• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

The winning WTC plan

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,623
Points
34
Its been chosen : What do you think?

Me - its uninspiring. They should just paint another bullseye on it.
 

Tranplanner

maudit anglais
Messages
7,917
Points
36
I'm not a big fan of Libeskind's "shard" architecture. I think it worked for the Jewish museum, and perhaps the Imperial War Museum schemes...but I think he needs to develop something new in his repetoire.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,623
Points
34
Guess I'm being especially cynical this morning.

On the bright side, I do like the height 1776 - the year of independence, and the memorial space in the pit. I doubt I'll be able to visit without losing composure.
 
Messages
5,352
Points
31
That design looks straight out of the Superman movies. You know where Superman received his training....that ice city.
 

Tranplanner

maudit anglais
Messages
7,917
Points
36
bturk said:
Guess I'm being especially cynical this morning.

On the bright side, I do like the height 1776 - the year of independence, and the memorial space in the pit. I doubt I'll be able to visit without losing composure.
Yes, I do admit I like the symbolism contained in the Libeskind proposal, and the treatment of the memorial area. I also definitely prefer the Libeskind scheme over the THINK scheme...that was just fugly.

I'm just not sure about how the actual construction of those shard-y towers will look like. Libeskind is working on a proposal here for the redevelopment of the Royal Ontario Museum http://www.rom.on.ca/ which has already had to undergo an substantial redesign - partly due to lack of funds (probably not going to be a problem with WTC), but also partly due to the impracticality of the materials envisaged.
 

nerudite

Cyburbian
Messages
6,544
Points
30
I actually like the design... and I especially like the underground memorial. I think that was a nice touch. I bet whatever comes out of awarding this project doesn't actually end up looking exactly like this. This plan is probably the starting point for a lot of revisions... you can't put something as big as this in the public eye with a special committee and not have it revised umpteen times.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
It was my favorite. I like the shapes-they are "striving" and bold. In a context like the Victoria and Albert, Libeskind's work is an insult to the surroundings. On this site, I think its a bold gesture.

As for painting a target on it, maybe. If I were an Isl*&^&&* Nutcase, I would target the water supply of a "safe" sprawlville like Phoenix or Colorado Springs. So, there's no guarantee that a skyscraper is the next target.

We'll see how it turns out in real life-or if it even gets built.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,080
Points
34
I liked this concept better, although it still doesn't really appeal to me as much as other ideas. By the time it is executed, perhaps it may be better. Concepts like this have a way of changing radically once people (if you can call engineers people) begin to figure out the details.
 

Runner

Cyburbian
Messages
566
Points
17
I think its good that it is re establishing at least some of the grid. It also appears to leave the option for street life intact. The floor of the bathtub has already been lifted up to -20' or -30' instead of its original -70'.
The buildings will be designed by other architects (ones who have actually built large office towers) so it remains to be seen what they will ultimately look like. We shall also have to see if "the tallest building in the world" actually is ever built at this site.
I think of Libeskind's plan as more of a concept plan similar to the concept cars that come out of Detroit. The final production may be quite different and IMHO more reasonable.

Oh, and while we are discussing Lipeskind, the glasses have got to go. Do they just scream goober or what?

 

nerudite

Cyburbian
Messages
6,544
Points
30
Runner said:
Oh, and while we are discussing Lipeskind, the glasses have got to go. Do they just scream goober or what?


I like them. :) But then, I'm attracted to the goober look (this guy is a bit too old for me though)...

Since he's German, could he be the übergoober?
 

oulevin

Cyburbian
Messages
178
Points
7
WTC design

I was a fan of the THINK proposal myself. I liked the idea of a "World Cultual Center", and let's face it, those latticework towers are unmistakable in midst of the rest of lower Manhattan.

But I am a sucker for street life, and if the Libeskind design better promotes activity as the commentators say it does, then the better of the two designs won.
 

Runner

Cyburbian
Messages
566
Points
17
Re: WTC design

oulevin said:
and let's face it, those latticework towers are unmistakable in midst of the rest of lower Manhattan.
I really didn't find them too appealing. They reminded me too much of the old style natural gas storage tanks that you used to see all over the northeast.
 

Wannaplan?

Bounty Hunter
Messages
3,216
Points
29
What about features that do not focus on aesthetics?

Everyone is commenting on the look of the buildings.

We are planners, are we not? Life in the city includes more than aesthetics and architecture, right?

Anyone care to comment on the following features of the THINK design? From http://www.lowermanhattan.info/news/lmdc_selects_libeskind_design_28336.asp:

"The plan also provides for significant transportation and cultural centers on-site, with the goal of knitting the site back into the City's fabric."

"The memorial will be buffered from the bustle of the City by tree-lined promenades and a museum and visitor center. This interpretive facility will occupy the southwest corner of the intersection created when Fulton and Greenwich Streets are extended across the WTC site for the first time since the early 1960s; the intersection will become what LMDC chairman John Whitehead called a "a 21st-century piazza for New York and the people of the world." The other corners will be anchored by a cultural facility (possibly an opera house or museum), the much-discussed transportation center for downtown, and an international hotel and conference center. "

"It provides a fitting setting for an inspiring memorial; it works to reconnect the site to adjacent neighborhoods; it places on site a significant transportation center for Lower Manhattan and it creates a new icon at the southern end of the city's skyline."

Emphasis added by me.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,623
Points
34
Runner said:
Oh, and while we are discussing Lipeskind, the glasses have got to go. Do they just scream goober or what?

I just bought new glasses almost identical to those! I call it "nerd chic"
 

Runner

Cyburbian
Messages
566
Points
17
bturk said:


I just bought new glasses almost identical to those! I call it "nerd chic"
They look somewhat similar to the old style military issue glasses, which were referred to as BCDs (Birth Control Devises). Does anyone know if Lipeskind has successfully procreated? If not we may have discovered part of the problem.

bturk, you may have to up your offer from $10K if you are going to insist on wearing them :)
 

dbhstockton

Member
Messages
12
Points
1
I've done some clicking around (image search on Google for Libeskind) and the funky glasses seem to be a relatively recent addition to his persona. Maybe all this sudden attention is swelling his head. And he has successfully procreated, multiple times.
 

Runner

Cyburbian
Messages
566
Points
17
Oh my, I did a Google search on Lipeskind's glasses and look what I found!

Could it be? Has Gotham been saved?
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,853
Points
26
I may not be american, but since I'm an Architect Wannabe, I'll add my comment anyways....

First point, I actually doubt the concept that is being presented here is going to be the building that will be constructed, the concept isn't that interesting either, plus I doubt it blends well with the enviroment in which it is laid in.

Second point, It's way too tall and would present the same or more problems than the original WTC. How do you extinguish a fire quickly in the 90th floor? The sprinklers could fail, the firemen would be too slow running up the stairs (plus that many could die of a heart attack), The elevators could get stuck or even fall or fail product of the fire.

Third point, I don't see like it's a very good sustainable building... It'll probably waste lots of energy and heat...

Fourth point, the building repeats the same error that made the WTC so vulnerable to planes, it's so high that it has very little cover.

A WCC (World Cultural Center) would be a great idea, but of course lots of office space was lost and needs to be put back again, but if you make the building so high the upper floors would be vacant because of fear of a terrorist attack...

That's just my 2 cents...
 

nash

Member
Messages
12
Points
1
caveat emptor

Let's not forget that the designs for accompanying site buildings are only suggestions and that the buildings built by private developers could be entirely different.

I can't speak out too harshly about the site or the design, seeing as this was a University of Pennsylvania coup all around, but I'm really not totally fond of the tower. I prefered the lattice towers, and the phase system prepared by the THINK team. (But don't tell anyone I said so.)
 

swm

Member
Messages
8
Points
0
agreed, they're probably only a couple steps beyond mere massing models...

this was moreso a site plan, a planning effort, than an architectural design proposal.

as far as being sustainable, i don't think it's fair at this point to judge whether they will be or not. hopefully they will try to attain some level of certification (LEEDS, eg) - they're doing some great things in Asia regarding green building technology in tall and supertall buildings...

finally, regarding Libeskind's glasses: the cool thing about them is that the glass of the lens wraps around back toward the ears at a 90º angle... i use the term "cool" loosely
 

dbhstockton

Member
Messages
12
Points
1
Fourth point, the building repeats the same error that made the WTC so vulnerable to planes, it's so high that it has very little cover.

A WCC (World Cultural Center) would be a great idea, but of course lots of office space was lost and needs to be put back again, but if you make the building so high the upper floors would be vacant because of fear of a terrorist attack...
This is flawed thinking.

The idea of a tall building not having "cover" due to its height is absurd. The surrounding buildings should not be considered "cover." Don't forget, the five-story Pentagon was attacked that day as well.
 

nash

Member
Messages
12
Points
1
A WCC (World Cultural Center) would be a great idea, but of course lots of office space was lost and needs to be put back again...
This, too, is a point up for contention. It's been pretty well argued - rightfully, I think - that the massive size and commercial ("nine to five") population of the towers contributed to the financial district's transformation into a desolate no-man's land by nightfall. I used to work in Battery Park back in '99, and you could hear a pin drop on the sidewalk when I left work at seven o'clock. Whether or not this could have been countered by residential building on the scale of the WTC we'll never know.

In my opinion, the office space lost in the WTC disaster should not necessarily be replaced in kind; I think more effort should be put into diversifying Lower Manhattan into a more well-rounded district.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,175
Points
51
Parts

I like parts of it... I think the idea of the memorial is great. But I would have liked to see something that has a new and old look to it. Kind of like joining the Past and the Future. I agree it is bold with the surrounding buildings, but is it a little too different?
 
Top