posted
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?
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
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).
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
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.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
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
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
Leave it to twenty-first century America to respond to terrorism by building itself a nice, new, shiny, biggest-in-the-world phallus.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
