NYT: New Design Is Unveiled for Freedom Tower (pic)

New Design Is Unveiled for Freedom Tower
By DAVID W. DUNLAP and GLENN COLLINS
Published: June 29, 2005


© 2005 Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
A rendering of the redesigned Freedom Tower to be unveiled today.


With one eye on terrorism and another on what has already been lost to terrorists, New York officials unveiled a redesigned Freedom Tower today whose height and proportion, centered antenna and cut-away corners, tall lobbies and pinstripe facade evoke - both deliberately and coincidentally - the sky-piercing twins it is meant to replace.

The new design for the 82-story signature building at the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan calls for an almost impermeable and impregnable 200-foot concrete and steel pedestal, clad in ornamental metalwork and set at least 65 feet away from Route 9A, the heavily trafficked state highway that runs along the west edge of ground zero.

This enormous pedestal would overlook the Sept. 11 memorial. Above it would be a tapering tower of glass - some panes laminated and several layers thick - with 69 office floors topped by a restaurant, indoor and outdoor observation decks and an antenna within a trellis-like sculpture that would bring the structure's total height to 1,776 feet.

That symbolic height is one of the few elements left intact from the building first envisioned in 2002 by the architect Daniel Libeskind, the site's master planner, and designed in 2003 by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. Gone are the asymmetrical spire, torqued form, parallelogram floor plan, energy-producing windmills, suspension cables, lacy facade and open-air arcade.

The hurried redesign has pushed the completion date of the Freedom Tower back by one or two years, to 2010. It is unclear what effect it will have on the budget, which has been estimated at $1.5 billion, since the extra security measures will add to costs, while the overall simplification of the structure may cut down on time and money....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/nyregion/29cnd-tower.html?hp

:eyes:

I was hoping they would just rebuild, but taller, before Trump suggested it.

thinks they should use the space for a public park/memorial.

Apart from the questions of crassness, etc., who is going to rent space in that thing? I sure wouldn't.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

I *despise* the name "Freedom Tower".

:puke:

Enough of that silly ass cliche. The word no longer has a meaning, thanks to Bush's constant repeating of it.

French fries will revert to their true name along with all this other
silly freedom nonsense.

:rofl:

Although, the WTC replacement top looks more like a rocket or something slapped atop the tower

Sure, 'Freedom Tower', it's a bit cheesy. But, COME ON, we have the fricking 'Statue of Liberty' in the harbor. How cheesy is that? Let go of the name, it'll grow on you eventually. Or at least on your kids or grand kids. There were people a hundred years ago complaining about how silly the French statue was but thankfully it was installed anyway. Actually ,as I recall, they had a great deal of trouble securing funds for the pedestal (which the Americans were responsible for) because the wealthy of Manhattan hated the thought of that gaudy statue. And so the statue sat in parts for years before being finally erected.

So my point is that yeah, the 'Freedom Tower' is a bit over the top, but don't be like those sad louts who wouldn't put up money for the 'Statue of Liberty' because they thought they were too good for it. Time proved them wrong.

"Freedom Tower" is a bullshit name to go along with the bullshit administration.

I am skeptical of anything with the word 'freedom' in it. It seems to be nothing more than an Orwellian code word meant to drum up public support

Damnit, freedom is a dirty word now.

Nice design, really, really shitty name!

I'm not going to visit NYC again until they they change it.

The new design seems to be more cleaner than the previous one by Liebskind. There looks to be a more defined tripartied organization that's reminiscent of classicalism i.e. base, body, head. It is interesting that the square footprint rotates 45 degrees as it ascends to the top.

It feels more corporate, I don't know, perhaps a bit too refined. I like Liebskind's proposal more because it read more as a memorial to what has happened - something terrible happened on the site - and the building reacted to that context. I think that whenever one looked at the Liebskind tower, it is a reminder. It provokes a person to thought and question, especially for future generations where the events of 2001 has no tangible personal effects. The David Childs building denies that to an extent, I think. This new re-design stands as if nothing ever happened on that site. Granted the plaza memorial fulfills that function but as a skyline statement that is to be read from afar, it's pretty bland. It's early yet so we'll see what direction the Childs building will take...

In any case, the whole affair of Liebskind's ouster by Childs stinks. Perhaps that's how it is in the big leagues.

I think from the start this process has been far too much about the architects. And this and the Liebeskind design really looks like nothing more than warmed over Hong Kong (which is warmed over Manhattan). In the end the only appropriate design would be a reincarnation of the originial, built with advances in construction technology.

"I think from the start this process has been far too much about the architects. And this and the Liebeskind design really looks like nothing more than warmed over Hong Kong (which is warmed over Manhattan). In the end the only appropriate design would be a reincarnation of the originial, built with advances in construction technology."

That would be one way to go about it. But I submit to you that a tragedy like this needs some sort of marker - to say, this is what has happened on this day, on this site. I believe that there is a fundemental human need to commemorate events like this, make it a milestone, for better or worse. It just seems a bit disrespectful. I don't mean that you are being disrespectful at all but, I don't know, this is more than making a better version of the towers.

I've read and heard arguments for rebuilding the towers exactly as they were (but better), and I'm afraid that while we do this in spite of the terrorists, we will also come to forget the full impact of what has happened. Don't glorify it - but don't forget it either. Maybe there is a better solution than Liebskind's, and I'm not convinced that Childs' answer should have been used at all.

Anyway, I am going to dig around and see if there is more info on Childs' design - hey, I could be wrong.

Radical design, dramatic, and evocative of the towers.




http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0252,carr,40823,1.html

Too bad.

going through.

I think a lot of the designs were weird for weirds sake and the whole architecture by committee thing makes it all a joke. I too hate the name. I don't know what they should put there- I just know that the hole in the ground there now is like a giant sore for me. I pass by there fairly frequently (I used to work 4 blocks from the towers) and I still can't really quite get over it.

Now that would sum up the Bush years.

Wright called SOS this.

This is a larger version of a glass low-rise found in any large city suburban office area.

Neither here nor there. Merely 82 stories, not tall enough, one tower, not two, taking the elements of the original, and half-assing it.

If you ever stood on the New Jerey side at Liberty State Park, and looked over when the towers were there; the most incredible sight you would see. Two simple massive forms. Awesome in scale and overpowering. Not a Trump fan by any means, but building them as they were would really be right.

For the people who did not like the originals. Yes they were derided when they were built, but they did have elegance in the companionship from afar, and then up close, the tuning fork design seen from the plaza, and magnificent lobbies. The plaza was a brutalist dream, but that would change.

This building does nothing emotionally, or evoke anything but a leasing agents dream of logical design, with the slightest nod to "design" by twisting the form.

Too bad.

My freshman year I stayed in a dorm in Hoboken. I could look out my window and see from the WTC (and points south) through to uptown.

A single tower, shorter, just won't be the same.

big ugly boxes that stretched upwards. valued space over aesthetics. they were ugly when they were built, and remained ugly until they were destroyed. (tregedy doesn't make something ugly beautiful, it can make the ugly sacred, however)

Build a building. We have too many fucking memorials in this country. There are more memorials in the 230 year history of the US than in the 2300 year history of Italy. Why bother? if it's not important enough to remember without a monument, then it's probably not all that important.

Even with this design if they built two of them that would be very powerful. And a lot more beuatiful than this one tower which looks a bit miniscule in comparision of the original twin towers.

Staten Island. I was going to start a new job at the WTC, and wanted to see how plausible it might be for me to take the ferry to work.

As my husband and I crested a hill, I saw the towers - they really looked larger than life. I was amazed, and I can still remember the sight, 24 years later.

Crap!

What is the point of this building?
What is the reference?

didn't this building already get built.... in Hong Kong


by I.M. Pei, ten years ago?

I mean, really, do corporations want to put their people in a building on a site that's been hit twice? It would have a big red target on it, no? Is that worth it to corporations to make a symbolic statement but put their workers in an anxious state every day? Just wondering.

there is plenty of office space in lower manhattan right now. If the area booms again, the space will be used.

i hear gitmo's getting a little crowded.

"This enormous pedestal would overlook the Sept. 11 memorial. Above it would be a tapering tower of glass - some panes laminated and several layers thick"

...several layers thick would be strong enough to stop an airliner flying at 500+ mph.

O course, you may have been sarcastic with your post...it was hard to tell.

Donald Trump has the right idea. He knows buildings. People should listen to him.

I haven't seen trump's design, tho, yet.

...came up with about a year ago.

And likely to be even more unwelcoming than the original WTC to regular people.

What you can't see in that picture is that the entire base of the building (that is, ground level up to 200 ft) will be a mostly windowless mass of concrete (!) to protect against car bombs, so the building will essentially be an opaque block to anyone on the street. So much for making the area more "friendly."

I live four blocks away from the WTC and can't imagine they would put even MORE of these types of unwelcoming cubicle-storage behemoths in this area. Most of the corporations who used to rent space in the WTC area have already moved to midtown anyway.

I'm sure people will get used to it but eck. And are the "false" floors still included into the design.

I don't understand why the cut buildings that are included are understated. They should also be white and elegant like the tower.

at least of any of the ones i've seen. It looks more classy than the late WTC.

they should rebuild almost exactly as they were but with black diamond granite, one inch higher for each of the fallen, with all the names of the dead engraved in gold and totally redesigned and updated, mechanicals structure etc.

Uninspiring to me, for some reason....

Just make it "One World Trade Center"

It's so much better, and doesn't make you wince saying it. Plus, since there's only one main tower now, it fits.