Please, REC this Yahoo! Story RE Trump's Twin Towers campaign!!!

[UdoKier]

I know some of you guys disagree with this plan, but like most Americans and most New Yorkers, I want the towers back more or less as they were. I hate the Libeskind Freedom Tower design.

Please REC this Yahoo story and get it the attention it deserves.

For once, I agree with The Donald.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050518/ts_alt_afp/usattackswtctrump_050518165427


Describing the Freedom Tower as an "empty skeleton," Trump said its construction would be a capitulation.

"If we rebuild the World Trade Center in the form of a skeleton ... the terrorists win. It's that bad," he told reporters gathered in the lobby of his 5th Avenue Trump Towers headquarters on Manhattan.

The design put forward by Trump and his structural engineer Kenneth Gardner, essentially offers a modified version of the original twin towers, erected in the early 1970s.

The replacements would be at least 1,475-feet tall, more than 100 feet higher than their previous incarnations. The new North Tower would also boast a 383-foot communications mast.


The designers' website:

http://www.triroc.com/wtc/

[David Dunham]

1. Bad Idea. They will Target No. 1 for Terrorists from the day they open.

[rocktivity]

3. They'll target WHATEVER replaces the towers when it opens.

Even if it looked like that tic-tac-toe grid that one of the architects submitted--remember that one? I don't blame you.

Somebody suggested four 50-story towers a while ago, I've always like that idea.

:headbang:
rocknation

[UdoKier]

5. Hell, *I* would target that tic-tac-toe grid thing.

Damn that was ugly.

[UdoKier]

4. Silly notion. That mode of attack is nigh on impossible now.

Besides, without the WTC, there is the Empire State Building, The Transamerica Pyramid, the Golden Gate Bridge. There is always a "#1 target".

And what make you think they wouldn't target the hideously ugly "Freedom Tower"?

[unblock]

9. there's more than one "mode of attack". the wtc was attacked twice

it survived a bombing in 1993, remember?

just because we would like to think that a plane attack will never succeed again (not entirely a given, especially when folks in the government are involved) doesn't mean it can't be attacked some other way.

i, for one, would NEVER work in a virtually identically rebuilt wtc, though i would certainly consider working in the freedom tower or other distinct design.

there were and are some specific things about the wtc design that made it a desireable target.

[UdoKier]

11. The vast majority of New Yorkers and Americans disagree with you.

I would work there, or even live there.

You cannot live your life planned around fear. That is what the terrorists (the BFEE in particular) want.

[unblock]

15. don't lock your front door, then, just because there are burglers

unlike most people, apparently, i try to manage the risks i take. call it what you will. i'll stand up for what's important if i have no alternative or if it's worth the risk. but it makes no sense to do something that would actually provoke an attack, when there are plenty of other worthwhile designs.

when most buildings are leveled, regardless of the reason, they are rarely rebuilt exactly as before.

and i am VERY sick of hearing "that's what the terrorists want". that's almost as annoying and useless as "that's what god wants".

[UdoKier]

18. Locking your door is common sense.

Living in a hobbit-hole rather than a proper house for fear of burglars is paranoid and just stupid.

If someone burned down your house, would you rebuild it in a diminished fashion out of fear?

[unblock]

22. yes, and not building a provocative tower (or two) is common sense

and avoiding that one building is hardly analogous to living in a hobbit-hole.

if someone burned down my house out of randomness or whatever, yes, i'd rebuild it undiminished.

but if they burned it in part because there was something about the design that fanned their rage, than i might reconsider that aspect of it, at a minimum.

i might also move from the neighborhood, too.

[UdoKier]

25. They didn't attack the WTC because of the design.

They attacked it because it was symbolic of US dominance over world commerce, and because it would produce a lot of victims.

The Freedom Tower would still be a target, it would just be an uglier one.

[unblock]

32. the design was indeed a factor, albeit hardly the only one

the design was somewhat evocative of arabic mosques, and this was part of what fanned the flames. the height also had a lot to do with it, for more than one reason.

personally, i rather liked the 4 50-story tower plan, for more than one reason.

[Generator]

35. Evocative of a mosque?

Huh? Okay...that's your opinion. That's one of the weirdest describtions I've ever heard. So if we build something that is anything like what their religion holds sacred that's a target for destruction. Sorry..this just pissed me off. Religion in general as an excuse for murder pisses me off-but I know that's not your point. Still...CREEPY. And yes, I once lived in New York and have actually spent time in the towers.

[unblock]

37. i'm not an architectural expert, but i saw many reports about the building

both before and after 9/11 that said there was something mosque-like about the shape of the vertical lines that ran up the length of the towers, with an s-curve near the lower floors. i have no expertise to confirm or refute this, but as i said, there were many such reports.

obviously, this is not remotely an excuse for an attack, and i share in your disgust at the notion that this might have encouraged an attack.


all the same, some design that had, say, what looked vaguely like a cross or a star of david with a slash through it would obviously be offensive to christians or jews, and it would be asking for trouble to build that sort of thing. thinking about cultural sensitivity is hardly caving to terrorists.

[ldf]

26. fine, the rest of us will stay

and continue to live our lives.

excellent building plan! i hope it gathers support.

i have been back downtown only a few times since 9-11-01.

the scar against the skyline is still like a kick in the stomach. i'll go back when we have faced the fear and rebuilt something worthy of we americans who are still here, and the americans that died there.

the best memorial is to rebuild, bigger and better. we should NOT tuck our tails between our legs and slink off, building a pathetic excuse to replace the mainstay of new york's skyline.

those who are afraid should consider living elswhere.

[smartvoter]

2. I made a lot of people angry by saying the best move would be to

rebuild them exactly like they were before.

[rodeodance]

6. ok--bring 'em on--is the message Donald is sending to al-quida --

I do not agree with rebuilding the same (but stronger)--it is a dangerous move!!

[UdoKier]

8. Nonsense. Potential attacks should not be a consideration.

At least no more than they are with any other building.

No matter what is there. it will be a target. Better it be a treasured landmark than an ugly reminder of what we've been robbed of.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

7. As a frequent NYC visitor, I agree with The Donald...

By the way, what ever happened in the fight over saving The Plaza Hotel?

[TwentyFive]

14. I also agree with Donald Trump, you & others on this board

NYC is about skyscrapers. Making the skeleton thing is going overboard and wallowing in self pity.

I think the only true way to memorialize those who lost their lives is to find (and prosecute) those who masterminded the attack.

[WLKjr]

46. what he should do is build again, but this time stronger

make the buildings capable of taking a direct hit but still stand afterwards. ultimate act of defiance, it's what america is all about.

[Nite Owl]

10. Done

I think the Donald is right on this too.

[musette_sf]

19. Done too

and I agree too. It will be fun to watch them go up again. I enjoyed watching them go up the first time.

[Taxloss]

12. I agree with Donald.

I think the Libeskind Freedom Tower is attractive, but it is mostly artifice to achieve height and that's wrong. Make it a better, bigger, useful building. Restore the Twins.

[UdoKier]

52. It's not so much the Tower I hate(although I hate the empty skeleton part)

It's the way it looks with the other new buildings. Like a haphazard collection of shards of broken glass.

Not beautiful and doesn't fit in with the skyline.

[Taxloss]

54. Yes, it's a jumble. A bad jumble.

The memorial, I like a lot. Soothing and appropriate. The tower has grace, at least the original design did (it is being heavily altered behind the scenes). But it is a big fake, a lot of useless height at the top to reach the iconic 1776ft. A phony, a shard of hubris.

[DinahMoeHum]

13. Whatever is built damn well better have plans for rooftop rescue

and the NYPD/FDNY better have those plans too.

Sorry, I do NOT want to hear that it can't be done. Find a way.

[ohio_liberal]

16. Donald Trump makes me want to hurl

But I have to agree that the 'Freedom Towers' are hideous. I like his guy's design better.

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. Um, no.

Trump has a business angle; that line "If we rebuild the World Trade Center in the form of a skeleton ... the terrorists win. It's that bad," is utter absurdity. More like "If we rebuild the World Trade Center in the form of a skeleton, there's a hell of a lot of potential prime square footage in the Manhattan financial district that's not being used."

Trust me, this is about the money for Trump. And anyone who's enough of a scumfuck to use the phrase "if we do X, then the terrorists will have won" doesn't deserve as much as a hearing; that kind of crude, blatant emotional manipulation of one's target audience, coming from a real-estate magnate who, for all we know, may stand to profit by the plan he's putting forth, does not engender my sympathy or approval.

[kevin881]

40. couldnt agree with you more. -nt

[DS1]

71. If it meant getting the contract to build the next Towers, Trump would

even legally change his name to "Let's Roll" :eyes:

He's an ass, don't give him shit, don't watch his fucking clown tv show full of suckass losers, don't buy his fucking T-Shirts, don't attend his tacky casinos.

:puke:

[yurbud]

20. Attack the same target again, get diminishing return

unless you didn't succeed the first time.

I think the Bush people know this, and will choose a different location.

If they do go back to NYC (which I doubt they will) it would require a major escalation.

[Sleepless In NY]

21. UdoKier done... want them back too

thanks for this thread.

[UdoKier]

24. Thanks for the support.

Hope you sleep better when they are back...

[The Animator]

23. Oooh... Long zip chords to the rooftops of surrounding buildings...

..that would be fun. Or perhaps a giant robotic monkey, to climb up grab some people and climb back down, then back up again... Even better, said giant monkey can swat the planes down before they even hit the towers.

[Lannes]

28. Twin Towers yes but not a carbon copy of the old one

I used to work at the WTC before 2001 and know some people who lost their lives there.I wish I could turn back the clock and erase the last 4 years and everything that happened as a result of it but I cant and I believe that putting up a practical xerox of the old twin towers isnt the way to go.

I do like the idea of putting up a new twin towers with a clearly more modern interpretation,some thing that says that we remember the past but are looking towards the future.The design they are proposing is saying(to me anyway)lets pretend it never happened.

Ive read some of the victims families are for it but they have a closer tie to Sept 11 than I do but with all due respect,I disagree with this design.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

70. Keith O

Has the most wonderful idea. At least I think so. Here's his article on it

The best way - the only way - to further soothe the pain is, as the proponents including Donald Trump are suggesting, to rebuild it as it was. Which brings me to my caveat.

I'd use the original blueprints and design the �new� Trade Center exactly as it had been. But I'd insist that one of the towers be exactly 229 feet, four inches shorter than the other. It's an uncomplicated gimmick to guarantee remembrance. Because, as long as these new towers would stand, someone unaware would ask, �why is one of them shorter than the other?� Whereupon an old-timer could explain, solemnly, that the difference between the heights of the towers is intentional - it's exactly 2,752 inches.

One inch for each of the victims.

It's all the memorial we really need.

[Lauri16]

27. I do agree that they should be rebuilt the same

as before. The whole knee-jerk, Freedom Tower thing was just to much. Like the renaming of french fries.

I don't think they should be built taller, though. Even though it's 'only' 100ft, I think they should be done exactly as they were before.

[UdoKier]

30. I think that's mostly cellular antenna.

I think they are to be one story taller at the most.

[Lauri16]

31. oh okay

I wasn't sure about that. Thanx!:)

[ronnykmarshall]

36. and they won't be on the same spots as old twins.

I really love this idea.

The "footprints" from the old towers will remain untouched and the "twins" will be reborn.

I say, go for it.

[librechik]

29. I wanted a green memorial park, a reflecting pond, and no buildings

but commerce must go on, no matter how many innocents die!

feh--I'm not even a resident New Yorker, so who cares what I think. I hate to see greedy fascists fighting over rags and bones.

[yurbud]

33. I Liked first temp display: columns of light at night

[musette_sf]

101. Nightly beacon now at

69th Street Pier, Bay Ridge.

NEW YORK -- A 25-foot-tall bronze memorial was unveiled Monday in Brooklyn in honor of the borough's 283 victims of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attack.

The "Beacon" memorial is located in the shadow of lower Manhattan and the Statue of Liberty on Veteran's Pier at 69th Street, which served as an evacuation site after the 2001 attack. It is shaped like one of the speaking trumpets once used by New York volunteer firefighters to amplify warnings and instructions given to crowds.

A beacon of light will shine from the top of the memorial from 9 to 11 every night, according to a release from Brooklyn Remembers Inc., a nonprofit group that said it raised nearly $200,000 to build and maintain the memorial.

http://www.wnbc.com/news/4496391/detail.html

[ronnykmarshall]

34. I agree 1000000000%!!

I can't stand the planned replacement.

Re-build the towers!!

[kevin881]

38. Trump has terrible taste. The WTC was *no* architectural masterpiece.

I understand the psychological reasons for rebuilding the WTC, and the vacuum left by its absence.

However, lets not talk "design," with people who do not understand it (Trump being one). There is a science and art to design that most here are unaware of. The original WTC was... not a good looking building from an architecural standpoint. It was mediocre at best.

Libeskind's design is not ugly, and it is not empty... and it is more than just the "tower." It is a complete design for an urban campus... and it works well as such.

Lets not call the "triroc" people designers, either. They have duplicated the original WTC, so that is hardly design... its imitation. The other buildings in their plan, just suck. They look like typical office-multiplexes in the middle of a suburban sprawl. In short, uninspired.

Unless you are an architect, and have the vocabulary to express what you like or dislike about something, please dont throw your uneducated opinions out there. Defining beauty (or ugly) is a lot harder than your emotional response.

[TrogL]

42. The design was crap

If fell down because of its design flaws.

The market forces that required buildings those big are no longer in evidence.

I liked the new designs with the cultural centres.

[UdoKier]

43. Huh?

"The market forces that required buildings those big are no longer in evidence."

If that's the case, why were they rented to 100% capacity on 9-11-01?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[UdoKier]

65. Funny, but that's exactly what you've been doing.

You're a veritable storehouse of architectural knowledge, and yet your argument has been "The Libeskind design is better. I know because I'm an architect and your opinions aren't worth a damn because you're so ignorant."

You assume none of us have a background in design. I did graduate from a design college, although focused more on graphic design - but I don't think that makes me any more or less qualified to give an opinion on an architectural design, or a work of art than my 7-year old.

Most people have an intuitive understanding of beauty. I'm not saying that the Libeskind design is utterly lacking it, but the generic buildings surrounding it do nothing to enhance it, and their jumbled placement gives a jagged, broken impression. It also completely ignores the sentimental factors which ARE important in regards to this site.

I'm sure he hopes this venture is profitable. So do I,even if I have no vested interest.

So what have you done to validate your position that the Libeskind design (also chosen from the other entries by architectural philistines) is so far superior to the complete design being presented by Triroc? Are you just too above "educating" all of us neanderthals?

[kevin881]

67. first off, if you had asked....

I would have been more than happy to define what is better about the libeskind design, vs the triroc. However, it was not presented in that context. I was explaining why the triroc design is bad, and why this "trump" movement is stupid.

second, there is no intuitive understanding of beauty. beauty is entirely subjective... you impress me as someone who would love a neo-classical design.


Here is a forum that shares your view on libeskind's design.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001238.html
Perhaps you are on the wrong site, as we are progressive here... and in every sense of the word. Progressive = move forward. Think about what your "rebuilding" suggestion for WTC means culturally and politically.


nevertheless, I will not spend time telling you why libeskind's design is great: quite honestly it isnt. I prefered the "THINK" design for ground zero... as did many of my collegues.

The point is that it is better than the original WTC, and much better than the revisionist triroc...

[UdoKier]

69. Uh huh.

"Perhaps you are on the wrong site, as we are progressive here... and in every sense of the word. Progressive = move forward. Think about what your "rebuilding" suggestion for WTC means culturally and politically."

3/4ths of the people in the poll agreed with me. so I guess we're all just burnt-orange Stucco McMansion loving, Escalade-driving, GAP-crap wearing tasteless freeper clods with wrap-around reflective shades, who wouldn't know the difference between Fallingwater and the Watergate.


But seriously, I don't think the fact that the majority prefers this kind of proposal makes me right and the 'Shattered Glass' promoters wrong, but I do think the voice of the people should be at least listened to, and it has been utterly and completely ignored by the Governor and the Port Authority from day one of the rebuilding process, and that's shameful.

[Batgirl]

59. "why does everyone think they have a right to an opinion?"

You, as a "practicing architect" are much more qualified to have an opinion. That is certainly one of the most persuasive arguments I've heard on the internet.

This speech sounds like something you'd fantasize about delivering to a dissatisfied client. Who would then recoil in shame at being smote with unadulterated Truth.

[kevin881]

61. no. read what I wrote, not what you think I meant.

everyone is entitled to an opinion on whatever they want. not all opinions can be equally weighted. some are based on an intellectual process... others less so.

my statement is that someone who is educated in architecure would have a more weighted opinion on a piece of architecure. is this not easy enough to see? perhaps we should ask a 7 year old kid to decide what "good and bad" buildings are.

oh, and my "speech" is not something I fantasize about. I wont take on clients who dont value architecure as art. thus far, i have had no complaints, and I get my fair share of respect in the community.

if someone comes to me and asks for a "prairie style" reproduction house, I refer them elsewhere.

I dont imitate other's designs. nobody should...

[Batgirl]

66. Dear Howard Roark

"someone who is educated would have a more weighted opinion on a piece of architecture." So you must dole out your very limited supply of civility and respect for other architects. Except for the one who designed WTC.

Oh and that one guy, Skeevy Keating, who took credit for your ideas in A. School.

It's understandable you'd feel bitter and unacknowledged, but I think you should settle down, take deep breaths, and remember what happened last time you got really pissed over a perceived architectural abomination...blowing up an entire complex just because "those weren't the bathroom fixtures I picked out" blah blah blah...whatever. I'm sure you've learned your lesson since then, and would never blow up a building just because it didn't live up to your standards, which I'm sure you could outline for us in a few thousand pages or so...although there've been those few witnesses over the years, disgruntled ex-employees mostly, who've supposedly heard you muttering something that sounded remarkly similar to "Yamasaki's next" -- but of course, this has never been verified.

[kevin881]

68. heheh.

okay batgirl. rand references aside... what is your point?

do doctors not confer with other doctors about medical cases? do lawyers not do the same for difficult cases?

i guess the arts are the only professions where our expertise is at the mercy of people who know nothing about them.

[Batgirl]

72. well, if I may just point out

you laughed at my little comedy styling. BUT, what you probably don't know, is that I have a DOCTORATE from Clown College, and have traveled with the circus to most of the lower 48, whereas, you can't make a similar claim...therefore your opinion on my joke isn't as heavily weighted as someone with a different resume...but maybe I won't hold that over your head, IF I'm feeling charitable.

At any rate, I've had firsthand experience with boneheaded medical diagnoses, and I've seen many atrocious buildings littering the landscape, so it appears that doctors and architects, when offering their opinions, might want to cultivate a less Zeus-like attitude.

[kevin881]

73. congrats on clown college...

i never did get admitted.

yes, there are terribly bad buildings around... more bad than good actually.

let me share with you one of my favorite "good" high rise buildings:

it is the "bank of china tower" by american architect I.M. Pei

[UdoKier]

84. Just so you know, I didn't alert on your comments.

And I don't see why they were deleted. I disagree completely with them, but you were certainly within the bounds of civility.

What's with the overzealous post deletion?

[Batgirl]

86. me neither, even though you were a little Rude

and some of your comments would have been unacceptable if we were at a tea party.

[UdoKier]

87. That's why I don't like overly polite social gatherings.

Sitting around telling others only what they want to hear is dishonest and insulting to all involved.

A rap session where people are frank but civil and say what they really think is much more my speed.

[Mugweed]

48. Bullshit

That was perfect "Utilitarian" design.

[kevin881]

53. "what" was the perfect utilitarian design?

sounds like you are the one bullshitting.

by definition, "utilitarian" means "usable." What does the aesthetic have to do with the usability? Nothing.

If that was the case, why not clad the building in something like cardboard? why is it that the original WTC was dressed up with such a gothic-derivitave skin?

I dont argue the form of the buildings. If you want to see that exact form executed well, look at the AEON Building in Chicago.

perfect? I have yet to see anything on this planet be perfect.

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. As a born and raised New Yorker

(New York City public schools K-12, state universities after that), who was within three blocks of the Trade Center for most of the events of 9/11, I think Trump's plan is thre stupidest fucking thing I ever heard.

And I think Liebeskind's design is brilliant. The so-called skeleton is not a "capitulation to the terrorists," but rather a mark of absence that allows reflection on the event in the public memory. To rebuild exactly as was destroys the public memory by pretending that the awful events of that morning never happened. It is ridiculous, childish, and self-defeating. Not to mention the practicval stupidity of it.

I'd also like to see a poll that says "most New Yorkers" want the towers back.

[kevin881]

41. absoultely right.

"Trump's plan" is a version of revisionist history. As I said in another post, the WTC Twin Towers were not good buildings... instead they were about generating money, maxing out FAR (floor area ratio) and getting as many tenants paying rent as possible. The skin was a bastardized gothic facade.

Libeskind's design is much smarter than the original WTC was.

Leave this up to the best architects in the world, of which Libeskind is one.

[musette_sf]

45. as a New Yorker from ages 8 through 27

(NYC public schools 5-12, CUNY after that), who (1) worked in the financial district for many years and had many visits and meetings in the WTC; (2) watched the WTC being built; and (3) lived in an apt. in Staten Island with a gorgeous view of the WTC, I think Liebeskind's design is a fucking tombstone.

In my opinion, a mark of absence is an insult to the city, and to those who died that day.

I believe that most New Yorkers DO want the WTC back.

http://www.makenynyagain.com

[musette_sf]

75. addendum to my post

I talked to my sister last night -- fyi all my family still lives in the NYC area. She says that from what she's seen, read and heard over the past week, the OVERWHELMING majority of New Yorkers are with Trump and want the WTC back, bigger and better.

This, from someone whose best friend (former Cantor employee) lost countless co-workers that day; whose husband worked at one of the WFC buildings that day and escaped; who visited the WTC frequently.

Another poster wrote about the trauma that people would incur, seeing the WTC back again. I say HOOEY. New Yorkers AVOID looking at the skyline because of the empty sky.

[marions ghost]

76. the wishes of those for whom

restoration of the towers would be a good solution (or so they think now...) should not overrule those for whom a replica would represent the most superficial, arrogant, disturbing and even offensive solution. Obviously when there are such strong feelings a compromise is needed. Avoiding looking at the skyline because of the empty sky is understandable. But exactly because of that degree of impact, it matters very much what goes there. Filling the hole with a xerox copy is a revisionist delusion, bordering on the ghoulishly surreal. Instead of exalting the memories of those who died there, for many it would imply a negation, an erasure, a strange confluence of past and present that just feels all wrong.

The Towers always were more than mere buildings--they embodied a certain proud and soaring spirit, in their sheer size if nothing else--but now they have become even more symbolic. And the associations that many people have with those simple twin forms after 9-11 are conflicted, fearful, negative, and far from reconciled. Let the images that remain everywhere in pictures, and in the memory banks of every person who was alive at the time serve to remember the the Twin Towers and those who died there.
Let the Twins retain their own dignity in history without implying that they are merely replaceable.

Try to see it from some other perspective. Not everybody has the urge to resurrect the corpse in order to "prove" that the spirit is still alive. You express a very sincere, heartfelt impulse to correct the loss, but a superficial revival of the same exact forms could backfire badly. One person's integration of these events is not the same as another's. We are not living in the same world as before 9-11. Let's not pretend that we are.

[musette_sf]

77. Respectfully, but wholeheartedly, disagree

You say "for many it would imply a negation, an erasure, a strange confluence of past and present that just feels all wrong".

That's what it feels like NOW. The WFC points at the negation, at the erasure. The WFC is the present, the empty sky around the WTC site is the past, and the confluence is all wrong. It will be even MORE wrong with that crazy tombstone carrying the Bu$hite name "Freedom Tower".

Trump's idea will win, and the people of New York will resoundingly agree. Mark my words.

[marions ghost]

78. Maybe Trump will win

he usually gets what he wants. And if so, you will live to see the consequences of ignoring the other side of this equation. And it is an equation--as both sides have many of the same emotions, the same emptiness. But a revival of the form of the Towers without considering repercussions WILL backfire. Please think of this day and my words. If we are DUing then (ha ha, who knows) you can come back and tell me that you finally get the point. Some people just have to learn the hard way. :)

Be wary--this expedient campaign to resurrect the Towers is not a campaign with "the people" in mind...far from it. It plays on current vulnerabilities, on the mass sense of emptiness and desolation. It's a loser, and there will be books written on why that is true. Anyway all best in your quest for "control." I see that your mind is completely closed to anything I have to say. As there is little rationality at work in this whole aftermath of the destruction of the Twin Towers, this doesn't surprise me at all. So I'll say it for the last time--nothing would do more to distort and contaminate the legacy of the Towers than to attempt to replace them. But America is known for grandiose illusions.

[musette_sf]

79. Yes, you are right,

some people just have to learn the hard way :eyes:

Meanwhile, I invite you to meet me and my sister at Windows On The World II. We'll be making our reservations as soon as we can.

[marions ghost]

63. this is my argument too, alcibiades

(quote) "To rebuild exactly as was destroys the public memory by pretending that the awful events of that morning never happened."

Agreed. There are serious psychological ramifications to the well-meant but misguided urge to simply restore the buildings to their former glory. (I'm using "well-meant" to describe people who want to see the towers rise again to heal the trauma--I suspect Mr. Trump's motives are far less pure than that). I'm not going to get into the aesthetic value of the Twin Towers versus the Freedom Tower complex, except to say that I understand that sometimes uninspired or even ugly things have sentimental value (eg. the Leaning Tower of Pisa...). But this is not a story of an ordinary set of buildings that we have become fond of out of familiarity. These buildings are laden with symbolism now, and it's a very heavy legacy.

Even though there may be many who have the impulse to "put them back," I think you could find JUST as many people who cringe at the thought. Why? Because the disaster of 9-11 wreaked havoc on a nation's psyche, and people have very different ways of dealing with that kind of trauma. For many, seeing the Towers back could just perpetuate the horror. Every time they see an image of them, they would not be sure which one they were seeing. For those who experienced severe PTSD, it could actually act as a trigger (and I don't think that trauma was limited to New Yorkers, by ANY means). Others would merely avoid the buildings to avoid the memories. And many could be offended by the "Erasure" of the events implied by simply rebuilding the Towers. So in order to come up with the least offensive design you would not build a replica. Just the debate we're having here shows that it would not be a healing solution. And for that reason alone you would not do it, although certainly it would be fine to (architecturally speaking) "refer" to the previous buildings.

I am reminded of the man whose wife of many years dies, and instead of grieving and incorporating that tremendous loss, he goes out and buys a new car, a new boat, and immediately marries the first woman who crosses his path. Now everything is "restored"...in form only, in superficialities only, in facades only. What he has done is to try to simply erase the sad memories with the latest model. And then he wonders why that real good feeling of everything being back in "order" (back to "normal") so quickly fades...This is pathetic, like people who want to stuff their dead pets so they can pretend they never left. All about empty FORM, not substance.

This debate is about how we as a nation intend to move on from this. The Towers now are symbolic of very bad times. It would be more constructive to put something there that honors the past but harks to a better future.

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. Well put

Thank you.

[Mugweed]

47. The terrorists already won...

Have you looked around lately? Everything that our great administration said we shouldn't do "or else the terrorists will have won" has been done. Much of it is legislated.

[MirrorAshes]

49. For once, I think Trump is exactly right.

It's just not New York without the twins.

[Batgirl]

50. I want them back

For me, unexpected glimpses of the towers in movies or photos, still causes tears to spurt. The sorrow, grief and anger are still so strong. Feelings that were, and are, so powerful and widespread throughout the population that the Bush admin. was able to capitalize on them to get the public to support the invasion of Iraq by associating Saddam with the towers' destruction.

People who never would have supported an unprovoked invasion, but in this case thought we were just hitting back at the ones responsible for our national devastation. Maybe a rebuilding project like this would be a better channel for those feelings, as opposed to looking for weak countries to smack around.

Plenty of people say the towers were an architectural monstrosity. But I really don't care if they looked like thousand-foot dogturds, I want them back.

[entanglement]

55. Trump seems to have a nice idea

The Freedom Tower design seems all-round hideous.

[kevin881]

62. first off, its not his design.

he is just getting behind some other idiot's idea.

second, whats so hideous about libeskind's design?




......or are you just bandwaggon jumping?

[musette_sf]

74. It's a tombstone

that's what's so hideous about it.

[kevin881]

80. less of a tombstone than the "trump" plan

look at that... two holes where the old WTC was, and two new towers just to the east of them... talk about tombstones.

freedom tower is less-so. look at the "plan."

[musette_sf]

82. "Freedom Tower" is butt-ugly

IMNSHO, and depressing. Building nothing would be preferable to that tombstone of glass.

I get the feeling that if G-D forbid, the Eiffel Tower should be attacked, you'd be advocating the building of the noble "Freedom Stump" memorial, especially if it were designed by a noble Holocaust Museum designer.

Tell ya what, when I'm celebrating the opening having drinks at Windows On The World II with my fellow jubilant New Yorkers, I'll think of you naysayers.

[kevin881]

89. butt ugly? define.

lol.

define what is "butt ugly" about it, what is depressing about it? care to venture into "why" you think what you do?

or, like most republicans, are you happier introducing "GOD" into your argument, rather than validating your opinion.

I would love to see what kind of house you live in, and what kind of furniture you buy... probably pretty pedestrian and ornate.

[Batgirl]

90. rock-solid arguments aren't exactly your forte either,

ye great Sultan of Architecture.

"like most republicans" -- and that phrase supports your argument how?

"I would love to see what kind of house you live in, and what kind of furniture you buy..." ooh! that one really hit with deadly accuracy.

Why don't you post pictures of some of the buildings you've designed, so as to better educate those of us lacking in the proper appreciation for the aura of defeat and injury emanating from the twisted, hollow glass phallus.

[UdoKier]

91. You sure like to play both sides of the argument, Batgirl

But anyway, I loved the little comment about anybody who disagrees with him having cheap, gaudy furniture.

So everybody has to have all one-of-a-kind pieces from the best Danish furniture houses?

Or is it Ethan Allen that's permissible?

Is IKEA okay? First of all, most of us don't HAVE the money to buy the furniture we REALLY want, and there are all kinds of tastes in furniture as well as architecture.

If only depressed liberal learned a little bit of tolerance for variations in taste and character at school, he might not be so depressed, because he'd have a lot more friends.


People like that were the ones in the 70s who said all the art deco buildings in South Miami Beach were so passe�L and gaudy and tacky, and just HAD to go so they could be replaced by gleaming new high-rises.

Thank goodness the uneducated MOB down there wouldn't have it, and insisted that the character of their city be preserved.

[Batgirl]

92. didn't mean to give contradictory impressions

I feel a deep and unwavering desire to see the twin towers, or something much like them, restored.

Even though there are arguments to be made otherwise, that are just as deep and valid to their proponents.

However, I see no basis to exclude people from voicing their opinions on the grounds that they didn't go to architecture school and therefore they don't know jack -- and they probably have ugly furniture as well.

[UdoKier]

94. No, it's cool.

I like that you see both sides of the issue. So few ever do...

I like elements of the Libeskind design, I just hate the whole package.

And I fully understand the feelings of those who hate the Triroc idea. I definitely feel a twinge of sympathy for those who would find it painful to look at towers that were similar.

People have different ways of dealing with grief, and I do respect that.

But I think the Libeskind plan would give just as many people painful feelings.

But some people care more about diplomas than feelings. Last I heard, Bush had a MBA from Harvard. I guess that means he knows all there is to know about fixing our economy. :eyes:

[Batgirl]

95. ha -- good point about the Bush/MBA aspect

meantime, you have a fun evening -- time to go kick up my heels and go spread those bark chips. (And maybe do some serious re-evaluating of my home furnishings.)

[musette_sf]

97. Oh, come on,

So anyone who hates the "Freedom Tower" and thinks it is ugly, should be called out as a reThugliKKKan and a christo-fascist? Not to mention someone in desperate need of a remedial taste transplant from you?

I looked at ALL the designs submitted to the Port Authority for building plans. I disliked them all. My opinion is that Liebeskind got it because of his reputation associated with designing a Holocaust Museum. That sense of useless loss still hung heavy in the air, back when the entries were submitted and voted upon.

The "Freedom Tower" is a mishegaas. It is no classic building. It is not practical or useful. At least half of it is empty. It will not invite concerts, events, or people. It will not celebrate life. IT IS A TOMBSTONE.

I've read numerous books on the construction of the WTC, the architect, the design process, and the structural and topographical changes made to the surrounding area including the PATH trains and station.

I grew up in NYC, I watched the WTC being built, my first apartment had a view of the WTC, and I worked in the general Wall Street area for years. I went by the WTC every morning and every night on my way to the ferry.

I know enough from my simple research and life experience to say that (1) The "Freedom Tower" is butt-ugly, and (2) the best thing to do to heal NYC and its people, is to rebuild the WTC.

I collect and restore vintage furniture from the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s. And what I don't collect is from IKEA.

I sure hope you have a civil response to this message, because I am detecting a certain lack of civility more suited to Yahoo Message Boards.

[UdoKier]

99. Oh, sit down on your Naughahyde LA-Z-Boy (ADMIT IT, YOU HAVE ONE!)...

take a deep breath, turn on your giant screen TV in your basement rec room/tavern and let the true arbiters of taste hash this out. :eyes:

And as for IKEA, I'm sure their furniture is way too tacky for someone with such refined tastes as Depressed.
:sarcasm:

I'd be depressed too, if I had to come home and sit in this...

[musette_sf]

100. If Only!!!

If only I had a Naugahyde La-Z-Boy!!!

But my formative years between zero and 8 were spent on the banks of the Naugatuck River... and I don't believe in making the Naugas needlessly suffer for my comfort. :eyes:

[Deja Q]

56. The guy who declared bankruptcy twice? Seems appropriate, somehow.

:spit: We do need a spitting smilie.

[UdoKier]

57. I thought it was just the casinos...

...representing only 4% of his net worth...

Anyway, I find Trump to be an obnoxious pig. This is just one of the rare cases where I agree with him (like last year when he said Bush deserved to be "fired".)

[Lorien]

81. Never liked Trump, but I like this idea

I always thought that NOT rebuilding them as they were-but bigger-would be letting the bad guys win. The WTC was never an architectural masterpiece, but it would be a symbolic "F You" to terrorists everywhere if Trump's plan were carried through, and I think that's important.

[LuPeRcALiO]

83. Trump should hire Cesar Pelli to give it the WFC treatment.

Pelli's WFC is brilliant IMHO. A couple of tweaks and he could turn Trump's ugly-but-beloved towers into beautiful new Twins, like Petronas, the twin towers Pelli put up in Malaysia.

But if Pelli isn't interested, Gardner's plan is the winner.

[UdoKier]

85. The Petronas Towers are indeed lovely.

And I wouldn't object to a more radically different twin tower design...

[LuPeRcALiO]

96. here's what I had in mind. . .

here's what a pair of Pelli's Goldman Sachs towers (NJ) might look like...



here's what a pair of Pelli's IFC2 towers (Hong Kong) might look like... you get the idea!

[southpaw]

88. Remember this?

These images circulated quite a bit in the months following 9-11.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v171/majormanny/WTC.bmp

[yankeedem]

93. Maybe Trump needs to figure out how to run a company

before we give him control over 16 acres in Lower Manhattan. Who is he going to stiff this time when he declares bankruptcy?

[UdoKier]

98. His Hotel & Casinos filed for bankruptcy - Only a tiny part of his empire

Trump's net worth is $2.6 billion. The hotel & casino chain represents about 1% of that.

I would LOVE to fail at business the way Trump has.