It's the final outrage. That fucking thing is hideous.
A flashing light is an outrage? Every tall structure has one.
OMG - did you read those comments? People were practically weeping over it.
They're not calling it Freedom Tower, even unofficially are they? A story on BBC radio this morning about the topping out called it that.
r2, are you trolling me or just stupid? The building's hideous with or without the beacon.
There's always some idiot who will declare a building (or a person) ugly for no reason whatsoever. They're like people who fart on the subway. Nothing you can do about them I guess.
I wish I had the sort of life where something as innocuous as a building was reason to be outraged. But that would mean Id have to turn into some uptight drama queen. So not worth it.
I work across the street from One World Trade and it's nowhere near as stark or ugly as the old towers- which I really found to be stark and ugly.
They should call it the New World Order Tower.
Actually, R5, I don't like the building. It's a terrible failure of imagination and the triumph of profit over vision. However, the idea that a warning beacon is an outrage is foolish. So I am neither trolling you or stupid. I didn't even intend to give you any rope.
But it's his GRAAAAAVE!!!!
The old towers were stark and ugly, but the fact that there were two of them gave them a certain power.
R6, do you find the building beautiful? I am not being facetious, why do you like it?
The FAA and FCC require that any tower higher than 200 feet must be lighted. Years ago red lights blinked. Today strobes go on and off in sequence.
Good luck filling it up. Who wants to work way up there when the next hijacked plane is coming?
The problem with the design is that it should be gracefully tapering to the top like the Chrysler Building or even the Empire State building. This has a flat top -- an abrupt end to the top. The mast looks like an after-thought.
You know he would r15
it's almost full already. Conde Nast and some Chinese trade organization have signed leases. Much of the rest will be used by various government offices. A major law firm is in negotiation to take most of the rest.
R20 - where did you hear that it was almost full?
Conde Nast I thought did not need as many floors R20, what with so many magazines fading into oblivion.
Plus government agencies historically never paid as much as private businesses, so if what you are saying is true that is very interesting.
No, r13 I don't find the building beautiful. I'd give it a 7 out of 10. But for someone to say it's "hideous" is just stupid and annoying (and lying).
The original WTC had mostly government offices at first. They move them out as private demand picks up.
Turns out the negotiations with the law firm fell apart. Wikipedia says it is now 55% full. Conde Nast is taking 21 floors. There are 69 floors of office space in total.
R18 The problem with tapering the top of a skyscraper is you create a big space that is useless. They cant be serviced by elevators and are too narrow or small to be rented out for office space. The Chrysler Building is 77 stories, but nothing is occupied above the 71st.
In Libeskind's design only the bottom half of the tower would actually have offices. Above would be an air garden and the spire, saluting the upraised arm of the SoL.
R25 is correct. Especially since they want a massive tourist observation space up there.
BTW--R16 shows the original Child's design and the changes they made to save money. The original base was angled out at the same rate as the tower angles in, giving some drama to the bottom. Instead, it will be a cube.
R 20 correct. The prestigious law firm McKenzie, Brackman, Chaney, and Kuzak is moving from Los Angeles to occupy much of the new building. Famed attorney Rosalind Shays will head the New York office.
[quote] It's a terrible failure of imagination and the triumph of profit over vision.
Are you describing the building or the country in which it stands?
I agree with R12 and R18. It is a huge failure of imagination and is result of greed and pettiness. How appropriate it's in the Financial District. I liked the old towers better. They were at least elegant looking.
Leibskind leaves me cold.
Design could have been much worse. Imagine a Frank Gehry building looking like a sheet metal scrap yard.
It should have been called AMERICA'S TOWER and it should have had something patriotic, like red, white and blue stripes. And it should have had a space for the Dead Patriots of 9/11 to be remembered, with private space for their families to come stay and spend a few days to continue their recovery. We owe it to them. What kind of Americans are these people, who just put up a building to be used like a building?
For these haters:
The building's footprint is exactly the same as one of the old towers. You simply take one of the old towers and twist the top 90 degrees.
Each year, when the time the first plane hit the south tower, the new building will reflect the sunlight into the Memorial, the original foundations of the two towers.
The new tower is airy and jazzy. It is very American at the same time retaining some of the elements of the old towers.
They all say, ignorance generates prejudice which makes haters. This thread is another proof.
Oh, may I add:
The top of the second new tower, with its top looks like a tilted diamond shape, serves as a compass pointing to the original foundations of the old towers.
It, too, reflects the sunlight to the old foundations exactly at the moment the second plane hits the North Tower.
Do you also know, the bronze plates that carry the victims names are maintained body temperature throughout the year around the waterpools?
There are also lots of similar elements in the nearby new subway station.
If you carefully study the design, there are many very moving elements and careful considerations. It is easy to dismiss them as ugly by the people who are incapable of doing a better job. Remember, the design is picked from public submissions.
If you think you can do a better one, where were you when it was open for public submission and comments?
Sounds like another motherfucking stargate to me, R35
[quote]They all say, ignorance generates prejudice which makes haters.
Who are "they all" and what exactly do you think the "haters" in this thread are prejudiced against? Ugly buildings?
[quote]If you think you can do a better one, where were you when it was open for public submission and comments?
Honey, while I did not personally submit one, plenty of designs were submitted that were superior to the one that was chosen. And even the one that chosen was much more interesting in its original that the what ended up being built.
R33, I really, REALLY hope you're kidding. I split my sides laughing at the mental image of such a structure.
You couldn't pay me enough to work there. They might as well have painted a big old red target on it.
[quote]They all say, ignorance generates prejudice which makes haters. This thread is another proof.
I wouldn't be so quick to call others ignorant. Whether or not one likes the building is a matter of taste, not of knowledge. And I don't see how prejudice or hate enter the picture.
There can be NO DOUBT that r35 has earnestly uttered the words "the sky was so blue that day" in reference to 9/11.
[quote]And even the one that chosen was much more interesting in its original that the what ended up being built.
That should be "much more interesting in its original form than what ended up being built." Good lord.
Whatever, the Twin Towers were pretty hideous, so maybe it's fitting that something fug is replacing them.
And in any case, it's about time people stopped rolling around in 9/11, acting like it was both an immense personal tragedy (even if didn't directly affect them or anyone they knew in any way) and the biggest public tragedy ever in the whole history of humankind. Enough.
It's rather cool from a technology standpoint. Under the fiberglass radome: the NYC TV stations will be using the spire as a higher elevation replacement for the Empire and Conde Nast building TV facilities, which along with the old Armstrong Tower in Alpine NJ were pressed into use after 9/11. The in-city sites will be used as backups.
This was accomplished relatively recently and quietly...as of a few years ago the industry wanted little to do with the new WTC. No idea where the FM's will be.
I read that as bacon....
R31 Frank Gehry would have done a much better job then what is there. He would not have bent to the pressure of other clumsy cooks in the kitchen wanting to put their stink all over it.
Fran Gehry is probably the most significant living architect of our times. He is the next Frank Lloyd Wright in terms of ground breaking innovation. Only his shit dose not leak as much.
Get used to it [R44]. They will be talking about it 50 years from now. Fewer people died at Pearl Harbor and we are still talking about that.
When I mourn 9/11, I mourn the people who died horrific deaths inside those buildings - I don't mourn the buildings. They were ugly and they will NEVER serve as an adequate symbol for anything other than ostentation.
Whatever. If DL's taste in architecture is as bad it is in men and pornography, then all of this bitching is just nonsense coming from people with poor taste.
After 9/11 Port Authority moved many offices to 1 Madison Avenue, Metropolitan Life's building. When lease expired they were moved to Exchange Place, the financial district of Jersey City. Next move will be back to WTC.
R1 / R5 = Either Brit, or Canadian.
I would bet my dog on it. Either way, flame the troll back to it's miserable cave.
I am excited about the transit center, now that is going to be beautiful.
R35, just because the building reflect light with respect and purpose, does not make it an attractive building.
Actually, no one speaks of Pearl Harbor anymore. It was too long ago, and if America can't find a way to personally identify with something, it doesn't matter anymore.
I was reading the comments on the NY Times article until I came across a "Never Forget!" Ugh. The vaguest, laziest, least meaningful phrase ever attached to anything. Americans love that shit.
[quote]If DL's taste in architecture is as bad it is in men and pornography, then all of this bitching is just nonsense coming from people with poor taste.
Yep. If someone fawns over a bunch of steroid-boobed, orange-skinned, old guys with fat asses, you can imagine what kind of building they would prefer.
Whew! I would've run into One World Trade Center if it wasn't for that flashing beacon!
Well, you know, R57, flight school dropouts can fly with extreme precision whenever there's a six billion dollar insurance payout to be had. Heh heh heh...
Whole site devoted to WTC co-starring in movies. It's always eerie to see them pop-up in the frame.
[quote]It is easy to dismiss them as ugly by the people who are incapable of doing a better job.
You're implying that same tired, weak argument: that only people who could do it better should be allowed to criticize the arts.
Of course no one really believes that, except for whining artists/musicians/actors/architects. Pauline Kael did not direct films, but she was a brilliant film critic; George Bernard Shaw did not conduct orchestras, but he was a brilliant music critic.
If people think it's ugly, they think it's ugly. Deal with it.
[quote] It's purpose is to ward off planes.
Really? Seriously? Planes didn't accidentally fly into the building during night time. The purposely crashed into them during the daytime. The spire and the beacon will make a lovely bullseye
That building might as well have a giant bullseye painted on it. I would be a nervous wreck if I had to work there.
The top of the building resembles a Minaret. Some feel it was purposefully designed that way to prevent another attack.
Every structure above 200 feet is required by FAA regulations to have a light to warn off planes.
The beacon is lit.New York calls for aid....and Rohan will answer.