New World Trade Center design chosen!

[Kramerman]

I like it. I am either a classic skyscraper archetecture type (chrysler, empire state, etc) of guy, or a super futureistic (blade runner...) type of guy, depending on my mood.

This design has a sorta semi-blade runner feel to it, but, i was hoping for something bigger, more spectacular, something that would be a true wonder of arcgetectural design and inginuity... oh well

[Lancer]

Ice, glass...pour in some whiskey and you might have something there.

They have 16 acres they should make a 16 acre building, with lots of huge doors that open to let sun in, parks, sporting facilities, housing, offices, supermarkets, a hospital...so people don't have to drive to work from Jersey, or even leave the place if they don't want to. On the roof, a huge enclosed glass swimming pool with a wave machine and around it the white sand, like that one in Japan. There could be enormous sun lit hallways with office windows letting onto them, and lighter than air electric craft that move people from place to place going through them.

Make the whole place open up on a Spring day...give it a few of the opening stadium roofs. Sliding curtain walls...

[Buck Birdseed]

I don't mind it as much as some of the others. Boring, yes, but it's got reasonable respect for the proportionality of the site and it keeps the skyline reasonbly New Yorkey.

Milord Foster's monstrosity would have been pure horror.

Meier Eisenman Gwathmey Holl had a striking, minimalistic piece very much in the spirit of the original buildings, Peterson/Littenberg was entirely focussed on filling in the space and creating a living, breeding set of city blocks. One of those should have won.

[Japher]

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.

Wow! What a huge change, and yes, it made it way more recognizable!!! dufus

[Urban Ranger]

Since NYC is eclectic anyway, they should have do something unique. Maybe a bunch of pyramids.

[chequita guevara]

Good, the tallest building in the world will still be in Chicago. Towers and spires don't count.


Personally, I think they should have gone with a more futurist design. The Chrysler building is the best looking building in NYC.

[Arrian]

It's the best of the options... I"m not sure if I like it or not.

Then again, I wouldn't have minded a new set of Twin Towers. **** you Osama! You break 'em, we'll just rebuild 'em bigger 'n better! Plus the double-barrelled middle finger image they present. But that's just me.

-Arrian

[FrustratedPoet]

Then again, I wouldn't have minded a new set of Twin Towers. **** you Osama! You break 'em, we'll just rebuild 'em bigger 'n better! Plus the double-barrelled middle finger image they present. But that's just me.

A giant statue of bare ass-cheeks facing east might have worked equally well.

[Kramerman]

To spite Osama, they should build a giant statue somewhere in the courtyard area of a beautiful, naked American woman, sitting on Osamas head and masturbating to the American flag...

Take that OBL!

[MRT144]

tempting fate once again

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Good, the tallest building in the world will still be in Chicago. Towers and spires don't count.

Uh...Chicago lost its berth to Malaysia's Twin Towers a while ago.

I think this design sucks. I was hoping for something far more impressive than anything I've seen so far.

[Q Classic]

boris: the funny thing about how towers are measured is that you have differing definitions for what counts as tallest.

the sears tower in chicago has the highest floors, and thus is considered by some to be the tallest.

i don't see what the big fuss is about, though.

tall buildings are cool, and this site is a great resource for it: skyscraperpage.com

[Asher]

Why would we go by number of floors to measure a building's size?

You either go for the absolute height of the building, or the area of office space a building has. Anything else is quite silly.

Heh, Calgary has more skyscrapers than San Francisco, Montreal, Houston, Detroit, Denver, Boston, etc.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher
Why would we go by number of floors to measure a building's size?

He didn't mean number of floors, but the height at which rests the highest floor of the building.

But it should be by absolute height, IMO.

There will be at least 3 buildings in China surpassing the Sears Tower by 2007 anyway.

[Urban Ranger]

I don't like skyscrappers, can't see the point of it.