Which WTC Design Proposal Do You Like Best?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Which WTC Proposal?

  • THINK (the first picture)

    Votes: 20 64.5%
  • Studio Libeskind (the second picture)

    Votes: 11 35.5%

  • Total voters
    31

melon

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Messages
11,790
Location
Ásgarðr
The two finalists have been chosen.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/04/wtc.finalists/index.html

gal.concept.4.1.jpg


gal.concept.1.1.jpg


I really like the THINK proposal (the top picture), and I would be very excited to see that built!

Your opinion?

Melon
 
Last edited:
Check out the link as well. There is a sublink called "Interactive: Two Proposals" that go much more in-depth. I really am impressed with THINK's proposal.

Melon
 
Definately THINK.

However can someone explain to me what the whitish object near the top of the two structures that links them is?

Please don't get mad, but it made me shudder for a moment I thought it was the shape of a plane??? :(

I couldnt figure it out. But it is beautiful..
 
I am also going with THINK. The online material on this proposal is impressive.

But, I must ask WWOD?

What Would Ouizy Design?
 
gabrielvox said:
Definately THINK.

However can someone explain to me what the whitish object near the top of the two structures that links them is?

Please don't get mad, but it made me shudder for a moment I thought it was the shape of a plane??? :(

I couldnt figure it out. But it is beautiful..


I thought it was a plane too.....
 
THINK. :up: I like the idea of the lights at night, and the lattice is really cool! The other one you can see the "pit" of the old WTC.. :no:

Each finalist also allocates space for a memorial, a major new train station, shopping areas, a hotel and parks.

:shocked:
 
actually seeing the pit is one of the good things about the second idea. the victims' families are particularly in favor of this because they can be closer to their loved ones this way.

as for the second one, it looks neat but there's no office space in the towers which means more office space needed on the ground, including possibly pushing in to the tower footprints.

I still don't understand why they want to build a tall structure there. After what happened, no one will want to rent office space at the top of a building there. tall buildings are just going to be another bull's eye for terrorists.
 
That's why I like THINK. No office space in the tall structures, but the skyline is still restored.

Melon
 
I like the first design too.

gabrielvox said:
Definately THINK.

However can someone explain to me what the whitish object near the top of the two structures that links them is?...

I got this from the article on the CNN website:

"The towers would contain viewing platforms near the top and project beams of lights into the sky at night. The team proposes eight mid-sized office buildings around the towers, none higher than 59 floors, with a total of 8.5 million square feet of office space."

So I presume that what you're seeing in that first pic, might be some sort of viewing platform?
 
Last edited:
I prefer the Libeskind project. It doesn't scream LOOK AT ME!!! like THINK does, but yet is still is very visually appealing. From what I can see through pictures I like the architecture of the buildings themselves better in the Libeskind project, too.
 
I think there's something slightly off about the first one, THINK. It looks like a skeleton, or ghost of the first buildings, and the museum (?) that joins them halfway up is too similar, from these models/renditions, of a plane.

The second is quite nice.

But anyways, its the people of New York's opinions that matter, not mine.
:)
 
Libeskind fits better with the skyline and has some gardens.

THINK has got museum and perf arts center, and is more unique in its conception, though.

I vote for THINK. Because it has more... I don?t know how to explain. More unique, more class, more multicultural... its more unique. The other one is very nice, but there are many buildings on the world like that. THINK stands out though. More effect. And it seems more opened, creative space. The concept remembers me of a gigantic Centre Pompidou.

THINK, definitely.
 
ouizy's response:

There were 9 schemes proposed during this "study." THINK actually submitted 3. Out of the nine (my firm's included) I did not like any of them. Not a single one. I was actually hard-pressed to extract elements from any of the designs that I really appreciated.

I agree with the notion that the skyline needs to be restored.

As far as building a lattice, and having some spaces filled in with more space to come in the future is not feasible.

As far as building a lattice with only some permanent spaces is not feasible.

To be quite honest, there is no design as of yet that remedies the office space issue, and one must remember this is NEW YORK. The dollar sign drives everything here and as I watch Larry Silverstein (the controller of the 99 year lease) walk around here, I have to say none of these will be built.

As far as the specific schemes:

I think the THINK deign was interesting, but not the one the committee actually "chose." There was another design that created a park above ground level that was much more interesting. I think the skyline needs to be replaced, but not by two empty (chinese fingercuffs) lattices. They are simply silly.

Per the Libeskind design, simply put I find it offensive. I cannot agree with a design that leaves the hole in the ground. One, it is not feasible, the slurry wall would need to be reinforced, two after all the construction, it would never look the way it did on 9/11 or thereafter, and I think Libeskind's "design" is simply too brutal for New York. This is not Berlin, a location where he was able to build a holocaust museum as warm as a block of ice. He is the wrong architect to do this project.

I think where this study failed is simply with the architects. I think the whole thing was a PR move as I cannot imagine some of the designs submitted were ever supposed to be taken seriously. This can clearly be seen by the Meier, Eisenman, Gwathmey, Holl design and even so with my firm's. Many of these projects simply became a theoretical dialogue opened up between a number of architects.

None of the designs are feasible except for maybe Sir Norman Foster's. (the one I had to favor.)

A more credible idea actually came from mayor Bloomberg who pur forth the idea of creating a "Champs Elysees" or even a waterfrom area with grand promenades. I really liked this idea, an area of shops, gardens, office space, public spaces, and a memorial.

I work 1 block from the site and I have to tell you that at 6:00PM every night this area clears out. We need some life down here, some excitement.

Yes we need the tallest structure in the world, but yes we also need a mini-city that can support it.

Look at the Petrona Towers.

You simply cannot build a huge tower and expect people to come.

The tower should include (among other things) offices, a hotel, and permanent residences. The surrounding buildings should be shorter, yet more diverse. And lastly, the memorial should simply take up the area of the tower's footprints (which is actually huge.)

Per the memorial, I feel like people are moving in the wrong direstion with the ideas. Many of the schemes left holes in the ground to view into, they also left the footprint, and even the slurry wall open as a huge pit. I actually find this offensive as the World Trade Center towers wer some of the tallestr buildings in the world. The tragedy took place well up into the sky and people spent their lives going up into the buildings to floor ins the 100's.

Why are we looking down?

There only happens to be a huge pit as the entire site had to be excavated, but the idea of the towers was to look up.

I think the whole process is a circus, and the designs are shameful at best.

In any event, we are not going to see any broad sweeps of the brush any time soon as it takes years to develop one building, let alone an entire site.

Let them choose their favorite schme, you can mark my words, it will not be built.
 
Yeah, great critique, ouizy :up: Some thoughts by a professional.

And Ouizy Airlines plus Let Ouizy Design WTC is ok by me.

The Interference community starts to be a NGO. Any ideas coming up? Input pls.
 
I do not want to be the President.

I want to be the guy behind the scenes who ACTUALLY makes the decisions.

I am very busy:


--Trying to get my design done for WTC
--Launching OUIZYAIR
--Designing the new Dublin Tower for U2's studio...
 
Back
Top Bottom