Final WTC Design Chosen

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 8:45 am

Can't say I like it--looks too much like a tribute to Ray Bradbury, but as Grunt says, it's chosen. We'll have to live with it, unless the protests are enormous. At least it's better than the horrific mess they offered, before.

And while a park would be nice, it's not proactive enough. A park rightly mourns the dead and celebrates life, but it doesn't say, "We have come back, and you can't destroy us."

Finally, I would probably pay to see a giant memorial erected in the form of a noose called the Ladan Towers.

Osiris · Post by **Osiris** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 8:56 am

Originally posted by fable
And while a park would be nice, it's not proactive enough. A park rightly mourns the dead and celebrates life, but it doesn't say, "We have come back, and you can't destroy us."

Well said, Gruntboy and Fable.
I like the idea of "we're back, and we're bigger".

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 12:19 pm

And remember, they've yet to choose the actual memorial itself (although I heard they were considering that part of the tower intact to be part of it). So the best of both worlds.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:55 pm

Personally, I was hoping the Gehry would design a building - I wanted a museum there. A museum is a memorial of sorts. I went by Ground Zero finally - it's sort of appalling to see it's become a tourist attraction.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Mar 01, 2003 8:12 pm

Originally posted by Lazarus
Interesting that most people think the area should be left as a park. I guess I'm of another opinion. I like the idea of building another tall structure. I don't know that I like the Libeskind design (I'm not real hip to any of Libeskind's stuff, actually), but I'm glad they decided on something that will give the Manhatten skyline a distinctive and forceful look. There will be a large memorial area included on the grounds, though, too.

I agree with Lazarus here, personally I prefer a distinctive tall building that adds something special to the skyline, rather than a park. However, I would have preferred this particular design elsewhere though, the "crystallized" look doesn't really fit in IMO...
The transparent tower I liked, though.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 12:02 pm

VooDoo, I walked past the site last February (has it been that long?). I didn't linger, I felt quite guilty, despite the fact there were hordes gawking and taking pictures. I said my prayers as I skulked past.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 1:13 pm

Originally posted by Gruntboy
VooDoo, I walked past the site last February (has it been that long?). I didn't linger, I felt quite guilty, despite the fact there were hordes gawking and taking pictures. I said my prayers as I skulked past.

That's sort of how it was for me. I was walking up from Wall Street to J&R Computer World for a computer part, and I had totally forgotten what I would be walkiing past. I was paying more attention to how the neighborhood had changed since I moved away from there (I used to live on Fulton and Gold St.), the new restaurants and stuff. All of the sudden, I felt a wave of adrenalin, like my body knew where I was before my head did - I looked over and saw it, and pretty much burst into tears. I continued up to J&R, bought the part, then I felt I *had* to walk around part of Ground Zero. I couldn't bring myself to look into the hole. I saw some guys hawking watches and the other usual stuff and thought "one man's tragedy is another man's opportunity". I kept my head down and walked away. I haven't been back since.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 2:24 pm

Yeah. The only other feeling I had was that something terribly wrong and evil had happened there and that feeling would always remain.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 2:40 pm

This design would take the place of the entire World Trade Center complex, right? Or would it just replace the buildings that were destroyed/damaged in the bombings? As I remember, it was the towers and three other buildings that either collapsed or were damaged to the point that they needed to be demolished.

I'm not a big fan of the design, and the crystalline look would not be my choice, but I do think that something needs go there. New York also has one park sitting on prime real estate and quite frankly, the city can't afford to loose the economic impact that having several million square feet of office space and business has on downtown.

I've heard that many of the designs submitted were intended to replace the towers with a structure that would be the highest in the world, but I'm not sure that would be necessary. If sending a message is one of the states purposes of this structure, simply putting something there is just as effective as building the tallest building in the world. I'd like to see something that is a combination of functional, aesthetically pleasing and economically vibrant go in the space. However, having no artistic or architectural talent, I have no idea what form that should take.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:13 pm

Originally posted by Osiris
I like the idea of "we're back, and we're bigger".

How about a tower that resembles a giant hand flipping the bird towards the middle east. That pretty symbolizes being bigger, and back

Actually, I like the new design (I heard it was a Canadian that designed it for them. Go figure). It has sort've a new age look to it, but doesn't go so far to be mockingly bad. I agree with Von about the old towers looking somewhat out of place, and think that building a slightly smaller tower(s) is more appropriate, and will add more to the image of New York.

Lastly, in terms of a memorial for those that died, I think nothing elaborate should be done. Merely, something simple. Something like the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, or a basic statue, or wall, like they did for those who served, and faught during the World Wars. Anything more is merely over-doing it, in my mind.

Gorgan · Post by **Gorgan** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 5:19 pm

I'm not sure if we are putting that structure there for the right reasons. To me it seems that we are constructing these new structures to show off and tell everybody we are the strong. This is what sets us apart from other countries. We have always given off an aura that we are stronger and different then everyone else and i think this is the source of a lot of peoples anger towards us. To be honest with you i think we need to re-evaluate the way we portray ourselves. Putting the stupid "glass shard" structure were the WTC used to stand would only fuel more anger. We shouldnt put anything more then a simple memorial there. Our "over-individualism" thought process towards the world is what started the anti-america concept. Maybe we should tone down all of the things we do and start thinking more about how we portray ourselves.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 10:57 pm

Here's what I believe that we should do with the site of the former WTC.

First of all, we should build a tasteful, appropriate memorial there to honor the fallen and remember the terrible thing that was done to America as a whole by the terrorists.

But "make no mistake": we shouldn't be hateful to the vast majority of the people in the Middle East who have never done us any harm. For example, I wouldn't "flip off" the entire Middle East. You see, we'll be playing right into the terrorists' hands if we let our anger get out of control. The terrorists want to start a full-scale world "war", and I for one don't want to give it to them. Enough people hate America as it is; we don't need to add fuel to the fire. We don't need to alienate ourselves from people we could get along with if we tried. It would only lead to more senseless violence. The best thing to do would be to make peace with the people of the Middle East (excluding the terrorists, of course). The worst thing we could do would be to make ALL of them hate us. We need to take this opportunity to promote peace and portray America in a positive light, not as a bunch of angry, ignorant rednecks.

Second of all, we need to "get on with our lives", so to speak. The terrorists have inflicted pain upon us, but they have NOT destroyed our way of life. (Not YET, anyway. Besides, we're more likely to do it to ourselves. But I digress.) I say we should treat the site of the old WTC partly as a prime piece of real estate, which is exactly what it is, and continue using it for viable commercial purposes. We don't need to get in anyone's face or be gauche about it; we just need to carry on as usual, and that will be symbolic enough. Therefore, whatever is appropriate for the site from a commercial perspective would be fine, at least in this narrow regard, whether it's a mall or new towers or whatever the market will bear.

And finally, we should treat the site with pride. Again, any display of pride should be tasteful and modest. The main thing is, we shouldn't be afraid to build there again, and whatever we put there should make it clear that we love America. It should say, "We like this site, and we want to put a nice building here where people can do things that make our 'system' work. Everyone will see!" (If you want to work in "rays of light", that's fine with me.)

But we should definitely avoid the hate-mongering and the "cowboy talk" and the macho swaggering; it's not becoming of us.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 7:31 am

In related news . . .

A jury picked the design for the Pentagon memorial. You can read the story from CNN.com and see the design here.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 8:58 am

Re: In related news . . .

Originally posted by HighLordDave
A jury picked the design for the Pentagon memorial. You can read the story from CNN.com and see the design here.

Pretty boring memorial.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 9:22 am

This is a really good article on how Minimalism in art - once despised by the American public - has now become de rigueur for public memorials. Came out in the NYTimes last year.

ART/ARCHITECTURE; Out of Minimalism, Monuments to Memory

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 9:32 am

Re: In related news . . .

Originally posted by HighLordDave
A jury picked the design for the Pentagon memorial. You can read the story from CNN.com and see the design here.

As in the 'shattered crystal' appearance of the Trade Center design, this memorial also evokes in me images of destruction. My first impression upon seeing the Pentagon Memorial was shards of tiles destroyed in a blast. Rather apocalyptic looking IMO.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 10:21 am

Von Dondu, I think Aegis was being less "speak before I think Aegis" and more "break the serious discussion with a crack referring to an amusing e-mail that went round Aegis".

That is a beautiful view you have of the site and the world. It is a marked contrast to my initial reaction upon returning home from New York in September 2001.

I told a colleague I felt we should turn Afghanistan into an ashtray.

I guess time heals all wounds, even the heart.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 12:25 pm

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Von Dondu, I think Aegis was being less "speak before I think Aegis" and more "break the serious discussion with a crack referring to an amusing e-mail that went round Aegis".

That is a beautiful view you have of the site and the world. It is a marked contrast to my initial reaction upon returning home from New York in September 2001.

I told a colleague I felt we should turn Afghanistan into an ashtray.

I guess time heals all wounds, even the heart.

Phsaw. I thought about it. I merely used it as an attention grabber, and a modd lightenr. The rest of my post though stands. These plans for grand, elaborate designs just seem out of place, and overbearing on the memory. As is stated with the theory of Okam's(spelling) Razor. The simplest solution is often the correct one. I think it deals with this situation nicely. While the design chosen is still elaborate, it is simpler in design then some of the others (and much more then my personal idea, both in engineering terms, and and socially

)

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 5:15 pm

Re: In related news . . .

Originally posted by HighLordDave
A jury picked the design for the Pentagon memorial. You can read the story from CNN.com and see the design here.

The last line of the CNN article says, "Human remains will not be incorporated." I think I know why it says that: the memorial looks like a graveyard full of tombstones, which might make people wonder if the victims are buried there. I'm not saying this to be funny. If there's going to be confusion like that, then it's probably not an appropriate design.

Correction: not just "tombstones", but tombstones you're supposed to sit on.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 5:30 pm

Originally posted by Aegis
Phsaw... I merely used it as an attention grabber, and a mood lightenr.

I realize that. My previous post was not directed specifically at you (although you may certainly take it as a counterpoint to your own post, if you wish). I had a couple of things in mind. First of all, I was thinking about the email that went around a few weeks after the attacks that purported to show "the design for the new WTC": five towers just like the original two arranged like fingers, with the middle one sticking up. Ha, ha. Second of all, I was thinking about the angry, ignorant rednecks I have to listen to everyday who really believe that we should nuke the rest of the world. There's nothing funny about that, and someone really needs to point out the alternative.