I feel whatever was built on that site was bound to be heavily criticized -- the original World Trade Center buildings certainly were, and they weren't subject to the emotional responsibility of 9/11. But for all the criticism of the new WTC, this documentary gave me a much greater appreciation of the new structure:
This is a long rambling article without any clear point, except that the author doesn't personally care for the tower as much as he might have (if he designed it?). I was deeply skeptical of the "Freedom Tower" (everyone I know in NYC still refers to it by this ridiculous name) design before it was built, but as the thing has been built, it's actually grown on me. The inclined side panels look almost like two towers when the light hits them, reminiscent of the old towers, which I still miss as part of the skyline. It's not my favorite building in the New York skyline – that would be the Chrysler Building – but it's not bad.
I guess that works but the term seems overly broad – WTC 3-7 are also part of the "World Trade Center". So what do you call that building specifically? WTC 1, I guess?
Kinda like when people say they're going to "the city", they mean Manhattan. If you're going to Brooklyn, yes, that's part of New York City, but then you say you're going to Brooklyn, you don't say you're going to "the city".
I usually hear people here in NYC refer to it as "One World Trade Center" which at the same time covers its building number in the complex, and the fact that it is a single tower as opposed to two.
It's not so bad as part of the skyline, but it is horrible from street level. I'm not sure there is much you can do when building a blast resistant base, but man it feels like a bunker. No stores. No windows. Few entrances. It makes that entire block dead.
That's a good point. I've spent almost no time near the building base. Maybe that was what Kimmelman was getting at? His writing is so roundabout that it's not really clear what exactly he's complaining about.
It's a bit buried in the article, but I think that's one of his main points:
>Stripped of prospective cultural institutions, as well as of street life and housing, the plan soon turned into something akin to an old-school office park, destined to die at night — the last thing a young generation of New Yorkers wanted.
America has something of an obsession with single-use areas. Everyone lives in one zone. Commerce goes on in a different zone. Industry somewhere else. It's a big contributing factor in why a lot of places have ended up as dangerous wastelands at night; no one lives there, no one shops there, no shopkeepers keeping an eye on the street, no one out walking the dog or going out for coffee.
So when a new landmark building goes up on a piece of valuable real estate in Manhattan, it's a bit disappointing that the conversation ended up along the lines of "You know what'd be nice here?" "What, a coffee shop and a neighborhood grocery store?" "Nah, a giant bunker."
Not to say it's the worst thing ever, but we could have done so much better.
And it's a shame, especially because Manhattan is likely one of the few U.S. localities with sufficient population density to make mixed-use areas thrive.
When I spend time in Asia, I find it remarkable how well cities like Tokyo [1] and Taipei function.
I learned when buying a condo that mixed commercial/residential buildings are hard to get loans for because Fannie/Freddie won't buy them from banks. NYC is probably its own beast, but in the rest of the US it's a problem.
People claim it's due to historical racism as Blacks tended to be the ones living above commercial spaces.
In my own city, historical mixed-use buildings were run as apartments by slumlords until vouchers allowed low-income people to move out. Then they were vacant, bought up, and redeveloped.
And the banks funding the redevelopment loaned to home buyers (in an attempt to make their original investment pay off) and the subprime lending spree also helped many people get financing. After the credit crash, most of the new developments were as apartments.
Anyhow, were this not a historical district, any new development would have probably followed single-use zoning.
It's unfortunate. They had a real opportunity and instead created a lifeless soulless building that stands in deep contrast to the subtle memorial next door or Calatrava's soaring transit hub. Too many sacrifices had to be made for this tower. The fortifications at the bottom (20 floors of concrete with a glass covering) are hideous and the removal of the decorative aspects to the spire make it look like a giant syringe.
Not to mention we really didn't need the downtown office space. The Financial District is already half the price of Midtown and firms who want a downtown presence are now looking to more exciting neighborhoods for young workers like Chelsea and the East Village.
The spire is there so that the building is respectfully not taller than the old towers, but still can win the stupid "tallest building" guiness record. Typical play to vanity metrics.
No I mean the fact that they neutered the spire. The original design called for a tapered spire. It ended up being built as simple antenna, seemingly with platforms every few stories. It looks unfinished. For a long time I was hoping it was simply unfinished. Turns out it was changed to save $20 million.
It's amazing how symbolic the new WTC tower is of all the events since 9/11. We did something, there's something there, it isn't what anybody really wanted, it was done half-assed, tied up in politics and money for far too long, poorly planned, not a compromise so much as an act of our collective mediocrity...you could be talking about both wars, the security state that's risen up, or the building using any or all of those statements.
It feels better than the gaping wound in the ground that was there for so long. But just like any massive wound leaves a scar that's worse than the original skin, it's not-quite-right in the same way.
I broke down into sobs the first time I walked by the hole, I felt strangely apathetic when I walked by the tower.
Not sure looking at the Shard in London as an example is that good. Its largely empty for a start, an imposition that no one really wanted, a monument to Qatar's money, and out of scale with the city, especially that part.
For a new highrise to be largely empty for a while is not unusual. Certainly not in London. Now Tower 42 was pretty much empty for more than a decade because rental prices were low enough that the landlord decided it wasn't worthwhile to operate most of the building, for example.
As for being "out of scale", London is in the process of getting a long string of highrises that really stand out from their immediate surroundings. I kinda like that - it creates landmarks that can be seen from the other side of town (literally).
"With its hotel, offices, restaurants, apartments and observation deck, it is also an all-in-one mixed-use development, built on a busy transit hub. The point is that something better was possible in Lower Manhattan."
What, exactly? Sure, it came in well above budget and five years late -- but it works just fine in conjunction with the plaza in front of it.
All they need to do now is get the passageway under West street connected to the Fulton Transit Center.
You need a Segway to get around down there. Want a cup of coffee? Just a 10 minute elevator ride and 4 blocks walking to get to only shop in the building. Don't want Patisserie Financier? 4 more blocks, and you have to cross the west side highway.
I've admired this building throughout its construction and reading this critic's postmodern teardown really irked me. I'm a hardcore modernist in that I think a building's elegance is measured by it's functionality. This structure has multiple, in many ways contradictory functional requirements, needing to simultaneously be a supertall office building, monument, and fortress. This is no simple task.
Given these requirements, I think SOM did an excellent job - the building manages to simultaneously be reverent and purposeful. It's clean, modern, and evokes the Twin Towers without parroting them. True, it doesn't have the postmodern panache of the Shard or some rippling Gehry building-sculpture hybrid. But I for one don't admire such deviations from function. Insofar as the critic values postmodern features, that is a matter of taste, not objective civic merit.
Furthermore, I think it is incorrect to conflate its design with other, unfortunate circumstances surrounding its construction (delays, budget, security, politics). The broad strokes of the design have been in place since 2005 (with the admittedly unfortunate scuttling of plans for the base and antenna array).
I'm glad it wasn't made into a ridiculous display of post-modern art, because more often than not, when architects want to show off their creativity, the building ends up being an eyesore many years later. Look at any building made with too much artistic flare 20+ years ago.
The building is beautiful, and will stay looking beautiful for a very long time.
> This structure has multiple, in many ways contradictory functional requirements, needing to simultaneously be a supertall office building, monument, and fortress.
I think the article deliberately questioned a lot of those requirements, to its credit:
> There had been talk after Sept. 11 about the World Trade Center development’s including housing, culture and retail, capitalizing on urban trends and the growing desire for a truer neighborhood, at a human scale, where the windswept plaza at the foot of the twin towers had been.
> But the idea was brushed aside by the political ambitions of former Gov. George E. Pataki of New York, a Republican, and the commercial interests of Larry Silverstein, the developer with a controlling stake at the site, among other forces pressing for a mid-20th-century complex of glass towers surrounding a plaza. Stripped of prospective cultural institutions, as well as of street life and housing, the plan soon turned into something akin to an old-school office park, destined to die at night — the last thing a young generation of New Yorkers wanted. In retrospect, had 1 World Trade been built last, after the site was coaxed back to life (and yes, many added years later), a very different project might have evolved.
So you and the author of the article are talking past each other: you're saying the building is a fine, elegant solution that fulfills the requirements stated, and the author is saying it's an ill-suited building because the initial requirements were bad in the first place.
That's a fair point - the author does spend a fair bit of time questioning the functional requirements themselves. I am not informed enough on urban planning or the circumstances surrounding the site to make a judgement there. I will, however, say that making the building 1) secure and 2) historically aware seem to be non-optional requirements given the nature of the site.
I was more so addressing the critique of the structure itself:
>One World Trade is symmetrical to a fault, stunted at its peak, its heavy corners the opposite of immaterial. There’s no mystery, no unraveling of light, no metamorphosis over time, nothing to hold your gaze
My point is primarily that such traits as those advocated by the critic, that the building be be ‘immaterial', ‘mysterious', and ‘metamorphosing', are highly subjective. I could just as easily state that the building ought to be ‘substantive', ‘familiar', and ’stable'. My architectural preference is for buildings that avoid trying to achieve any of these "qualities" of taste, but rather buildings that deliver elegant solutions to their objective requirements. If ‘mysteriousness’ is a necessary trait in order to achieve the function of the building, then so be it. But the critic simply attacks the building for lacking certain qualities that he has not adequately tied to the purpose and nature of the building.
Yeah, it's not a very good or well-focused article, but it's hard to write convincingly on why a building looks ugly, right?
Was it strictly necessary to make the new WTC tower so secure against terror attack that it looks like a bunker from street level? The original Twin Towers weren't even destroyed from a street-level attack. They couldn't and didn't make the building airplane-proof, and if you're going to bomb something in NYC from street level the WTC is hardly the only or best target. So I think the security requirement was poorly thought through.
As for historical awareness, I think American culture is in the grip of sentimentality and nostalgia. This is the same country that stubbornly rebuilt a gradually sinking city that lays below sea level when it was inevitably destroyed by a hurricane. What's wrong with putting up a tasteful memorial and redeveloping the site in a way that meets the needs of the community?
Yea, at the end of the day there is just a ton of emotion tied up with this site - so you're right in that the security requirements / monumentality of it probably go beyond what the optimal specifications should be. It's kindof a timeless debate, how to balance the emotional with the rational (going way beyond just architecture). The emotional aspect is definitely supercharged in this case.
It's jingoistic and over-the-top (which is surprising when the author is a cynical leftist cartoonist) but I've always been fond of Tim Krieder's essay about his "design proposal for the new WTC" that he wrote back in 2001 just after the towers fell.
I think that Chris Rock's critique of the new WTC is far more down-to-earth and human than the NYT's critique:
"Have you seen the Freedom Tower? You can see it no matter where you at. They should change the name from the Freedom Tower to the ‘Never Going in There Tower' because I’m never going in there. There is no circumstance that will ever get me in that building. Are you kidding me? Does this building duck? What are they thinking? Who’s the corporate sponsor, Target? Stop it! In the same spot? What kind of arrogant, Floyd Mayweather crap is this?…They better put some mandatory [businesses] in there -- stuff you can't get out of -- like the IRS, family court, DMV…I am never going in the Freedom Tower. Hey, I got robbed on 48th and 8th about 20 years ago. I have not been back to 48th and 8th. I am never going in the Freedom Tower. I don’t care if Scarlett Johansson is butt naked on the 89th floor in a plate of ribs. I'm not going in there."
It lacks wow-factor and it is not an iconic addition to the skyline. The Twin Towers (and the Empire State) very much said 'this is New York'. When I first went to New York I very much wanted to go up the Empire State - a visit without going to the top would not have felt complete. I am sure many, many tourists feel the same. However, with the Twin Towers there was somewhere higher to go so tourists would be siphoned off and up there.
The London skyline has redefined itself in recent times to be a bit like some theme park. The 'eye', the 'Gherkin' and the 'Shard' (as well as the 'walkie-talkie' building and 'cheese-grater') are what the skyline is now. The interior of the 'Shard' is one thing, the exterior is something else. I am not a fan of the new novelty London skyline, however, the 'Shard' looks awesome from afar, if you commute in. It has that aspect of awe and wonder that I think the new WTC needed.
How hard is it to have awe and wonder? The Twin Towers were as basic a shape as you can get yet they had it.
How valuable is it worth? Probably the French are best to ask on that, the Eiffel Tower has it but there isn't a lot of rentable space there. Yet the Eiffel Tower is probably one of the best investments in a building ever made, it defines the city and tourists as well as locals love it.
Innovation is important with iconic buildings. The Twin Towers - despite their many flaws - were truly innovative in their construction and in how acre-sized floors were possible without a lot of pillars in the way. Although the most recent London skyline additions are not exactly 'loved', they all innovate. Does this new WTC building innovate? No. Sure, some things are new and improved, e.g. the lifts, but there is no evidence of engineering genius.
As for 'reverence', why should the building stop at the former Twin Tower height? Some brash arrogance with an even taller building should have been the way.
There _are_ some new or recent innovative buildings going up in Manhattan, though. Hearst Tower is quite amazing and has a bunch of innovative systems (it's LEED certified and all that but also has meaningful improvements in comfort and efficiency), and the building going up right now at 10 Hudson Yards is a miracle of CAD that probably could not have been built 10 years ago.
I was a hater of this building for a long time. It is a shame how mediocre the design is in comparison to other recent mega skyscrapers worldwide. It's like a symbol of NYC's and the US's relative decline vs. the rest of the world. (Compare it the Burj Khalifa, for instance.)
But last time I was in NYC I warmed up to the building a bit. Seen from the lower west side around sunset it reflects the light in a pretty gorgeous way. So while the building may not be exceptional, it's not bad either.
I live a block away and push my 5yo, on a Citibike, by its base every morning on our way to the subway. It is not my favorite building in the city (the Chrysler and Woolworth buildings are far more engaging) but it is absolutely iconic. As soon as the observatory deck opens next year, it will become a tourist mecca.
For those in the neighborhood, the big change will be when the other half of the fencing around the 9/11 Memorial Plaza is removed, so that the whole area actually becomes part of the surrounding neighborhoods again for the first time in 50 years. Also, there is a ton of retail going in, none of which has opened yet: http://tribecacitizen.com/2014/11/18/the-restaurants-and-foo...
It's a half mile to the subway, and I walk a lot faster than my 5yo. So I get a Citibike, put the seat at the lowest setting, he holds on to the handlebars, and I walk next to him, pushing the bike. It's not strictly following Citibike's terms of service, but he loves it, and we move much faster.
49 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 99.5 ms ] threadhttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt1586155/
Give it a watch when the Discovery channel re-airs it. They tend to show it each year around 9/11.
Funny - Everyone I know in NYC refers to it as the World Trade Center.
>Stripped of prospective cultural institutions, as well as of street life and housing, the plan soon turned into something akin to an old-school office park, destined to die at night — the last thing a young generation of New Yorkers wanted.
America has something of an obsession with single-use areas. Everyone lives in one zone. Commerce goes on in a different zone. Industry somewhere else. It's a big contributing factor in why a lot of places have ended up as dangerous wastelands at night; no one lives there, no one shops there, no shopkeepers keeping an eye on the street, no one out walking the dog or going out for coffee.
So when a new landmark building goes up on a piece of valuable real estate in Manhattan, it's a bit disappointing that the conversation ended up along the lines of "You know what'd be nice here?" "What, a coffee shop and a neighborhood grocery store?" "Nah, a giant bunker."
Not to say it's the worst thing ever, but we could have done so much better.
When I spend time in Asia, I find it remarkable how well cities like Tokyo [1] and Taipei function.
[1] http://urbankchoze.blogspot.tw/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
People claim it's due to historical racism as Blacks tended to be the ones living above commercial spaces.
In my own city, historical mixed-use buildings were run as apartments by slumlords until vouchers allowed low-income people to move out. Then they were vacant, bought up, and redeveloped.
And the banks funding the redevelopment loaned to home buyers (in an attempt to make their original investment pay off) and the subprime lending spree also helped many people get financing. After the credit crash, most of the new developments were as apartments.
Anyhow, were this not a historical district, any new development would have probably followed single-use zoning.
Not to mention we really didn't need the downtown office space. The Financial District is already half the price of Midtown and firms who want a downtown presence are now looking to more exciting neighborhoods for young workers like Chelsea and the East Village.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023045439045773...
It feels better than the gaping wound in the ground that was there for so long. But just like any massive wound leaves a scar that's worse than the original skin, it's not-quite-right in the same way.
I broke down into sobs the first time I walked by the hole, I felt strangely apathetic when I walked by the tower.
As for being "out of scale", London is in the process of getting a long string of highrises that really stand out from their immediate surroundings. I kinda like that - it creates landmarks that can be seen from the other side of town (literally).
What, exactly? Sure, it came in well above budget and five years late -- but it works just fine in conjunction with the plaza in front of it.
All they need to do now is get the passageway under West street connected to the Fulton Transit Center.
Given these requirements, I think SOM did an excellent job - the building manages to simultaneously be reverent and purposeful. It's clean, modern, and evokes the Twin Towers without parroting them. True, it doesn't have the postmodern panache of the Shard or some rippling Gehry building-sculpture hybrid. But I for one don't admire such deviations from function. Insofar as the critic values postmodern features, that is a matter of taste, not objective civic merit.
Furthermore, I think it is incorrect to conflate its design with other, unfortunate circumstances surrounding its construction (delays, budget, security, politics). The broad strokes of the design have been in place since 2005 (with the admittedly unfortunate scuttling of plans for the base and antenna array).
The building is beautiful, and will stay looking beautiful for a very long time.
I think the article deliberately questioned a lot of those requirements, to its credit:
> There had been talk after Sept. 11 about the World Trade Center development’s including housing, culture and retail, capitalizing on urban trends and the growing desire for a truer neighborhood, at a human scale, where the windswept plaza at the foot of the twin towers had been.
> But the idea was brushed aside by the political ambitions of former Gov. George E. Pataki of New York, a Republican, and the commercial interests of Larry Silverstein, the developer with a controlling stake at the site, among other forces pressing for a mid-20th-century complex of glass towers surrounding a plaza. Stripped of prospective cultural institutions, as well as of street life and housing, the plan soon turned into something akin to an old-school office park, destined to die at night — the last thing a young generation of New Yorkers wanted. In retrospect, had 1 World Trade been built last, after the site was coaxed back to life (and yes, many added years later), a very different project might have evolved.
So you and the author of the article are talking past each other: you're saying the building is a fine, elegant solution that fulfills the requirements stated, and the author is saying it's an ill-suited building because the initial requirements were bad in the first place.
I was more so addressing the critique of the structure itself:
>One World Trade is symmetrical to a fault, stunted at its peak, its heavy corners the opposite of immaterial. There’s no mystery, no unraveling of light, no metamorphosis over time, nothing to hold your gaze
My point is primarily that such traits as those advocated by the critic, that the building be be ‘immaterial', ‘mysterious', and ‘metamorphosing', are highly subjective. I could just as easily state that the building ought to be ‘substantive', ‘familiar', and ’stable'. My architectural preference is for buildings that avoid trying to achieve any of these "qualities" of taste, but rather buildings that deliver elegant solutions to their objective requirements. If ‘mysteriousness’ is a necessary trait in order to achieve the function of the building, then so be it. But the critic simply attacks the building for lacking certain qualities that he has not adequately tied to the purpose and nature of the building.
Was it strictly necessary to make the new WTC tower so secure against terror attack that it looks like a bunker from street level? The original Twin Towers weren't even destroyed from a street-level attack. They couldn't and didn't make the building airplane-proof, and if you're going to bomb something in NYC from street level the WTC is hardly the only or best target. So I think the security requirement was poorly thought through.
As for historical awareness, I think American culture is in the grip of sentimentality and nostalgia. This is the same country that stubbornly rebuilt a gradually sinking city that lays below sea level when it was inevitably destroyed by a hurricane. What's wrong with putting up a tasteful memorial and redeveloping the site in a way that meets the needs of the community?
It's jingoistic and over-the-top (which is surprising when the author is a cynical leftist cartoonist) but I've always been fond of Tim Krieder's essay about his "design proposal for the new WTC" that he wrote back in 2001 just after the towers fell.
"Have you seen the Freedom Tower? You can see it no matter where you at. They should change the name from the Freedom Tower to the ‘Never Going in There Tower' because I’m never going in there. There is no circumstance that will ever get me in that building. Are you kidding me? Does this building duck? What are they thinking? Who’s the corporate sponsor, Target? Stop it! In the same spot? What kind of arrogant, Floyd Mayweather crap is this?…They better put some mandatory [businesses] in there -- stuff you can't get out of -- like the IRS, family court, DMV…I am never going in the Freedom Tower. Hey, I got robbed on 48th and 8th about 20 years ago. I have not been back to 48th and 8th. I am never going in the Freedom Tower. I don’t care if Scarlett Johansson is butt naked on the 89th floor in a plate of ribs. I'm not going in there."
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/snl-monologue-chris-rock-jok...
The London skyline has redefined itself in recent times to be a bit like some theme park. The 'eye', the 'Gherkin' and the 'Shard' (as well as the 'walkie-talkie' building and 'cheese-grater') are what the skyline is now. The interior of the 'Shard' is one thing, the exterior is something else. I am not a fan of the new novelty London skyline, however, the 'Shard' looks awesome from afar, if you commute in. It has that aspect of awe and wonder that I think the new WTC needed.
How hard is it to have awe and wonder? The Twin Towers were as basic a shape as you can get yet they had it.
How valuable is it worth? Probably the French are best to ask on that, the Eiffel Tower has it but there isn't a lot of rentable space there. Yet the Eiffel Tower is probably one of the best investments in a building ever made, it defines the city and tourists as well as locals love it.
Innovation is important with iconic buildings. The Twin Towers - despite their many flaws - were truly innovative in their construction and in how acre-sized floors were possible without a lot of pillars in the way. Although the most recent London skyline additions are not exactly 'loved', they all innovate. Does this new WTC building innovate? No. Sure, some things are new and improved, e.g. the lifts, but there is no evidence of engineering genius.
As for 'reverence', why should the building stop at the former Twin Tower height? Some brash arrogance with an even taller building should have been the way.
But last time I was in NYC I warmed up to the building a bit. Seen from the lower west side around sunset it reflects the light in a pretty gorgeous way. So while the building may not be exceptional, it's not bad either.
For those in the neighborhood, the big change will be when the other half of the fencing around the 9/11 Memorial Plaza is removed, so that the whole area actually becomes part of the surrounding neighborhoods again for the first time in 50 years. Also, there is a ton of retail going in, none of which has opened yet: http://tribecacitizen.com/2014/11/18/the-restaurants-and-foo...
As for the building itself, I like how it is a perfect octagon halfway up, but from the base look like a triangle. Here are my sons at the base: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ttbourn3fi0xiiq/1WTC.jpg?dl=0