The new list of WTC replacement building proposals is out, and, unlike the first batch, these show a bit more guts.
Indeed, the contrast is a stark one. Has the zeitgeist changed? Have we gone from fear, bruised, shrinking-back from big buildings to defiant support of them?
Of course, when you go hog wild, you end up with some butt-ugly designs, too, but these at least show some landmark gusto. Bravo.
(via Reenhead)
I would love to watch some of these designs being built. None of them seem to be your straight forward, simple square towers. Very bold. Very strong. Kind of the whole “Were back, and were strong Baby!” statement.
Exactly.
Which, of course, would then be seen as a symbol of American arrogance and hubris, and justification for more mass slaughter of civilians.
Ok, I know that I just returned from my first visit to Manhattan, and I’m not a New Yorker of any kind, but do faux towers really make sense? Would a holographic mother in your kitchen me a fitting memorial to a lost loved one?
One of the reasons I liked the Oklahoma Federal Building Memorial is that it’s about the people, not the structure. I know that these proposals are not for the memorial itself (but the entire 16 block area), but that’s what they seem to be anyway. And an open and empty space in the skyline might just be what we ought to have to remember what happened.
I could see dedicating the whole site to a memorial park. But that idea isn’t even on the table. Assuming that a substantial amount of the site is going to be built up, I’d as soon it be something that will be a notable landmark.
The problem with just a memorial site is this:
We (NYC) lost over a million square feet of office space when the towers came down. We need the revenue generated by that space, else the city is hosed. We face a billion dollar budget gap this year, and up to three billion next year.
Hence the need for office space as well as a memorial. The one I like of this batch looks a bit like the towers in Kuala Lampur (sp?), with the main site left as a park.