27 Feb 2003 | Darrel said...

"The choice was made by a committee "

Argh! ;o)

Anyways, it's hard to say. All I can look at is a paper model. We can only judge its surface aesthetic...which is pretty much subjective.

27 Feb 2003 | 8500 said...

My initial impression is that there are several different parts of the design (office space, atrium needle thing, original foundation tribute) and that they don't seem to mesh into a unified whole. Reminds me interior decorating shows which try to do too much with a single room.

27 Feb 2003 | oh no said...

Imagine what Frank from Trading Spaces would do...

27 Feb 2003 | Carl Beeth said...

For once I agree with a comity decision. Compared to the other proposals, this one is the most forward looking.

27 Feb 2003 | Darrel said...

Ha! They SHOULD have put the trading spaces team on this one.

27 Feb 2003 | steve said...

I like the plan's scale but I'm not sure about the execution. Even with the world's tallest tower, there's nothing too memorable about the skyline.

My question has always been, Why design something different when the World Trade Center towers were perfect for that location? We need to remember, but we don't necessarily need to reinvent the wheel.

27 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

Yep. Let Vern do the building design, Genevieve do the atrium, Frank do the bathrooms, and Doug can do the Janitor's closet. Just one closet though.

27 Feb 2003 | Tim said...

Random question, and it may be that I have just failed to follow the topic...what ever happened with all the rethinking of the way cities are designed...post 9/11? When the first design ideas for the WTC site were coming out, I was somewhat excited to perhaps see the beginnings of a new way to definie a "city landscape."

Overall, the approved design looks nice...and I suppose it is tough to rethink urban design starting with one building...just curious, that's all...

27 Feb 2003 | Darrel said...

"My question has always been, Why design something different when the World Trade Center towers were perfect for that location?"

I think it took well over a decade before people agreed that it was perfect for that location.

When faces with backlash regarding his Guggenheim, I believe Frank Lloyd Wright is quoted as saying it was the "incubus of habit" causing the apprehension. I love that quote(if anyone has the full quote...please share.)

And, yea...Vern rocks. Plus, I'd bet the Trading Spaced team could bring it in under budget ;o)

27 Feb 2003 | Urbanchords said...

From the wired article. "Infect 10 people in Montana with the Ebola virus and you might kill a hundred others. But infect 10 in Manhattan and you could kill a million or more."

If you gave everyone in Manhattan a couple of acres in Montana, then it would end up looking like L.A. Then the city has to pay for infrastructure and services for such a large area. Why for that one in a million chance that a terrorist flies a plane into a sky scraper. You are more likely to die in a car crash than by a terrorist. A car that you had to buy because your city was so spread out. A car that uses a non-renewable resource, oil, that help fund the terrorist. Which city do you think uses the least amount of gasoline, LA or New York?

27 Feb 2003 | scottmt said...

I don't think Ty and Amy Winn could hold it down themselves, unfortunately. Not to mention budgetary issues.

I have to vote for it over the awful pomo art friggen' deco "lattice" by THINK.

As for the design .. well I can't quite grasp it from looking at it .. I suppose that's a bad thing?

27 Feb 2003 | jilly said...

Of course it has to be the tallest. Typical.

27 Feb 2003 | SU said...

This same architect is working on an addition to the Denver Art Museum as well. [via Alternate.org]

28 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

It was my favorite of all the proposals.
Im not so crazy about its skyline perspective though. in fact, I dont like it much at all. But the design itself is quite elegant. I just wish Frank Lloyd Wright would have been around for this one. No one has ever topped him.

Here Darrel:
http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/pressimages.html

28 Feb 2003 | Toby said...

Oooh...Superman's house. I think the giant spire is where they keep the floating green head of Orson Welles.

Seriously, I have trouble judging it without being able to picture how it would look from the street level. If it is another modernist window and concrete thingamabob, it will look aged and horrible in ten years.

I head an NPR interview last night that mentioned something about how the sunlight will catch a certain part of the building for a specific duration as a quiet commemoration of the attack. Is that true? Is that even possible for more than a few days of the year? Does anyone have a link?

28 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

"Oooh...Superman's house."
ok, Toby you really made me laugh hard on that one.

28 Feb 2003 | Toby said...

Thanks Alisha, I try.

I'd agree with you on the Frank Lloyd Wright...in concept. His buildings are fanastic and amazing, indeed, often aped but never equaled. Unfortunately, they tend to fall apart in ways that are very unique and expensive. Not all of them, mind you, but some of his masterpieces have not aged very well, like Falling Water and Unity Temple.

28 Feb 2003 | Toby said...

Not as clever as I thought...apparently Fortress of Solitude comparisons are all over the web.

28 Feb 2003 | Darrel said...

Thanks for the link, Alisha.

"Unfortunately, they tend to fall apart in ways that are very unique and expensive"

Which is an interesting comparison to web development. A pretty visual design/interface can fall apart in big and expensive ways if the back end engineering isn't solid ;o)

I like FLW's work, but am beginning to respect him much more for his design attitude than anything he ever actually created. ;o)

28 Feb 2003 | Michael S. said...

Toby, they mentioned that in the article, and that was the part that really impressed me. The plan is for a beam of light to illuminate a public park from 8:45 to 10:-something every Sept. 11. That's good design in my book.

28 Feb 2003 | Toby said...

Thanks Michael, I must have missed that when I skimmed the article. That feature alone is what elevates the design, in my book.

I can imagine crowds coming out to see that each year.

01 Mar 2003 | Emily said...

I hate it. I sure hope they have some lease committments for that "world's tallest building." My theory is that this new office space is just not rentable. I've read that Cantor-Fitzgerald wouldn't dream of renting that space again - way too creepy. What does this say? What are they thinking? Will they build a new building and will it sit empty??

I would bring back the lights and build low. Spread the office space throughout Manhattan.

08 Mar 2003 | Andreas said...

The THINK plan was more powerful. What made the skyline so strong was TWO towers. The skinny spire with it's even thinner antenna doesn't come close to the original WTC in terms of strength. I think it's symbolic and acknowledges the fear that Bin Laden will just knock the buildings down again so why bother with a big clean-up the second time around? And for the record, the CN Tower in Toronto is over 1800 feet tall, still taller than the new Libeskind model and if the new WTC tower counts as a "building," then so does the CN Tower.

I always thought, after 9/11, that an "Eiffel Tower" structure would be more practical as a rebuilt WTC. The THINK team did that with two very powerful lattice buildings.

10 Mar 2003 | rob kamphausen said...

to say i'm disappointed with this "final" design is an understatement.

though its both tall and beautiful in its own right, awe-inspiring and impressive it is not. and for this individual, someone who works and lives in the shadow of where the immensely powerful WTC once stood, i find it greatly frustrating noting all of the shortcomings of this chosen design.

http://www.wtc2002.com is a site that features the right idea. the right thinking.

though the design could be elaborated upon or developed further, i think it should have absolutely been included as one of the main selections in this final round. in later rounds of the elimination process, perhaps a merger of the ideas used in the wtc2002 with some of the other designs would provide a unified, and wonderful piece.

its huge. its a technological wonder. its skyline rehabilitating. its history making.

and every bit as important, the memorial on the wtc2002 site is the most uplifting and appropriate i've come across. a living, growing, active remembrance in the form of trees in a thriving biosphere is a wonderfully beautiful testament and memorial (or, more accurately, tribute) to any who worked at the former site.

it successfully translated a somber tomb into an uplifting shrine, to rise from ground zero to ground hero, and properly remember all those wonderful people as living, active, loving people -- who loved their city and loved working in a place as grand as the WTC.

that grandeur is brought about, and then some, in the brilliance of the wtc2002 super structure; some 2000 ft in height, enormous and sleek in size and power and technology. it would both restore the skyline and the title of "world's biggest" to the world's best -- saying nothing of the raised spirits of those who stand in awe of it.

further, it seems to happily mix the residential, urban, and business worlds -- including more than required amounts of office space, malls and museums, opera houses and stores, even apartments and hotels.

its the only design proposal i've seen that i felt truly encapsulated all of what nyc and the people lost, and all of what nyc and the people hope and dream and strive to be.

and, wholeheartedly, its the one i wish was being planned and developed right now.

29 May 2003 | TG said...

I will have to agree with Rob, I did like the design on the wtc2002 website. I haven't decided about the approved design, but I would have liked to have seen something bigger and stronger. We claim to be a super power, ridding the world of evil, but it seems we have taken a step or two back saying "please don't hit us again". In an effort to defer other attacks we just build smaller, less impressive, structures. I guess we'll see what happens now.

23 Jun 2003 | Perry said...

I think the design by Libeskind, although beautiful in its own right, is not the right design for the WTC replacement. It should be a multi-purpose, sleek, modern, and very safe skyscraper. It should also be the tallest man-made structure in the world. The right design is the WTC2002 design, see http://www.wtc2002.com, and it is 2200 feet above ground level. Put the Libeskind design in the Long Island City area, in Queens Borough. That would rejuvenate the Long Island City area that is long time overdue. So have the WTC2002 design at ground zero and the Libeskind design in Queens. You can have both.

15 Aug 2003 | Daniel Golus said...

Libeskind's proposal just doesn't cut it. The REAL buildings are way too small - they don't really rise any higher than the existing surrounding buildings. And spires are NOT buildings..
This plan will not become a landmark the way the WTC twins were. The WTC hosted tens of thousands of visitors daily. Windows On The World was a "must-do".
Eastman Kodak said lower Manhattan was the most-photograped locale on earth.
I won't have any desire to visit Libeskind's buildings. Why go to see mid-rise buildings I can already see in dozens of US cities? What would be special about a Windows-type restaurant on the 50th floor? Big F****** Deal!

I find it telling that the LMDC chose as semi-finalists the only plans that didn't feature tall buildings - but rather only fake structures, like the THINK lattices. Ridiculous. The public spoke - we wanted tall, landmark buildings, but we were apparently brushed aside.

The Meier Group's plan for the tall, 5 inter-connected towers was my favorite - they recalled the twin towers, and they appear very sturdy. I'd work on the top floor anytime.

The LMCD said they wanted to more than just fill the hole in the skyline. The rendering which shows the Libeskind plan superimposed on the skyline is NOT impressive, and I told the Libeskind Studios such. If each building was 200 feet taller, then it would look worthy. Libeskind's plan is great for Boston, Atlanta, or Denver. Not New York.

27 Aug 2003 | paul phoneyname said...

i can't make head nor tale of this jumble. you call this an office complex, i call it a mess. ground zero looked better than this even with the rubble!

06 Nov 2003 | laura said...

Finally, an architectect that considered the trajedy, and designed around it for the people of America, rather than seeing this as his BIG opportunity to create a bunch of contemporary BULLSHIT for architectural recognition.

09 Dec 2003 | tiffany said...

i think that the design is wonderful. libeskin obviously had america's heart in mind while designing the new towers. he made a new creation while keeping the history of the original wtc. he's an architect of feeling:-)

19 Dec 2003 | samuel said...

It sucks. What a star trek design...lame...looks like the inside of supermans north pole house. Can't stand it. Shit man NY is beutiful in the sense of hundred million dollar deals watch godfather 3 some of the city shots are amazing. Then they're gonna stick this ice like freak piece of art in there. I'm disappointed to the point of not being able to articulate the problems I see. It's all commercial like a caravan in a parkinglot at the ordinary supermarket. It doesn't have the "power" america exudes. The "financial prowess" america exudes. The leadership and strength america exudes. All it exudes is the weakness and tears of 9-11. This blows. Leave the wimpery and mourning to the memorial. Let the building be strong and grand. This snivelly work is humiliating to me. Not every american goes to sleep at night praying to god to not let the terrorists get to me. There are a few other big citys left where we can still build the worlds biggest building one day. Maybe in Texas. NY just doesn't have the balls.. Libeskind sucks HUGE...

29 Dec 2003 | test said...

Dread Desease Policen
D&O Managerversicherung
Edelmetallversicherung
Elektronikversicherung
Fahrzeug-Rechtsschutzversicherung
Fondssparplan
Fondspolice
Glasversicherung
Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung
Gewässerschadenhaftpflicht
Hausratversicherung
Hundehaftpflichtversicherung
Investmentpolice
Jagdhaftpflichtversicherung
Kanzlei-Inventarversicherung
Kfz Versicherung
Krankenversicherung
Kunstversicherung
LKW Versicherung
Motorradversicherung
Oldtimerversicherung
Öltankhaftpflicht
Pferdehaftpflichtversicherung
Pferdelebensversicherung
PKV Vergleich
Praxisausfall (Ärzte)
Praxisausfall (Psychologen)
Praxistagegeldversicherung
Praxisinventarversicherung
Private Haftpflichtversicherung
Private Krankenversicherung
Rechtsschutzversicherung
Reisegepäckversicherung
Reisekrankenversicherung
Reiseversicherung
Rentenversicherung
Riester-Rente

16 Jan 2004 | Geoffrey said...

If an application is designed well, the reward for users is that they will learn it faster, accomplish their daily tasks more easily, and have fewer questions for the help desk. As a developer of a well-designed application, your returns on that investment are more upgrade revenue, reduced tech support, better reviews, less documentation, and higher customer satisfaction. The rewards of building a good-looking Aqua application are worth taking the extra time.