Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The World Trade Center redevelopment plan really is awful

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 02:54 PM
Original message
The World Trade Center redevelopment plan really is awful
The anniversary of the attacks got me looking back at the history of the design competition that was announced in '03 to select a redesign for the plan.

The original plan by Daniel Libeskind that won was really something. It was daring, it was different, it was bold.




Now it has morphed into something completely unrecognizable:



It's okay. But these are bland, cookie-cutter buildings that stand out only for their height. It figures that the only thing LMDC and Larry Silverstein would keep from Libeskind's original plan was his silliest idea (the "1776 ft." height).

Looking back at the original design competition, I feel that the design that was at the time judged the worst, blandest of them all - the one by the New Jersey architecture firm Peterson/Littenberg - is arguably better than what we're getting now.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. I really don't see what's wrong with it
Edited on Sat Sep-12-09 03:02 PM by lunatica
It makes for a totally unique skyline. It would be as recognizable as the twin towers and everyone would instantly recognize the skyline as New York City. It would also stand out as different and I like the modern lines and the way the building reflect light. The building are different and very modern and nestled among the historically older building. I like that contrast. It makes NYC old and new at the same time.

And this give real time life to the phoenix rising out of the ashes idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Awful is a bit strong
I just find the designs of the individual towers to be horribly bland. It would have been nice if what replaced them was something bolder, more innovative. I realize Libeskind's original plan would have needed modification, but the new towers just look kind of cookie-cutter to me.

The scale doesn't bother me - I like the sense of massing they give to the skyline. But the designs themselves are, as I said, just kind of bland.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I think in time the buildings will be bolder
This is probably a good start. I like bold architecture too. Especially the designs for urban farm skyscrapes. Something that would capture wind and water from rain or snow and use them to be self sufficient and green.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. Personally, I liked the little radio & parts shops that used to be down there.
None of this shit would have ever happened had they left the alone in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Radio Row
Q. Can you describe what Radio Row was like before the World Trade Center was built there? People, shops, homes, etc?

Answered by Mike Wallace:
On the surface Radio Row was just a wholesale/retail/resale outlet area, bounded by West, Church, Liberty, and Vesey Streets, with its axis along Cortlandt Street. From the 1920s on, its dilapidated old buildings, featuring radios and parts (some obtained from radio operators whose ships docked at nearby westside piers) drew radio amateurs from far and wide to get components to build devices and set up stations. After the second war, Radio Row sold war surplus electronics (equipment that originally cost thousands went for $25-50), televisions, radios, and high-fidelity sound equipment and parts, and particularly an infinite variety of vacuum tubes, the goods piled so high they spilled out onto the street. As late as the 60s the district had the largest concentration of electronic parts and equipment stores anywhere in Gotham.

I suspect, however, it was more than just a consumer outlet area, like Canal Street or later 47th Street, but something of a petrie dish for a then nascent electronics industry. Some important firms grew up there, like that of Charles Avnet, who began selling surplus radio parts in 1921, went on to produce radio antennas during the war for the military, merged with two other Courtland Street denizens, and expanded to become a major electronics company (and then moved away). The area's destruction by the WTC may perhaps have contributed to one of the most puzzling questions of NYC's recent history‹why California, and not Gotham, became host to Silicon Valley.

New York had long been a leader in the development of new communications technologies. It had crucibled the telegraph, hi-speed printing presses, motion pictures, radio, and tv, and rolled over its primacy with each new invention. As late as the 1950s, Gotham seemed poised to do the same with computers, but it proved to be the invention that didn't bark in the night. Despite the area's pioneering work in transistor development, despite the regional presence of Bell Labs and IBM, despite wartime electronics contracts and a thriving electrical engineering area in Radio Row, it would be Silicon Valley, not Silicon Alley that captured the lead.

To some extent, it may be that New York shot itself in the foot; the World Trade Center's being erected on the ruins of Radio Row was emblematic of a widespread demolition of manufacturing facilities around town and their replacement with office towers, and the city passed up opportunities to develop university-based hi tech engineering centers a la Stanford or MIT. There were many other reasons for New York's faltering, such as the mammoth flow of military contracts that galvanized aerospace development in California, Massachusetts, Texas and Florida, but the future may yet judge that we managed to nip our own computer industry in the bud. And who knows what possibilities may yet be precluded if we throw up millions of square feet of office space downtown rather than diversifying its economy; we may be set to repeat the very same mistakes we made before.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_forum_0911.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. Don't like any of them except a park concept. The reason I like a park is because there are still
human remains there and by incorporating living things, breathing things, and a peaceful environment, it would be a place of contemplation and not a building to be locked out of. It would also show a piece of history to remember. Plus, with the sea levels rising, I believe it is a complete waste of money, given these economic times. I do also think that there is the "we are NOT defeated" thing going on with the push for some sort of buildings. This is arrogant as far as I am concerned. NY needs more gardens. Some running water, a pond, a tree or bush for every one who had died there planted by a family member. I think that would be glorious. And lots and lots of flowers. Roses. All natural. No big pieces of sculptural clutter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
5. Did you ever hear some of the things we called the towers?
Or is it your belief that those slim cigarette boxes improved the skyline? They were HIDEOUS. They were as ugly inside as out. And nobody transferring elevators from one bank to the next point up could ever feel that evacuation was a likely possibility. Not to mention the recirculated air that was clearly visible by mid-afternoon.

And we aren't even discussing the dark shadow those monsters cast on lower Manhattan all the way up thru Greenwich Village.

So ugly is replacing ugly? Not a surprise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onethatcares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
7. I figured it would be just
a large hole with money being funneled into it hand over fist.

Who's paying for those building?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. The land is owned by the Port Authority

I assume that a development group has bid on developing the site and has raised money to build the buildings and rent them out.



the Port Authority gets a hefty fee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Insurance proceeds, Liberty bonds, maybe some of Larry Silverstein's backers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

Last I heard, Larry was still complaining he didn't have enough money to rebuild.

Of course, there is also no demand for the buildings. There is plenty of commercial space available in the New York metropolitan area. There has been a lot of building in mid-town Manhattan, across the river in Jersey City, and elsewhere. The big swinging dicks of finance seem to favor Greenwich and Stamford. You won't find them moving into these buildings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
9. I was kind of hoping for the same thing, one storey higher. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Are you volunteering to work on that top floor?
They were awful buildings. Nelson Rockefeller and John Lindsay's penises sticking up from a sterile plaza.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC