Historically speaking, the design of the original twin towers was a bit of a fiasco. Of course, that was long before they had acquired their current "hallowed" status. The original idea was to maximize square footage (hence the HUGE towers) and to use a structure that created lots of unobstructed space inside. The trouble was, the towers, in the opinion of many, ruined the Manhattan skyline because of their size, and the structure limited the width of every window to two feet, which pretty much ruined the view from the inside. IMHO, the towers looked like buck teeth (or viper's fangs) on the horizon. They always looked out of place to me.
The Libeskind design doesn't make sense to me. I'd have to study it more closely to give it its due, but at first glance, I don't see the connection between the original parti
(such as it is) and the final design. Frankly, the symbolism they intended to convey (as expressed in their little handwritten blurbs) just doesn't come across to me the way it should. As for the angularity, it creates a fractured appearance that is not appropriate for the site (for obvious reasons). Aesthetically, the sharp angles (which seem to be based on "rays of light") clash with the circular walkway as well as everything else in the area. In comparison, Stonehenge does a much better job of integrating rays of light within a circular structure while maintaining harmony with the environment. And again, the type of geometrical game-playing involved in the design just doesn't seem to have any relation to the symbolism intended, in my humble opinion. It's not "futuristic"; it's actually about twenty years behind the avant-garde
. It seems like novelty just for novelty's sake to me, and I don't think it will have lasting appeal.
Personally, I would have chosen a more conservative design that respected the grid(s) of Manhattan and took a much lower profile. What I have in mind would be "chunkier", but more majestic. I would have left voids where the orginal towers stood to mark their "footprints". I would also have considered a way to mark 3-dimensional space. If you'll remember, the attacks didn't take place on the ground; they took place high up in the air, and that's where most of the victims died. Sure, you can mark the ground below and most people would say that serves the purpose, but personally, I prefer to think in 3-D.