For some time I've been following the work on the Taipei 101 in Taiwan, the tallest building in the world yet.
Then yesterday, I heard that the first building block had been set in place at Ground Zero in New York, with a promise that this will be the tallest building in the world, eventually.
Then they said that it shall be called "Freedom Tower".
When was this decided? How much will it cost? Was this a local decision (NY-mayor) or did it come from the Bush Administration? Isn't all this asking for trouble? I was quite satisfied when the plans just called for a large, fresh green park with some buildings on the far side and a large marble memorial or something in the middle. Kind of a nice complement to Central Park, I thought...
I wonder if the current "Freedom Project"-workers will suddenly start talking Sindarin, Minbari, Esperanto and Breen with eachother?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
When it is blown up in 2033, we can ask whether it was worth it or not.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Not funny.
Posted by Doctor Jonas (Member # 481) on :
But possibly real, and even earlier. This move is calling for another Al-Qaeda bite in the ass. Tall buildings being nice to see from below or above, and all.
This has been transformed from an hommage to the victims to a patriotism and arrogance show. I'm not surprised, though.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I have nothing really against building this thing, even if it's corniness is excessive. I actually think a ground-level memorial would be more appropriate, and less of a target, but I'm not on the council of architects or whatever.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I am told that the majority of the cost of the tower was to be paid from insurance of the destroyed twin towers. I think it is the owners of the properties that are trying to build this tower, and not any governing body. Never once did I see any form of government figuring into construction of this building until today, and even so, I don't think any member of Bush's political team was there. It was all Pataki and Bloomberg.
That's one heck of an insurance payoff.
As for whether or not this is patriotism and arrogance, I'll reserve my judgement. At the very least, they are keeping the original footprints of the twin towers intact.
The only reason why they are building it that high is that the original specs for the building called for it to be 1776 feet (1776 being the year of American independence).
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
There�s a certain phoniness to this kind of overt patriotism.
To me, this is about people trying to wrap themselves in the flag and be more patriotic than the rest of us.
As is calling it the �Freedom Towers.� Freedom from what? Freedom for whom? How does this name honor to the people who died in the WTC on 9/11?
As to the 1776 feet tall thing:
quote:Independence Day speeches could not resist referring to the Freedom Tower as a 1,776-foot building, the main structure will reach only 1,500 feet � still quite a bit higher than the twin towers were � while the television antenna might approach 2,000 feet.
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: There�s a certain phoniness to this kind of overt patriotism.
To me, this is about people trying to wrap themselves in the flag and be more patriotic than the rest of us.
As is calling it the �Freedom Towers.� Freedom from what? Freedom for whom?
The "Fuck Al Queida Towers" would only work with New Yorkers and "world trade" is a touchy subject with thousands of americans that have had their jobs "traded" overseas in return for....well, nothing, really.
Mabye they plan on building the towers to resmble two giant french fries?
Posted by Ultra Klackrent Zlatan Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I wonder where I will be when I hear the news this time.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
A memorial park would have been nice, but it was never going to happen. The real estate is too valuable. And now it's going to be called the Freedom Tower. . . Ugh.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
A memorial park by itself may have been nice, but you already have Battery Park right down the street. As you wrote, 16 acres on an island is a major loss to real estate, so they compromised.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Does this mean that it was originally supposed to be called the "French Tower"?
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doctor Jonas: But possibly real, and even earlier. This move is calling for another Al-Qaeda bite in the ass. Tall buildings being nice to see from below or above, and all.
This has been transformed from an hommage to the victims to a patriotism and arrogance show. I'm not surprised, though.
Though it would certainly present a tempting target, would it really incite a strike that otherwise would not have happened somewhere else? In addition, you may overestimating the ease with which a large building can be destroyed. A previous attack on the WTC (I think it was in 1993, sometime in the early-mid 90s) with a truckload of explosives failed to destroy, it and the method of airplane attack is not a very good one. In addition to the increased security, an airplane can easily be shot down before it gets a chance to crash. As for the design, I think the tops are too slanty. Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I don't think the plan was ever to destroy the towers; just hitting them both was surely statement enough. The WTC design even planned for a collision by an airliner, the problem was they based the contingency around the state of the art for about 1970, namely a Boeing 707. The planes that did hit were larger and carried more fuel. The initial blast stripped away the fireproofing from the girders, which then melted in the heat. Whole floors (originally put in in modular form) gave way, adding to the weight on the ones below. Result: a cascade effect. Al-Qaeda couldn't have aimed to do that if they'd tried.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Leave it to twenty-first century America to respond to terrorism by building itself a nice, new, shiny, biggest-in-the-world phallus.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Good.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
The original 1993 plot was to cause one tower to fall into the other; however, the terrorists had underestimated the strength of the twin towers, which were designed to withstand up to hurricane-force winds.
In the 9/11 plot, Osama bin Laden states on the video released a few years ago by the US government that his plan was that the top floors would collapse, and he did not expect the total destruction (or "success" as he called it) of the center.
Like it or not, any American icon can be a target, whether tall or short. Though the towers were 110 stories tall, the other target, the Pentagon, is only 5 stories tall.
As for the new "phallus" being built, it's more a half-hearted attempt, as you'll note that after the 70th floor or so, it'll just be open structure (by comparison, the Chrysler Building is 77 stories tall).
It's interesting to note that most people seem not to have a problem with the fact that they rebuilt the Pentagon, and people now work where 189 people (including 5 children on board the plane) lost their lives.
What makes one place where people died more sacred than another? When is it right to rebuild, and when is it not?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: What makes one place where people died more sacred than another?
The media.
Posted by Ultra 2 Legit 2 Magnus (Member # 239) on :
And the amount of dead Americans.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith:
quote: What makes one place where people died more sacred than another?
The media.
TH=he families of the survivors nad their remembering the fallen make the diffrence: I just overheard (at an all-nught diner) two waitresses talking about one's upcoming vacation to tour France. One asked the other "are you going to Normandy? That's a battle site right?".
Ug.
Food was good though.
Posted by Ultra 2 Legit 2 Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Survivor's nads.
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
Sioreloaf an ugnaught diner wouldn't serve food palpable to humons?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
TH=he?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I, for one, was all for rebuilding on the site, provided that the footprints were protected. I had this idea of a more or less acute-pyramid-shaped structure (a la that building in San Francisco), taller than the towers at its center, and with open shafts where the towers stood. It would've contained the memory, and a helluva lot of office space. And, properly done, a structure like that would've taken a frickin' nuke to bring down.
But, alas, no real architects proposed anything of the sort, so far as I know. And of the many participants, I was surprised that the Freedom Tower won.
But, I figured that maybe it would grow on me eventually.
It hasn't. That's the most craptastic design ever. It fakes its height whereas the towers stood tall. It is one to try to fill the shoes of two. It is open and airy whereas the towers were skyscraping juggernauts. It radiates an air of artsy-fartsy-ness whereas the towers were bastions of strength.
But, oh well.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...the towers were bastions of strength."
Well, 'til they, y'know, fell over...
Posted by Ultra 2 Legit 2 Magnus (Member # 239) on :
KABLLOOOIE
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
I do like the wind turbine thing in the upper lattice. That's kinda cool. I wonder if it will have some sort of Phalanx AA system installed to blend in with the architecture. Gargoyles w/ laser eyes, perhaps?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Ideally it will be the greenest damn building on the continent, but that is unlikely, I guess.
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
Why green? For camo? Wouldn't that work better in the wild?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Leave it to twenty-first century America to respond to terrorism by building itself a nice, new, shiny, biggest-in-the-world phallus.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)