Vote for your favorite WTC site design!

[Mel-o-rama]

They have narrowed down the choices to nine (or is it seven - I only see seven, but the press keeps saying nine - what gives?) designs for redeveloping the WTC area.

Check out this website (http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/default.asp) for full details, pictures, and presentations.

Which one do you like the best?

Do you think they'll go with one of these, or will they ditch them all like they did the previous six?

I can tell you which design, by far, outshines the rest as being the least likely to be chosen. It is so weird looking.

[Pi Man]

in the late 60's when the WTC was being conceived, two identical boxy, boring towers was "strange" and "unacceptable".... now that they're gone, people miss them. why should the new design be anything less than the orig.?

[Lucy]

The original WTC was one of the ugliest and most alienating buildings in Manhattan. I am torn between thinking we should replace it with something beautiful and thinking it should be replaced with something striking, bold, and ugly.

Most of the designs qualify for the second. Many of them also have good public amenities - the idea of a public garden at the top of a large building, complete with a stunning view of the city (used by a couple of them) more than offsets the ugliness of the proposed towers that enclose them.

I like the "traditional" one best. But I could learn to love most of them.

Of course, these are just designs. I imagine Larry Silverstein will end up building what he wants.

Do you suppose New Yorkers will be willing to live or work at the top of a landmark tower?

[Mel-o-rama]

I think the Japanesy twisty turny buildings are ugly and way out of place.

[The Drunken Actuary]

So, what do you think of the finalists (http://www.calendarlive.com/galleriesandmuseums/cl-et-boehm5feb05,0,955665.story?coll=la-calendar-headlines-manual)?

Buildings on the site would be positioned so the sun would shine directly into that void each Sept. 11 between 8:46 a.m., when the first hijacked plane hit, and 10:28 a.m., when the second tower was struck.
I'm assuming struck should be replaced with fell. As opposed to 10:28 being replaced with 9:10. :-?

[E. Blackadder]

I'm partial to this (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_742369.html?menu=).

[Barney Gumble, FSA]

I'm partial to this (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_742369.html?menu=).

Yes, because we need the Vibratomatic 3000 rising above lower Manhattan.

[Polly Nomial]

perhaps the origin of the word gaudy? :D

[Jables]

CNN solicited ideas (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/wtc.ideas/designs/page.1/)from anyone...and I do mean anyone. Some of these are downright embarrassingly awful... some of them you have to wonder if they were done jokingly. :roll:

Number 6 on page 116 (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/wtc.ideas/designs/page.116/)was particularly entertaining... gotta love the Tesla coil air defense system, Star of David, and rainbow fountain. :wink:

Back in November, Fark (http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=368186)had a good time ripping on the entries... good for a few laughs.

[Redhead]

C'mon, what about page 23, number 19 (week 4), the legs?! That's got to be the best. :roll:

[Redhead]

Page 51, week 7, number 1 actually isn't too bad, I like the concept.

[Redhead]

And the porcupine building, now that is an architectural wonder!
(page 87, week 12, number 12).

[Budder]

This is my favorite
http://www.geektimes.com/michael/culture/memoriam/worldTradeCenter/stillStanding.html
scroll down almost to bottom under "Saturday 15 September 2001"

[E. Blackadder]

I'm partial to this (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_742369.html?menu=).

Yes, because we need the Vibratomatic 3000 rising above lower Manhattan.

Or because it looks like a missle!

[Grace]

I like the Gaudi, especially the blue drawing. It would be really interesting to see that hotel built somewhere where NASA has a presence or something, or LA, but it reminds me too much of past images of atomic bombs to go where 3,000 died (from de facto bombs) -- and the WTC and the professionals there had nothing to do with rockets. Raytheon did have engineers, but I don't know if Raytheon was still there at the time of the attack. I don't recall any mention of them in its aftermath.

Of the two contenders, I think I like the crystal scaffolding one better.

[oedipus rex]

i have to say that i am indifferent about this whole matter. does anyone else feel the same way? i would almost think it would be appropriate to leave two holes in the earth around the site and construct some sort of monument on the ground, closer to the earth, maybe with shafts of light. but i think there was a design like that that was thrown out.

[The Drunken Actuary]

i have to say that i am indifferent about this whole matter. does anyone else feel the same way? i would almost think it would be appropriate to leave two holes in the earth around the site and construct some sort of monument on the ground, closer to the earth, maybe with shafts of light. but i think there was a design like that that was thrown out.Real estate in Manhatten is too valuable for that.

[oedipus rex]

yes, but it looks like the scaffolding design isn't usable for office space, unless people want a very windy office.

[The Drunken Actuary]

yes, but it looks like the scaffolding design isn't usable for office space, unless people want a very windy office.I thought the bottom was going to be used for offices? WHo knows. I wasn't disagreeing, just repeating what I had heard as the reasons for nbeeding office space. As an aside, if they build the worlds tallest buildings on that site, what's the over/under on how long before someone tries to blow them up?

[oedipus rex]

Yes, I imagine they would need the office space, I see your point. If they tried to build the tallest building there, I wonder if they could get any insurance.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Yes, I imagine they would need the office space, I see your point. If they tried to build the tallest building there, I wonder if they could get any insurance.Or tenants.

[Branwell]

I looked at the models that were on display at the World Financial Center. Most of them were ugly, and could be summed up as "Look! A building just as big as before! And this time it's even uglier!"

Two that did not go for height looked pretty good.

I especially dislike the odd-shaped buildings that look like they're melting -- not a good image to promote, under the circumstances.

One or two of them were to include an outdoor garden as a memorial. That's probably not wise. Any reasonably pleasant outdoor area would soon be used for lunching and maybe tossing Frisbees around -- there isn't a lot of space for that sort of thing in the neighborhood. That would clash with the "solemn memorial" effect they're looking for.

[Lucy]

I agree with Branwell on the melting stuff, but other than that, disagree almost completely. No structure will bring the people back to life, but the right structure CAN help bring the neighborhood back to life, and it's a neighborhood worth reviving. Yes, we need a memorial, but we don't need to give a big swath of Manhattan up to say "we lost" forever.

Rebuilding the a really tall building is probably not a great idea, but I did think the tall ones looked better than the giant tic-tac-toe board, or the lopsides things leaning into each other. One virtue of the giant scaffolding (which I think is really ugly, btw) is that it might serve as a "scratch tower" and discourage folks from blowing up the empire state building, or the Chrysler tower, or the Woolworth building, which are all buildings I'd like to keep around. And there'd never be many people in it, since it's just a scaffolding, mostly.

[Branwell]

I agree with Branwell on the melting stuff, but other than that, disagree almost completely. No structure will bring the people back to life, but the right structure CAN help bring the neighborhood back to life, and it's a neighborhood worth reviving. Yes, we need a memorial, but we don't need to give a big swath of Manhattan up to say "we lost" forever.

I'm not sure exactly what I said that you're disagreeing with. I suspect I did not make myself clear. I'm not opposed to gardenlike or parklike features. I merely meant to say that if we're going to have both (a) a nice garden and (b) a memorial, they should be entirely separate, because gardens are good for un-memorial-like activities. And I don't think a memorial would have to be really big.

Rebuilding the a really tall building is probably not a great idea, but I did think the tall ones looked better than the giant tic-tac-toe board, or the lopsides things leaning into each other.

I was counting the tic-tac-toe board as one of the "tall" ones, though I don't recall its measurements.

The one that looks like scaffolding is just silly. Those gaps aren't good for anything; it would be more practical simply to build a shorter building (with the same total floor space) in a more conventional style. That design is good only for showing off how clever the architect is.