"Nude" Skater Hits Rockefeller Ice
Adam Lambert Says He's A Performer, Not A Babysitter
Protest To Keep 9/11 Trials Out Of NYC
Lacrosse Sex Scandal — Sexual Assault or Prank?
Disabled Vietnam Vet Hot Dog Vendor Arrested Outside Met
Or at least that's what World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein promised yesterday, now that he and the Port Authority have agreed on terms that divvy up control of Ground Zero's various components. "I have instructed our construction team to mobilize into the site tomorrow so that we can begin construction of the Freedom Tower immediately," he told the media. The Port Authority says that the eastern section of the WTC site will be excavated by next year, in order for Silverstein to start building his towers (Towers 2, 3, and 4 in the plan). At this point, (Gothamist can barely remember what's supposed to be at Ground Zero, so we've been going back to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation's website about the WTC site - but we're not sure if all the changes have been updated on it.)
Getting a move on the project is good for politicians, but will it be good for New Yorkers? The NY Times has some of the reasons why it might not, from an urban planning professor at Columbia saying, "The Freedom Tower is a disastrous idea that should be scratched," to the fact that construction costs are getting higher and higher, plus there's:
Some experts are even wondering whether there will be enough steel, concrete and curtain wall to build the four towers by 2012 at the same time that two baseball stadiums, the $2 billion Goldman Sachs headquarters, the $1.7 billion expansion of the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, Moynihan Station, 10,000 apartments and various subway projects are under construction.It's a hard call - there's something satisfying about the government deciding to do something... but the something is still very ambiguous in terms of whether it'll be successful. Sadly, hindsight is what's 20/20.
In other Ground Zero news, the clean-up at the Deustche Bank buillding hit a snag when asbestos was found in areas thought to be originally cleared out. All the more reason for residents to become upset! And remember when the cornerstone was laid at Ground Zero? That's almost two years ago.
Update: The Freedom Tower groundbreaking happened this morning, with NY Governor Pataki, NJ Governor Corzine, Mayor Bloomberg and Silverstein all made up and "friends" now. Metaphors were flying, and the AP got a quote from Freedom Tower 2.0 designer David Childs about the Port Authority, his new client after Silverstein: "They've been looking at all our plans and endorsing it all along."
Photograph of groundbreaking from the AP
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I know everyone is super anxious to get building, but let's take a minute and rethink that awful tower. New York has the chance to create something iconic along the lines of a 21st century Empire State Building here. It's going to define our skyline like no other building so let's make it a good one. I think we can all agree the Freedom Tower will hardly go down in the annals of architectural history as iconic. Let's not blow this opportunity.
actually i kinda dig the newest design... now that the antenna is in the center, it does look a bit neo-glassy-gothic, and from some views it will look like a large twin tower
Well said MT. The WTC site and even the original towers have always been a monument to our fears and bad impulses. The original towers were designed for a bleak urban future in which commuters from safer suburban areas could arrive by train and never leave the building thanks to its underground promenade and glitzy restaurant.
Just as we gave in then to our worst impulses, today we do the same. The "Freedom Tower" is a not a monumental building. As an idea it will stand as a testiment to our fear, bitterness and indiciveness.
MT: what pot are you smoking? We don't need another ESB, we already have one.
Build the damn FT. The Columbia urban planner is plain wrong.
It's interesting that the Times notes all the other projects that are expected to compete for structural steel and other construction materials.
Notably absent: Atlantic Yards - the Forest City Ratner project that would build a Nets Stadium and housing in Brooklyn.
Why? Ratner's building the NYT headquarters in Midtown. Coincidence? I think not. The Times hasn't exactly been transparent in its coverage of the Ground Zero rebuilding so anything it says and does must be taken with that in mind.
Dan - Thankfully you aren't a developer or politician with any say in the matter. Of course the FT is an iconic building and it represents our drive and ambition. Its what NY is all about.
*Not* replacing the twin towers with another tower or towers would have been a huge mistake and a symbol in itself: the decline of NY.
Smoke- I'm thankful I'm an architect and not a developer. It helps me sleep better at night. I love you how you can just say that the building is iconic. Why? Because it's tall? Because it's a symbolic 1776 feet? Gag me. Real meaning doesn't come from cheap ssymbolism.
It's an uninspired design for starters. On top of that the whole thing is going to sit on a giant concreete base for the sake of safety that will no doubt obliterate the street life and remind us, always, that we are at risk, and that we are building a monument to that fear.
Architecture at it's best reminds us that there is something wonderful to be made out of nothingness.This building at its best will remind us that we acted hastily and out of a fear both of the terror that dominates our thinking and of our own impotence. How can we be expected to create something meaningful under those circumstances.
Dan
Dan - glad to hear you sleep well at night and it sounds like you keep your integrity intact while telling all of us what our city should look like.
There can be a balance between commerce and art. Yes, this building is iconic, not only because it is tall but because it just looks that way. I can't explain it. To you and a few other cynics it doesn't (why I don't know, because you weren't asked to design it - boo hoo).
I think there is a denial in your and others posts that height is something to strive for. Why not? Because it makes us too obvious and brash for you? Who cares. That's exactly what Qaeda thought.
All the NIMBY and pompous 'experts' constantly strangle every new building in this city.
Well said, Dan. I was, ofcourse, speaking metaphorically. We don't need to literally build another ESB. We need to build another building that inspires us today the way the ESB inspired people in the 30's. You still hear people waxing rhapsodic about that building and what it represents for a reason. It rose in the midst of the great depression and came to symbolize New York's indomitable will to rise (can you tell I've been watching the New York documentary?). On top of it all, it is a pure aesthetic that architects still turn to as a classic example of how to build right. It isn't height for height's sake. It is a whole, massive, coherent statement of everything that is New York. I've heard it compared to the lighthouse at Alexandria. Don't you think the Freedom Tower could be that too?
The Freedom Tower as it is a banal example of economics dictating architecture and we will end up all the poorer for it.
Just build this.
They should build it and make it condo instead. The biggest demand isn't in office space, it's in residential. I know its not as easy as just making the choice, but thats more beneficial to city residents than even more office space.
Does anybody other than George Elmer Pataki ('cause it will look good on a presidential campaign ad) and the moronic architects that designed the bloody monstrosity really like the thing?
I am hoping and praying this thing ends up like the Westway.
Smoke- I don't know what to say. If you like this building you are going to like it regardless and there isn't going to be anything I can do. I'm not going to sit here and tell you how to think about buildings(or not think about them as the case may be).
Let me just say that we will regret this. We will regret it for a long time. What makes me truly sad is that we are squandering the possibility to make something amazing. Rarely do opportunities exist to make something remarkable. So many buildings these days are built in the interests of developers and banks and not in the interest of the public to whom they belong long after the developers and banks are gone.
Stand on the corner of 32nd Street and 8th Avenue and look at the Post Office by McKim Mead and White and then turn around and look at Madison Square Garden. This is the kind of choice we face. One of those buildings is going to stand for generations as a testiment to the power of built form and the other will be torn down within this generation. If you can't tell the difference I feel sorry for you.
wtc, i like that alternative memorial design where it is indoors and in a restored lobby section. On the freedom tower (i hate that name), its too bad they didn't plan to build two of them.
"...let's not blow this opportunity..."
Too late.
Think of the surge of thrill you'll get when you take your grandkids downtown and tell them the story of the eleventh and say, "In their place, they decided to build... this thing..."
Governor Shitforbrains... the Debbie Downer of urban design...wah wah waaahhh...
Dan:
First things first - this building is not being built in the interest of banks and developers. Hence Silverstein's insistence that he has no long-term financial stake in it. It is being built in direct response to public demand for repairing the skyline.
Second, this is no Madison Square Garden. That is a stretch. You don't like it. I do.
What tall tower do you think would be better suited? Taipei 101? Burj Dubai?
Speaking of MSG. Has anyone else heard that they are putting a new MSG into the new Moynihan Station? Am I the only one who is beyond outraged at the audacity?
you're right, dan. but smoked hit on one of the problems: it is being built in response to 'public demand'. that is another way of saying it seeks the 'lowest common denominator'. finding something that the general public can all approve gives us the most pedestrian, uninspired excuse for architecture. no vision and a squandered opportunity to build something that expresses what we are today in an individual way.
Wait... I thought that tower was a joke. Damnit. Either make a HUGE ass tower that doesn't look like a broken piece of glass, or no tower at all.
Hunter, it doesn't look like a broken piece of glass, instead it looks like a crushed soda can. It will be a blight on the skyline. Hopefully it will never be built.
what's an 'ass tower'?
Fuck architechture and fuck you people who say it looks like broken glass. I hope the new building gets fucking airplane bombed again. And if you say the building should be residential then you share my views.
Gatherer - an "ass tower" is a tower designed by an ass, constructed at the instruction of a group of asses, and is butt ugly. The George Elmer Pataki Tower, I mean Freedom Tower (which is a totally stupid name) fits the bill.
Rebuild the twin towers its really the only solution (thank god theyre leaving the footprints there so that maybe someday someone will realize how important they were and will rebuild them). They rebuilt the pentagon, they didnt leave a gapping ass hole in the middle and decide to build a new wing off of it. Or we can simply let the terrorists win.
This should really be the peoples choice.