The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation has released the proposals submitted by seven international architectural groups. Two of the groups proposed alternatives, bringing the total number of designs to nine.
The designs may be seen (in enormous detail - lots of slide shows, etc.) here.
I haven’t had a chance to look at them closely yet, but even a cursory glance convinces me that even the worst of these nine is better than the best of the 6 proposed last fall. I’m particularly drawn to the design submitted from Daniel Liebeskind, architect of Berlin’s Jewish Museum, with its spire.
I had to hold a straight edge up to the screen to find out if that was an optical illusion or if that building actually looked like a crooked penis. It’s not an optical illusion.
I think they all suck, and the few I looked at in detail looked very unprofessionally presented. Literally drawn on napkins and such. I would be shocked if any of these end up in Manhattan.
I agree, they’re all pretty much dreadful. I would actually be very pleased with two towers, identical to the old ones in every way, but totally black–black granite/glass. (And, of course, a really large, nice memorial on the grounds somewhere.) I think that would be impressive: a suitably sombre reminder of that awful day, and a big FU to the terrorist community.
It might be just too sad for them to be so much like the old ones though, so I’m torn.
Acid trip or not, that first design is pretty damn sweet looking. There’d be reinforcements up, near, and around the wazoo but I think the outside of it would be very sleek looking.
Watch the use of “we” there; I for one don’t cater to the whole bigger-is-better mentality. Why build another pair of looming, massive monstrosities? Just so we can show that we can build big buildings? That seems kind of petty for a permanent structure; I thought we were all past that stage.
Plus, no matter how much they talk about pedestrian paths and visual lines, another set of huge buildings would overwhelm both the skyline and any memorial areas or gardens they put in. Especially if it’s that goofy hatch building, or that weird twisted, curved thing.
I agree that they all suck, but the one cainxinth calls “bland and old fashioned” is the one that comes closest to getting it right. Redesign the space to be better integrated with the city. Keep the emphasis on the natural and the memorials instead of having an enormous concrete square. Build at least one skyscraper, sure, but go for character instead of size. Architecturally, all the WTC towers had going for them was that they were big, and that was short-lived. After that, they were just ugly. But the Chrysler building has always been cool.
I don’t like any of the proposed designs. Nor did I like anything that showed up on CNNs “Design your own WTC” site. Then again, I tend to prefer buildings that look like buildings rather than weird art projects.
Been following this for a long while now. Decision due in early January, IIRC.
Daniel Libeskind is a fantastic theoretical architect, but feel he is much more suited to intellectual prose than actual construction. AS the US public have a say in the final design (going on popularity), I don’t think people will give his design the time it really deserves.
All the US architects seem to have in mind the idea it MUST be two towers again, as this defines that area of New York.
I understand the concept and the rationale behind it , but find it rather, shall I say, unsatisfying and unchallenging.
Saying that, I believe from looking at the shortlist, that the United architects designwill prevail.
Should point out that the inclusion of initial desgin sketches in a final presentation is pretty much expected, and can sometimes communicate the rationale behind the scheme more than the polished CAD perspectives. There is nothing remotely unprofessional about anything shown in those presentations.
I for one like to see the process the architect went through to arrive at his final proposal. The path taken is just as important as the final destination.
Are they still subject to that requirement for replacement of the whole office/commercial footage? I actually liked some of the “original 6” plans better.
Eh, better than the first round of designs, still nothing that makes me say WOW that’s the most awesome thing I’ve ever seen.
I like the Wedge of Light from Daniel Liebeskind, but MY GAWD! Get a better name for that thing. Wedge of Light … New Yorkers don’t truck with that kind of goofiness. Very cool concept though.
I vote thumbs down on the garden spire. Gardens are so … overdone. It’s nice to have green space, and New York needs green space, but this feels too contrived. To me, it sends a “Oh, trees are happy and people are happy, and we are happy happy people and trees! Trees make everything better! Yay trees!” vibe. The spire is ok, just tone down the trees.
What’s up with the THINK design that looks like slinkys? And is that … thing … connecting them supposed to look like an airplane embedded in them? Because that’s just creepy.
That “thing” is intended to be a museum of some sort, which leads me to believe that, yeah, it’s intended to resemble an airplane. Methinks THINK doesn’t.
Daniel Libeskinds design was also initially formulated from the angle of the planes hitting the original towers.
The wedge of light is formed from the angle between these trajectories.
PS: Is “Libeskind” a common name in the US? Every US poster has spelt it “Liebeskind” in their posts. Just curious.
