I don’t know a thing about architecture, but I know ugly when I see it. And that design is ugly. The one on the right is much more appealing.
Maybe I missed something, does one have to know architecture to know what they find appealing aesthetically? (spoken only mildly sarcastically, and mostly silly and all in good fun).
I’ll reiterate what I said in my GQ thread: Why is it necessary to build anything there? What’s wrong with some nice green grass, some benches, maybe a pond, and some sort of memorial for the victims of the tragedy? Why turn it into a pissing contest with Malaysia, or put up two giant erector set shells with a big kleenex in them?
Well it would be nice to have a good chunk of that commercial space back, we could use the business.
I know it’s not practical, but I still want to see the tallest building in the world built there. I guess it’s simply for the fuck you bin laden factor.
Well if they were suggesting building something that looked like the Parthenon, that wouldn’t thrill me much either. The Parthenon and Gaudi’s skyscraper have a look that seems of their time. I’d rather see them build something of our time.
I’d love to see a huge Gaudi in the middle of NYC, but I don’t think it’s his best work.
The think is a monument. It is not a building. It screams of defeat. It says you hurt us and now we are just empty pathetic shells. I hope it is not built. The other structure is looking toward the future.
I’d like to see the entire fucking block of space filled up with a single building that takes the entire space and rises 2x higher than the hight of 1 of the previous towers. Possible? Could you imagine how massive a building like that would be… Then fill up all of the floors in the new building where each of the planes hit with an indoor park & memorial… You would have 2 seperate memorials spread out.
I’m positive something like that is possible. PS I think it should have an exterior design that looks exactly like 1 of the old WTC buildings.
Just to say look: We are back, and way fucking bigger than before.
And the first night after construction is complete they can turn on all the lights on each side of the buidling so that when you look at it from afar it will spell out: “Fuck you Al-Qaeda”. 
That’s what I had expected.
Well if you want it to remind us of our time, they should build it to look like a thousand foot tall starbucks cup, or a thousand foot tall hamburger with each floor alternating between being painted like a burger or bun layer.
I don’t like the Gaudi. It looks like a bullet. Or a tampon.
That is exactly the sort of attitude and post that started this pit thread. You are just simply wrong.
And, as I said in the recent GQ thread, which I will repeat:
And for all those who repeatly bring up the Gaudi design - why do you insist on beating a dead horse. It was never in the competition, never in the running. It was a non entity. If it was chosen (not possible), who would do the working drawings? Specification? Chair site meetings? Administer the contract? Issue certificates? Is Gaudi going to do a Lazarus for this project?
Think about for a second, please. Dead architects don’t build buildings.
Good point, and the answer is no. But buildings, whilst looking good to the majority of users is a bonus, have many more things to consider in thier design. You are basing your opinion of the scheme on a single persepctive image, which is of a view you will never even see in reality. Don’t base your opinion on a scheme solely on the aesthetic appeal of a single image of the building. Think about the whole package.
I don’t know about that, doesn’t Tupac have a new album and movie in the works?
Seriously, the Gaudi design is the one with the 17 hundred foot something with the vertical garden in it right? I’ll assume he’s a famous architect, and that he’s dead, right?
Wrong for who? Wrong for you? You are wrong.
Perhaps you should open your eyes to the understanding that there is no ‘right’ and no ‘wrong’. It’s a building. People will be subject to individual tastes when making their determination on how it should look. So while it might not appeal to you, it’s definately not wrong, and certainly nothing to get all excited about.
A style that is the same externally as the original WTC, put on a massive building that dwarfs the previous towers, sends a clear and convincing message, ‘you failed’. Building something new, something that doesn’t capture the original theme of the WTC and expand on it. That only sends the message yes, you got us, here’s something different. I would rather the message be ‘look, we are back, waaaay bigger than before, and now back to business as usual…’
If you don’t agree that is your choice. The wrong choice.
The Gaudi design, with background information.
And pay no attention to that Aro fellow, for he is a joyless putz.
anewthought.
There are plenty of things that are right or wrong when it comes to construction of buildings. It has nothing to do with taste. Does your opinion make materials stronger and more lightweight than those currently available? Does your opinion carry any size of building on the same size of footprint? Do you just dream up skyhooks to keep your buildings up?
I was not talking about your opinion on the design, (you can hold any opinion you like about those, however naive) but on your opinion that it could be constructed as you described.
That is entirely wrong.
Ugh dear god no! That’s the “rocketship” building I’ve been hearing about. Thanks for the link though.
Holy shit, it looks like a giant tampon ready to blast off to the moon. :eek: Or maybe a dildo with a jet pack. :eek:
:::shiver:::
Now that I can relate to.
Are you stalking all my posts on architecture? 
No, I’m stalking you.
:eek:
Don’t stalk me any more, I’m a joyless putz.
And you just had to quote the bit of my post with the typo in it, didn’t you?
Ha. I’ve been stalking your posts in GD. And you can’t do anything about it.