Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Ted Todorov, Dec 18, 2002.
For a complete slideshow presentation and information about the nine new proposals, you might want to visit the official site:
These are a hell of lot more interesting and "New York" than those milquetoast proposals from earlier this year.
I don't know, I think all of them are pretty bad. That number sign design must be a joke, you want that for the skyline? Only the first and 6th at CNN.com look like they actually took the city's asthetics into consideration. The rest are gaudy sci-fi wannabes IMO.
love the number sign one.
Are they serious with the one that looks like a Tic Tack Toe board. That thing looks ridiculous against the NYC Skyline
They all look pretty bad, and some evoke memories of collapsed buildings. But I live in Seattle so I really don't care.
The proposals are bold, but I am quite uncomfortable with all of them. They all look gaudy to my tastes.
What's wrong with rebuilding and improving the original design? (really, is there anything wrong with making it look like the original WTCs?)
I like em all except the # sign. How long did it take a professional design team to configure that??
I agree with Ted's philosophy with the new plans. I want something that will stand out from the NY skyline, and not just because of height. This will help to show the city is special, one of a kind.
Some of them dont even look architecturaly feasable. The rest mostly look like 5th grade art projects.
There is a saying we had in engineering school; electrical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets.
There is some truth in that saying that should be considered.
It should be noted the world's leading architectural firms (and consortiums of firms) and some of the most esteemed architects of our time had a hand in these proposals. Or put another way: If the WTC twin towers had never existed and you saw them among these proposals, would you like them any more than the others? I read a lot of praise for these proposals by architectural critics in this morning's Los Angeles Times.
Whatever the Port Authority ends up selecting should be larger than life and grand in scale, like New York City itself.
I think the new designs are a vast improvement over what we saw in round 1. Keep in mind the final designs will look pretty much nothing like what you see here - there is another round, a choice of teams, and then a consolidation of feedback into a final design that will be announced 9/1/03.
We have a ways to go.
Also keep in mind that people hated the original WTC design when it was first announced.
They're all horrific.
If this is what the "world's leading architectural firms (and consortiums of firms) and some of the most esteemed architects of our time" have come up with, then the world of architecture is in serious trouble...
Most of them look like they're either falling down already, or would if a stiff breeze came up. U-G-L-Y.
They should re-build the original design catty-corner from the original (preserving the footprints from the first WTC) and tall enough to re-claim the world's tallest building title. IMO.
I was wondering, what right-minded insurance firm would underwrite the construction of a new building (or buildings) equally high or higher than the previous WTC main towers?
I like the defiant sentiment of building new buildings that tall, but that's akin to painting a bulls eye on oneself, and insurers will likely balk at such a reconstruction.
My thoughts exactly, Jagan.
Somebody will underwrite it providing that there is significant publicity involved.