TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52 Posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4649 times:
Today, February 4, potential designs for the replacement of the World Trade Center complex were narrowed down to 2. Although whatever is built there won't replicate the designs exactly, they will serve as a model concept for the future development. Here is a link to the story:
AC320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4586 times:
They should have picked Foster's concept, the Libeskind one looks horrific with toom any sharp and harsh angles, and I don't care too much for the THINK design. Foster's would have inspired the same awe and simple beauty that the original towers did but in a more modern form
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4558 times:
There's WAAAAYYYYY too many "ar-teeeests" involved in this process and not enough common sense. The THINK design team's leader tried to convey what his design meant, and I was like ..."Ok." How about less "meant" and more "splendor"?
This process shouldn't be some Impressionistic orgy whose end result is really only appreciated by the archeitecturally 'cultured'. I'm not saying build a pre-fab brick or some gaudy retro block....but some of these designs were a little 'out there'. I mean how practical is the THINK design? Please.
Vafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4441 times:
TWAL1011- I completely agree with the whole Idea of putting 2 piece of crap buildings where once 2 great, beautiful, simple, yet classy ones stood. I am also opposed for looks, the building has to not only have the room needed to satisfy all of the businesses, yet also represent a Nation, and yet leave room for the memorial. But most importantly rub it into the terrorists' faces saying *we build the same building with one more floor, therefore proving we have overcome your attack, B*tch*.
If we build this-it's probably going to collapse since it's going to be built out of toothpicks, and won't symbolize a coutry, carry an *in your face* message or memorialize what the original WTC was all about.
Anyone up for the rebuilding of the WTC with one more floor say I!
Post number 999!!!!
I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
Todareisinger From Switzerland, joined Mar 2001, 2804 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4383 times:
After the tragedy, it was said that no skyscrapers should be built at the site, and that the office offer in the WTC was too important; now, the designs are for higher buildings with the same amount of office floor...
All the proposed designs are bad, and not at all suited to restore New York's unique skyline; the ONLY solution would be to rebuild clones of the Twin Towers, with today's technical advances. These towers were absolutely fantastic, and they gave New York its distinctive image for 3 decades; they were also a fabulous testimony of the 20th century architectural genius.
Nothing else would be able to "replace" them, and surely not the proposed concepts.
I bitterly miss the livery that should never have been changed (repetition...)
Tbird From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 851 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4314 times:
Both designs are a total waste of time, effort, land, and building material. New York should have the honor again of having the worlds tallest building! Not the worlds tallest "Airy" structure. The best design out of all of them was Peterson/Littenberg's design, modern yet elegant. I'd rather see the space left empty then seeing either of these structures go up.