Your Vote on the Twin Towers' Replacement

[Sultan Bhargash]

You can see the two plans that are finalists for the buildings to replace and commemorate NYC's World Trade Center on this site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2587707.stm

This is the first one:

Designed by a Berlin based German American, it includes a vertical garden and built into the plan is the idea that the sun will shine on the original towers site at the time of day of the attacks each September 11.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38607000/jpg/_38607329_libeskind_2_300ap.jpg


This is the second one:

Designed by an American team (with suspiciously German accents), it is closer to an "Eiffel tower" with parks, museums, and public spaces and even an arena suspended at different levels. At night, lights would extend skyward to commemorate the original
towers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38607000/jpg/_38607041_four_300ap.jpg

I have a feeling the first one will get the nod for commercial reasons, but which do you prefer?

 

[Perfection]

I like the second best, nice momorial restores the skyline and still works with the boxes

 

[Jeratain]

I don't know - the second one looks like a waste of steel to me. I need to see more pictures of the second and first one from different angles before I can decide. If I were to base solely off these two pictures I'd choose the first one.

EDIT: Okay I just went to NYTimes.com and found a nice multimedia section where they had a flash presentation with audio on all the possible replacements as well as concept videos which go through both of the finalists projects. If you're a member of the Times online you can access it here: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/multimedia/index.html Just click the multimedia link "Envisioning Downtown"

I vote for the second (Think Team's) one after taking a look at this. The first plan wants to make it so that Ground Zero is part of the site and so people can go down into Ground Zero and view it as part of the memorial. Whereas the second one you can go up into the steel structures up near the top and at night it would light up really nice.

 

[joespaniel]

I prefer the first one.

 

[napoleon526]

I also like the first plan. The second is a bit too artsy.

 

[Toasty]

I'm with Joe. THe first one is nice.

 

[kring]

Neither, but that wasn't an option in the poll.

 

[onejayhawk]

Neither. I like the line, "Both proposals are just WTC on steroids."

 

[philippe]

hmm the first one...
but i just would like the original towers builded and on it:
WE WILL NEVER FORGET....

 

[pi8ch]

i have a question....

The second thing looks cool, but are the replacements jsut arts?

I thought thy want to build a "house" again! Including bureos, hotels, restaurants etc ...

I mean, the Second one looks nice, and I appreciate the meaning of it, but what "normal purpose" it has? It's just a gigantic structure of steel?

Please tell me! I'm realy interested...

 

[Rheinmetall]

The second one looks better to me. Not that I am in any position to decide which one will be built... But I think it catches better the feeling of the original towers and stands up and high in the memory of those who died.

 

[cromagnon]

I liked Foster's, one that didn't make it into the finals.

Of the two, I'd pick the first. The second reminds me too much of a ghost or skeleton of what was there. More like the original, but with a sort of 'dead' look to it.

 

[CurtSibling]

I think a replacement should outshine the original.

Can any of YOU think of a better way to honour the victims than to make a new twin structure, prouder than the last?
They should be a testament to our free trade and freedom as westerners. Not minor shades of a former glory.

Fully working, trading towers, like those before, not a solemn and unhappy memorial.

I feel that making a lesser building is in a way, acknowledging a defeat to the scum that destroyed the first WTC.

Note my emphasis on 'first' I believe there should be a second great pair of towers.

NYC deserves the best.

 

[G-Man]

I go with the first. I don't see any use in having these gigantic structures of the second plan that have nothing in them. And although sep 11th shouldn't be forgottened, I don't think it's right to make such a symbol of sadness that would overshadow the city of new york.

 

[Portuguese]

1st one.
Nice to view... seems like crystal...

"And although sep 11th shouldn't be forgottened, I don't think it's right to make such a symbol of sadness that would overshadow the city of new york."
by G-Man

And he is right. US need to get over it ASAP.

 

[pi8ch]

I also think like Curt...

An even better financial-economical building full of people is faar better thatn a "simple" memmorial!

i also think it looks like defeat if you do not use this space for "western-world-purpose".

 

[cromagnon]

I think a replacement should outshine the original.

That wouldn't be very difficult to do, as the Twin Towers were looked upon by architects as "crude, ugly monstrosities."

 

[CommiePlanner]

The World Trade center site should be a haven for economic activity, the heart of a world economy where electronic stocks, funds and bonds, are traded and circulated. The twin towers stood out by being head and shoulders above the other skyscrapers of NY city. The site should be developed with a better sense of the urban design of the city and respect for the skyline. Some architects did not like the design of the original towers true, but others did. The towers came from a time when common design thinking was form followed function. The fact remains that the buildings architectural design and the activity that went on in them should be preserved and celebrated instead of memorialized.

 

[West German]

I like the first one. But remember to equip it with anti-aircraft missles.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I prefer the second one, but I'm almost certain the first one will get the nod- for many of the reasons people stated above. It has a utility closer to the original towers' purpose. If people want museums and theaters, they can go uptown.