Oh, I dig the shit out of that building. Of course, if it’s cricket to like re-task extant designs, then I propose this one. Now that would be a fuckin’ skyline.
Very percepctive of you.
Yeah thats because you live in Boston. 
Wounded am I, wounded I say, that I would be suspected of the desire to inflict suspect architecture on my brothers and sisters in NYC.
Honestly, I would live or work in that building in a heartbeat (well, at this point, I’d work in any damn building you wanted, if it meant I was working, but I digress). It’s 2003, and there are no flying cars, and I’m not wearing a shiny silver jumpsuit, and so what if it was designed years and years ago by a now-defunct architect? It looks like the future, in a way that I find extremely appealing. No accounting for taste, of course. 
Of course, I still primarily support my SDF-1 idea.
Touché
Looked to me like you were saying it would be wrong to have a building with the same façade as one of the original towers. anewthought called you on it and rightfully so, IMO.
Admittedly, I probably have the least “logical” view of what the “whole package” should look like than anyone else on this board.
Not only am I completely clueless regarding architecture, but I’m from Anchorage. Not exactly the “cityscape” type of city (lots of wooded areas, no buildings taller than 10 or so stories with a few exceptions).
If I remember right, we’ve got something like the biggest area for a city, with the fewest citizens and very few sky scrapers.
imVho though, I think New Yorkers, being New Yorkers, should have first dibs on what they’d like to see as a replacement though.
Even if it does involve a lot of whining and pickiness before a choice is finally made.
Folks, I’m repeating myself, but only a little: part of the reason so many people hate the winning designs and love the Gaudi is, I believe, because the Gaudi looks great reproduced in about 3" x 4" scale, and the competing designs don’t. But that doesn’t mean they’re bad designs, or that the Gaudi is good.
I don’t think anyone’s ever made a decision about a seriously large building based only on a tiny drawing. In older days, you’d get a model several feet high (I just finished Brunelleschi’s Dome: a 30’ long by 15’ high model was executed in the mid-14th century, decades before anyone could figure out how to build it), and now there are fantastically complete animations that convey much better what a design can do.
Conversely, things that look lovely in miniature, or on paper, or both, can be truly awful once built - as I suspect the Gaudi would be. World Financial Center is an example: although the Winter Garden atrium is lovely (no great design thinking there: glassy arches always look great) the buildings surrounding it look like overgrown plastic figurines: inoffensive, and built to stay that way.
I mentioned in the other thread that the Think! design is based to a great extent on the Eiffel Tower. It’s instructive to review contemporary opinions:
.