Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Photos of D Train Murder Depict Bloody Panic
Stuy Pyro Leaves Notes In Hieroglyphics
Mayor: Sex Trafficking Victims, Please Speak Up
The unveiling of the new buildings - Towers 2, 3, 4 - that will accompany the Freedom Tower at the redeveloped World Trade Center was met with excitement yesterday, proving there's nothing that beautiful computer renderings, a who's who of architects, and a healthy dose of optimism can't do. The NY Times updated its article about the announcement yesterday and also has an article about the pink elephant in the room: How slow progress has been at Ground Zero, thanks to battling egos and dollars on all sides.
James Gardner has an appraisal of the buildings in today's Sun; here's part of it:
In terms of design, none of the buildings, which are to rise along a resurrected Greenwich Street, is outstanding or even self-consciously "iconic," to use the buzz word of the hour. That is, they are not blatant in striving to make a self-serving and unmistakable mark on the skyline of Manhattan.This is understandable, given that their job is to play second, third, and fourth fiddle to the Freedom Tower, which will eventually cow them into subservience. And yet, none of them is bad — which is already something in New York — and each demonstrates a certain grace and distinction.While these buildings will change a lot between now the moment they are finished, it is rather nice that there's something to be a little hopeful about for the upcoming anniversary.
More coverage about the new buildings from the NY Post, Daily News, amNew York and Wired New York's thread.
Photograph of, from left, architect Fumihiko Maki, developer Larry Silverstein, Governor Pataki, WTC "master planner" Daniel Libeskind, architect Lord Norman Foster, and architect Lord Richard Rogers from Dima Gavrysh/AP
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
priceless photo.
Pretty fair appraisal. None of them are great, but none of them suck. What does it say that at this particular point in our history we'll take that and run?
Maybe they should take that idea and run with it. The Freedom Tower should be unrepentantly iconic and yet it is a bland piece of baseline garbage. It's awful that the focal point that is setting the tone for the rest of the site should be so unimaginative and should constrict the rest of the site so badly.
#2, #3 please do the world a favor and go to school for architecture (5 years), get your license, work as an underling at a large office trying to get seniority (10 years), then start your own firm and build up to designing actual office towers in a top-tier city like NY (20-30 years, endless hard work and a lot of luck).
Then you can grace us with your grand plans and ideas. Until then, you are an armchair critic and your opinion is just that.
So are they actually going to build 'em or go through another round of re-designs?
Why does the Asian architect get the build the "shortest" tower?
One building looks like that parasitic snake reptile thing from the matrix. You put fangs on the roof and that's what it is. A tubular parasitic snake.
#4, you have to admit the building 4 is incredibly uninspired, 3 is almost an exact rehash of the times tower, and the only interesting part of 2 (the diamonds) face away from the rest of the city. It doesn't take a formal education to come to those conclusions, an elementary student can tell you the same. It seems the current crop of architects out there are very uninspired and are more after look what I can do with CAD shapes than beauty, style, functionality, timelessness, etc. With all the work and education you bring up, its a real shame.... Though as someone else said, it could definitely be worse.
Ayn Rand is spinning in her grave.
These are generic designs. Libeskind should have gotten the sack by now. The problem seems to stem from a general lack of taste by Libeskind, Pataki, Silverstein and who knows whatother people are making the decisions.
at least they're office buildings and can be cleared and replaced at some point in the future. Unfortunately we're stuck with those upper class project white box residential buildings from the 50's 60's that will probably be around forever. apartment buildings are close to impossible to remove. ugh. I don't think we've had since before WW-II. Even these glass box structures we seem to be stuck on today were devised back in the 30s.
that should say I don't think we've had a decent architect since before WW-II... I was too quick with the enter key.
Wow, that is a gorgeous skyline!!!
simon, #3 is not exactly the same as the times tower. It has diagonal bracing, and, uh, it is a skyscraper, but that's it really. #2 is meant to face the park with the diamond roof, and it doesn't bother me at all that the viewer would have to be downtown or in Jersey to see that feature. I can't see the Brooklyn Bridge from my apartment but that doesn't minimize it. #4 is bland I will admit, but there will be revisions with all the negative reviews of Maki's design.
With all the work and education, these are the architects we let design our cities, yes. In your pollyanna-ish world of every building pleasing you (or a small group of pessimists and complainers), I am sure these men would be imprisoned. But to the majority of the public, these designs are good. Deal with it.
"Pink elephant in the room"? Did Gothamist watch Sex in The City last night? A pink elephant would imply that one of these towers is gay.
Please stop calling it the "Freedom Tower." It sounds too much like a George W. Bush-ism.
Homee
The majority of the public flock to the movies for the latest big budget blockbusters. Despite all the filmakers' experience and technoglogical know-how, that still doesn't make most of these films any less dismal.
The same can be said for these building designs - bland and unimaginative. Especially for the greatest city in the world.
The fact remains that the most iconic designs were those of the Think team, the twin lattice towers. However Pataki forced the committee to pick Liebeskind's design because the 9/11 families whines about how the lattice towers reminded them too much of the original buildings.
Incredibly Libeskind's original design is nowhere to be found and the Freedom Tower looks like one of the original rejected designs. That makes his selection a fraud; what's getting built uis not what supposedly won.
Also, Homee's logic of allowing only architects to criticize architecture is pure looniness.
#9 - "Ayn Rand is spinning in her grave."
Yes, Ayn Rand would have preferred something much worse.
The Fountainhead was a curse upon architecture.
Homee...
I hope someday to be as good an architect as you are a pretentious asshole. Thanks for the advice.
i know good architecture and none of these buildings resembles an erect penis. i'm miffed.
Click the link to find out more about the "developer"....
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=15459
Tim N. - sticks and stones, so they say.
Jmchez - I didn't say that only architects could critique architecture. What I said was that those who speak with such authority are only voicing their layman's opinions....same as mine would be considered.
Drewo - your Hollywood selling to Joe America is not the same as a group of the best architects selling to new yorkers (both are generally more sophisticated). Yours is not a good analogy.
i second not calling the main building the freedom tower, it makes me cringe every time I hear that.
This look likes a family photo. Smells like all the building money is with a very small homogenous group and yet the entire population of the city will have to live & work with these things.
Oh, and I hate the name "Freedom Tower", too. The 1950's commie witch-hunts were an attack on freedom. 9/11 was an attack on non-crazy religious nuts. How about the "Imagine There's No Religion Tower"?
ho-mee-home:
Very good point especially as I never claimed to be anything like an expert, merely someone expressing his opinion. Although I have studied architecture recreationally for years and consider myself slightly more familiar with it that average lay person. Now if you could extricate yourself from my throat which you so deftly jumped down, we can all get back to the business of trying to make our city a better place to live for everyone - "experts" or not.
Apparently architects have a very limited palate which is not very good. We really need a Beaux Arts revival!
"The problem seems to stem from a general lack of taste by Libeskind, Pataki, Silverstein"
Amen to that!!! Pataki just wants something, anything, tall to put his name on. Liebeskind is tailoring the Emperor's new clothes and woe to any of us who lack his "vision", while Silverstein gives new meaning to the words "avaricious" and "landlord".