Same-Sex Marriage Bill REJECTED in New York State Senate
UPDATE: City To Remove 14 Blocks Of Bike Lanes On Bedford Ave.
Hamster Rides The 4 Train
Bouncer Beatdown at Jay-Z's 40/40 Club
Obama's Afghanistan Plans: 30,000 More Troops, Withdraw By July 2011
This is what Donald Trump's proposed World Trade Center design looks like: Pretty much like the old one. The Daily News points out that Trump's model was on MSNBC last week, and that engineer Ken Gardner and architect Harry Belton's model and plans can be seen at MakeNYNYAgain.com. No joke, Trump is serious about hating Freedom Tower. Gardner is a Trump crony from plnning his tower in Chicago. Gothamist is reeling from this Trump chestnut: "Why are we building this monstrous 'skeleton' known as Freedom Tower? If Freedom Tower is built, the terrorists win." UGH. What a cheap way to rile up people, because the terrorists win when capitalists act stupid, okay?
In their exclusive, NY Post has excerpts of a letter that original Freedom Tower architect Daniel Libeskind wrote to Trump, taking potshots at Trump's hair and explaining who (Libey or David Childs) designed what parts of the pro-terrorist Freedom Tower. We'd like a Libeskind-Trump cage match, please.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
mr trump you are a true visionary. thank you for all your valuable contributions to american culture. all those buildings, institutions, hairstyles, and cheeseburger pizzas we can all be proud of. thank you.
Hey, while I'm not the biggest fan of Trump, I'm with him on this one. Build it in the same fashion, and build it taller...
America lives on.
Let's keep the arguments to how the buildings look. Take a look at Libeskind. I don't think he's one to make too many cheap shots at Trump's fashion sense.
Of course don trump's idea is idiotic, but it is amusing to watch a libeskind vs. trump deathmatch. don is right, that the libeskind design is awful. The libeskind tower design seems only to reflect the libeskind napolean complex not new york city. bob denver is still lobbying for the grand Gaudi design, as would most people if they looked closely at it.
Pot + Post = God's Gift to Mankind
i don't know E.K., america lives in its nostalgic, poorly designed past and can't learn from it's own mistakes and tap it's ingeuity to build something that reflects the state of our culture today is more like it.
even on the point of symbolism, rebuilding those towers doesn't send the message of overcoming problems to rise above. it says we haven't learned, evolved or grown in the past 30 years.
amusing yes. in a jerry springer, how-is-it-possible-that-we've-devolved-to-this kinda way. gaudi is neat and all, but do you seriously think a spanish design from last century reflects new york? today?
yes, Gaudi IS neat and all. His style is more suited to 2005 than it was a hundred years ago. It's only been the past decade when guys like Gehry have started using flowing angles. Gaudi had the vision, but the technology never caught up with him until now. His more organic philosophy of design is still ahead of it's time and epitomizes modernism.
Maybe to more accurately reflect "today's New York," we should build twin Whining Yuppie Towers.
For the record, from the research I have done previous to this big press announcement, this is more accurately termed the Gardner-Belton plan. Trump is very late to the party in his support, but who would turn that down if you want your ideas to get press? I resent a bit that it is suddenly now called "trump's plan", when Gardner and Belton have worked tirelessly for the past 3 years to bring this plan to us. Another point, they have learned quite a bit from the past. These twin towers are technologically light years ahead of the old ones. Before you make a decision, read a bit about them at www.TwinTowersII.com. It is the official Gardner-Belton site.
This isn't Trump's design, it's been around for months, if not years. The Post pushed it a few months back. I believe Bernhard Goetz was somehow tangentially involved. Besides, you know it's not Trump's design 'cuz it's not wrapped in bronze-tinted glass.
I "admire" Liebeskind's design. As a master architect, his job is to be original and striking, not "derivative." That said, I've always doubted that it would "work" as a commercial venture, not to mention a location people would feel "warm and fuzzy" about visiting and shopping in. Collaborator David Childs is a "practical" architect. Consider the inoffensiveness of Time Warner Center against the shocking plans that Moshe Safdie originally had for that site. This combination was not going to work.
I didn't love the WTC when it stood. Too vast, too difficult to get around. But I miss the visual signature of the towers and believe, in principle, that reconstruction should begin with their design as guidance, while "tweaking" the elements on the ground to "work better" and to serve as memorials. The "Trump" design, is hideous, though. Minoru Yamasaki imbued the massive towers with a nuance and grace. The "new" design looks like a low-budget remake, with window grates.
I think the centerpiece of the rebuilt WTC site should be a building in the shape of Trump's head. An "artsy" roof can emulate his hair.
I think Trump is absolutely right. We should rebuild them. Not only is it the best remembrance of those lost, not only does it restore the skyline, but it also saves us from the Freedumb tower. Think of the millions that have already went out the window on that one. It's a terrible design, pushed through even though it did not even come close to winning the public forum held a couple of years back. Put the towers back up, stonger and with improved technology.
"I get knocked down
But I get up again
You’re never going to
Keep me down"
stupid. trump is an ass. the last thing downtown needs is more office space, 1.5 in 10 floors are currently vacant. What's going on downtown? Condo conversions ... LOTS of them. Rebuilding the twin towers would be the most fiscally irresponsible thing ever. So far 7 WTC is 100% UNLEASED. NO precommits, no buzz, no nothing. gonna sit vacant for a while.
HR, are you that pessimistic that in 5-10 years lower manhattan will be in the same or worse financial position than now? These builings dont just appear overnight, they will be years in the making - probably years in planning at this point. I'm not saying there won't be difficulties in filling the space, but over time it will fill. The same thing happened to the first towers, it took over a decade to fill them out after construction. Everyone is so short sighted in our society. It's the same with the west side or brooklyn redevelopment - these are long term plans. Without planning on this scale, NYC is destined to be a second class city. We've had no major works in the city in half a century, finally we are getting back on track.
no, not pessimistic. just in the business with a lot of insight. if it's not needed, it doesn't get built. Real estate is about people's behaviors. Of course I know the space will eventually be leased up, but that's not how it's done. From the time that it's built, it sits empty, are you going to pay the carrying costs for empty buildings for 5-10 years? Real estate cycles are 10 years. Don't worry about New York being a second class city without the rebuilding of the trade center. Companies move downtown when they're looking for bargains, it's cheap space. WOrking downtown is a curse, unless of course you live in Brooklyn Heights. Companies that can afford to move into brand new space are not looking to move downtown, they go to midtown.
ten years of vacancy in the name of questionable symbolism and with no real measure of future needs isn't short-sighted? sounds like weak urban planning to me. then put it through trump's tacky filter (see the details of the tower base in the redesign as someone pointed out) and we're behind where we were 30 years ago with the same hard-to-fill towers, minus the original finesse and the added problem of squeemish tenants always reminded of a tragic past in their workplace.
I have worked in NYC for many years and never heard anyone refer to working Downtown as a "curse". But HR has sounded like an idiot for two posts now so I am not surprised.
The original WTC had no problem attarcting tenants. Neither will the next one, should the right decision be made and the towers are erected again.
HR can spend his time in the much more favorable and over crowded midtown. I know the people in my previous company were thrilled to be relocated there after 9/11. Well actually no we weren't.....
HR, not sure what "business" you have been in for all these years but it sounds like you are in the business of being a moron.
Think of the millions that have already went out the window on that one.
Ouch.
The original WTC sat vacant for years you twit. I'm not qualifying myself to you.
thanks for resorting to name calling. ass.
Why not split the difference? Build the towers as before, but stronger, safer, and 1776 feet tall as Freedom Tower was planned to be. Maybe put in a skybridge between the towers at each 20-floor interval as new evacuation routes not just in case of terrorist attack, but in case of fire or other emergency.
New York has seen its fair share of buildings truncated by circumstance, like the massive Met Life building at 11 Madison that was once supposed to be the tallest in the world but was stopped at 29 floors thanks to the Great Depression.
Maybe it's ego to build before all the space is needed, but maybe it's also that people and organizations who plan ahead often come out on top. No retreat, no surrender, no compromise. Let Freedom rise.
WAIT!!! This is ALL BULLSH*T!!!
It's sweeps week, The Appentice Finale is coming and Trump has a show (and himself) to promote. Don't think for a second that that ass has anybody's interests in mind but his own. Please Donald, stop!
you lose credibility if you deny historic facts. it would be hard for any new yorker to not know that the towers had massive problems getting tenants. with those blinders on, it's a good thing you're not involved in making adult decisions.
The WTC may have had a high vacancy rate in its early years, but that's hardly its fault. In the context of the recession-plagued 1970s and the even more financially strapped NYC of the time, it's no wonder there were problems. Heck, where would we be today if people kept bringing up that the Empire State Building, finished during the Depression, was called the Empty State Building for years? But on 9/11, various sources placed the WTC vacancy rate at around 3%. Hardly "massive problems getting tenants."
hijiki is 1000% right. The World Trade Center barely had any tenants when it was first put up and sat vacant for years. It was always a vanity project. And it was built in direct response to the fact that Rober Moses was unable to completely wipe out all of lower Manhattan. Robert Moses then decided that if he could not bulldoze the city to suit his vision, he'll just build a huge monument to the square-footage he wanted out of his original vision.
Thuse, the white elephant known as the World Trade Center was born.
But if that wasn't bad enough, look at 7 World Trade Center and what Larry Silverstein is doing with it now. The square footage price is insane even by NYC standards. And it's got no real tennants at all.
Go figure.
It would have been much better if no building was built and it was all made into a park. Not as profitable, but the goodwill it would have brougtht could not be have been bought. Now we're just stuck with arguing white millionaires. Hooray for us.
sure, maybe we should tear down midtown and put a corn field there -- you know, for good will's sake. the question isn't even about tenents. Someone owns that land, they have the right to replace what was there. Politician's shoud have never gotten involved in this process for grandstanding purposes. What would the point of a park sandwiched between skyscrapers be, when battery park is a couple of blocks away. if the bringing the office space on line brings down square footage costs in the city, great, that in and of itself might help bring more businesses into the city instead of NJ.
alright then. Since none of you can agree on this the matter is settled. we'll just go with the grand Gaudi design and build it already. I'm getting pataki and silverstein on the horn and get this started this week.
The WTC only became profitable a few years before Silverstein took his lease - at which point it was very, very profitable. Same story with the Empire State - it was called "empty state" and mocked for being such a bad investment.
captain midnight, might i suggest escape pods? enough on each floor for all potential people. it would have to be a circular building with the escape pods on the outside.
either that or chutes and ladders.
"sure, maybe we should tear down midtown and put a corn field there -- you know, for good will's sake."
billy k, you must love straw men. Especially with that corn field talk and bass-ackwards logic. I'm not one of these crunchy granola types who just thinks everything should be greenspace. I know the reality. But in the case of the World Trade Center let's face some facts.
One, the place was built in the pre-Internet world when many deals needed to be cut face to face and firms needed to be close to the people they did business with. That's not the case anymore. Nowadays back-offices are all over the world. The need to be in the Wall Street area to do business is fading.
Two, nobody wanted it to begin with. Do the research. The WTC was forced into the world because of Robert Moses desire to get the same square footage he would have gotten if he would have been able to bulldoze all of lower Manhattan; his wet dream. When finally built, it say vacant for years.
Three, who wants to work and do busines in an area filled with a history as painful as the WTC site? Let's face that fact real hard. Because very few people I know feel comfortable with the idea. And let's cut this nonsense out about the "footprints of the building". That's one of the most patronizing concepts. The whole thing is a grave. And it will never shake that image.
Just make it a park, and go on with life. Real estate demands are high in NYC, but by the end of this current building frenzy nowadays there will be more than enough office space than one knows what to do with. Lets not make the WTC site another white elephant of a real estate developer's profit margin dream.
Face it - nobody's clamoring for the Freedom Tower.
And though the "terrorists win" chestnut is laughable in most contexts, in this one it's somewhat true. The only proud answer to the devastating attack is to rebuild what was there before.
It's been suggested that it would be arrogant to do so. But while I think our foreign policy leaves much to be desired, I see no capitalist arrogance in saying we won't let violent adversaries alter our skyline. It seems unlikely to me that the rebuilt structures will be knocked down again, since it was kind of a surprise even to the terrorists that they went down the first time. And it is not good for our psyche to have a cityscape crafted by fear.
That said, if we don't rebuild the towers, we have already allowed our cityscape to be permanently altered by others, so it doesn't much matter what we build -- it doesn't have to be a tower or more offices; it might as well be a beautiful park. (Trump is right on this one too.)
Don't get me wrong. Trump's structures are generally garish and ugly; he has been an architectural force for ill in our city. But that's irrelevant here. He's not trying to reinvent the wheel. He's trying to agitate in favor of putting back what was taken away. You know that if the twin towers are rebuilt, every one of us will look at the sky and feel glad. No "Freedom Tower" will ever engender that reaction.
Jack, I'm glad you will probably never be in a position of power or decison making in your lifetime... and btw, wtc had nothing to do with moses, it was conceived by the rockefellars in an attempt to revive lower manhattan which was quickly falling into disarray in the late 60s and 70s. at least there are people with vision and the drive to take risks with grand projects... whatever they put up, I hope it becomes a proud element in the skyline and hopefully it will be a twin towereaque design.
"The only proud answer to the devastating attack is to rebuild what was there before"
that's an argument that has been throughly countered. i think most people are in agreement that childs' tower is weak, but if symbolic pride is your motive, wouldn't you be more proud of turning a tragedy into an opportunity to advance instead of building a monument to a past we didn't even want? the 'terrorists win' line, as always, is still laughable here.
Yeah. "Proud answer" was rhetorically over the top but I disagree that the rebuilding argument has been "thoroughly countered", at least if by "thoroughly", you mean "effectively".
The "we" of your post is presumptuous especially as studies have shown a substantial plurality prefers rebuilding to any other option. People who want new, want new; others want the towers again. (As always, there are "swing voters".)
I didn't think the Twin Towers were conventionally beautiful but I did think they were "awesome". Once, after a too lengthy interregnum in Los Angeles, I went to a concert on the plaza there and looked up at the impossibly tall towers penetrating the clouds. I honestly giggled from the giddieness I felt at being home in New York and seeing that sight again.
Advancing architecturally in a significant and extraordinary way might be as "proud" as rebuilding but (sadly) how likely is that kind of advancement?
the 'only proud option' was effectively countered enough for you not to make that claim.
the 'we didn't even want' referred to the original towers which the vast majority did not want when they were built. no presumptuousness.
i actually liked the original towers a lot, too. like nearly every major public art or architecture project, people hated them when they were built (if the majority had their way, they would never have been there) but they adopted them over time. give people a safe option they're already familiar with and they will almost always prefer it to anything new that might change their idea of place.
"I hope it becomes a proud element in the skyline and hopefully it will be a twin towereaque design."
Spending millions of dollars to build a 'proud element in the skyline' while the offices sit empty and vacant is not a vision anyone wants.
This city is insane. Unemployment is a big problem. So is housing. And we're now debating the building of a Westside Stadium which few people want, the 2012 Olympics which people equally do not want, and rebuilding a building at the WTC site that nobody wants.
Do you really think people will want to work over a mass grave? There's a reason why the rebuilt 7 World Trade Center now has no tenants.
This ain't 'Field Of Dreams'; you're not going to build it and then people come. It will simply sit vacant for longer than most people will ever admit. Even Donald 'Ego-meister' Trump.
hijiki - Trust me, I'm not against new on the basis of any kind of fear of change. It's just that it's unlikely we'll get the "new idea" kind of structure you speak of. That's just not the way the "development" process works at present. As Jack says, to make a different point, this city is crazy. (But Jack, I don't think it's relevant to the current discussion that people didn't want the WTC when it was conceived.)
I'm in favor of the Gehry-designed Atlantic Yards (but there are some buildings that should be spared, like the old "Spaldeen" factory). I'm not maniacally against the West Side stadium, though I question whether the MTA is getting full value, I'm against using public funds, and I don't understand (speaking of maniacal) it's staggeringly high position in our mayor's list of priorities.
On the other hand, I am against the Ikea in Red Hook. As far as I'm concerned, each project should be judged on its merits.
To me and many others, the Leibeskind/Childs/Pataki project has few merits. There are significant pluses, aesthetic and psychological (in my opinion) to justify rebuilding the towers. If we don't, then - I agree with Jack -- we don't need the office space, so, let's do something else, like a park.
Well if Trump doesnt get to put the towers up here in NY he might go to Chicago or somewhere else and then that will leave NYC feeling like we lost one.
We end up with the terrible design of Liebskin.
I think people should take Trumps suggestion seriously. It has merit and the LDMC is too lost in its own politics to see the future.
"Well if Trump doesnt get to put the towers up here in NY he might go to Chicago or somewhere else and then that will leave NYC feeling like we lost one."
oh swell... this horrible WTC reduex design making it's way to another city? what a nightmare... i'm in Toronto and we're already getting our own Tacky Trump Tower hotel/condo complex. i say just build the damn WTC2 in Las Vegas and turn it into a full fledged theme hotel. think of the "terror drop" ride, what an attraction!
trump makes money by making a lot of mediocre buildings (forget his marketing skills), why should he have a say here, since when developers are architectural critics, aslo, people (including trump) get your facts right, Lebskind did not design the freedom tower and trump did not design this proposal.
This is not Donald Trump's Idea. There are far more people who want the twin towers rebuilt than people who want any other structure. If the port authority knew what they were doing the towers would already be rebuilt. But, the terrorists won. Mr. Silverstein's primary reponsibility is the safety of his tennants. If they build something that looks like the Twin Towers, it sends a message to terrorists, that is something like what you did does not make a difference.This is also a challenge to future terrorists to knock it down again. Therefore Mr. Siverstein is forced to build something that is a monument to Mohammed Atta and his pals. While I am not saying that Mr, Silverstein asked AlQuaada if they approved of his plan, If he did they would. It's after all a cemetary that contains whatever fragments are left of the hijackers, a green space, with 2 graves and an obelisk. I would not be surprized if they called it Mohammed Atta Plaza.