Gothamist: Welcome to the WTC Neighborhood

Darrin

Sat, 09 Sep 2006 13:06:01 -0500

"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".

Toby

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:34:26 -0500

Apparently architects have a very limited palate which is not very good. We really need a Beaux Arts revival!

MT

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:22:26 -0500

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.

interlard

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:38:24 -0500

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"?

jason

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:26:17 -0500

i second not calling the main building the freedom tower, it makes me cringe every time I hear that.

ho-mee-home

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:59:28 -0500

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.

The Truth

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:07:40 -0500

Click the link to find out more about the "developer".... http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=15459

bob

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:02:20 -0500

i know good architecture and none of these buildings resembles an erect penis. i'm miffed.

Tim N.

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:58:17 -0500

Homee... I hope someday to be as good an architect as you are a pretentious asshole. Thanks for the advice.

sanity

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:37:46 -0500

#9 - "Ayn Rand is spinning in her grave." Yes, Ayn Rand would have preferred something much worse. The Fountainhead was a curse upon architecture.

jmchez

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:22:23 -0500

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.

drewo

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:00:55 -0500

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.

REALITY CHECK

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 11:49:27 -0500

Please stop calling it the "Freedom Tower." It sounds too much like a George W. Bush-ism.

jtg

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 11:35:23 -0500

"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.

homeslice

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 11:25:51 -0500

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.

The Art of Happiness

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 11:18:34 -0500

Wow, that is a gorgeous skyline!!!

les

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:57:47 -0500

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.

les

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:56:24 -0500

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.

pugsley

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:53:40 -0500

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.

rourke

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:48:56 -0500

Ayn Rand is spinning in her grave.

simon

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:45:16 -0500

#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.

the matrixx

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:35:07 -0500

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.

Dude

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:23:05 -0500

Why does the Asian architect get the build the "shortest" tower?

Al killeu

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:16:25 -0500

So are they actually going to build 'em or go through another round of re-designs?

ho-mee

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:09:14 -0500

#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.

MT

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 09:58:05 -0500

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.

Tim N.

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 09:49:17 -0500

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?

master baiter

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 09:41:27 -0500

priceless photo.