be slimmer, straighter and more conventional, it will be set farther back from the street, and it will be placed atop a mammoth, 200-foot concrete-and-metal pedestal designed to repel explosions.
posted by keswick (63 comments total)

it's official. i hate the word freedom.
posted by es_de_bah at 6:25 PM on June 29, 2005

So is this the new design or the old one? The design fact sheet and images seem similar to the piece mentioned in the story, but I didn't see anything on the site that said it's the newly unveiled design.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 6:26 PM on June 29, 2005

I believe that's the new one. The spire is centered on the new design.
posted by keswick at 6:31 PM on June 29, 2005

And of course, a pedestal won't stop planes or missiles or whatever the future develops. I can already imagine how repellent this will be from ground level--it'll make the concrete, ugly, windy plaza that used to be there look good.
posted by amberglow at 6:32 PM on June 29, 2005

Works for me. Let's build it.
posted by juggernautco at 6:33 PM on June 29, 2005

I like the way the French Tower looks.
posted by interrobang at 6:34 PM on June 29, 2005

The Empire State Building is almost 75 years old. It is over 100 stories and is still one of the tallest handful of buildings in the world after all this time. It was a truly monumental achievement of human engineering.

It took barely a year to build, from March of 1930 to May of 1931.

At this point I don't care if they build a giant 2001 monolith on the WTC. But build SOMETHING for god's sake.
posted by Justinian at 6:43 PM on June 29, 2005

I love that freedom tower is 1776 feet tall.
posted by absalom at 6:55 PM on June 29, 2005

This is a brilliant strategy-- the next wave of terrorists will not hit this because it is demoralizing to Americans already.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:26 PM on June 29, 2005

I still vote for the Gaudi design. My ballot must have been lost in the mail, though.
posted by Staggering Jack at 7:39 PM on June 29, 2005

Nice, MC.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:45 PM on June 29, 2005

I love that freedom tower is 1776 feet tall.

I dislike that. Its the main thing people will remember about the tower, and its an cold, intellectual symbolism. The tower should inspire people through form and emotions. Maybe it will; I'm not crazy about the design, but I won't rule out the possibility that others might love it. But even if they do, the hamhandedness of the 1776 gimmick will distract everyone from appreciating it on a more instinctual level. People will wonder whether the number of floors is also symbolic, or whether the pedestal represents the Constitution, or other such nonsense.
posted by gsteff at 8:11 PM on June 29, 2005

NOOOOOOOOO!
posted by cytherea at 8:14 PM on June 29, 2005

NOOOOOOOOO!

You're the man now, dog.

Call me nuts, but didn't Trump propose making better WTC buildings based on the original design? Wouldn't that be cool?
posted by bugmuncher at 8:34 PM on June 29, 2005

Why don't we just call it the "We're Scared Little Pussies Tower" and be done with it.

Whatever happened to Trump's call for rebuilding the twin towers? Guy's a freaky megalomaniac, but in this case, he had some good points.
posted by fungible at 8:35 PM on June 29, 2005

Why don't we just call it the "We're Scared Little Pussies Tower" and be done with it.

Whatever happened to Trump's call for rebuilding the twin towers? Guy's a freaky megalomaniac, but in this case, he had some good points.
posted by fungible at 8:36 PM on June 29, 2005

I was so mad, I had to say it twice. Fucking mefi servers.
posted by fungible at 8:37 PM on June 29, 2005

Dude, just rebuild the original towers. They were ugly, but they were great.

This concrete base is the ugliest possible thing you can imagine at street level, which is where people in the neighborhood will have to live with this disaster. This tower seems as if it were designed by someone playing an emotional version of SimCity-- notice how all the pictures of it are from afar.
posted by cell divide at 9:09 PM on June 29, 2005

A mast containing a Metropolitan Television Alliance antenna fills the remaining height, and will emit light, earning the name Beacon of Freedom.

It doesn't take much to be a Beacon of Freedom these days.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:16 PM on June 29, 2005

Dude, just rebuild the original towers. They were ugly, but they were great.

The "rebuild" plans actualy call for a diffrent window design. The same from far away, but nice looking up close.

And yeah, this is some fugly shite. "Freedom tower" with ugly design. Every day we can look at our giant pussy spire and think "The terrorist cut us down." Mayor Curly is right (shock of shocks).

To be honest, I think we should just not build anything for a while I mean, why do we need to rebuild right away, huh? Let it sit for 20, 30 years and after the passage of time we can choose something fitting.

Whatever we put up (barring another attack) Will probably be standing for thousands of years, seriously. There's no reason to rush this, and certanly no reason to put up a monument to the fact that no one wants to work at the WTC site....
posted by delmoi at 9:29 PM on June 29, 2005

Why don't we just call it the "We're Scared Little Pussies Tower" and be done with it.

Interesting concept, but needs work. How about the "Terrorists Have Already Won Tower"? Maybe this'll fool the terrorists into not even wanting to attack it.

Also: how about if it's just a hollow shell that nobody's allowed to enter? Can't have a terrorist attack if there's nobody home to attack, know what I mean? Just a thought.

As Dan Rather liked to say: Courage.
posted by gompa at 9:34 PM on June 29, 2005

NYTimes:A Tower of Impregnability, the Sort Politicians Love The darkness at ground zero just got a little darker. If there are people still clinging to the expectation that the Freedom Tower will become a monument to the highest American ideals, the current design should finally shake them out of that delusion. Somber, oppressive and clumsily conceived, the project suggests a monument to a society that has turned its back on any notion of cultural openness. It is exactly the kind of nightmare that government officials repeatedly asserted would never happen here: an impregnable tower braced against the outside world. ...
posted by amberglow at 9:40 PM on June 29, 2005

It looks like a great big syringe shooting smack into the sky.

Frankly I knew the terrorists had already won when it was decided not to rebuild the towers as they were. When I read about that "1776 feet" bullshit, well... I knew that Americans had dropped all pretense of not exploiting 9/11 for jingoistic ends.

Liebeskind's design will be the biggest architectural abortion to grace any city, anywhere.
posted by clevershark at 10:18 PM on June 29, 2005

This isn't Libeskind's design, clevershark. (I actually don't mind this design from afar. Close-up, though ... )
posted by Tlogmer at 1:04 AM on June 30, 2005

To clarify: I liked Lebeskind's design, too, a lot more than this one.
posted by Tlogmer at 1:06 AM on June 30, 2005

Feardom Tower.
posted by fire&wings at 2:32 AM on June 30, 2005

fire&wings wins.

Q) How come they didn't just build it to be the tallest building in the world again?

A) Because Osama wouldn't like that.

Q) Why did they pull our bases from Saudi Arabia?

A) Because that's what Osama wanted.

Q) Why did they attack Iraq?

A) Because Osama hated Saddam.

Q) Why do they do what Osama wants?

A) Because President George W. Bush is a big chicken shit.
posted by Goofyy at 3:58 AM on June 30, 2005

Man, you guys have really outdone yourselves this time.
posted by Jairus at 4:05 AM on June 30, 2005

I suggested they pipe in p-funk through a building-wide intercom system and call it the tower of power, but no one listened to me.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:08 AM on June 30, 2005

They can reinforce that sucker all they want; it still won't stand a chance against Godzilla.
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:15 AM on June 30, 2005

If we build it, will they come?

Tenants, I mean.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:16 AM on June 30, 2005

gsteff: Sorry, I guess I should have put sarcasm tags on my last comment. It struck me as monumentally silly. (Pun!)
posted by absalom at 5:56 AM on June 30, 2005

delmoi: "Whatever we put up (barring another attack) Will probably be standing for thousands of years, seriously."

If the Freedom Tower is still standing in one thousand years, I will give you one thousand dollars. (Barring another attack, of course.)
posted by Plutor at 6:07 AM on June 30, 2005

Naming it the "Freedom Tower" is a good idea.

The WTC was hit because it was the strongest symbol of American Global Capitalism in the country. Hence, the name "World Trade Center." The Pentagon was attacked because it was the strongest symbol of American Military Action in the country. What are the symbols of freedom in this country? Statue of Liberty? Liberty Bell? Any targets that had anything to do with freedom were conspicuously absent from being a target.

No one hates American freedom. People hate that American capitalism and military are being pushed into their countries, so they attacked those symbols.

Therefore, "Freedom Tower" is as good a name as any.
posted by flarbuse at 6:26 AM on June 30, 2005

Damn, amberglow, that review you link doesn't pull any punches. I think Ouroussoff is getting more and more pissed off with each new development in this train wreck:

For better or worse, it will be seen by the world as a chilling expression of how we are reshaping our identity in a post-Sept. 11 context . . . . .

The temptation is to dismiss it as a joke. And it is hard not to pity Mr. Childs

Ouch! And IndigoJones, I really question whether tenants will come. I work in a bog-standard average high-rise in midtown, and we're practically strip searched coming in in the morning. Going to work down there, between security procedures, hordes of tourists outside, and now nasty 20-storey pedestal will be an incredibly unpleasant experience.
posted by jamesonandwater at 6:37 AM on June 30, 2005

BUT THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM
posted by mek at 6:45 AM on June 30, 2005

Well.. the paperweight manufacturers can't be unhappy with the Times assessment, it's practically ready-made for the gift shop.
posted by Jack Karaoke at 6:51 AM on June 30, 2005

Oooh ooh ooh can we have the Olympics pleeeease?

Sorry-ass bleeding-heart suck-ass town with its fancypants new tower of queefdom.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 7:00 AM on June 30, 2005

Does this mean we'll also be armor-plating the bottom 200 feet of the Empire State building, the Chrysler building, the Washington Monument, and all the rest of the approximately 2 jillion other skyscraping structures in the country?
posted by Western Infidels at 7:07 AM on June 30, 2005

I'm still voting for "Fort Awesome."
posted by robocop is bleeding at 7:10 AM on June 30, 2005

I'm still voting for "Fort Awesome."

Consider me right behind you on that bandwagon.
posted by COBRA! at 7:20 AM on June 30, 2005

Whatever we put up (barring another attack) Will probably be standing for thousands of years, seriously.

I'm of the mind that nothing we build will be here in thousands of years. Certainly not this monstrosity.
posted by agregoli at 7:25 AM on June 30, 2005

cell divide writes ". This tower seems as if it were designed by someone playing an emotional version of SimCity-- notice how all the pictures of it are from afar."

Yep all it needs is razor wire and you've got any of a number of unfriendly buildings from science fiction.

clevershark writes "Frankly I knew the terrorists had already won when it was decided not to rebuild the towers as they were."

Been a lot of advances in building technology since the 60's, it makes sense to go in a different direction with an inspired design.
posted by Mitheral at 7:29 AM on June 30, 2005

Since when does "one tower" evoke "two towers"?
posted by Caviar at 7:29 AM on June 30, 2005

that NYT thing rocks, no? : >

(it was even posted on its own here)

Has anyone heard anything about which companies want in on this horror? Usually you'd have heard that a big bank/broker/lawfirm would have been involved by now. And the originals never got to full capacity i heard, which is why they moved govt. offices in.
posted by amberglow at 7:30 AM on June 30, 2005

[this is hideous]
posted by teferi at 7:31 AM on June 30, 2005

Usually you'd have heard that a big bank/broker/lawfirm would have been involved by now

They're probably waiting for the enormous rent cuts that'll come along when there's no prospective tenants.
posted by jamesonandwater at 7:51 AM on June 30, 2005

Spiderman is already drooling.
posted by cpchester at 7:54 AM on June 30, 2005

exactly my thought, james. And they'd already been doing that pre-9/11 to keep companies downtown.
posted by amberglow at 7:55 AM on June 30, 2005

BUT THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM
posted by mek at 6:45 AM PST on June 30 [!]

Hey, maybe that's the big plan: if the Administration can eliminate freedom, the terrorists won't attack any more!
posted by five fresh fish at 8:17 AM on June 30, 2005

Would any of you, or anyone else for that matter, really want to work in a building that was built on the site of the former World Trade Center?

Hey, what if everyone in the country sends in $1. We could buy the land, fill in the hole, and have ourselves a real nice park.

Very tired of these ugly, patriotic buildings that seem to scream "fuck you" to the rest of the world.
posted by MotherTucker at 9:52 AM on June 30, 2005

I wouldn't go out of my way but I wouldn't avoid it either.
posted by Mitheral at 10:09 AM on June 30, 2005

Would any of you, or anyone else for that matter, really want to work in a building that was built on the site of the former World Trade Center?

Sure. Frankly I think 9/11 ws an anomaly, but even if there is a similar attack in the future the new building at the WTC site is probably the safest place to be.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:23 AM on June 30, 2005

I'm not talking about the "terrorist" factor. The place is a graveyard. Not that I'm afraid of ghosts, but lots and lots of nice people were killed there. The place is a little bit holy, a little bit solemn. It really shouldn't contain office buildings with screaming Xerox machines, etc.
posted by MotherTucker at 10:29 AM on June 30, 2005

The place is a little bit holy, a little bit solemn. It really shouldn't contain office buildings with screaming Xerox machines, etc.

The buildings destroyed there were functioning monuments to commerce. Many/most of those who died there lived lives dedicated to commerce. I think it's also a symbolically valid memorial to build a new functioning monument.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:35 AM on June 30, 2005

Lots of the lives that were lost there worked in the kitchen of Windows on the World, opened mail for the bosses, put out fires and tried to save lives. Maybe it's time to reexamine what we bother to memorialize.
posted by MotherTucker at 10:42 AM on June 30, 2005

Lots of the lives that were lost there worked in the kitchen of Windows on the World, opened mail for the bosses, put out fires and tried to save lives. Maybe it's time to reexamine what we bother to memorialize.

We memorialize the lives lost in disasters with solemn non-functional monuments all the time. What you propose wouldn't really be a reexamination, to my mind. When a church gets firebombed isn't the best memorial another church?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:49 AM on June 30, 2005

I dunno, I just wish I could change my username to "Pussy Spire"
posted by tristeza at 3:14 PM on June 30, 2005

Here are some close up pictures of the base of the new design. Looks like a jail.
posted by Potsy at 3:36 PM on June 30, 2005

Damn, that's ugly. They could at least paint it. Sky blue, maybe, so it looks like the towers are floating. Or pink, to calm the terrorists as they approach.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:54 PM on June 30, 2005

Man, the comments in the 'disappeared' thread were way more interesting.
posted by designbot at 7:46 PM on June 30, 2005

Spooky. Maybe the CIA took it away. Were they figuring out how to best crash a dirigible into it?
posted by five fresh fish at 8:30 PM on June 30, 2005

It blows. I hope it's not visible from Park Slope. Who the hell would want to work or be near Ground Zero?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:45 PM on June 30, 2005