Which of the proposed designs for the new World Trade Center buildings do you prefer?

The pictures are too small to tell what they look like, and the website doesn't have an obvious link to bigger pictures.

There's another list with bigger pictures at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2587707.stm

If you follow the link I've given, then you can click on each picture to see the slide show for the entry.

I should also point out that you ought to look at the full descriptions on the Renew NYC website before deciding, as it isn't just about the visual appearance of the towers, it's also about the way they've provided for memorial spaces, public amenities, etc.

G

Survey stealer!

I have this idea, I don't know, maybe it is too radical, but I don't think they should be building structures that can't be safely evacuated in an emergency. It was apparent with the first WTC terrorist bombing 10 years ago, that it was impossible to get all of the occupants out of the building within a reasonable amount of time. I think that should be foremost; the safety of the occupants. It would be absurd to build something even larger.

I don't care

I think F.

BTW: werent the original towers destroyed Sept 2001, not 2002. Howin the hell did no one notice that in qual

I don't think re-building the WTC in a fashion that resembles the old WTC would be prudent. This means at the least we need a new location and a new design-- preferably smaller than the old one so as not to look like the old target.

Honestly, I looked through the current designs and I just can't believe how fudging stupid the architects are... Taller buildings? Identical Buildings? It'll be 40 years before someone wants to fudging rent space in those... and for good cause-- airport security is low again and there is nothing stopping the EXACT same thing from happening again. Why not build a small park?

Choice (a) has been all over the newspapers because the designers are Brits. So I choose that one!

Dont be so sure. The amount of people wanting to buy supposedly haunted houses or houses where there have been a tragedy is phenomenal.

I choose (b). It's the prettiest with the most garden. It doesn't have weird-ass looking buildings.

I like B the best.
G looks like a giant tic-tac-toe board.

have not been able to decide that

I really don't like any of them. (And thanks for rounding all that up for us! Nicely done!)

For design only, I like C, F and G. What's a shame is I can't look at those buildings and not worry about their structure being too much of a target by design. That's really a terrible shame, I didn't know that crap had this lasting an effect on my outlook of rebuilding that site.

A park?! You're not serious - oh, business-wise-man to the world's economy (haha). You can't be serious, Cody! Here's a little something for you to run your eyes over. It's the NY Comptroller's report - initial assessment of the revenues lost, missed and projected missed revenues (and also costs) associated with the 9/11 attack.

What kind of monkey bars do you have in mind for this park that might generate the sort of recovery needed for this?

I don't want those horrible monstrosities of slavery and "free trade" of one gets all and all serve one. Osama bin Laden need not have destroyed human lives, and I'd rather have those towers still up today than have even one person die. But as long as they are gone, I want them to STAY gone.

You might take a look at the above reported figures - those "monstrosities" generated quite a bit of revenue in its real estate, and so they had a significant role in the New York economy.

And, just curious: How high does a building need to be constructed before it qualifies as a representation to "slavery"? I'm visiting a client downtown this week, and - you know - I don't want to support that sort of cause.

It's an 'economical illusion' to suggest that building a park will result in any sort of different economical reality than building a building (on this particular location) would. There is a market for so much business in a city, the economy is in a certain condition and can support a certain sq. footage of office space. The economy of the city is basically unaffected by the presence or lack of presence of a particular building on a particular plot.

I didn't suggest not replacing the office space-- somewhere in the city, in some fashion-- but the economy has already caused a 'demand' for office space and presumably it is beeing built, or already has been built, somewhere else. Another possibility is just that rents increased and offices got smaller as people who used to in habit WTC space moved their (remaining) employees to their other locations in the city and divided office space up.

I don't think it's sensible to build a new WTC, and I don't think any plan that has 'retail'
attached to it sounds savory.

Again, it is desirable that the capacity for the city to do business is returned to it's previous levels, somehow, but there are a million ways to manage that. Building a park at the location would help with 'urban renewal' plans... the surrounding property area would slightly increase in value as the land was purchased by individuals who wish to build office space (which can't be built at wtc- now a park)... this would have a dominoe effect, and the business which sold it's lease to allow a bigger building to be built would now need space too... eventually an abandoned building in a really crappy area would turn into a wharehouse.

And, I didn't personal audit the damage estimates, but initially looking at them I don't see them as having any merit what-so-ever... :)

I talked to my Mom who has dealt with $Billion+ accounting figures before and she says that a random guess would have been about as good as any supposed methodology in this situation.

Property loss/damage states 17 billion, when the actual value of the towers is estimated at around 2.156 billion. Where's the other 15 Bil in prop damage? It's an interesting document but I think that it's more of a political one than a scientific or business one...

The merit you're seeking is from the source itself. The City of NY, Office of the Comptroller PDF Report 9/11

Or, the HTML version HTML Report 9/11

The economy of the city is sadly and badly affected by the loss of this particular square footage zoned and offered for business offices. There are many other resources cut off as direct losses to the city itself - parking taxes, motor-vehicle citations and tows, airport fees - believe it or not, our cities budget for us to break these minor infractions.

NY City - in just parking violation fees - declined $45,000,000 (that's millions) this year!

Your suggestion to replace the office space "somewhere in the city" would have you ousted from the Chamber of Commerce in a skipped heartbeat. I worked in a building in Century City - the "newer" financial district of L.A. For our tiny 8-person suite in the Fox Tower building (where "Die Hard" filmed, you seen it?), on the eighth floor, the company paid $22,000/month.

You don't pay for the nice carpet and disfigured artwork in the main lobby, Cody. You pay for the real estate. You would pay over $15,000/month for an unpainted, swamp-cooled 50 sq foot office - the same as you might pay for an entire floor in some other buildings in L.A. But because your stationary and business cards read "9000 Sunset Boulevard", you're going to pay dearly.

It's the address you're after.

(I meant "...to make these minor infractions", not to "break" them - if that's even possible, ha!)

Funny you see it that way. I see any damage estimate made be the city of new york as already having two strikes against it in terms of it's merit. 1) It was done by the government. 2) It was done by an 'interested party', that is to say, a party which potentially will benefit from sympathies derived from it's damage estimate.

Like I said, the 17 billion $ prop damage figure is TOTAL bullcrap. It's got to be made up or something. The structures claimed a mere 2.3 bil in damages, and I think it is self-evident that they accounted for more than 1/5 of the total damage.

Yes, it is much the same here in terms of addresses. The point I'm trying to make though, is, savvy businessman that I am; it's irrelevant to the economy of a region whether a particular, relatively small, piece of land is free to be developed or not. And I don't think you can argue that point...

It's relevant to the land owners... of course, but they might as well sell the land, pocket the 3.5 Bil insurance settlement, and chase other carrots which don't have a vex over them.

I wouldn't lease in the building.

If it is true that (quote) "it's irrelevant to the economy of a region whether a particular, relatively small, piece of land is free to be developed or not"...
Well, since I know it all to be quite different, all I can do is wish I could house a company of my own in your business tax-free environment for sure! Do you waive assessing taxes on that property/land too? Great! How about business licensing for the hundreds of companies that could occupy that "relatively small piece of land" that your city collects in intervals?
From another angle: City cleaning? Trash pick-up? Utilities? Are all those also tax-free operations coming by every morning to service me? Public transit? Zoning, permits? Construction licensing, and all the taxes on that sort of production? All the business lunches of the area the same hundreds of companies will drive? Commerce that's driven by the surrounding activity of the companies? Am I allowed to park anywhere in your small plot of land, or will I be cited, towed and have to fork out $125M per year for that service (like we once had to in the same spot), or fifty cents a pop for meter parking?

Out of all the aspects listed above - only a small fraction of what is driven into a concentrated commercial area like "downtown" anywhere...1) I've argued that point, but only to a small degree of what reality dictates, and 2) (To quote a business-savvy soul we all know, heh heh) to "build a small park" is hardly the reasonable alternative if you want the city to thrive again.

The Parker Brothers knew what they were doing when they allowed their players to build "hotels" on Boardwalk. It came from a simple formula - imitate life.

I can't decide, kinda like G.

E

H.

The point you're missing is that reduced development on one plot of land will be made up for by increased development on other plots.

Basically, 'spacing out' the city by adding parks here and there does in fact have a certain set of effects on the infrastructure of the city, but it is incorrect to assert that these effects will reduce the overall business capacity of the region.

Okay...summaries are due at this point.

From the Office of a Nobody,
NthenSome, Survey Central

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and let you take the number (a number that was at least backed by an earnest disclosure of its origination - ahem!) - the 45BILLION dollar number presented in this official document, and let you reassess the continuing costs throughout 2002 (reported by now, since the city's fiscal year ended in June, 2002) and in FY2003....down by 80%.

Now, if this official city office, who outsourced this analysis of costs and revenue losses, can somehow bury a 500% markup in their findings in just one report, then these officials should be able to erect a 200-story whorehouse, if they want, and provide the services to the city at no charge because even our government should bow down low to talents they've displayed here!

So - to honor your "suspicion" (still see no links or facts from your side of the podium there) - I will decrease their estimated impact by 80%.

That still leaves us with how you intend NY city will recover over 9 BILLION dollars in a fiscal year...with your "small park". Remember, we're talking about this same square footage of property. Or...does New York Mayor Cody "suspect" this "so-called need" is just an "economical illusion" too?

You're a great guy, but please don't ever become King of da' World - your peasants will end up tearing you limb from limb.

Forget about that, I agree that if the capacity to do business isn't restored the city will lose money. However, I don't agree that re-building the towers is the only way (or even a good way) to restore the business doing capacity.

If the towers are NOT reconstructed, there will be increased demand for property as a result of the business needs of the city. This will result in higher prices. These higher prices will cause developers to invest in OTHER projects; these OTHER projects will restore the office space and therefore all the revenue you are talking about.

If we turn it into a park, the 'big money' interest which inhabited the location now needs to find a new plot... they are going to look far and wide and ultimately will end up choosing to put their money into a less-than-ideal district (or the 'less than ideal' edges of a nice district). This new business in the region will be good for the district and help clean it up-- at the same time, the park isn't going to be 'bad' for the district where WTC was.

This is the whole flaw in the philosophy of cities-- when you build a financial district, you build a ghetto somewhere else. The key is to allow businesses room to grow, while at the same time FORCING THEM to invest in less desirable regions (thereby improving them) by limiting the development of property through zoning. This is what other cities do and why other cities are consistently viewed as more pleasant than NYC.

E. I like the twin tower thing still, although they may as well stick up a giant target.

I think that G is horrid - it reminds me of a dollar sign for some reason - hardly the best imagery to use.....I'm not keen on A. B looks like something out of a bad sci-fi movie - in particular something comic booky like Judge Dredd. The same goes for D. I quite like F having looked at all the different representations of it on that website - I think it would actually fit quite well into the skyline. E is probably my favourite aesthetically, but I can't quite see how it's going to work practically. C looks okay inside, but from the outside it looks a lot like an industrial cooling tower.

Basically then, I'm torn between E and F. I'm going to say F, but E would be good if I thought it could definetly work.

Saw Ground zero last week!!

Very sad

They all look nice!

I don't think the WTC should be rebuilt, but that's just my opinion.

I agree.

I just heard the German THINK design won.
Arenīt they against the war? What irony!

No, you fool. Libeskind won.

He's the guy that designed the Imperial War Museum in Manchester. It's a rubbishy building. Doesn't look as good as it could from the outside and inside it's all small corners so that the space can't be used very easily.

Then why was his design chosen?

Because I didn't get to decide who won!

I bet Blair isn't consulting you either!

Nope. He's sticking to his guns despite 198 MPs voting against the governement in protest. My MP (Helen Jackson) was one of them, I'm glad to say.

He needed the Conservatives to get enough votes, right? The traitor!

Not quite I think, but it was a very impressive revolt. The vote was taken under a three-line-whip on the Labour MPs which basically means that the leadership ordered them to vote their way. Then they didn't! Hoorah for democracy

I like C!!!!!!!!!!

I haven't read any of the articles here, so don't know what the Architects have in mind for safety, but very much agree with your comment.

Back in the early 90s, when the first terrorist attack against the WTC occurred, I was working for a commercial property management company. I read a very interesting article in one of the trade journals, which was written by the on-site staff. The whole story was described in some detail, from the perspective of our industry. I couldn't help thinking at the time, that constructing buildings of such a size that it made emergency evacuation impossible, was absolutely criminal! The thing is, once a building gets so big, it doesn't matter what kind of safety equipment and fixtures it has; if the building can't be evacuated in a reasonable amount of time it isn't safe!

Buildings that large couldn't possibly provide the necessary number of stairwells for fire escape for the number of occupants. The entire floor-plan would be nothing but stairwells!

Your right....I am thinking as usual, it's all about making money and forget about personal safety

I suspect it has more to do with egos...who has the biggest phallic symbol...

Ego...that too