• 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 echo chambers. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! You can also register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

World Trade Center Site Designs Part #2

WTC Designs Part #2

  • #1 - Studio Daniel Libeskind

    Votes: 3 18.8%
  • #2 - Foster & Partners

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • #3 - Meier and Partners

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • #4 - THINK Team

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • #5 - United Architects

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • #6 - Peterson / Littenberg

    Votes: 3 18.8%
  • #7 - Skidmore Owings & Merrill

    Votes: 4 25.0%
  • NADA - THROW 'EM ALL OUT!

    Votes: 4 25.0%

  • Total voters
    16

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
34
The new concepts are out. Here's a summary as plagerized from CNN

Concept #1: Studio Daniel Libeskind :
Its plan includes one soaring tower that stands 1,776 feet tall, and features several smaller steel towers. Studio Daniel Libeskind of Berlin built the Jewish Museum in Berlin and is working on an extension to the Denver Art Museum.

Concept #2: Foster and Partners : This contemporary design features a single tower, much taller than the World Trade Center twin towers. Foster and Partners, from London, were involved in the renovation of the German Reichstag building in Berlin.

Concept #3: Meier and Partners : The United States' Richard Meier and Partners also designed the Getty Center in Los Angeles. This design features three buildings connected by a walkway and two buildings on the side connected by a walkway.

Concept #4: THINK Team : THINK Team is an international group that includes U.S. designers. THINK Team built Tokyo International Forum. This design's two decorative steel towers are akin to twin Eiffel towers.

Concept #5: United Architects : United Architects, which designed Yokohama International Port Terminal in Japan, chose several soaring towers fused together in quasi-helix-shaped buildings for its WTC site submission.

Concept #6: Peterson/Littenberg : This WTC site plan was designed by Peterson/Littenberg. The husband-wife team is part of a group that worked on six original and rejected designs. The design features twin towers, each 1,400 feet tall, with a large promenade in the middle.

Concept #7: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill : Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, based in New York, designed Manhattan's new Penn station. Its WTC site design has a cluster of nine buildings, each about 80 floors.


SO....Any Preferences? I think they're all BLAH, but #7 works for me....
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,161
Points
27
If I had to choose I'd go with 7. We've proven that we can not safely evacuate these massive buildings which reach the stratosphere.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
#1

Surprising, I like Libeskind's design the best. The illuminated sheets of glass in the interior view are neat. And, I like the shape of the tower the best.

I think the twin Eiffel Towers (#4) would be pretty cool, too. I hated Foster's design. Very lumpy and bulky.
 

Runner

Cyburbian
Messages
566
Points
17
I voted for Peterson/Littenberg although I think the towers are too tall.

The Meier Eisenman nonsense just looks like a tic tac toe game on steroids.
 

Wannaplan?

Galactic Superstar
Messages
3,149
Points
27
Runner said:
I voted for Peterson/Littenberg although I think the towers are too tall.

The Meier Eisenman nonsense just looks like a tic tac toe game on steroids.
Although not my favorite one, I think it was a cool design. No logic behind that feeling - just thought it was neat-o. Of course, it is big and bulky and looks weird... but it is a standout design without looking too funky.

I voted for Petersen/Littenburg, but THINK Design was a close second.
 

PlannerGirl

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
6,377
Points
29
i honestly dont care what they build as long as its not another huge sky scraper-im not so sure we need to be having folks build that big for a while. from all im reading companies are not willing to lease into the taller buildings right now, workers are fearful and there are serious questions about emergency situations not to mention what happens when the buildings do need to come down, and they will in time.
 

Habanero

Cyburbian
Messages
3,241
Points
27
PlannerGirl said:
i honestly dont care what they build as long as its not another huge sky scraper-im not so sure we need to be having folks build that big for a while. from all im reading companies are not willing to lease into the taller buildings right now, workers are fearful and there are serious questions about emergency situations not to mention what happens when the buildings do need to come down, and they will in time.
yeah, I don't think I'd be signing up to move to the top floor of the building that is replacing the last one that was crashed into.. I liked the cluster approach.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
The Port Authority Owns the Ground, I think Larry Silverstein, NY based developer had a long term lease on the Towers and maybe some of the others buildings.

He will be fighting with insurance companies for a very long time, I think.

I like the Libeskind the best.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,984
Points
29
I'll be in the minority here, but I believe they should build em back to look just like the previous buildings (But with big honkin' lasers on top that shoot anything flying near the buildings) These shorter building represent being humbled. I want an in your face declaration that you can't kill our spirit. I really liked the "big bird" proposal that floated around the internet for a while.

And yes, I'm serious.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,984
Points
29
Mike DeVuono said:
We've proven that we can not safely evacuate these massive buildings which reach the stratosphere.
What? - Unless you were above the floors that were hit the vast majority of people lived. The system worked well and will get even better next time.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
I can't resist. Kunstler's rant about WTC

December 19, 2002
The new round of World Trade Center reconstruction proposals are in and they are as ridiculous as the first bunch last summer. What stands out (no pun intended) is the neurotic insistance on putting back buildings as tall -- or taller ! -- than the twin towers that were destroyed on 9/11/01 -- a sort of schoolyard mentality that prompts us to defy the bullying terrorists by patriotically putting back what they took away.
But what about the feelings of people expected to work on the 86th floor? And what kind of sadistic company would subject their employees to that kind of anxiety? I'll tell you what kind: one run by extreme narcissists, who insist on placing their self-importance ahead of all other considerations. (And the patriotic veneer -- "we're number one!" -- is only an extension of such narcissism ). Anyway, it seems to me that such a gesture is sure to invite a new round of terrorist attacks. Do we propose to instigate a cycle of violence by putting up such juicy targets?
The narcissism and grandiosity of some of the relatives of those who died on 9/11-- as shown on MSNBC -- is also amazing, and can be seen in their angry insistance that a huge proportion of the site be dedicated to a memorial -- they ought to take a trip to Fifth Avenue up in the 90's where the bas relief memorial to World War One (in which more than 50,000 US soldiers died) occupies about 20 square feet.
The actual design quality of the individual proposals induces a sensation like salmonella poisoning, led by Daniel Libeskinds frightening ensemble of skewed and warped glass boxes that looks like a Modernist rubble-field after a war (as though expressing the wish that the twin towers had collapsed a little more artistically !). Since Libeskind designed a holocaust memorial in Berlin, a special cloak of sanctimony has descended around him and his work. But it's just more deconstructionist crap designed to confound our expectations about gravity, spatial orientation, and civic purpose.
The rendering of an atrium by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill looks like the main concourse of the Detroit airport blown up by two orders of magnitude, a monument to agoraphobia. The warped, torqued, crumpling and "kissing" towers by United Architects look like they came straight out of the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. The people working inside would have to be drugged to stay in there. People standing on the ground nearby would feel as though the buildings were liable to fall on their heads at any moment -- and given what has already happened, they would be justified in feeling that way. Norman Foster's triangulated twin towers manage to be even uglier than the ones that Mohammad Atta & Co. took down. The proposal jointly by Richard Meier, Peter Eisenman, Gwathmey Siegel & Associates, and Steven Holl manages to be both frightening and boring. The only proposal with any dignity is the one by Littenberg and Peterson, which has a traditional civic square enfronted by unskewed, unwarped, untorqued, untortured building facades following the traditional Manhattan street grid. But it, too, suffers from the compulsion to maximize the floor-to-area ratio by putting up excessively tall buildings.
What also stands out about this process is how a tiny oligarchy of superstar architects dominate and usurp all other interests in this compelling matter of public interest. With a huge self-regarding fanfare at the ceremonies, they declared their proposals to be "innovative and creative," but the only thing they innovate are new ways to disappoint our expectations about city life, and all they create are new problems for our neurology. At public meetings for the the previous round of proposals, a citizen uproar of disgust and objection caught city officials and their companion real estate promoters by surprise. These new proposals, if anything, are worse, and one can only hope that the response is equally vehement
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,984
Points
29
...a sort of schoolyard mentality that prompts us to defy the bullying terrorists by patriotically putting back what they took away.
Yep - A primal -in your face FU- to those that would consider messing with us in the future. That is exactly what I had in mind. And I’m not ashamed to admit that is the message I want delivered world-wide, simple though it is. I doubt that the fellows in these terrorist cells, and all the others that need this lesson would get any other message. Putting commerce back in the sky is my choice for a design.

The artsy-fartsy message in all of these memorial designs say we are weak and we learned a humbling lesson. Maybe it is accurate. Maybe we as a nation do deserve to have one of the gawd awful elitist expressions of cowardice in the center of world commerce. We may someday trace our decline to this decision.

I'll conclude with Pax-American Baby! I was an American Soldier before I was a planner, and I doubt I’ll want planner written on my tombstone. I’d rather it say SGT. Now I'll shut up and let the real planners debate the issue.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
Wow El Guapo. :)

Although, since after 911, Kunstler advocated nuclear bombing every Arab city, I don't think he's a mewling leftist. And, I think he would deny not being patriotic. His vision for cities is just different (archaic, of course). He is just continuing his campaign for the reconstruction of New York as Haussman's Paris (6-8 story masonry classical style buildings on a street grid).

I'll be honest and very politically incorrect: Somewhat at work in his stockbrokerage on 9-11 who died in the tragedy was the VICTIM of this horrible attack. I don't think said individual is a "HERO" in my meaning of the word (the firemen running up the stairs-that's another story). Unless you consider meaningless and arcane financial manipulation a heroic activity that is the true heart of the American dream (most of George W's cabal does). What's heroic about dying suddenly in your everyday place of work?

I'm not sure a silly (artsy-farsty, as you put it) memorial is that appropriate. But, we can memoralize the tragedy without being artsy fartsy or "admitting defeat." There has to be a middle ground.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,984
Points
29
BKM said:
Wow El Guapo. :)

But, we can memoralize the tragedy without being artsy fartsy or "admitting defeat." There has to be a middle ground.
My Dearest BKM,
I'm not ticked at you. Just the process that cowers us as a nation. Yes, there is a middle ground and we will find it as a nation, and it will satisfy no one.

And no, commerce is not in itself heroic. Fireman and cops running into that mess were. Rudy was, Hillary was not.

I gave my honest opinion, not what I am supposed to say because I am in planning. I could have used plannerspeak, but I like being honest, and sometimes even primal. This is one of those times. :) Love and good Karma to all.
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,550
Points
25
I too liked the Libeskind proposal. I saw a rendering of what it would look like if viewed from behind the Statue of Liberty and it looked really cool. The only thing is that no matter what is built here, it will be a potential terrorist target. People will say "we should build them bigger to show the terrorists that we are not afraid" or something along those lines, but in reality, people will be scared to work there. It automatically becomes the number 1 terrorist target in the US. You have to believe that terrorist groups would see it as great symbolism to have a building go up in place of the WTC and they knock it down again.

I am not saying that they shouldn't build something there, I am just saying that people have to be realistic about building large buildings there again.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
Gee Kunstler being hysterical, how surprising.

Any design, IMO, must start with the premise that we must rebuild, stronger, bigger, the new project must be the new world wonder and I think height has alot to do with.

His premise that people should not be forced to work in a potential anxiety filled atmosphere is preposterous. Nice how he blames corporations.

He also slaps at the deveopers interest in FAR. The project still has to be financable. Small detail overlooked.

Maybe the new project should not have a parking garage (remember the first attack in 93?) Are workers anxious parking in garages?

Maybe the project should not have bus stops because if homicide bombers can hit Israel, why not us.

Maybe no outdoor cafes.

Take down the U.S. Capitol Dome

The Washington Monument

The Empire State building.

Wouldn't these targets also incite more attacks?

And nobody REALLY knows the degree of uses or the amount of public spaces that will eventually arrive with any of these proposals, proposals still conceptual.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
Hysteria is hysterical!

I'm sorry, GKMO:

I find Kunstler's hysteria amusing, that's all. I agree with him on some things, but you are right about his overall tone and lack of reality. What do you expect, he makes a living as a gadfly writer living in a bucolic resort town. More power to him, as I love his writing style even when his content is . . . silly :)

EG, I never thought you were attacking me. Blunt speech is always welcome :)

Besides, I may be being a troll by bringing an infammatory Kunstler quote onto the Board.
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,550
Points
25
I hadn't read much of his stuff until this thread. I went to his website and all I have to say is that he seems like a pretty jaded person
 

green22

Cyburbian
Messages
101
Points
6
The 911 terrorist attack was not random. They attempted to attack the symbol of US Government: the white house. They attacked the symbol of US military: the pentagon. They attacked the symbol of US dominance in trade: the world trade center. Not to mention that Bin Ladin took architecture and detested modernist complexes like the wtc center. If we want to design a structure to show the world that we are number 1, then these concepts are visionary. If you really want to show those terrorists that we're not afraid of them we could move Bush's office to the top floor.
If however we want to do the unamerican thing and learn from our mistakes, we would run from these proposals. From an urban planning perspective the only model that even attempts to rejoin the site to surrounding neighborhoods, is the Peterson/Littenberg proposal. This proposal includes stores along streets the same width as neighboring areas. It also minimizes the tower in the windswept park syndrome by lowering the park and the buildings surrounding it. I did admire that Foster's buidlings would be green, but there would be no neighborhood created in his proposal. One of the major problems with the original wtc was that all retail was underground. I traversed the mall everday to get to nj on the path trains from the A train. I never got to the surface. As with most public/private plazas, it's main purpose was to serve as a backdrop for the buildings, not for humans. Planning "public" park space on the 10th and 20th floors is a misnomer. If you have to go through alot of security and elevators to reach it, it is not an open park. Also if the memorial looks as unnerving as Liebskind's meteor shower moonscape I think I would rather stay in his labyrinth of underground passageways and skyways.
The sad fact is that the huge amount of retail means that an inward looking megamall will be created. The mall used to be 600,000 sq ft and now will be increased to 1,000,000 sq ft. Also the Port Authority has said it wants no housing on the site. These criterion mean that it will be difficult to create a mixed use pedestrian friendly 24-7 neighborhod at the site. If the purpose were for recreating the skyline, then the visions would be wonderful. However as a functioning part of a city, the megascale office park/ mall would be a failure.
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,853
Points
26
All of the designs so far are huge tall towers... so it seems that they didn't learn the lesson. The WTC was quite easy to attack for the simple reasons that: 1.- you could see it miles away of a bright and sunny day (like 9-11)
2.- All the near buildings were much smaller, hence leaving the twin towers an easy target

So what could you do protect the future WTC? either build a lower building or put like 10-20 more floors on the surrounding buildings (very unlikely). If they make 2 (or more) high towers, some even think on builiding the highest tower in the world, they will have the same result seen in the 9-11 attacks. It's just like 2 little kids with lego blocks, if one kid builds a big tower with them, the other kid will eventually try to tear it down.
There is enogh lateral space to build wide and low to make the same office space, and also if you want to be innovative, start building downwards. If you build high up and a plane hits it, the build downwards... i doubt any plane could crash it :p

The only desing that gets near my guidelindes is the SOM desgin, that are like 9 towers of 80 floors. But still we need some more desgins on the right track... not so many up in the clouds or so boring (like the ones of mid summer)
 
Top