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.