I just saw Donald Trump on the news saying that the new replacement buidling is “disgusting” (at home sick and get to watch the news)
I don’t agree with that guy much from hair style on through but agree on this. We have a federation square in Melbourne that uses that new architectural flavour of the month being lots of triangles and angles.
I can’t stand the buidings in Melbourne. What a tragedy imo to build something as important to the future of America using current style architecture. I can understand a fashion statement and how clothes, cars, buildings, sunglasses and everything else moves through fashion.
You can throw away your old sunglasses or wait until they come back in fashion. This building will look ugly for a long time.
Just a guess but maybe Donald just made this statement because he has his own plans for the area.
AFAIK he wants to rebuild the Twin Towers, just taller: Trump pushes own Ground Zero plan
[quote=“Rascal”]Just a guess but maybe Donald just made this statement because he has his own plans for the area.
AFAIK he wants to rebuild the Twin Towers, just taller: Trump pushes own Ground Zero plan[/quote]
Exactly. Would certainly suit his ego to take charge of such a high profile project. As I said above though – I’m not sure how impressed I am with his “Twin Towers But Taller” plan.
I guess part of it is just that I think the amount of resources that go into building ultra-tall Egoscrapers could almost always be put to better use elsewhere (better transportation, more parks, cleaning up the cities in other ways etc.). I do understand the argument that Egoscrapers are symbols that people can be proud of, signposts that a city has “arrived” etc. – I’m just not sure how compelling I find the argument.
Trump is a douchebag, with that “hair.” He is just in it for the PR.
Let the plans stand. Those architects who won the contract know what they are doing. The design looks great. Screw Trump. He knows nothing but his dad’s millions. (Cute wife though. Wonder how long this one will last?)
I think it’s a strange thing that the planners were so insintent that the building be so much taller than the original. I wonder how many people would feel safe working in it. I know I wouldn’t.
I agree that those resources could have been better used. I’m also concerend about the safety issues (from natural to mand-made disasters) working in any tall buildings.
i quite like the trump supported plan. it would be nice to see the familiar shapes again where they were. i don’t think the existing plan really fits into the downtown skyline. but it is unique. it would be much more iconic and futuristic. there is a lot to be said for that, it does have the potential to be truly stunning where the plan trump likes is just recreating the past.
there has been a lot of news lately that the plan may have to be changed for security reasons.
i don’t buy the “resources” argument. it’s new york after all. what would ny be without the scyscraper? people have to work somewhere, i could argue that a larger building represents a more efficient use of available resources.
violet/ajklin, new yorkers are a hardy lot not generally noted for concern about working in tall buildings
what really bugs me is the name. freedom tower or whatnot… sounds like one of those corny military operation names.
[quote=“Cola”]We don’t tell novelists how to write. Why should we tell architects how to design buildings?
They know what they are doing, violet![/quote]
Actually people do tell novelists how to write - editors, critics, readers, etc. And why should we tell architects if their designs look like crap? Sometimes you can be too attached to your own work, particularly when it’s got a touch of the creative to it, to see its flaws. In this case, I think the design looks like a gigantic upside-down fountain pen. Better than the stack of chinese takeout boxes that passes as Taipei 101, sure, but still ugly and stupid.
They have to show us pics in see through for a reason.
The tower will only get uglier as it becomes more solid in real life.
The Japanese are doing great things with that circular building concept with great open park lands on each floor as the building rises.
Just be nice to see a rethink and more fresh idea’s that are not so ugly they have to show them in an unrealistic presentation… Be good to keep Trump away.
Not sure about the enhanced twin tower rebuild. Perhaps the people who died would appreciate something much more than that to honour their memory.
I hear you, Tempo Gain. You are right that my concern about cost is more relevant to someplace like KL or Mumbai than it is to New York. I also see your point about larger buildings reducing the amount of land used, but as I recall (I’m not an expert) the efficiency gains max out at a certain height – and above that it starts becoming a lot less efficient (elevators start taking up large amounds of room, increased construction costs etc.)
At the end of the day, though, it’s not really something I feel strongly about. If NY wants to have their fountain pen building, or the retro Twin Towers II idea … then best of luck to them. shrug
[quote=“Cola”]Look, we don’t tell doctors how to operate. We don’t tell novelists how to write. Why should we tell architects how to design buildings?
They know what they are doing, violet![/quote]
Why the hostility? I don’t think violet’s point was the architectural safety, rather the feelings associated with working in a tall building at that location (i.e. the event that is the reason for putting a new building there).
Maybe that guy shouldn’t comment if he hasn’t seen Donald’s design, though it shouldn’t be difficult to imagine how the (taller) Twin Towers look like.
Here is a picture, taken from the CNN article I posted ealier:
