11/04/03 – 1:47 pm
We don't need to hide

This is about memorial. First stage was secred, we are not in. We don't need to hide or wait. I want to see your proposals. Here is mine www.webconcotions.com

voy

03/26/03 – 12:21 pm
You're All Nuts

Almost all of you have no idea what you are talking about. Daniel's vision of New York is not only appropriate - in scale and density - but also provides a singular understanding of what happened on 911, and what should happen in the future.

It's either this design or Diller + Scofidio's vision - just after 911 - to build nothing, to not "erase the erasure"

03/01/03 – 11:55 pm
New World Trade Center Building(s)

The winning design is what I had in mind, kind of a big finger. Sorry to leave out all the fancy words, just an average American sentiment.

Sal Norris sal@fletcherpublishing.com
West Virginia writer

02/27/03 – 8:40 am
THINK Team's proposal

I have to say that your proposal is truely a fitting memorial. We would forever be reminded of the events that changed the world that fateful September 11th. I think that the idea of having a pair of "Ghost Towers" on the original location of the Twin Towers is a fantastic idea and will effectively serve their purpose for generations to come. That is to never forget! The rest of the design makes me feel that NY is moving forward in spite of what happened on 9-11. The modern and upward reach of the new buildings inspire new confidence in the future and that we can indeed make forward progress despite the actions of a demented few.

Now in response to the winning design by Libeskind. Total garbage. This new design is uglier than the pile of rubble that the WTC created on that day when it collapsed! There is no innovation here, the buildings tell me nothing of the event, and it is clearly obvious that this design represents "designers block" on the part of the architect(s) who obviously stole it from viewing a small set of crystals found on the inside of some geode somewhere. The layout of the buildings are total chaos and, to me, convey the message that the terrorists have indeed won. Anarchy was their goal and anarchy is what this winning (losing) plan represents.

I hope never to have to see this new plan in person and will try to remember NY as it was before Libeskind committed their act terrorism on the city after September 11.

Just my 2? worth...

Albert Dewey
CppSolutions
System Engineer

02/26/03 – 1:50 pm
Hanson and Salingaros Article, "Life, Death and Libeskind"

I think that the duality that the Hanson and Salingaros Article "Life, Death and Libeskind" sets up between the "architecture of life" and the "architecture of death is inherently fautly. First of all, there is the deliberate attempt to categorize and separate the qualities of death from life. Libeskind's architecture isn't about this duality or categorization. His architecture demonstrates more than anything that death is an inherent part of life. Libeskind tells us that dying and suffering are qualities of our existance that we can never be without. To underplay the atrocities and human suffering that occurs in modern societies, especially in the light of recent events would be deliberately ignorant.

The view of life and death as separate and opposing entities is not held by all. Many cultures believe that the transition from life to death could be seen more as a process of regeneration or reincarnation and a natural process of life. One of the central beliefs of Buddhism is, quite simply: "To live is to suffer." I think that this applies more closely to Libeskind's rhetoric, which has consistently esposed the process of "regeneration."

Jeffrey Szeto jeffszeto@yahoo.com
U.C. Berkeley

02/18/03 – 1:40 am
WTC "Plans"

GROTESQUE!!!
I Would not care to have my name associated with any of the designs shown. Is that the best that American and world architects can come up with? If so, the profession is in a truly sorry state.

Dick Kipp
Springfield, IL

02/08/03 – 11:57 am
THINK's design for a "World Culture Center"

Dear Architectural Record:
I recently posted the following response to THINK's open message board, at www.rvapc.com/opinion/, where they actively seek public feedback on their designs.

Dear THINK -
Your design for a "World Culture Center" - an open-lattice structure that echoes the presence of the original twins - was indeed inspired. I particularly liked your analogy to the Eiffel Tower in Paris. Like your design, the Eiffel Tower is a non-commercial structure whose main purpose was to demonstrate innovative structural engineering, and assert France's premier position as the most most Modern of 19th century nations. Any new World Trade Towers should serve precisely the same cultural/technological/symbolic functions, vis-a-vis the United States in the 21st century.

To that end, I would then like to echo some of the comments made previously by others on your message board:

(1) First off, there is no reason in principal why a structure that functions, in part, like the Eiffel Tower, could not also contain office space occupied up to 110 stories and 1400 feet in height.

Here I have in mind a skyscraper design that you are no doubt familiar with, Jean Nouvel's "Tour Sans Fin", an unbuilt skyscraper intended for "La Defense" in Paris. Unlike most skyscrapers, Nouvel's design features varying levels of transparency designed to act as "sky filters", a sequence of glass veils that deliberately play with sunlight, instead of merely blocking it, as most skyscrapers do. Towards the top Nouvel's "Tour Sans Fin" becomes fully transparent, imagined as "disappearing into the clouds".

By extension, any new World Trade Towers could be designed for full occupancy up to 110 stories and 1400 feet, after which said towers could then become more ethereal and skeletal, as per your designs, perhaps topping out at 2000 feet with an observation deck...

In short, I could fully embrace your design if you merely extended its height, to 2000 feet or more, and included occupied office space up to 1400 feet...

(2) The most interesting features of the designs submitted by Richard Meier's group, Foster & Partners, SOM, and the UNITED ARCHITECTS team, were (a) their inclusion at various levels of multiple hanging gardens or "greenhouses", and (b) their re-imagining of vertical urbanism through elevated "skymalls" and multiple horizontal connections between buildings. Both of these innovations reflect the most advanced current thinking in skyscraper design, as summarized in Ken Yeang's recent book, "Reinventing the Skyscraper : A Vertical Theory of Urban Design" (Academy Editions, 2002), and Charles Jenck's recent essay, "The Coming of the Cosmic Skyscraper".

As you know, the central driving idea behind the new "vertical urbanism" is to re-imagine the skyscraper as a series of horizontally inter-connected "village-clusters in the sky", instead of the usual monotonous vertical repetitions of identical floorplates. Your "World Cultural Center" design seems flexible enough to incorporate such innovative urban thinking. You would do both New York and the profession of architecture a tremendous service, if you were to fully integrate the new vertical urbanism into your design.

(3) I go back and forth in my own mind regarding the extent to which new World Trade Towers should visually or symbolically unify with a memorial to the victims of September 11th.

On the one hand, last July's proposals clearly failed, because they antiseptically separated the commercial from the memorial functions of the site, in a manner that bordered on offensive.

On the other hand, like many others, I personally think any new towers should be built OFF the original footprints. Rebuilding off the footprints would give full creative latitude to memorial spatial/sculptural proposals to be developed over the coming year through an open competition - memorial proposals that may, or may not, include the preserved footprints as design elements. Although any new World Trade Towers should indeed function as "living memorials" - yes, they should fully express the spirit of the original World Trade Center, and should respond creatively to the symbolic magnitude of the 9/11 attack - a certain limited functional and/or spatial separation between the memorial versus commercial/cultural areas of the site might serve best, from an economic, technological, and symbolic point of view.

Relocating the Towers off the footprints seems the best policy.

Yours Sincerely,
Laurence Koppe

02/07/03 – 9:06 pm
New WTC Proposals - An Alternative

I've posted this message on another forum but would also like to post it here. I'm trying to get a bit of feedback, opinion, and hopefully support. I am yet another one of those who has come up with their own design for the WTC redevelopment. It probably seems exhausting already -- *another* design by some nobody with no real architectural skill. I beg for just a moments consideration. I really think my plan is both different and good. I have tried hard to make a design which is both triumphant and sombre, each in its place. I have also tried to make a design both human and dignified. I think everyone has had enough of all these sculptural monstrosities posing as buildings. Please have a look: www.american-journey.com

Robert Thompson robby@american-journey.com

02/07/03 – 1:15 pm
Good Gravy!

These designs are like a sharp stick in the eye. None have a Wow! factor, although there sure was a lot of "Wow, man" evident. I'd say a few less hallucinogens and a few more engineers who aren't on an ego trip are in order.

Try understated elegance and good taste and ya might get something worthwhile. Use good basic engineering without a bunch of envelope-pushing, take advantage of the sun, and think PLEASING to the eye, not "The Rise and Fall of Architecture In A Single Glance" and maybe you'll end up with something people will want to embrace. But then, this IS a free country...

Dave Skinner daskinner@century.net
Montana

02/06/03 – 8:30 pm
Submitted Designs

They appear gaudy, ostentatious,gregarious in appearance, and lean toward the exploitation of the horrific event rather than honoring and/or rememberence. Not much of a tribute to the event, but definitely bespeaks the prestige that will come with the winning design. Function follows form or is it form follows function? Too soon we forget.

Rik Lee

02/06/03 – 1:35 pm
I choose NONE OF THE ABOVE designs

How about a beautiful park, restful, a place to reflect, a pond, ducks, a children's petting zoo, outdoor eating areas, gardens, trails, all would be a beautiful tribute to those who died. NYC does NOT need more junky tall buildings that serve nothing else than titilate the architechts who dream them up at the expence of the citizens of NYC.

Lou Ann
Grants Pass, Oregon

02/06/03 – 11:37 am
WTC proposed design submissions

* I am a 62 year old architect in the Chicago area.
* My father and grandfather were noted architects.
* I have created durable & viable solutions to well-defined design problems for 40 years.

In my humble opinion all the solutions presented are pathetic-no better than school design competitions-irrelevant, superficial, pre-conceptions rather than deliberated solutions to a carefully crafted consensus-built definition of the problem.

Artistically egotistical self-aggrandizement and patronizingly arbitrary design solutions are a poor substitute for successfully defining the problem first (both in terms of development economics and public sensibilities over 9/11), then writing a detailed program concept outline, as a framework for the process of working toward the best solution, and THEN creating solution iterations for final selection.

There may be many best solutions but there can be only one best problem definition! Without it, various solutions arise that merely create their own differing problem definitions!

I sent such a preliminary analysis to New York authorities who, as these selections prove, are either incapable or unwilling to demand the right process let alone create right program definition of the problem first.

I suggest that some of the key requirements should probably be:

1. Realistically, the economic aspect of the solution should take priority regarding overall scope and design. The result should stay relevant for the long term ?100 years-not 40 !

2. The MEMORIAL ASPECTS should be INTEGRATED Into the economic aspects of the solution, NOT SEPARATE. The one should CONTAIN the other.

3. The catastrophic and memorial ASPECTS should be unmistakably clear when viewed from the ground, from other buildings, AND at a distance from planes landing locally!

4. The kind of impetuous owner-driven program-definition-error (going for a cheap, more-vs.-better solution, as was sprayed-fireproofed trusses (like a cheap strip center) that turned a building catastrophe into a human tragedy, should not be repeated in another way. A second failed solution, while not repeating the same technical misjudgments, could become a catastrophic failure in other ways - it could be built and become irrelevant, or worse the subject of world-wide ridicule!

So, I ask, where is the program definition? Why isn't THAT being made public? Why isn't that being made the subject and object of a competition FIRST !? THAT'S the important part. THAT'S the determinative part. The rest, the solutions, are the easy part ! After that is done, any competent solution conforming to a strict program definition will be a success on nto the future!

J. Peter Holsman, architect
The Henry K. Holsman (HKH) Institute for Advanced Housing Studies
Northbrook, Ill

02/06/03 – 9:44 am
WTC architecture

They are all so terrible. Creations of a sick mind. Please just make a nice garden and forget all about buildings here. We need peace, not confusion.

Joyce H. Tucker
UTAH

02/06/03 – 9:22 am
WTC

Disgusting, expensive! Just put a beautiful park with a nice memorial in the center. Maybe a fountain, stream, benches, trees. This should be a peaceful place for reflection, not some cold futuristic piece of . . . well you get the idea.

L Smith
college

02/05/03 – 4:58 pm
Balance functions and looking on future

Both Daniel Libeskind and THINK schemes are the top selections from the eight designs. They both realized that the function of the skyscaper has changed after 911. Instead of creating another massive super tall building, they make the building partially functional and partially memorial. They will still be the tallest structure on earth. However, the funtion of the top part of the building has become an icon.

When I look at the rendering of Libeskind's scheme (the one from the harbor), it gave me a new look at New York City. The buildings are so gracefully fit in the empty space of WTC has left out. THINK's design can certainly remind us the pride of the last 30 years. However, it may be the time for us to look farward to a different future. NYC can be different without the twin towers shadows.

Joe Lee joelee@ainigma.net
Lawrence, KS

02/04/03 – 3:28 pm
WTC Design Commentary

The World Trade Center was a marvel of engineering, pushing futuristic design concepts along with functionality and asthetics. The only way to have a true memorial is to memorialize that effort with a new marvel of design. Any mere replication of the previous structure or simple skyscraper to replace office and hotel space with a token 'memorial park' will be a disgrace to the ideas of the original builder and the spirit of those that worked there.

02/01/03 – 3:32 pm
world trade center

I think there is only one architect who deserves to "see" his building on ground zero in new york (sorry for my english but I am dutch): Antoni Gaudi. This is really great in all things. the best off all. and made for it a long time ago. I do hope his project (design) will be choosen! But we will see.

agneta naus-haagmans
Valkenburg The Netherlands

01/31/03 – 7:51 pm
Richard Meier & Partners Architects

The new design/image of this proposed plan is truly original and because the buildings appear "united" it sends a message that "United We Stand. Add to the design the mirrored reflection pools and paved fingers as a memorial to the twin towers, I feel this is truly the design to use.

lmrabuck@epix.net
Tower City, PA

01/30/03 – 7:22 pm
WTC

All of the designs suck. They lack any kind of substance, permanence and monumentality. They exhibit crass and uninspiring designs which assault the eyesight and sensibilities. The twin towere were elegant and inspiring, the proposed replacements are nothing more than partially coordinated heaps of refuse.

Get over the idea that the site is a memorial and put the twin towers BACK, maybe with some augmentations and enhancements. What greater way to express memorials than to thumb your nose at the ones who brought them down by returning them (sort of) but bigger and bolder and even more remarkable than before.

The twin towers defined the New York skyline. Never before has such a defining structure(s) been brought down and no amount of pussyfooting around with goofy plans by inept, conceptually barren, egotistical, demi-architects is going to heal the wound better, than by putting things back the way they were meant to be.

Go get the monumental architecture specialists Skidmore Owings and Merrill and push them hard, not for the aluminum junkpile that was just thrown out (as well it should have been) but for the great, monumental structures they are so famous for. Bring back the all of the old masters who are left and sweat a new architectural statement of monumentality out of them. Let an ikon design an ikon and let them work at it until they get it just right. Then and only then should the reconstruction proceed.

JL

01/30/03 – 7:12 pm
Daniel Libeskind

His designs shows greatness, emotion, function and form. I would say he should be chosen as the final "ARCHITECT OF CHANGE" for WTC. How i wish we could have architects like him here in the Philippines.

RAQuijano raquijano94@hotmail.com
Makati, Philippines

01/18/03– 3:35 pm
WTC site

Build 3 towers, each seemingly identical in outward physical appearance to the original two but structurally sounder within; and without disturbing the footprint of either of the original towers. The rebuilding to the original appearance would indicate American resolve to our way of life, and the additional tower would show that as a nation we are stronger and more capable than we were before.

J R BlueWhiteWildcat@AOL.com
Bucks County, Pennsylvania

01/17/03 – 10:54 am
WTC proposals

Having worked in the WTC for almost 10 years, I have a clear favorite, the Peterson Littenberg plan.

It has been called "unexciting." To me, that's what makes it wonderful -- it quietly fits both the area and the city and does exactly what it should -- puts something both beautiful and functional at the site in a way that doesn't call attention to itself.

That, to me, pays the greatest tribute to those who died there, that they come first, not a building, even one that purports to glorify the fallen.

While visiting tourists might like something more spectacular, trendy one-shot buildings can lose their uniqueness quickly, especially for those who have to live with them.

This plan also has more adaptability, so it can grow as that area expands and changes, as it is bound to do.

New Yorkers, like those who fell, deserve something we can live with every day and will visit and revisit not because it stands out but because it fits.

E. Diamond
East 90's, NYC

01/14/03– 4:53 pm
WTC/Foster & Partners

The World Trade Center must be preserved and reincarnated. Nothing other than a tall, powerful skyscraper will do. The new idea presented by Foster and Partners is the perfect answer. Anything else just won't fit, face it! Whether it be nothing or some other idea, the World Trade Center is and always will be the center of business for the world. Nothing will be the same with the old towers gone, but building two new ones with a modern edge is basic, simple, and above all, smart. New York City deserves that kind of attention, America demands of it, and we will never escape that. We are what we are, the best country in the world. Get over it! It just simply will not ever be the same without some sort of mirrored image in lower Manhattan.

Brian Bramble Beesmax11@hotmail.com
South Jersey

01/14/03– 1:28 pm
Former WTC worker offers opinion

As a former employee of the Port Authority of NY and NJ (PA), I have "lived" in the original towers for over 6 years 1987-1993. Even enduring the first attack in Feb 1993. As a former architect for the PA, I have intimate knowledge of the WTC site. While I completely understand the need to "heal" the wound of the skyline, I think that a new design, such as, Libeskind seems to embrace a new and better approach to a remarkable site without trying to replicate another set of twin towers. The original design had many flaws and also had a difficult time becoming profitable or even desireable in the 1970's. The Libeskind design achieves a "significant" marker on the skyline without the huge requirement of controversial office space (over 60 or 70 floors) that accompany many of the other designs. By developing towers (that can be staged) along the perimeter of the site, the entire central portion of the site can be devoted to a cultural and memorial mix of activites unmatched by the other designs and far surpassing the former "plaza" design.

I understand Alexander Garvin is now the VP of planning for LMDC. I had the pleasure of studying with him at USC in 1994 as he was a guest instructor for a Real Estate Development program. It is my hope that whatever plan is chosen, he will give as much "passion" to this cause as he did in our class.

Dean J. Pernicone caldean@cox.net
California

01/13/03– 4:26 pm
Replacing an American Icon

What the Terrorists Destroyed that day was an important American Icon. We in America have an emotional attachment to what the Twin Towers represented - Our freedom, our power, our strength. Look at what we are all missing without those two massive structures there. That view from the observation deck that millions enjoyed every year. Every New Yorker could look up and see the towers and know where they were in the city. The view from the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge are empty now without them there.

I feel a combination of all the desighns should be used. Although the shapes of the buildings are not very interesting. It should be something with a very simple yet an impressive contribution to the New York Skyline, similar to the Petronis Towers in Malaysia. Also two 1 acre reflecting pools, to honor those Americans that perished that day would create a peaceful, beautiful memorial. All of their names could be engraved in the walls of the pools. The most important way to honor these people is to make sure these structures are the TALLEST in the the world. Remember, Europeans rebuilt structurs in which many people perished after World War 2. Americans should also rebuild it bigger and better. We should also rename this area the World Peace center in remembrance of 9/11. A sidenote: The building could also be equipped with escape parachutes for those who are afraid of working in a tall building. And a military jet should be on call 24 hours a day to protect these buildings. If we don't rebuild these buildings bigger and better we are letting the terrorists win.

Richard Martin Jr. rich@frameastock.com
Fort Myers, Florida

01/13/03– 3:58 pm
Foster and Partners

After reviewing all seven projects, and the various responses listed in this forum... ...I agree with some good points. Should another set of extremely tall buildings be erected? Have the residents and users of Manhattan been surveyed to see if they now enjoy their offices high in their skyscraper buildings after 9/11?... ...however, another slant to this, is that terrorism is meant to change the way we live, and we shouldn't live in fear due to this event. So... ...weigh those options, and what do you come up with?

I think the Foster and Partners project is the only choice (if these seven designs are the only ones to choose from). It retains the simplicity of the original towers, and the public greenspace and memorial that is planned will help that area of Lower Manhattan... ...especially the shops.

I'm curious to see what is built in place of the original WTC. These designers have a tough job, because all of America is watching. The entire world is watching. And the entire Architectural community is critiquing.

Good luck.
Brandon J. Kelly kellybj@email.uc.edu
Cincinnati, Ohio

01/13/03 – 2:01 pm
WTC Foster and Partners

This design should be selected for rebuildind the WTC.

Nilesh Dusane ndusane@hotmail.com
California

01/13/03 – 12:46 pm
libeskind proposal

i do agree with some of the other readers that as a whole the schemes are a little unrealistic and, in some cases, boring. some however are pretty imaginative and i personally think the libeskind proposal stands out as a very elegant solution. 2 aspects of the this scheme catch my eye. one is the fact that the old foundation retaining wall would remain as a sort of ruin, there's something interesting about occupying a ruin, like being at Pompeii. second, i think the idea of a single, thin spire is the best solution to the issue of how high to build. i'm not sure i understand the garden in the spire, but it also sounds very interesting. i have seen libeskind's work and, if that is any indication of what his world trade center would be, i have no question that the quality of design and execution would be flawless.

t.collins
boston

01/12/03 – 11:46 pm
Be consistent with the majesty of NY

The isle of Manhattan boasts such classic structures as the NY Life Building, the Empire State, Chrysler and Customs building, all beautiful spires reaching to the heavens; all symbolic of the architecural style of the times. The WTCs were also symbolic of their time in their scant 70's simplicity. All of the renderings I have just viewed might work well in a far eastern city where all skyscrapers are no more than 20 years old. However, New York City demands a nod to history and majesty that, regretably, none of the renderings I have viewed speak to. I am not suggesting that we must move back in time. I am suggesting that we place a structure on this site that is consistent with the grandeur and grace of the island of Manhattan. We must incorporate the best of the old and the best of the new to erect an enduring memorial that will complement, not overpower our city skyline while simultaneously providing an impactful view with due reverence to the souls resting below.

Best of luck in your efforts.
Sven Paul orav@AOL.com
New York

01/11/03 – 11:04 pm
WTC Competition

The events of 911 were hurtful to the American public. Such a horrific response to the globalising world points to many ills.

Responding in a positive, visionary manner is the best method. What does the future of a global world represent? Repeated memory or new experiences? Cultural imperialism or racial equality? Imbalance of wealth and opportunity or a sharing of growth through collaboration?

An architectural response to the WTC site must be carfeul not to eschew a sense of cultural propriety - what's the right way for things to look, what's culturally acceptable. Also, it must not be too ingrained in one culture's own preoccupations - retail experiences, what's 'new' and 'funky'.

The future global world should be one about sharing technology to create wealth independant of cultural, racial and religious differences that speaks of an inclusive future, for everyone.

One competition entry speaks about this future in this way - Foster's.

It is a visionary and beautiful image of a hopeful future which will help draw people out of difference and into collaboration.

The power of architecture is in its gestures - this grand gesture should be rewarded with construction.

Matthew Norbury (Architectural Graduate) matthewnorbury@hotmail.com
Bligh Voller Nield

01/11/03 – 7:03 pm
Eisenman architects

This is our preferred project. However, one should be aware of wind funneling problems (like the Grande Arche in Paris). Why not have American flags or memorial statues in these openings?

Lauranne

01/09/03 – 6:27 pm
World Trade Center Designs

Although I have followed Richard Meier's work very closely over his career, I would have to say this design is the most idiotic I have ever seen. Foster's design, in my opinion, is not much better. The others all have some interesting characteristics, if you were to take a few of the characteristics from each of the designs and redesign a building. I beleive that although New York is one of the most modern cities in the world, its beginnings and most prosperous times must be recognized. My own design ideas would incorporate not only modern design but also try to give meaning to the designs of the early to mid 1900's. In my opinion, they have brought together some of the greatest architects in the world, and not one of them has succeeded.

01/06/03 – 8:08 pm
WTC Redevelopment

Most of these ideas look like buildings that are in various stages of destruction. On any other site they may work, but at this location my first thought is, "Are they trying to mimic the fallen towers?"

I think the first impression of any built form at this site should not be falling towers.

Thank you,
David K. Smith AIA

12/28/03 – 3:06 pm
Foster + Partners WTC proposal

This design seems to preserve the original foot print of the building in the skyline, and takes the classical image of WTC and elevates it to a modernistic ideal out of all the proposals.

The Foster designs reminds me of the old trade center the most in a more evolved form.

Out of all of them I hope this one is the one that passes. The other proposals stray away from the original memory of the twin towers.

Chris scmltd@hotmail.com
Buffalo, NY

12/28/02 – 7:45 pm
foster and partners

this scheme should be built

iwan jones
london

12/24/02 – 6:00 am
the public park l0 stories above city streets is a great idea

one part of the plan that I thought was great was the public park ten stories above the street. We certainly need to have that greenery on the top of any new buildings.

I am sure many many folks would not work in any tower as tall as the old world trade center anymore so this kind of tall construction seems wasteful.

bk1492@aol.com

12/23/02 – 3:06 pm
Thoughts on 12/18/02 submissions

As a student of architecture, I often find myself pondering the relationships that people have with the built environment. In this particular case, I find myself searching for how ideas of rememberance, peace, and prosperity can come together as one. When looking at the submissions for the "new" WTC from 12/18/02, I feel somewhat pleased. Previous proposal submissions, were often one sided. Some would respond only to the need for new space, while others would respond mostly to the idea having only a memorial. To be realistic and compassionate at the same time, it is obvious that a proposal must respond to both. This is why I feel two of the proposals might be valid.

- The first proposal that I find to be appropriate would have to be the concept set forth by Sir Norman Foster and Parters. This image of a battered, yet unbroken set of towers is very compelling. The simplicity of the memorial is also a very strong idea. The darkness of the WTC footprints are in sharp contrast to the grounds which lie around them. This seemingly intentional lack of architectural elements in the space gives great resemblance to Maya Lin's Vietnam Wall.

- The second proposal that I see as being appropriate would have to be the collaboration bewtween Meier, Eisenman, Gwathmey & Siegal, and Steven Holl. The horizontals between the office towers seem to abstract the image, making it appear more as a monument rather than a series of functioning office space. This move alone gives the proposal a sense of spirituality that this project must have in order to be successful. The forms look as if they are embracing one another for hopes of more stable existence. The verticality of the towers is questionable though. Should they be taller, or perhaps more slender? If this proposal were chosen, I feel that these concerns would be addressed and resolved in further iterations.

As for the other proposals, I feel that they are valid examples of good architecture, but they could be built anywhere. They offer little or no relationship to the events of 9/11.

J. Elder rj_elder@hotmail.com
Architecture, Mississippi State University

12/23/02 – 1:38 pm
speaking of architecture

There's so much discussion about these new proposals. The city is buzzing with architectural assessment, planning evaluation, appropriate contextual response, and acute bereavement for the deceased. Everyone, regardless of their architectural training or lack thereof, is holding open forum in the assembly spaces with which they are familiar. Pubs, buses, auditoriums, break rooms, restaurants, front stoops, etc. Stop and listen some time. At the very least, I thank the designers for bringing architecture out of the academician's musty halls and into the realm of public discussion, at least for a little while. You must admit, there is a power in that.

As for the designs and the relevance of their response to tragedy, public outrage, and much needed urban planning, I applaud their efforts. It is not easy to navigate between infrastructure, circulation, repose, stimulation, and the dissatisfied agony of broken-hearts.

As I read the responses to the schemes, I am annoyed by this continued preoccupation with "tallest" and "largest" as the priority for design criteria in this vital downtown district. While they may be good for boasting, they are relatively useless in the manifestation of daily occupation of an otherwise vacant space, void of interaction on the human scale. People have to live and work here; they won't be viewing it by satellite. The rest of the world may have a vested interest in what is built here, but they will soon find distraction when the dearth of enticing human drama fails to hold their attention. The Great Pyramid of Giza already has a home. Let's leave the mourning of the loss of an entire culture for those that shall replace us.

This site needs revitalization. It needs to draw human occupation. It needs to accomodate and inspire activity of a commercial, recreational, civic, residential, and artistic nature. It needs to provide compelling space for human interaction amongst the living, the dead, and the built environment. It needs to promote growth through both the exchange of ideas and legal tender. It has to facilitate daily living fully integrated with the surrounding city life. Traffic flow and pedestrian accessibilty are of extreme importance. We can't enjoy it if we cannot get there. It will not be just a destination, but also a moment of repose for those journeying to other points within the city. This will keep the site alive and vibrant.

Of all the schemes presented, I feel that the Sky Park by the team, THICK best adresses these concerns and offers the essential gestures to assure compatibility for all concerned. The outdoor space is quite compelling on a human scale, the towers are sleekly proportioned for light conservation (so what if there are three instead of two? Three is a grander testament to growth than a simple replacement of the two that were lost.) It integrates the underground (transportation), streetscape, and building occupation both visually and physically.

How about we support the efforts of thoughtful designers instead of tell them what they are doing wrong? Realize this is the first step in a process; it will take some time. I think they deserve some respect as the professionals responsible for our built environments and charged with the intangible guardianship of our public health.

Darin Norman
NYC

12/19/02 – 9:49 pm
7 Designs - 7 Losers

Is this the best we as Architects can come up with? Please! I hope not.

There are other designs out there aren't there,... Tell me there are????

From what I've seen so far, These seven proposals lack any kind of architectural/human emotion.

As great works of Architecture they're flat and boring, with unrecognizable and incoherent design elements.

Is this what years of Architectural heritage, ingenuity and technical ability has lead us to?

I say Try it again. One more time, with some feeling!

Richard Morongell

12/19/02 – 9:20 pm
New Seven Proposals

There is a clear winner: Peterson/Littenberg

They have executed their plans with more of a sense of "human-scale" and caring for parks and dramatic open-space. It is clear that they have worked not only with architects but also with land-scape architects. The families will be pleased with the peace this plan engenders.

Ed Loosli
Napa Valley, California

12/19/02 – 5:08 pm

I believe that all the proposals brought forth were very good designs, but the one that stands above the rest is design by Daniel Libeskind. He has designed buildings as memorials before and they have been very appropriate, i.e. holocaust museum in berlin. He is a german (non american) architect which some people may have problem with, but his designs are international just like the effects of the attacks.

As for the rebuilding of the WTC as it was before. That is a very shallow and insensitive proposal. The site is to be a reflection of the day and the ideas, not the building. It should serve as a new center of New York but even more so a place of reverence and rememberence, not one of defiance and revenge.

12/19/02 – 3:36 pm
WTC Designs

Personally, I do not think any of the designs really fit. All are too overboard architecturally. I don't know if I'd like to see a tall building there again. It just makes me think that a tall building is more of a target and 9/11 will happen again. I think the design should include a memorial as I believe all have. But I think the building should useful and not just tall and empty. But I personally do not think any of the designs so far fit. I don't mean to take away from all the hard work that has been done and will be done but I think the designs are too extravagant.

June jlgauss@cuyctyengineers.org
Cleveland, OH

12/19/02 – 2:48 pm
The New Designs - December 18

My most favored (new) design proposal is the "Sky Mall" complex done by the THINK team.

I think of it as a modern architectural facelift for NY (especially from the original 6 proposals) in addition to a world class living memorial for all who have suffered the impact of the tragedy.

To me, The Sky Mall is the closest thing to a perfectly balanced and functional symbol representing America to Americas, and making a statement to the world of our boldness, courage, creativity, compassion and vision. I am thrilled to see the designs moving in this direction.

More info here:
www.schwartzarch.com

Glen C. ar@13elieve.com
SF, CA