12/22/02 – 2:58 am
In response to 'No new WTC will replace the old one but the old WTC'
WTC Replacement Buildings

Comments from Germany are well intended. However, it is naive to supposed that we might replace the twin towers of the WTC with replicas. First of all, they were ugly. Second, they lacked imagination. Third, they were economically impractical. Fourth, and possibly most importantly, they did not fit the human condition. Why not something that at least has some connection with earth? For God's sake, at least a pyramid is connected to the earth in a way that gives us a semblance of security (not that I am suggesting a plain pyramid). Most of architecture, as with most modern endeavors, suffers from insufficient imagination and creativity. As professional engineer with several useful, creative inventions, as well as being a current student of architecture, I am manifestly disappointed with the 6 WTC proposals. Might I suggest one look to the architecture of the Spaniard, Antonio Gaudi, for some inspriration. The minimalist, nihilist garbage we are fed in these times is sick.

better luck on the next round
Steve Perreira steveperreira@yahoo.com
Engineer/Inventor

12/19/02 – 3:25 pm

I was lucky enough to witness first hand the amazing beauty of the World Trade Towers up close on August 11, 2001. My girlfriend and I had hitch-hiked down to New York from Montreal, Quebec to see what was so spectacular about the city. She wanted to see the Statue of Liberty. Myself, the high-rise fanatic? The WTC. We had little money and so decided to sleep on the streets. An adventure, if you will. Night one we slept in Tobin Plaza squished up against the base of the South Tower. Looking up, something seemed so comforting about these two huge, hypnotically shimmering buildings looking down, impenetrable. One month later to the day they were penetrated, and so were my warm memories of those buildings that seemed not only to be part of people's lives, but to be coursing with a life of their own. Anyone who ever worked in them, visited them, read about them, seen pictures of them, noticed them in movies, on television, anyone who never payed any attention to them but now wish they had, has tainted memories of the World Trade Center. Design proposals? You can't replace what the buildings were. You can't replace how amazing they were to myself, and to many others. You'll never replace the awe, and any attempt to do so would be in vain. I wish you could just plant a seed and watch as it grows into a tree. I think that that would be the most meaningful thing that could be done. Hold the lives of the towers and everyone who ever knew they existed, in earthly glory, personified in a simple tree. Unlikely, but beautiful nonetheless. Peace.

Jay thoughtcrime@excite.com
Canada

12/19/02 – 10:23 am
Is that the best the US can achieve ?

I'm very surprised, upset and saddened by those six proposals.

They give the impression they have been through one short meeting with plenty of keywords drawn on a white board. Then some fashioned designers tried their best to achieve something "original" but ended with an awfully conventional result - at least, according to current architectural trends.

The WTC was attacked because it was a symbol. When rebuilt, the new WTC MUST top the previous one in each and every aspect. It should be stronger, taller, more impressive than ever.

It must not become the toy of some eccentric designer in a hurry to leave his name in history.

More ideas and less ego, please.

Stephane Montabert kotrin@yahoo.com
Switzerland

11/29/02 – 11:03 pm
WTC

To recreate the World Trade Centers as they were goes against everything they stood for. Those towers represented the risk and daring of New York and of America as well as their ability to do the impossible. Several of the proposals offer just as much daring and would be incredible monuments to the former towers and those who are never to be forgotten.

J.P Felix cejay82@hotmail.com
Canada

11/23/02 – 6:36 pm
we need to stop mourning & Lift our heads and Hearts

Most of what I see in the plans is remorseful and overly symbolic. I feel that instead of showing sorrow and a feeling of great defeat by terrorists, we should build something that represents a sense of patriotism and strength. If we want to lift the spirits of the people of New York as well as the many other people that were affected in our nation, we need to get back on our feet and start living in the present toward our future, but certainly not in our past. I'm completely in favor of building another skyscraper & another beautiful addition to New York's skyline. I also feel that this would help to motivate the people of our county to get our economy back in a growing possition.

Michael H. Stang mstang@skylineny.com
Skyline Displays, Inc.

10/14/02 –4:29 pm
No new WTC will replace the old one but the old WTC

Now I live all the way over here in Germany but since a little child I came over to New York to visit my family in N.J. If ever there was something I kept in my mind it was the impressive view of the skyline that New York has and of course it was the WTC that I would always look out for. Nothing was more impressive to me back then as in the late days of the WTC. I just can't believe that anybody comes into the living room of the USA and destroys its symbols. But what I cant believe even more is the fact that you give them the confidence that they have won something. I believe everybody who worked in the WTC was proud about working in it. It was not a office building like any other. When you would talk about the USA you would talk about New York and its magic. Part of its magic is its skyline that no city can compete with. And in its center there was the pride of NYC. The Twin Towers. A Complex that was centuries ahead of its time and that would never age. It is something that everybody I talk to over here in Germany can never forget about. There will always be something missing till the end of everybody's life. Dont forget all the victims and their familiy. I believe every one who was killed in the WTC would think just as like. If there is something to replace the old WTC it is the old WTC. Anything else will always remind us of the most terrible day of our life. We all want New York to be as it was in our memories. Please bring us back the pride of New York. Bring back the Twin Towers.

Germany

View response.

09/24/02 – 10:07 am

the proposals are without meaning

09/18/02 –5:33 pm
WTC Official Porposals

America and New Yorkers need the skyline re-created to a similar view. Seeing smaller buildings replacing the twin towers would seems to give supporters of the terrorists something to be proud of - they succeeded in reducing our pride and strength.

A proud, but disappointed American

09/15/02 –4:55 pm
WTC designs

I am not an architect, I'm not a New Yorker but we felt their pain all the way to New Zealand on the other side of the world. Looking at these designs both official and unofficial they all seem to look the same, cold and stark. It is very sad when the final outcome for what will inevitably be a memorial site, will be from some designer whose vision is only putting his name to some emotionless building with no thought to the sacred ground they are building on. What ever they build there should be about rememberance and peace, and hopefully not some ugly state of the art monstrosity.

A M Dunn
Christchurch

The architects and choosing commitee have the difficult task of trying to rebuild something that is impossible to accomplish.

The pride and heart of New York City has been deeply wounded. Therefore many New Yorkers would like to see the towers rebuilt, or another high rise structure to show that New York is not going to cringe or live in fear of terrorism. The reality is that New York as well as the rest of the country now realizes the dangers that lies outside of the US borders; and that significant monuments on U.S. soil can be targets. How many companies, or even individuals will sign a lease for the 121st floor of the newly built World Trade Center? Yes, many of us would like to see it rebuilt. But how many of us would travel to the top again to see the rest of New York?

I am a native New Yorker, born and raised. I have said that no one could know what 9/11 was like if they did not lose someone, or are not a New Yorker. But want New York now wants and needs can and seems to be 2 different things.

I feel that one structure should be built. Signifying the unity of New York because of the recent tragedy. I do not feel that it should be as tall as the fallen Trade Center but should peak it's surrounding buildings. The misconception seems to be that for it to be "grand" it has to be tall. Good luck to Beyer Blinder Belle.

Cory Henry cah32@drexel.edu
Architecture, Drexel University

09/11/02 – 3:53 pm
WTC

These proposals are pretty disappointing. We should be buiding 3 towers that are 120 stories each. I mean, those towers were a symbol of our nation, and we must regain what we once had.

08/18/02 – 5:59 pm
WTC Rebuilding

I think the political agenda that has been displayed is disgusting. The politicians told the architects, Beyer Blinder Belle exactly what they wanted. Although BBB diagreed with the politicians direction, they did what they were asked. When the people did not like the plans, the politicians blasted the architects. BBB was set up.

I think the politicians should not worry about their re-election, and let professionals like BBB and the people decide what is appropriate for the site.

Unfortunately for all of us New Yorkers, the final project will be decided based upon political re-elections and not what is right for the people or the city.

Anonymous New Yorker

08/11/02 –11:15 pm
Open Design Compettition

I saw a lot of new WTC designs by famous architects, but it does not count. As long as LMDC has the close design selection process, nobody can put any design in front of public for voting. All the great designs will be just for entertainment on the web.

The only way is to demand the LMDC to open a design competition. At least all the architects should form a working group to demand for the open design competition of the world trade center by getting support from public and sending petitions to official.

08/08/02 –2:24 pm
You've got to be kidding me

I do believe that the World Trade Center should be rebuilt. But the proposals look like no thought have gone into them and they were just thrown together in an hour or two. I was very dissapointed when I saw them.

This was an event in our history that effected all of us. I myself could not believe it when my professor came into class that day saying that planes are flying into the World Trade Center. I watched the second tower fall down from the roof of a building. And I couldn't believe that just two days before September 11th I walked through that train station. It is these reasons I want to see the WorldTrade Center be rebuilt. The World Trade Center is a big part of this country. To choose from only those six proposals would do a great unjustice to not only NYC but to all those lost in 9/11.

Desiree zegmiester@hotmail.com
NJIT, Newark, B of Arch Student

08/03/02 –6:05 pm

For the last 6 months I've been following the planning guidelines, design debates, and comments in this particular section of Record, regarding rebuilding the WTC site, and what strikes me most is the relative absence of really imaginative, global vision. The public responded so badly to the six design proposals for the simple and obvious reason that such a project requires the "vision thing." But among today's generation of architects and urbanists the vision thing seems in short supply.

Not merely the six 'official' proposals are at fault here. Take a look at the supposedly more creative, speculative proposals offered by currently "hot" architects, exhibited by the Max Protetch gallery in January/February of this year (you can see them all here). With only a few exceptions, none of these projects get to the core of the issue.

The World Trade Center WAS ATTACKED. And the WTC was attacked for a very, very simple reason: it was a SYMBOL. It was a symbol that meant something. In only a few of the proposals did the architects address this issue in a somewhat indirect way. For instance, read Zaha Hadid's short, elegant description of the cultural and economic context (the post-war Long Boom) that lead to the construction of the original WTC.

But like many of the other architects exhibiting, it's clear that Hadid is profoundly ambivelant about both the sociological-functional, hermetic aspect of the traditional skyscraper, and so too she appears ambivalent about the confident post-war, neo-imperialist capitalist culture that produced skyscrapers like the WTC.

In fact, it seems as if almost ALL the architects exhibiting shared this ambivelance. Furthermore, it seems apparent from the six 'official' design proposals presented by the Lower Manhatten Development Corporation, that even some very powerful business and political figures in New York are equally ambivelant. Which means - yes, follow the bitter logic through.... Which means that many, if not most intellectuals, businessmen, politicians, etc. ALSO do not believe in the values, or the worldview, symbolized by the old WTC.

Which means that, at some vague level that I would never be so rash as to precisely specify, many Western intellectuals, architects among them, and and figures of authority actually AGREE with the anti-modernist outlook (if not the methods) of the terrorists.

And so, as so many of those posting to this site state, the designs say it all: the terrorists have won. They have won because the modern West is no longer an optimistic, vibrant civilization, and can therefore no longer produce buildings like the original WTC towers, nor can it dream up equally confident replacements.

But why should anyone feign surprise? For decades now Western culture has been saturated with skeptical postmodernism, usually anti-modernist and relativist in tone, if not explicitly so in detail. The connections between postmodern relativism, political conservatism in international relations, support for illiberal regimes, and toleration of oppressive practices in the Arab world, all of this has been explored at length in Haideh Moghissi's superb short book, Feminism and Islamic fundamentalism : the limits of postmodern analysis. If as Lyotard claims, we are now a civilization that has lost all faith in metanarratives, in particular the modernist, Enlightenment metanarrative of global peace and prosperity through science, technology, trade, and capitalism, then our vunerability as a civilization is more than merely military.

It is absolutely obvious that for the terrorists the World Trade Center symbolized this metanarrative. It is absolutely clear that they see this metanarrative as a profound threat to their way of life. Do we agree with them? Do we still have the courage to say, as Moghissi thinks we should, that some aspects of their traditional way of life SHOULD be questioned, should be threatened, by Enlightenment liberalism? And if we don't have the courage to say this, do we have any right to rebuild at all?

So how about this as a new design brief for the WTC site:

What did the old WTC represent? How could a new complex of buildings on the site re-interpret and re-invigorate its symbology?

And yes, this would mean taking MODERNISM seriously again. It would mean taking seriously the global, universalist aspirations of modernism to create a planetary society based on peace, trade, and prosperity for all.

As one of the previous commentators remarked, Why have none of the monument proposals adressed the multinational nature of the tragedy? People from over 50 nations died in this tragedy... And yet not one of the designs alluded to the planet, the globe.

If 6 months from now architects and planners still present trite, safe post-modernist pastiches, none of them boldly embracing and celebrating the modernist, confident prometheanism which built the World Trade Center in the first place, then one thing will definitely be certain: THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON.

Laurence Koppe
Paris, France

07/29/02 – 5:00 pm
WTC

when NPR annouced all six proposals were rejected, i couldn't resist a fearless cheer in a quiet office. fact is, no matter what's being proposed, majority would criticize for the site has a new found intrinsic meaning. building the original twin towers might sound dumb and unthoughtful, but it's ultimately the strongest statement we could present to the world and especially to the terrorists. new measures should be taken to control flight zones around NYC so no workers would be fear walking into the towers.

when the dome of hagia sophia failed, it's rebuilt; when great wall of china failed to the intruders, it's rebuilt; when st. paul's catheral got wiped out in the london fire of 1666 it's rebuilt. while the twin towers, although might not be comparable to the great architectural accomplishments mentioned, nonetheless deserve the same respect and right to stand as they were before.

K
NYC

07/26/02 – 3:28 pm
Plans of Weakness and Fear

Originally the Towers were built to show world peace through commerce. A symbol. These 6 new designs look more like the hind end of an ostrich with its head in the sand. They are embarassing. I am no New Yorker, but I do know that this is not what a New Yorker attitude would do. These 6 designs symbolize the victory the terrorist will have. Do not let them win!

Maybe a drive should be put together to raise the money for new, bigger, stronger buildings. I'm sure Americans would back it. I know I would. If the fear of a terrorist attack is still on the minds of possible employees in the new buildings, then the top floors of the new towers could be reserved for the military and National Defense. In case another plane is aimed at the buildings, which is highly unlikely, a gun Turret could be put at the top of each building. In the unlikely event that these guns would be used, the American Public would still be happier to have a jet shot down than a city destroyed and thousands of people killed. Architechs, be bold, be strong, and build what the nation and the first world want.

Jason
Los Angeles

07/25/02 – 2:23 pm
Six "mediocre" proposals for the WTC Site...

I am deeply disappointed at the unfair method used in requesting proposals for the Trade Center Site. September 11, 2001 was not only a national tragedy but an international one. Citizens of many countries lost their lives on that day.

In view of this I believe there must be an invitation to registered architects, both national and international to submit design proposals for the redevelopment of said site. How were the architects of the six "mediocre" proposals displayed yesterday selected? Was it based political, business or fraternal connections? How was this narrowed down to six, when in the State of New York alone there are thousands of registered architects?

As a licensed architect in the states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York and the District of Columbia, I speak for the many architects who have been left out of this important competition. In this regard, I suggest that an international competition for the design of said facilities be initiated by your corporation.

Sincerely,
Roderick Nyennatee Lewis, AIA
Registered Architect,

07/22/02 – 11:17 pm
Drop those six concept plans

All 6 plans are a shame. They come up with things that insult New Yorker. They just simply say the terrorist empowers the design of American buildings.

I'm thinking if they want to build like what they proposed, just leave the land empty until we can find someone else who can do the job.

We need to rebuild bigger, taller and stronger buildings. I'm sure that with great ideas of our architects, we can also find a happy medium by building them in such a way that they are memorial themselves.

07/17/02 – 3:42 pm
6 Proposals

Am I the only one who finds it almost insulting that they come out with six proposals? I don't know why, guess it's just because I feel that if they are going to be designing the new WTC they should have at least enough devotion to choose what they like! I mean come on, if you're going to design it, show me what you think is best fitting, and then take suggestions.

Totally uninspired. About as interesting as the bristles on a NYC toothbrush. Save us from curtainwalls to house office cubicles.

WWP