The other two towers

Jeff Jarvis was a lot closer to ground zero than I was on 9/11, and ever since he's been one of the most passionate and articulate writers about that day and its aftermath, but I think he's partly wrong about the new designs for the WTC site. To my eye, they are a vast improvement over the first rendition, and while they certainly have a "master architect" show-off vibe to them, I think a certain amount of that is appropriate at this point, particularly after the office park mediocrity of the first go round.

The day after they fell, I found myself thinking two thoughts about what should replace them. First, we needed something just as tall, to restore the skyline. Second, what we built shouldn't have many people in it -- maybe just an observation deck. The Eiffel Tower came to mind as a good model. That's why I'm particularly drawn to the THINK design, which features two gleaming wireframe towers that are largely empty. (Their slideshow specifically references the Eiffel Tower.) Jeff's right that some of the other designs look dangerously unstable. Building something that causes visitors to say, "I can't believe that thing is still standing!" isn't exactly appropriate for this setting. Plus, there are the economic ramifications of building something that daring: no one -- seriously, no one -- is going to happily head off to work in a leaning twin tower.

Comments

[francesco]

A good point about not wanting to leave an aching hole for the rest of time. But that's kinda why i favor putting the memorials on the rooftops -- the city could progress in more pactical offices below, and the memorial structure can gain its own place above the clutter, while also answering the popular call to re-establish the former skyline.

as for building more huge office towers, i worked for four years on tower two's 80th floor (right about where UA 175 exited the building) and i can vouch that everyone bitched and moaned about getting to and from the upper stories. collecting a visitor from the lobby was a 30 minute affair, waiting for two sets of elevators.

architects have moved on since the 70s, (do Petronas' tenants need to smoke in the street, i wonder?), but i can't imagine anyone would want to work with such impracticalities anymore.

[Steven Johnson]

Folks, a few quick responses: first, I'm sure Jacobs hated the towers. Architecturally, they were kind of a nightmare, and opposed to everything she believed in (most of which I believe in too!) But I don't think buildings of that scale are inappopriate for the setting of downtown Manhattan, particularly if you factor in the general popular support for restoring the skyline. The real Jacobs question that's relevant is the street level one, and the good news is that all of the plans seem to devote as much energy to the ground level activity as to what happens in the sky, and thus they're totally different from the original WTC design, which was a wasteland on the street level.

Also, Rusty -- nice to see you here. I think there should be plenty of active commercial real estate on the site -- I just think whatever they build that's really, really tall should be largely empty, if only for practical reasons (I can't imagine relocating a firm to WTC version 2.)

[Richard Bennett]

I'm for Foster's, and everybody I know thinks the THINK proposal is a vacuous joke.

[francesco]

Seconded and then some!! A few months ago i emailed an idea to a columnist at the Post, suggesting that two much shorter towers could be built on the exact footprint of the originals.

The two towers would be roofed at different floor levels (e.g. 45 and 60) as a reminder of the impact points (a bit macabre, i guess) but from the roofdeck, each tower would be extended upwards as only a steel skeleton, to match the original height of the WTC towers.

In the end i imagined it rather like the THINK proposal, but with each tower becoming 'functional' office space at some floor level around halfway ot the ground.

The roof deck of each tower could be designated as a sacred memorial space (run as national monuments, complete with fulltime elevator service) which would put the memorial areas up in the air, far from traffic noise and downtown vendor carts. You could stand in realtive peace and quiet amidst roof statuary, with the skeleton extending another forty or fifty stories above you, and listen to the wind moaning through the girders.

Not entirely inappropriate, i'd have thought.

[Anil]

I think every person I've heard from who's seen all the designs favors the THINK proposal. Which is good, as it's the best.

[Bill Seitz]

I side with Jarvis. I think the original Twin Towers were hideous in both scale and design, and should not be replicated literally or symbolically.

Where's Jane Jacobs? I'm amazed I haven't run across any commentary from her...

[rusty]

Am I alone in liking the UA proposal? Their slideshow has some pretty poor views of it, but consider this one and especially this one

It's big, and non-square, and not anything like what we're used to, but I think the leaningness of each part comes together to form a pretty solid feeling for the whole. And of all the proposals, it's the only one that I think looks like it grows out of the city rather than simply towering over it and dominating it.

About the mostly-empty monument-type towers idea, I think that would be wrong for New York. There should be a memorial, but I don't think it's useful for the whole site to become a memorial. In theory, whatever's built now will be there a hundred or more years from now, when 9/11 will be ancient history (like civil rights and free speech). I think part of healing is getting back to work, and leaving an empty hole there would be fundamentally the wrong way to deal with it.

[Kevin]

I'm so disappointed the the wtc2002 design:

www.wtc2002.com just seems to be going nowhere. Does anyone have any insight as to why it's being excluded, apparently?

[rusty]

Ugh. I loathe the Foster one. While the UA looks like it's falling over from certain angles, which is unfortunate, the Foster looks like it's falling over from every angle. It looks broken. and it's brokenness just towers over everything. It also doesn't even visually refer to anything else in view. It looks like some kind of architectural bad photoshop paste-up, like they ripped a frame out of Bladerunner and superimposed it over NYC.

Greg: I based my judgements on the slide shows on the LMDC site. I did watch the UA video later (after postng the above) but it didn't really change my mind either way. I still like that one best.

Two things should be made abundantly clear: I'm not a New Yorker, and never will be. I fundamentally don't care what they put there, my opinions are all pretty much an academic and aesthetic exercise, and should be ignored when they contrast with those of the people who will have to live with whatever they build.

And second, I'm an architect like Pol Pot was a humanitarian. My opinions are solely those of the hopelessly ignorant, and should be used for entertainment purposes only.

PS: Hi Steven! I really only read the blogs of people I've met, so now you're on the list. :-)

[greg.org]

I liked the UA proposal best, too, but afterward, I felt part of it was the real power of their presentation (especially their film). On their website, the mass of their building(s) scares me; a lot of ponderous looming. (And Muschamp praises them for their form?)

It has the benefit of the sky memorial, which I think is a done deal, with the promise of a "new kind of urban space," the public mixed use destination formed by the contiguous buildings. While that's not a done deal, obviously, there are precedents besides the unlamented sky lobbies frome the WTC:
-residents of the John Hancock tower in Chi. have a mini-mall of sorts for them way up high.
-all those skyways in downtown Minneapolis (Twin City?) seem to work. at least when it's -100 degrees outside, like it always is.
And wasn't there a movie about some office workers who made a bet about who could stay indoors the longest? Sounds like the future to me...

[greg.org]

"I'm an architect like Pol Pot is a humanitarian?" That probably describes 90% of the New Yorkers who are passing judgment on the designs right now. You could fit right in.

[Bart]

I voted for the THINK proposal for exactly the reason you stated. I believe the skyline was immascualted that day and should be restored. However, I wouldn't expect many people would want to work there. It would be akin to working in a tomb. What should be restored from the original is the PATH station and shopping centers that were below the site. That would be a big F-U to the terrorists and Amreica haters. Capitalism will always survive.

[Pat Shields]

Take a second look at the Meier, et al design...it is forceful and powerful. At first I liked Liebeskind and UA, but the more I look at it's practical aspects and the sheer girth of it, I realize it is the best way to replace the towers...replacing height with girth, plus even though Meier says it's supposed to look like clenched hands, I think it looks like people standing arm in arm.