December 18, 2002: World Trade Center Concepts
My favorite World Trade Center site concepts are definitely #1 (Daniel Libeskind's steel skycrapers and mournful spire) and #2 (by Foster and Partners from London with the undulating tallest towers in the world). Concept #3 (siamese triplet towers similar to a tic-tac-toe board, by Richard Meier's firm) is cool, but looks vaguely like something that would have been built in Eastern Europe in 1975- sort of weird and constructivist. Concept #4 is boring except for the cool wire-frame towers that evoke the old WTC structures- like a gigantic double Eiffel Tower. It would probably get old quick, though. Concepts #6 and #7 are not worth talking about. Prize for scariest design: #4, by United Architects out of Japan, evokes something you might find in a futuristic horror film set in the far east- like Blade Runner meets Alien Nation.
I think that Libeskind said it best this morning: ``A skyscraper rises above its predecessors ... restoring the spiritual peak of the city, creating an icon that speaks to our vitality in the face of danger and our optimism in the aftermath of tragedy... Life victorious." This is what architecture is all about- creating something wonderful and new out of what was destroyed.
Comments
I never thought I'd say this, but it's looking more and more like New York is going to become Berlin. And I like it.
Does the inspiration and joy derived from viewing and experiencing such epic constructions truly offset the empirical lack of need for more 100 story buildings?
That's a real question, not "flamebait."
I'm not sure- I mean, I read this article that says these concepts are just intended to help the LMDC lay out land use plans- how much space for buildings, how much for parks, etc. But the actual size and scope of the buildings will depend on the needs of the developers. And no developer is going to build a 200 story skyscraper in the middle of downtown unless the gov't pays him a few billion to do it.
One of the reasons I think I like the wireframe towers is that they seem to be mostly empty. They won't overwhelm the market for real estate but they will restore the lost skyline. On the down side, people seem to think that the museum section looks like a plane lodged in the towers.
I think one problem is that the LMDC swung too far the other way with this round. The first set was all about land use plans; how will the site relate to the area around it? This batch is all about what will be on the site itself. I've heard it said that some of the plans are very inward looking and would cut the site off from the rest of downtown. It would really be a shame to sacrifice the usability of the area for a beautiful building. Frankly, I can barely understand any of the plans from the stuff that I can see on the web. I really want to get down to the Winter Garden to see in more detail.
Leave a comment