I’m sure most have already heard the news about the proposals up for redevelopment. First, I refer you to this site which includes the plans submitted for redevelopment of the Ground Zero area. These are not final, but right now is the time for public comment.
To me, the actual memorial is the most important aspect of the redevelopment. To that end, my personal opinion is that Memorial Plaza or Memorial Square are the most appropriate concepts as they seem to be the ones that offer the most thoughtful memorials. It seemed to me that the other four concepts either didn’t preserve the space once occupied by the two towers or they appeared to impose upon the memorial space, almost as though the memorial was an imposition rather than a sacred space. I also think that the first two designs offer a tasteful context for something like a permanent version of the memorial lights that shone earlier this year. Those were a very moving display in my opinion, and I hope to see them again.
Which design do you think is the best? Which one should the SDMB endorse? Or do you have better ideas for what should be done?
Well, the Garden, the Promenade and the Square are all right, I guess. But none of them are as tall as the old towers. And most of them are so cluttered that they look like a housing project.
Personally, I’d build some big honkin’ acrology type thing. The higher, the better. Maybe that spiral-type building someone was planning for Hong Kong awhile back.
Ranchoth
Try here and click on each of the six beige links under “concepts” to see the plans. The first link I gave was to the project outline, sorry.
Regarding the height, each of the plans has an element that’s taller than the trade towers, a 1500 foot “skyline element”. I agree that there is a “housing project” cluttering problem to a lot of these proposals, I think it’s so that the Port Authority can try to get back some of the office and retail space that were lost. WTC was a huge revenue source for them. Is it a good idea to simply rebuild a collosal tower that people can be inside? I mean, having huge the twin towers didn’t exactly make lower Manhattan a the most “livable” of environments. I think having a symbolic representation of what was once there might be more powerful.
Personally, I think that the official designs look like crap. Here’ssome sites that have other designs. (The first one seems to be taking its own sweet time loading, though.) Personally, I think they should put them back the way they were or taller, and if they can’t do that, then this is what they should build.
Okay, I dug deeper and answered my own question. Turner isn’t even an architect, but an investor. It looks like he sketched an idea down on a napkin, threw in some 10-year old ideas like “biosphere” and “cyber-city,” and had an computer-illustrator make it snazzy.
Us unambitious as the 6 official designs are, I do like a feature that at least two of them have: a promenade that runs up the length of the island to display a formal memorial. It would be very compelling in an island of towers to see a path cleared that led to a spire-type memorial.
I also think there ought to direct markers to the footprint of the original twin towers (some of the designs have these, others do not.)
On a side note, I pity the architects on this project…no project has ever had so many critics with empassioned and diametrically-opposed opinions to contend with. More than this designer could handle.
All six official proposals leave me completely uninspired. They were probably designed by committees. That’s not to say that I could do better, however. I agree with the general idea of building a few smaller towers, a memorial somewhere on-site (which must be a seperate building, not a few rooms in one of the towers), and park/recreational space in-between.
Trying to recreate the WTC would be a mistake: IMO it would be a disservice to the victims to just re-build the twin towers and try to pretend that the attack never happened.
What’s with the “1500 foot high skyline element”? Is this just some big antenna who’s only purpose is to stick up really, really high? I must imagine so, since none of the proposed buildings is taller than 80 stories. Unless this “skyline element” serves some useful purpose, I say forget it.
Well, there is a need for an antenna in lower Manhattan. I don’t think it necessarily needs to be 1500 feet tall, but when the towers went down a vital communication link went down with them, so there’s a practical purpose for the element. Likewise, there’s some sentiment that there should be something that reaches back up into the sky as high or higher than what the towers were. Sort of a “we are not defeated statement”. Personally I liked the memorial of the two beams of light because they made that statement without appealing to a physical structure. America’s strength as a country was not in its tall buildings but in its spirit of help, unity, and solidarity at the time of the attacks, and that, I think, is what is emblematic of the memorial in lights. Just my sappy side coming through, though.
I, too, like the promenades, but, the design that that actually got titled “Promenade” has one element I found lousy: only the bare-minimum footprint for the former S tower is left clear, and it’s apparently completely boxed in by new construction. I’d rather see continuity in the memorial space.