A Soaring Emblem of New York, and Its Upside-Down Priorities • Hacker News Board

Re: A Soaring Emblem of New York, and Its Upside-Down Priorities

#11

Post by bane » Sun, Nov 30, 2014, 4:06 PM UTC

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.

Re: A Soaring Emblem of New York, and Its Upside-Down Priorities

#12

Post by Brian-Puccio » Sun, Nov 30, 2014, 4:11 PM UTC

StefanKarpinski wrote: post #7

uptown wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

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?

Kinda like when people say they're going to "the city", they mean Manhattan. If you're going to Brooklyn, yes, that's part of New York City, but then you say you're going to Brooklyn, you don't say you're going to "the city".

Re: A Soaring Emblem of New York, and Its Upside-Down Priorities

#13

Post by mfringel » Sun, Nov 30, 2014, 4:26 PM UTC

StefanKarpinski wrote: post #7

uptown wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

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?

Typically, I've heard "World Trade" when referring to 1 WTC, and "One World Trade" when needing to disambiguate.

Re: A Soaring Emblem of New York, and Its Upside-Down Priorities

#14

Post by NathanKP » Sun, Nov 30, 2014, 4:27 PM UTC

StefanKarpinski wrote: post #7

uptown wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

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?

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.

Re: A Soaring Emblem of New York, and Its Upside-Down Priorities

#15

Post by justincormack » Sun, Nov 30, 2014, 4:31 PM UTC

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.

Re: A Soaring Emblem of New York, and Its Upside-Down Priorities

#16

Post by kchoudhu » Sun, Nov 30, 2014, 4:42 PM UTC

"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.

Re: A Soaring Emblem of New York, and Its Upside-Down Priorities

#17

Post by krschultz » Sun, Nov 30, 2014, 4:43 PM UTC

jim_greco wrote: post #10

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 syri…

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

Re: A Soaring Emblem of New York, and Its Upside-Down Priorities

#18

Post by wlesieutre » Sun, Nov 30, 2014, 4:50 PM UTC

StefanKarpinski wrote: post #9

krschultz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a good point. I've spent almost no time near the building base. Maybe that was what Kimmelman was getting at? His writing is so roundabout that it's not really clear what exactly he's complaining about.

It's a bit buried in the article, but I think that's one of his main points:

>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.

America has something of an obsession with single-use areas. Everyone lives in one zone. Commerce goes on in a different zone. Industry somewhere else. It's a big contributing factor in why a lot of places have ended up as dangerous wastelands at night; no one lives there, no one shops there, no shopkeepers keeping an eye on the street, no one out walking the dog or going out for coffee.

So when a new landmark building goes up on a piece of valuable real estate in Manhattan, it's a bit disappointing that the conversation ended up along the lines of "You know what'd be nice here?" "What, a coffee shop and a neighborhood grocery store?" "Nah, a giant bunker."

Not to say it's the worst thing ever, but we could have done so much better.

Re: A Soaring Emblem of New York, and Its Upside-Down Priorities

#19

Post by flint » Sun, Nov 30, 2014, 4:57 PM UTC

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.

Re: A Soaring Emblem of New York, and Its Upside-Down Priorities

#20

Post by lpsz » Sun, Nov 30, 2014, 5:37 PM UTC

wlesieutre wrote: post #18

StefanKarpinski wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point. I've spent almost no time near the building base. Maybe that was what Kimmelman was getting at? His writing is so roundabout that it's not really clear what exactly he's complaining about.

It's a bit buried in the article, but I think that's one of his main points: >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. America has something of an obsession with single-use areas. Everyone lives in one zone. Commerce goe…

And it's a shame, especially because Manhattan is likely one of the few U.S. localities with sufficient population density to make mixed-use areas thrive.

When I spend time in Asia, I find it remarkable how well cities like Tokyo [1] and Taipei function.

[1] http://urbankchoze.blogspot.tw/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html