Your Vote on the Twin Towers' Replacement

Which building should replace the WTC? (See below)

  • Studio Libeskind's

    Votes: 18 52.9%
  • Think Team's

    Votes: 16 47.1%

  • Total voters
    34
The first one. Why would I want a scaffolding dominating the skyline? I find the second one ugly. I know that the second one has the same office space as the first, but it doesn't look like it does.

Although I'd rather have the good old original towers in the first place.
 
Originally posted by onejayhawk
Neither. I like the line, "Both proposals are just WTC on steroids."

:goodjob:

I think they're both quite tacky.
 
I like number one better. Number two is cool now, but it strikes me as the kind of building that will look dated in twenty years. Too trendy.

Plus number one reminds me of John Byrnes' vision of Krypton when he re-imagined Superman in the mid-80s... I'm a sucker for that sort of thing.
 
That was the first choice- the one with the vertical garden- that they picked.
 
You are wrong Napoleon- that choice was recommended by a committee, but they picked the angular building like I knew they would:

Wednesday, February 26, 2003 Posted: 7:19 PM EST (0019 GMT)
The winning plan, shown in an architect's model, includes a 1,776-foot spire.
The winning plan, shown in an architect's model, includes a 1,776-foot spire.
# 1,776 foot (541m) spire with gardens above the 70th floor
# Leaves part of the World Trade Center foundation exposed as part of memorial
# 7.5 million square feet of office space

NEW YORK (AP) -- A complex of angular buildings and a 1,776-foot spire designed by architect Daniel Libeskind was chosen as the plan for the World Trade Center site on Wednesday, The Associated Press has learned.

Libeskind's design beat the THINK team's "World Cultural Center" plan, which envisioned two 1,665-foot latticework towers straddling the footprints of the original towers.

The new building is planned to be taller than the trade center towers, which briefly stood as the world's tallest at 1,350 feet. Libeskind's tower also would surpass Malaysia's 1,483-foot Petronas Twin Towers, the tallest buildings in the world.

The choice was made by a committee with representatives of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the governor and the mayor. The committee met briefly on Wednesday afternoon and decided on the plan that was favored by Gov. George Pataki and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, according to a source close to the process.

LMDC Chairman John Whitehead telephoned Libeskind with the news, the source said, telling the architect that his "vision has brought hope and inspiration to a city still recovering from a terrible tragedy."

Libeskind told the chairman that being selected is "a life-changing experience," the source said.

Nine proposals for redeveloping the trade center site, where nearly 2,800 people died September 11, 2001, were unveiled December 18. The design competition was launched after an initial set of plans, released in July, was derided as boring and overstuffed with office space.

Redevelopment officials were scheduled to announce the decision publicly Thursday.

After the two plans were chosen as finalists earlier this month, both teams of architects were asked to revise their designs to make them more easily realized.

Libeskind, whose original design called for a memorial at the trade center foundation 70-feet below ground, reportedly changed that to 30 feet, allowing for infrastructure and transportation underneath.

The LMDC was created by Pataki and former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani after September 11 to oversee the rebuilding of the trade center site and downtown Manhattan. The Port Authority owns the site.
 
Panel Makes Unexpected Choice for World Trade Center Site
Wed Feb 26, 2:01 PM ET Add Top Stories - The New York Times to My Yahoo!

By EDWARD WYATT The New York Times

A key committee recommended yesterday that Lower Manhattan be rebuilt along the lines of a plan that had seemed out of favor, a proposal by the Think architectural team for two soaring latticework towers as the centerpiece of a memorial area. The unexpected decision appeared to set the stage for a showdown today among city and state officials.

In the last two weeks, Gov. George E. Pataki and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg had expressed support for the other finalist plan, by Studio Daniel Libeskind, which features an excavated pit on the site of the former World Trade Center towers.

But The Associated Press reported that Mr. Pataki, when asked yesterday if he had a favorite, said that he did, but then refused to say what it was. "The mayor and I are going to be talking about that this week," Mr. Pataki said. The final choice is to be announced tomorrow.

The group that made the recommendation yesterday, the site planning committee of the board of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, acted after a four-hour meeting at which the seven committee members reviewed the architects' revisions to their plans for the trade center site, according to people involved in discussions about the designs.

The committee's preference is not binding on a broader group of rebuilding officials who will meet today to decide whether to select the Think plan or the Libeskind plan. But the committee's move represents a direct challenge to Mr. Pataki and Mr. Bloomberg, who now face a choice of following or rejecting the recommendation of the people they appointed to the rebuilding effort.

That broader group includes officials from the development corporation, the governor's office, the mayor's office and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the trade center site.

The committee's action yesterday reflects a vigorous lobbying effort by Roland W. Betts, a director of the development corporation, who has been leading both the site-planning committee and the broader rebuilding steering committee.

"It's going to be a close one," a director of the development corporation said yesterday following the meeting. "It could simply come down to how the governor and the mayor feel."

Mr. Pataki and Mr. Bloomberg are scheduled to be briefed on the final plans of the two architecture teams this afternoon. After those briefings, the eight-member steering committee will meet to agree on a winning design, and its decision will be announced tomorrow morning at a press conference at the World Financial Center's Winter Garden, which overlooks ground zero.

Several people involved in the rebuilding process said they remained uncertain about which way the decision would go. But one member of the committee that recommended the Think plan yesterday, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said several committee members believe that the mayor and the governor should pay heed to their preference.

"We don't expect anyone to overrule us," the committee member said.

The members of the steering committee are Mr. Betts; John C. Whitehead, the chairman of the development corporation; Louis R. Tomson, the corporation's president; Charles Kushner and Anthony J. Sartor, directors of the Port Authority; Joseph J. Seymour, executive director of the Port Authority; Diana Taylor, deputy secretary to Mr. Pataki; and Daniel E. Doctoroff, the deputy mayor for economic development and rebuilding.

People involved in yesterday's meetings said much of the discussion focused on the revisions proposed by the two teams. The Think team, which originally planned to make its latticework towers of forged steel, now plans to build the towers of stainless steel, making them far lighter, according to people who have been briefed on the plan.

That change could address a primary concern of Port Authority engineers, who previously said the towers would be too heavy to be supported in their proposed location directly above the rebuilt PATH station at the trade center site.

It also reduces the expected cost of the design, which according to estimates released by the development corporation was at least $800 million, far more than the $330 million estimate for the Libeskind plan. One official said that the revisions make the plans approximately equal in cost.

The Think team, led by Rafael Viñoly, Frederic Schwartz, Ken Smith and Shigeru Ban, also agreed to alter the cultural components of their design, lowering a proposed museum from the 85th floor to about the 30th floor of the towers.

The museum would be built within the latticework so that it appeared to be suspended within the towers. But many rebuilding officials objected to the original proposal, saying that placing the tower so high would present engineering problems and discourage visitors who might fear another attack on an occupied portion of the buildings.

The Libeskind team also made changes to its plan, agreeing to raise the level of the pit that would serve as the site of the memorial to the victims of the 9/11 attack. It was originally designed to be 70 feet below ground, at the level of bedrock. Mr. Libeskind's revised design has the pit about 30 feet below ground level. Below it would be mechanical and electrical systems for the PATH station and, perhaps, a bus parking area to serve visitors to the memorial.
 
Yes, one comittee liked the cultural center, but open up netscape and behold, the real winner was Libeskund.
 
27libes.184.jpg
 
Originally posted by 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.

I've long felt this way. Build them bigger. Build them better. Build them higher.

I'd like to see a memorial there, I think it's important. however, I can also see how the monument can just be the towers rebuilt. . .
 
Originally posted by cgannon64
The first one. Why would I want a scaffolding dominating the skyline? I find the second one ugly. I know that the second one has the same office space as the first, but it doesn't look like it does.

Although I'd rather have the good old original towers in the first place.

Thats what I was thinking.

Weird, so Yahoo got it wrong?

Huh? The link says that the Libeskind was chosen. Am I missing something, or did Yahoo just change it :confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom