The design for the Freedom Tower – the big signature building which is
to rise at the northwest corner of the World Trade Center site – was unveiled
with great pomp today. Grand speeches were given by George Pataki, Michael Bloomberg,
Larry Silverstein, Daniel Libeskind, and, of course, the architect, David Childs.
But what’s the tower like? Is it a magnificent structure the like of which
the world has never seen, a skyscraper to put New York City back in its rightful
place as the home of the greatest tall buildings in the world? After all, a
central part of the WTC redesign has always – since long before Libeskind
was chosen as the master architect for the site plan – been the restoration
of the skyline. And although this building certainly puts something tall where
(more or less) the Twin Towers once stood, I’m not sure that it really has the
kind of iconic power that the most optimistic of us were hoping for.
The Freedom Tower is not an easy structure to get your head around. For one
thing, it kindasorta torques, which means that its shape can’t be easily described
or conceived. And then it’s basically comprised of three unrelated elements:
an office block at the base, with a latticework structure on top of that, and
finally a 276-foot spire perched on the very top.
It’s designed by David Childs, a competent architect with, as far as I can
make out, no real genius or inspiration whatsoever. In New York, he has built
perfectly good structures like the New York Mercantile Exchange and the Stuyvesant
School Bridge, both very close to where the Freedom Tower will be built; mediocre
buildings like the Bear Stearns headquarters; and, of course, the monstrosity
that is the Time Warner Center at Columbus Circle. This is not the kind of man
who will think outside the box: he more or less invented the box as we know
it today.
The base of the building has been evened out from Libeskind’s original, angular
design, and is now a perfect parallelogram, mirroring the street grid around
it: West Street on the west, Vesey Street on the north, Fulton Street on the
south, and maybe some kind of extension of Washington Street on the east.
The base is actually the best part of the building, echoing the extra-high
bases of the original World Trade Center.Weirdly, none of the publicity images
really show what’s going on down there, so you’re going to have to make do with
a blurry snapshot of the model I took with my digital camera. The view is looking
north from the Trade Center site, with Fulton Street in the foreground.
You can see how Childs has lit up the model by turning the solid core of the
building – where the fire stairs, elevators and whatnot are located –
into a light source. So it’s that much more difficult to tell what the building
is actually going to look like when it’s finished. What you can see, however,
is that the entrance foyer is going to be pretty spectacular, complete with
structural triangular entrance elements in place of the curved elements from
the Twin Towers.
Now
continue looking at the building from this perspective – from the south.
As it rises, the south facade becomes narrower, with the left-hand (west) wall
going straight up, and the right-hand (east) wall moving in towards it. The
north and south facades are perfectly vertical, and don’t torque at all: they
simply narrow. Meanwhile, if you’re looking straight towards them, the east
and west facades kind of fall backwards on their left-hand sides, while remaining
perfectly straight and vertical on their right-hand sides. That’s the
torquing you’re going to hear so much about.
The picture on the left is a view of the south and east facades. Because of
all the light and transparency, it’s hard to tell what’s going on. But essentially
what you have is straight, vertical walls on the left and right edges of the
picture (the southwest and northeast corners), and a torquing, falling-backwards
wall in the middle (the southeast corner). The whole thing is complicated by
the fact that the outside of the building is a diagrid – a diagonal structural
grid which helps add rigidity and redundancy to the overall building structure.
That’s why the straight-up verticals aren’t actually straight-up vertical at
all, but weave in and out a little to incorporate the movement of the grid.
You got that? Because now we’re going up, to the top of the office block, what
Childs calls the crown, where you’ll find public areas, an observation deck,
meeting rooms, and – in another nod to the original towers – Windows
on the World restaurant. The new restaurant won’t just have spectacular views
of both rivers; it will also have a glass roof, so that you can look up and
admire the latticework trellis above.
The
crown has an angled top, with the high point at the northwest corner, and the
low point at the southeast corner. The idea is to complete Libeskind’s spiral
of skyscrapers, the tops of all of which tilt inwards towards the center of
the site, as if in homage to the void there.
And in fact the experience of the crown should be fantastic. You won’t be peering
through narrow windows, like you had to in the WTC: rather, there should be
gorgeous panoramic views from New Jersey to Brooklyn and from the Statue of
Liberty up past Central Park.
The problem is that the positioning of the crown doesn’t align with the positioning
of the spire at the top of the trellis. The spire is at the southwest corner,
not the northwest corner, which gives it a tacked-on, ill-fitted feeling. The
spire should rise naturally from the building, continuing the base’s tapering
motion. Instead, while the base of the building points north, the spire drags
the eye back to the south. From the north and south, it’s not too bad, and from
the east, the view is going to be largely occluded by other towers which are
going to be built next to the Freedom Tower. But you’re not going to see many
pictures of what the tower is going to look like from the west – the famous
view across the river from New Jersey, with the World Financial Center in the
foreground – because that’s where the disconnect between the top of the
crown and the spire is most glaring. If you want, you can get some idea of what
I’m talking about by downloading this 488k
QuickTime movie of the view from the Hudson.
Above
the crown is the trellis, arranged around two broadcasting masts which emerge
from the building’s core. The trellis continues the diagrid of the main building,
but instead of being under compression, it’s made of cables which are under
tension. Childs makes a big show of talking about how this echoes the construction
of the Brooklyn Bridge, but I’m not entirely sold. I’m sure he’s right that
the trellis relieves the weight of the building, and adds redundancy to the
structure should any of the supporting columns fail. But the way in which the
cables hold the building up isn’t beautifully obvious, like it is in the Brooklyn
Bridge or any given structure by Santiago Calatrava. In fact, if it’s reminiscent
of anything, the trellis brings to mind the Eiffel Tower – something which
is made up of beams under compression, not cables under tension.
Attached to the broadcasting masts are a bunch of windmills, which will provide
a chunk of the building’s energy needs: a nice touch. And then, stuck onto the
top like an afterthought, is the spire.
Childs is unclear about exactly what sort of form the spire is going to take:
according to the LMDC press
release, "it is intended that an artist will collaborate to design
the spire with the architects and the engineers, placing a sculpture in the
sky". But as it stands, the spire is simply plunked down on top of the
trellis, with its base not even extending as far as the southeast corner, where
it could naturally continue the torqued line of the rest of the building.
Unlike much of the rest of what we think is going to appear at the World Trade
Center site, it seems pretty clear that, in this case, what we see is what we’re
going to get. Larry Silverstein has committed to laying the foundation stone
by September 11, 2004, and having the building ready for occupation in late
2008 or early 2009. He’s got his favourite architect on board, and seems to
have dodged any of the inconvenient parts of Daniel Libeskind’s vision.
Once the building is up in the sky – and Silverstein says he intends
to top out the steel by September 11, 2006 – we will indeed have a restored
skyline. That’s a good thing. But many architecture junkies, I think, will retain
a feeling that ultimately we’ll be missing out on something with a stronger
overall form: something unified, something better.
‘s Muschamp’s take.
Thanks for all the info about the freedom tower.
In all the media reports I have heard nothing that mentions what in it’s design will make it safer, more resistant to a repeat disaster like the world trade center??
I can’t get over the feeling that the spire is just to get bragging rights over our CN Tower.
http://www.cntower.ca/default.htm
Hey Jim —
There’s actually a lot of stuff which will make this probably the safest tall building in the world. The diagrid is multiply redundant (large chunks of it can be taken out without the building being at risk of falling down), and, as I mentioned, the whole building is actually held up from above by the trellis, a bit like the Brooklyn Bridge. There are dedicated stairs for firefighters (so they don’t need to go up where workers are coming down), and multiple exits on each floor with extra-wide pressurised stairs; there’s even special consideration made for disabled workers. The whole construction is a LOT more fireproof than the WTC was, there’s redundant communications to each floor (to prevent the kind of communication catastrophe we saw on 9/11), there are biological and chemical filters in the air-supply system, there’s blast-resistant glazing for the lobby, etc.
As for the CN Tower, no bragging rights there: at 1,815 feet, it’s taller than the top of the spire.
.
http://symphony-x.com/archives/000026.html
Blogburst of links on the topic.
Hey Felix…
Sounds like they really put some thought into this design. I hope they never have to use those features for real.
I know we beat the spire but CNN and the media around here are counting the broadcasting antenna.
Guess we will have to put an extension on ours!
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/12/19/wtc.plan/index.html
Planning for disaster is always about building what one hopes is not used. However, many of the features have everyday use – the redundant communications, for example.
Hi Jim — interesting link you’ve got there! I have no idea where CNN got that stuff about a broadcast antenna bringing the total height to more than 2,000 feet — although I do note that’s contradicted by the illustration on the same site, at http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0312/lady.liberty/frameset.exclude.html — in any case, I’m pretty sure that factoid is erroneous. There are two big broadcast masts inside the trellis, which rises to 1,500 feet, and if you were going to put another broadcast antenna on top of that, it would interfere with the spire. Of course, it’s still possible that the spire will have some kind of functional use, but at the moment it’s very much a 1,776-foot structure.
Something is very wrong with that design, but I can’t comment on it in detail as the photos don’t show me enough to make such comment. I can say, however, that the single spire of the original design gave me late pause on symbolic grounds, but this one gives me more than mere pause. It’s way too “clunky” and wrong, wrong, wrong symbolically. And that bloody antenna reads like a cheat.
Oh, for the twin “ghost” towers of the THINK design!
ACD
The think design didn’t do it for me. This one doesn’t really either – I agree that the toothpick reads like a cheat.
Something that is big, wasteful and ugly should just be proud of the fact – the original WTC worked because it made no concessions, it was a pair of boxes for people, and that was that.
Now that‘s a weird criticism, that a skyscraper isn’t wasteful and ugly enough! Just a few blocks away from the Freedom Tower is living proof that skyscrapers don’t need to be ugly: the Woolworth Building. And whatever else you say about this building, it’s not wasteful: it’s probably going to be the greenest large building in the world, thanks partly to those windmills. I’ll grant you that the tallest building in the world is, by definition, going to be big. But I won’t grant you that the original WTC “worked”. Does anybody feel the slightest bit of grief for the demise of Austin J Tobin Plaza? Piazza San Marco it was not. It was so bloody enormous that when they put concerts on there, most of the time they had them at the base of the steps, rather than in the plaza itself, just to stop the audience and performers from being completely dwarfed and gobbled up by nothingness. Remember, Stirling, skyscrapers are much more than a silhouette on a skyline. And if you were closer than a couple of blocks away, the WTC really, truly, didn’t work at all.
The spire is just plain ugly. A taller, more tapering lattice structure would look much better if height is important. Maybe even taper down to a spire but as it is now it just doesn’t work. If anything, it is an insult to Lady Liberty.
I agree totally with Daniel Henninger http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110004481 when he says The Freedom Tower should stand alone. I didn’t agree with him when he said the site shouldn’t be rebuilt. A true memorial needs to be part of the skyline and stand alone.
hi flix
please explain to me :
what is the new in the freedom tower design that make it safer than the old world trade center design which was very good design in my idea.
explain to me if we imagine that the same event happens what will the new building do
Mr Engineer —
I went through a few of the safety features in the third comment, above. There’s no doubt at all that the new building is a LOT safer than the original WTC was: if you liked the WTC from a safety standpoint, you’ll LOVE the Freedom Tower.
The Freedom Tower has yet to reach the detailed design stage where simulations of plane crashes can be run with any degree of certainty as to the outcome. But at the moment, the plan is for the diagrid and the core-supported trellis to take up any extra strain and hold the building up, while improved fireproofing and communications should help save most of the lives. Obviously, the people on the plane and the people in the immediate area of impact are doomed, no matter what the building design is.
As for Henninger, that column is incredibly irresponsible and stupid journalism, and is in desperate need of a fisking. If I have the time…
hi. I’m a student writing an end-of-term paper about the rebuilding of the wtc.
now my main question at the moment is:
when was it decided that they were to be rebuilt?
when was it decided that a memorial should be built?
i can’t find any data anywhere, apart from the mission statement from the LMDC, which would cover the memorial part …
any help? please?
Hey i’m doing a class project! We get 100 toothpicks and white glue! we have to build a tower 10″ in height and it has to hold 10 pounds !! well e-mail Heidi_Champion@hotmail.com if you have some good tips for me and my partner!
Felix,
You write on the Stefan Geens blog at http://www.stefangeens.com/000314.html that “110-story skyscrapers are simply uneconomical: the tallest you can go…is 70 stories. Beyond that, the marginal extra cost of construction, plus the marginal decrease in the lower floors of the extra space needed for elevator banks, exceeds the marginal extra revenues from the higher floors.”
This is true with respect to conventional skyscrapers, which is what the so-called Freedom Tower is. A torqued box is still a box, and it doesn’t appear that Childs’s elevator core ventures far, if it all, from the status quo.
Eli Attia’s design for the World Trade Center features three conical towers, each rising from a very large base to a single point in the sky. All three towers are 1728 feet tall — the height of the antenna atop WTC1 — each with a different footprint: circle, square, triangle.
Although the towers are designed to be occupied up to about 120 floors, the conical forms mean that the elevator cores do not consume inordinate floor space, as they typically do in tall and super-tall buildings.
The tapered forms also yield an almost infinite variety of floorplates, from about 80,000 sf (circle, square) at the base to about 5000 sf at the 100th floor (and slightly smaller beyond that). This offers an opportunity to appeal to the widest variety of tenants, creating a far more diverse economic base for the towers than the Silverstein/Childs/Taylor/Cooper/Garvin/Libeskind plan would ever do.
The elevator plan is at http://www.phoenixproject.info/design/presentation/DesignPresentAllPages72.html.
From there, you can access a full slide presentation of the Eli Attia design.
JOHN LUMEA
The Phoenix Project
(Note from Felix: This same person posted 11 different comments, under different names, but always from the email address alexmarmat@hotmail.com. I’ve aggregated them all here in one.)
This is a Freak Tower. The feeling of going to tumble as Pisa Tower in Italy is horrible.
In my opinion David Childs is 4 years old, or his grandson has made the design.
Sorry, I don•t understand all this discussion. Freedom Tower will looks like a secoya in the midst of a bonsais forest. Be coherent, the design is veeeeery ugly. It is a giant monstrous skyscraper.
∞∞∞And taller than Twin Towers: THIS IS ABSURD∞∞∞∞
Reconstruct the Twin Towers and all the buildings ruined, and create a beautiful memorial with marble and one glass case with some rests of the runes.
I am amazed because I can not understand, why they want to build a skyscraper taller than 417 metres. Sears Tower in Chicago is 422 metres tall and it has a perfect height, as Eiffel Tower in Paris, or the Empire State Building. I think it•s not necessary to build an asian monstrous skyscraper. Yes, in Asia there are a lot of spectacular skyscrapers, terribly spectacular. But are it beautiful?. USA is not Asia, and New York is not Shanghai or Malaysia, I think there are a lot of differences. Now I•m living in Holland, and I perceive a more ecological future.
In countries as Holland everybody can perceive a much more ecological and human future. I liked Twin Towers because of it•s soberness, serenity, immaculate and perfect geometry as the Athens temple. With a straight, rectilinear, solid, pure and simple form.
∞∞∞PLEASE, REBUILD THE TWIN TOWERS AS THEY WERE∞∞∞
Freedom Tower looks as gelatin and the feeling of going to tumble because of the design, as Pisa Tower in Italy is horrible. You don•t see it because you don•t see all the perspectives of the skyscraper. It recalls the tallest skyscraper of Miami (Florida).
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞It•s horrible∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
And the other skyscrapers position recalls the position of the cigarettes in it•s box.
Thank you.
THIS FREEDOM TOWER IT•S VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VULGAR.
∞∞∞REBUILD THE TWIN TOWERS, BUT MORE STRONG AND MORE SOLID∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
This is a shit with potatoes.
Is this a joke? It•s horrible. Who are the authors of this thing???????????????
Wow, Eli Attia’s design is real pleasing to the eye but could it ever become a reality? With Eli Attia’s design I no longer object to multiple buildings. Each building is significant instead of one that is mediocre at best and a bunch of others that are just that – a bunch of other buildings.
David Childs design does less and less for me every time I look at it. I suspect in the very near future it wouldn’t stand out at all among other structures throughout the world.
What is the point of having a tall building if it’s not really a tall building? I suppose you are right–bragging rights! So far, this is a 70 floor building with a “ghost-like” lattice at the top. It is ridiculous–I think it looks like a fishnet for catching airplanes.
Felix, can you delete (clean) my message and my facts from this list, please?.
I don•t want to be responsible of my opinions about the new WTC in this site. Thank you.
Good-bye.
First: I want to make this public, because you are ungentlemanly, you knew my petition and you have not delete my messages.
Second: I don•t speak English and I can not express my opinions as I want.
Third: I did not want to contact with your site expressly, it was casual. I don•t want to talk about architecture, books, classical music or about the latest Stanley Kubrick•s film with a virtual friend as you do. These are not my intentions. I have sent messages (E-Mails) to some architecture forums because I•m indignant with Silverstein•s Monstrous Tower. I have thought about it, and my conclusions are that reconstruct Twin Towers and all the buildings ruined it•s the best we can do. Of course we have to build a beautiful memorial made of white marble, fountains of water, thin curtains of water and one big glass case with some rests of the runes. All of this in a big public square situated in front of the new Twin Towers, replacing the old square of the golden ball. I want to see white marble, rectilinear and quadrangular forms. I want to see a new Athens in New York. Of course all this zone has to be closed to the cars and the traffic. New York is not New York without the Twin Towers (as Athens without the Acropolis). I want a big white and spiritual square as a Greek templecontrasting with the blue of the sky and the Twin Towers.
The most important skyscrapers in USA have the same texture: Twin Towers, Sears Tower, Seagram Building, John Hancock Center, Citicorp Center, GE Building, Chase Manhattan Bank…….
This is the spirit of USA and the spirit of the Bauhaus.
I too want some rests of the runes in a big glass case. Just like the Acropolis.
Yes the runes are ugly, but in my opinion we have to choose and clean some of this runes (the golden globe, etc…) and put it into a glass case, because this runes are part of the human history. Because this runes has to remain as a symbol of rebuff and sorrow. And this runes are the sign of a brutal crime that never again has to be repeated. Stefan we can not hide what has happened, or make as it never had happened nothing.
ALWAYS PEACE, we are human, we have to resolve all our problems talking.
Hey Guys,
Check out:
http://WWW.MEMORIALTOWER.NET
It appears Freedom Tower is a 70-story building, with 50 extra stories of decorative structure. I suppose that’s because everyone will be afraid to rent offices higher than the 70th floor.
Is it also true that Freedom Tower is designed to mimic the Statue of Liberty? That tall spire is supposed to suggest Miss Liberty’s arm outstretched? Where is her head and crown?
OK, I guess we’re stuck with this design, but I’d rather see an innovative application of art deco.
What scares me about this design is its chaos. It looks too much like the inside of my trash basket after I’ve finished a Chinese take-out dinner.
I don’t like eggs so I cannot understand this structure.
I feel that the overall effect of the WTC rebuild will be dramatic, however I share many of the concerns expressed by fellow e-mailers. The Freedom Tower is, I hesitate to say, disappointing. Yes it will be the tallest structure, not the tallest building: I understand the dilemmas of the architects but the three part miss mached design is at present should be changed to create a uniform structural appeirance. OK so architecture sky scraper enthusiasts show great interest. The Sears Tower is still the true tallest building on earth no falce tops, no spires. My ambition is to see most of the worlds great archtecture and experience the cultures of the countries. To share E-Mail–sh002b9944@blueyonder.co.uk
look at the video it looks like a ghost of one of the towers of the first World Trade Center.
Personally i feel that the name “Freedom Tower” is tacky. Not only does it lack the pizazz needed for the world’s most grandiose structure, it lacks any real ingenuity. A soccer mom would think of that kind of name. I think that the building should be named, “The Welder Grounds” only because it sounds better than “Freedom Tower”. Think about it.
I’m going to weigh in on this: I think this design is a disgrace, possibly even an insult. It might even be called a ‘slap in the face.’
I’m not so offended by the ‘luminescence’ worked into the design, (though maybe I should be, considering all the unanswered questions,) but if we could please have a real building and not just post-modern art trash, surely the public would be most grateful (or greatly relieved?)
I don’t like the name either. I’d prefer ‘The Liberty Spire’ or anything with more sybilence than ‘Freedom Tower,’ which ‘thuds’ like a soft potato and has no more asthetic appeal than our new currency (another deliberate attack on our national pride.)
Contacting members of Congress might be a waste of time. Who would one contact to express their opinion?
Thanks in advance.
It scares me when they plans things like a “Freedom Tower” – knowing the way they use doublespeak…
“Liberation” for Iraqis means killing 10s of thousands of them… well that’s liberated them from life I guess… it’s not very “liberated” when you’re being occupied by an agressive external force who can’t or don’t want to relate to your people because their only real interests are the extraction of your oil (for their own gain) and the potential for business contracts.
“Freedom”? what are they aiming for for our future ?
The only people who really fill me with terror are the ones who push us into this totalitarian 1984 world, “for [our] own protection”
I don’t want biometric IDs and video cameras watching us every waking minute. I’m not a criminal, but I’m sure starting to feel like one!
If our governments weren’t always stirring up trouble in other people’s countries then we wouldn’t be suffering the consequences of their animosity in return.
You don’t see attacks like that happening against Switzerland or Sweden.
I say crack down on the REAL terrorist organisations, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA and the Project for a New American Century, who want global “full spectrum dominance” by 2020 – what right is it of theirs to be the mafia overlord of the whole world?
Give us back our old-fashioned *real* freedom.
The goal is to build a tower that no one likes, is that right? Great job. Has anyone ever seen or heard something positive about this design???
BTW – in my opinion of this hideous building, the lattice structure on top looks as if the building was designed to appear unfinnished for all of eternity. Hollow and empty.
I am going to add that after looking at this sad excuse for a NY landmark, it also appears as if NY is striving to build a tall skyscraper but can not afford it, so instead they decided to fake it. No substance.
Hey there.
My name is Daniel Lukic, and I’m 19 years old. I live permanently in Sydney, Australia, but my father was born in the United States, and I am an Australian-American citizen.
Just a couple of things: is there going to be a structure built ON the actual site of the two towers? And when is construction of the new towers to be started/completed?
Thanks for your time, and god bless all those whose lives were devastated by September 11.
Dan Lukic
Sydney, Australia
I’m disappointed by the final Freedom Tower design. The original Libeskind idea had the 1776 foot spire almost like and independent structure and the building that supported it was integrated in volume and in height with the ascending roofline of the rest of WTC. The lattice structure and the windmills, even though presented as a green feature, just distort the roofscape.
I don’t find a valid excuse for having a 1776 foot spire… since I find numeric correlation just as an excuse for lack of creativity and sensibility and for not trying hard enough to produce a building with deeper (or higher) meaning and with a more sofisticated simbolism. The Statue of Liberty speaks for itself and does not need a replica. As a foreign citizen I just want to say that the Freedom Tower falls too short to represent what US stands for
As a truck driver, stuck in traffic, three days before the 911 incident. I took pictures of my surroundings with a digital camera. I noted the world trade center in the background, in many of the shots I took. I marveled at the buildings, as I never went there, or had been inside. After the destruction of them, while I was driving west towards San Diego, CA in Indianapolis, IN. I remembered my shots. It was sad to know, I would never see them again, and thought of all the people who died there. We have the freedom to build big buildings, and enjoy them for what they are. Now, I feel, we have lost that freedom, with this crud coming at us from the people who would ruin us, and humiliate us. I like the new design, but, that area has been known for the twin towers, and what they symbolised. As a small child, I noted their presence in an air-liner, returning from Italy, when my father was being stationed in Florida. As an air-force brat, I had stayed in Europe for four years, and missed the construction of them in the early 70’s. I marveled then at the majestic beauty of New York’s proud new towers. Now, at forty, I reflect on the destruction of them, and am sorry I never visited them. Sorry for all the lost people, and dreams gone by. We should rebuild them, as they were, if only to show the rest of the world, that we will do it. Yes, knock them down, but, beware. For we will rebuild, and go on again. EWJ
As a truck driver, stuck in traffic, three days before the 911 incident. I took pictures of my surroundings with a digital camera. I noted the world trade center in the background, in many of the shots I took. I marveled at the buildings, as I never went there, or had been inside. After the destruction of them, while I was driving west towards San Diego, CA in Indianapolis, IN. I remembered my shots. It was sad to know, I would never see them again, and thought of all the people who died there. We have the freedom to build big buildings, and enjoy them for what they are. Now, I feel, we have lost that freedom, with this crud coming at us from the people who would ruin us, and humiliate us. I like the new design, but, that area has been known for the twin towers, and what they symbolised. As a small child, I noted their presence in an air-liner, returning from Italy, when my father was being stationed in Florida. As an air-force brat, I had stayed in Europe for four years, and missed the construction of them in the early 70’s. I marveled then at the majestic beauty of New York’s proud new towers. Now, at forty, I reflect on the destruction of them, and am sorry I never visited them. Sorry for all the lost people, and dreams gone by. We should rebuild them, as they were, if only to show the rest of the world, that we will do it. Yes, knock them down, but, beware. For we will rebuild, and go on again. EWJ
I have a few thoughts I’d like to share in regard to the Freedom Tower. First and foremost, I can appreciate the act of abstracting the Statue of Liberty as a design concept. However, as a professional and a woman, I am appalled by way the design suggests an “empty head”. I find this very insulting and do not buy the statement that the crown is the completed roof segment that serves as the base for the “lattice” type structure above. Also, the windmills imply that there is nothing in the woman’s head but air. And, furthermore, if this idea has occurred to me then I feel certain it has occurred to others. Thanks, but no thanks!
i feel the same way because i think the building is great looking but only if the floors whent to the top to the 1,500 mark i think that would be a very nice building but with the lattice work and the wind mills they can shove it.
I was disappointed at the designs they picked. I’ve never designed a building in my life, but i feel fairly confident that i could design a nicer looking building. I thought they’d make it taller too. They should introduce a number of designs for the public to vote on instead of picking one that nobody likes
I’m an undergraduate civil (structural) engineering student currently attending a university in colorado. I once watched a documentary on the politics behind the final “compromissed” design of the Freedom Tower. Why in the world should we have to settle for a compromised structure. Shouldn’t the obviously best design be the design of the tower? The current building is an average skyscraper at best. The “toothpick” and the shape of the building is supposed to align/be similar to the statue of liberty. This is a good idea, a great idea that was unbrilliantly portrayed.
I am shocked, appauled, disappointed and regretful that nobody has forseen the dreadful impact this will have on the New York Skyline. There are even building height and size regulations in Manhattan in order to preserve the sanctity of it’s magnificent beauty.
Yet, this architect takes a design that looks like one of those concepts everyone thinks will never become a reality… but somehow the project manager excepted this catastrophy that will forever portray the failure of America’s Retort against Terror.
I believe when Donald Trump proposed his plan for the new twin towers he said that this design resembled a “skeleton”. He’s right…it does, quite the monument to honor those who perished…with a giant skeleton over looking the city!!!!!!
This is a disgrace to the Statue of Liberty!!! If she’s supposed to have inspired it’s design, she’d be pale, topless and anorexic.(Well.. kinda does symbolize the New York fashion industry.) Also kind of looks like her spire’s flipping off in the direction of the east!!!
It disgusts me to think that the spire will forever display how tall this building could have been!!! The spire will be a beacon to the whole city divertng everyone’s attention to show off the gutless structure!!!
And what in the hell is with those windmills??? Does this symbolize how much this building blows!!!??
If this is the tower meant to penetrate the hymen of the New York City smog, then it seems it’s virginity remains taken by the Empire State Building since the freedom tower has no gurth!!!
Like John (#18) posted: “This is a shit with potatoes!!!”
I really dont the like the Freedom tower desing. Its really UGLY!! It looks tacky from far. I think that they sohuld built the twin towers again, they looked nice. If the freedom tower is build alot of people would not like it.
Are you want to buy uggs?There are many good ugg boots :
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
You actually make it seem so easy together with your presentation however I find this matter to be actually something which I feel I’d never understand. It kind of feels too complex and extremely wide for me. I am looking forward on your next publish, I will try to get the cling of it!