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.
It's not so bad as part of the skyline, but it is horrible from street level. I'm not sure there is much you can do when building a blast resistant base, but man it feels like a bunker. No stores. No windows. Few entrances. It makes that entire block dead.
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).
> 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.
I'm glad it wasn't made into a ridiculous display of post-modern art, because more often than not, when architects want to show off their creativity, the building ends up being an eyesore many years later. Look at any building made with too much artistic flare 20+ years ago.
The building is beautiful, and will stay looking beautiful for a very long time.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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."
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:
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.
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).
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] StefanKarpinski|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krschultz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uptown|11 years ago|reply
Funny - Everyone I know in NYC refers to it as the World Trade Center.
[+] [-] seanemmer|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] fragsworth|11 years ago|reply
The building is beautiful, and will stay looking beautiful for a very long time.
[+] [-] bane|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
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...
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
[+] [-] rquantz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thrownaway2424|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jim_greco|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Theodores|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flint|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cowboy_X|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dankohn1|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nateburke|11 years ago|reply
"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...
[+] [-] uptown|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vidarh|11 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] benihana|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Theodores|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philwelch|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kchoudhu|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rajacombinator|11 years ago|reply
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.