
A Soaring Emblem of New York, and Its Upside-Down Priorities - jack_axel
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/nyregion/is-one-world-trade-center-rises-in-lower-manhattan-a-design-success.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
======
StefanKarpinski
This is a long rambling article without any clear point, except that the
author doesn't personally care for the tower as much as he might have (if he
designed it?). I was deeply skeptical of the "Freedom Tower" (everyone I know
in NYC still refers to it by this ridiculous name) design before it was built,
but as the thing has been built, it's actually grown on me. The inclined side
panels look almost like two towers when the light hits them, reminiscent of
the old towers, which I still miss as part of the skyline. It's not my
favorite building in the New York skyline – that would be the Chrysler
Building – but it's not bad.

~~~
uptown
"everyone I know in NYC still refers to it by this ridiculous name"

Funny - Everyone I know in NYC refers to it as the World Trade Center.

~~~
StefanKarpinski
I guess that works but the term seems overly broad – WTC 3-7 are also part of
the "World Trade Center". So what do you call that building specifically? WTC
1, I guess?

~~~
NathanKP
I usually hear people here in NYC refer to it as "One World Trade Center"
which at the same time covers its building number in the complex, and the fact
that it is a single tower as opposed to two.

------
seanemmer
I've admired this building throughout its construction and reading this
critic's postmodern teardown really irked me. I'm a hardcore modernist in that
I think a building's elegance is measured by it's functionality. This
structure has multiple, in many ways contradictory functional requirements,
needing to simultaneously be a supertall office building, monument, and
fortress. This is no simple task.

Given these requirements, I think SOM did an excellent job - the building
manages to simultaneously be reverent and purposeful. It's clean, modern, and
evokes the Twin Towers without parroting them. True, it doesn't have the
postmodern panache of the Shard or some rippling Gehry building-sculpture
hybrid. But I for one don't admire such deviations from function. Insofar as
the critic values postmodern features, that is a matter of taste, not
objective civic merit.

Furthermore, I think it is incorrect to conflate its design with other,
unfortunate circumstances surrounding its construction (delays, budget,
security, politics). The broad strokes of the design have been in place since
2005 (with the admittedly unfortunate scuttling of plans for the base and
antenna array).

~~~
philwelch
> This structure has multiple, in many ways contradictory functional
> requirements, needing to simultaneously be a supertall office building,
> monument, and fortress.

I think the article deliberately questioned a lot of those requirements, to
its credit:

> There had been talk after Sept. 11 about the World Trade Center
> development’s including housing, culture and retail, capitalizing on urban
> trends and the growing desire for a truer neighborhood, at a human scale,
> where the windswept plaza at the foot of the twin towers had been.

> But the idea was brushed aside by the political ambitions of former Gov.
> George E. Pataki of New York, a Republican, and the commercial interests of
> Larry Silverstein, the developer with a controlling stake at the site, among
> other forces pressing for a mid-20th-century complex of glass towers
> surrounding a plaza. Stripped of prospective cultural institutions, as well
> as of street life and housing, the plan soon turned into something akin to
> an old-school office park, destined to die at night — the last thing a young
> generation of New Yorkers wanted. In retrospect, had 1 World Trade been
> built last, after the site was coaxed back to life (and yes, many added
> years later), a very different project might have evolved.

So you and the author of the article are talking past each other: you're
saying the building is a fine, elegant solution that fulfills the requirements
stated, and the author is saying it's an ill-suited building because the
initial requirements were bad in the first place.

~~~
seanemmer
That's a fair point - the author does spend a fair bit of time questioning the
functional requirements themselves. I am not informed enough on urban planning
or the circumstances surrounding the site to make a judgement there. I will,
however, say that making the building 1) secure and 2) historically aware seem
to be non-optional requirements given the nature of the site.

I was more so addressing the critique of the structure itself:

>One World Trade is symmetrical to a fault, stunted at its peak, its heavy
corners the opposite of immaterial. There’s no mystery, no unraveling of
light, no metamorphosis over time, nothing to hold your gaze

My point is primarily that such traits as those advocated by the critic, that
the building be be ‘immaterial', ‘mysterious', and ‘metamorphosing', are
highly subjective. I could just as easily state that the building ought to be
‘substantive', ‘familiar', and ’stable'. My architectural preference is for
buildings that avoid trying to achieve any of these "qualities" of taste, but
rather buildings that deliver elegant solutions to their objective
requirements. If ‘mysteriousness’ is a necessary trait in order to achieve the
function of the building, then so be it. But the critic simply attacks the
building for lacking certain qualities that he has not adequately tied to the
purpose and nature of the building.

~~~
philwelch
Yeah, it's not a very good or well-focused article, but it's hard to write
convincingly on why a building looks ugly, right?

Was it strictly necessary to make the new WTC tower so secure against terror
attack that it looks like a bunker from street level? The original Twin Towers
weren't even destroyed from a street-level attack. They couldn't and didn't
make the building airplane-proof, and if you're going to bomb something in NYC
from street level the WTC is hardly the only or best target. So I think the
security requirement was poorly thought through.

As for historical awareness, I think American culture is in the grip of
sentimentality and nostalgia. This is the same country that stubbornly rebuilt
a gradually sinking city that lays below sea level when it was inevitably
destroyed by a hurricane. What's wrong with putting up a tasteful memorial and
redeveloping the site in a way that meets the needs of the community?

~~~
seanemmer
Yea, at the end of the day there is just a ton of emotion tied up with this
site - so you're right in that the security requirements / monumentality of it
probably go beyond what the optimal specifications should be. It's kindof a
timeless debate, how to balance the emotional with the rational (going way
beyond just architecture). The emotional aspect is definitely supercharged in
this case.

------
bane
It's amazing how symbolic the new WTC tower is of all the events since 9/11\.
We did _something_ , there's _something_ there, it isn't what _anybody_ really
wanted, it was done half-assed, tied up in politics and money for far too
long, poorly planned, not a compromise so much as an act of our collective
mediocrity...you could be talking about both wars, the security state that's
risen up, or the building using any or all of those statements.

It feels better than the gaping wound in the ground that was there for so
long. But just like any massive wound leaves a scar that's worse than the
original skin, it's not-quite-right in the same way.

I broke down into sobs the first time I walked by the hole, I felt strangely
apathetic when I walked by the tower.

------
dankohn1
I live a block away and push my 5yo, on a Citibike, by its base every morning
on our way to the subway. It is not my favorite building in the city (the
Chrysler and Woolworth buildings are far more engaging) but it is absolutely
iconic. As soon as the observatory deck opens next year, it will become a
tourist mecca.

For those in the neighborhood, the big change will be when the other half of
the fencing around the 9/11 Memorial Plaza is removed, so that the whole area
actually becomes part of the surrounding neighborhoods again for the first
time in 50 years. Also, there is a ton of retail going in, none of which has
opened yet: [http://tribecacitizen.com/2014/11/18/the-restaurants-and-
foo...](http://tribecacitizen.com/2014/11/18/the-restaurants-and-food-shops-
coming-to-the-world-trade-center/)

As for the building itself, I like how it is a perfect octagon halfway up, but
from the base look like a triangle. Here are my sons at the base:
[https://www.dropbox.com/s/ttbourn3fi0xiiq/1WTC.jpg?dl=0](https://www.dropbox.com/s/ttbourn3fi0xiiq/1WTC.jpg?dl=0)

~~~
rquantz
All right, be honest, that whole post was really just an excuse to show off
your cute kids to all of hacker news, right?

~~~
dankohn1
At least I included the backdrop to have it be somewhat on subject.

------
jim_greco
It's unfortunate. They had a real opportunity and instead created a lifeless
soulless building that stands in deep contrast to the subtle memorial next
door or Calatrava's soaring transit hub. Too many sacrifices had to be made
for this tower. The fortifications at the bottom (20 floors of concrete with a
glass covering) are hideous and the removal of the decorative aspects to the
spire make it look like a giant syringe.

Not to mention we really didn't need the downtown office space. The Financial
District is already half the price of Midtown and firms who want a downtown
presence are now looking to more exciting neighborhoods for young workers like
Chelsea and the East Village.

~~~
krschultz
The spire is especially galling. How much money did it save? 0.5% of the total
cost?

~~~
g_mifo
The spire is there so that the building is respectfully not taller than the
old towers, but still can win the stupid "tallest building" guiness record.
Typical play to vanity metrics.

~~~
krschultz
No I mean the fact that they neutered the spire. The original design called
for a tapered spire. It ended up being built as simple antenna, seemingly with
platforms every few stories. It looks unfinished. For a long time I was hoping
it was simply unfinished. Turns out it was changed to save $20 million.

[http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023045439045773...](http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304543904577394473619775032)

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
There was an engineering issue with wind loading on the clad version of the
spire so they left it off.

------
flint
You need a Segway to get around down there. Want a cup of coffee? Just a 10
minute elevator ride and 4 blocks walking to get to only shop in the building.
Don't want Patisserie Financier? 4 more blocks, and you have to cross the west
side highway.

~~~
dankohn1
This is incorrect. Underneath 1WTC there is a massive set of stores, and 2
super markets are coming into the base of 4WTC.

~~~
thrownaway2424
Aren't there also going to be lots of shops in the new Fulton St transit
station?

------
nateburke
I think that Chris Rock's critique of the new WTC is far more down-to-earth
and human than the NYT's critique:

"Have you seen the Freedom Tower? You can see it no matter where you at. They
should change the name from the Freedom Tower to the ‘Never Going in There
Tower' because I’m never going in there. There is no circumstance that will
ever get me in that building. Are you kidding me? Does this building duck?
What are they thinking? Who’s the corporate sponsor, Target? Stop it! In the
same spot? What kind of arrogant, Floyd Mayweather crap is this?…They better
put some mandatory [businesses] in there -- stuff you can't get out of -- like
the IRS, family court, DMV…I am never going in the Freedom Tower. Hey, I got
robbed on 48th and 8th about 20 years ago. I have not been back to 48th and
8th. I am never going in the Freedom Tower. I don’t care if Scarlett Johansson
is butt naked on the 89th floor in a plate of ribs. I'm not going in there."

[http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/snl-monologue-chris-rock-
jok...](http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/snl-monologue-chris-rock-jokes-
about-911-boston-bombing-urges-gun-control)

------
uptown
I feel whatever was built on that site was bound to be heavily criticized --
the original World Trade Center buildings certainly were, and they weren't
subject to the emotional responsibility of 9/11\. But for all the criticism of
the new WTC, this documentary gave me a much greater appreciation of the new
structure:

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1586155/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1586155/)

Give it a watch when the Discovery channel re-airs it. They tend to show it
each year around 9/11.

------
justincormack
Not sure looking at the Shard in London as an example is that good. Its
largely empty for a start, an imposition that no one really wanted, a monument
to Qatar's money, and out of scale with the city, especially that part.

~~~
vidarh
For a new highrise to be largely empty for a while is not unusual. Certainly
not in London. Now Tower 42 was pretty much empty for more than a decade
because rental prices were low enough that the landlord decided it wasn't
worthwhile to operate most of the building, for example.

As for being "out of scale", London is in the process of getting a long string
of highrises that really stand out from their immediate surroundings. I kinda
like that - it creates landmarks that can be seen from the other side of town
(literally).

------
Theodores
It lacks wow-factor and it is not an iconic addition to the skyline. The Twin
Towers (and the Empire State) very much said 'this is New York'. When I first
went to New York I very much wanted to go up the Empire State - a visit
without going to the top would not have felt complete. I am sure many, many
tourists feel the same. However, with the Twin Towers there was somewhere
higher to go so tourists would be siphoned off and up there.

The London skyline has redefined itself in recent times to be a bit like some
theme park. The 'eye', the 'Gherkin' and the 'Shard' (as well as the 'walkie-
talkie' building and 'cheese-grater') are what the skyline is now. The
interior of the 'Shard' is one thing, the exterior is something else. I am not
a fan of the new novelty London skyline, however, the 'Shard' looks awesome
from afar, if you commute in. It has that aspect of awe and wonder that I
think the new WTC needed.

How hard is it to have awe and wonder? The Twin Towers were as basic a shape
as you can get yet they had _it_.

How valuable is _it_ worth? Probably the French are best to ask on that, the
Eiffel Tower has _it_ but there isn't a lot of rentable space there. Yet the
Eiffel Tower is probably one of the best investments in a building ever made,
it defines the city and tourists as well as locals love it.

Innovation is important with iconic buildings. The Twin Towers - despite their
many flaws - were truly innovative in their construction and in how acre-sized
floors were possible without a lot of pillars in the way. Although the most
recent London skyline additions are not exactly 'loved', they all innovate.
Does this new WTC building innovate? No. Sure, some things are new and
improved, e.g. the lifts, but there is no evidence of engineering genius.

As for 'reverence', why should the building stop at the former Twin Tower
height? Some brash arrogance with an even taller building should have been the
way.

~~~
thrownaway2424
There _are_ some new or recent innovative buildings going up in Manhattan,
though. Hearst Tower is quite amazing and has a bunch of innovative systems
(it's LEED certified and all that but also has meaningful improvements in
comfort and efficiency), and the building going up right now at 10 Hudson
Yards is a miracle of CAD that probably could not have been built 10 years
ago.

------
kchoudhu
"With its hotel, offices, restaurants, apartments and observation deck, it is
also an all-in-one mixed-use development, built on a busy transit hub. The
point is that something better was possible in Lower Manhattan."

What, exactly? Sure, it came in well above budget and five years late -- but
it works just fine in conjunction with the plaza in front of it.

All they need to do now is get the passageway under West street connected to
the Fulton Transit Center.

------
Pxtl
[http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly010919a.htm](http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly010919a.htm)

It's jingoistic and over-the-top (which is surprising when the author is a
cynical leftist cartoonist) but I've always been fond of Tim Krieder's essay
about his "design proposal for the new WTC" that he wrote back in 2001 just
after the towers fell.

------
rajacombinator
I was a hater of this building for a long time. It is a shame how mediocre the
design is in comparison to other recent mega skyscrapers worldwide. It's like
a symbol of NYC's and the US's relative decline vs. the rest of the world.
(Compare it the Burj Khalifa, for instance.)

But last time I was in NYC I warmed up to the building a bit. Seen from the
lower west side around sunset it reflects the light in a pretty gorgeous way.
So while the building may not be exceptional, it's not bad either.

