Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 50 posts

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

#21

Post by g_mifo »

krschultz wrote: post #17
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?

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.

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

#22

Post by look_lookatme »

uptown wrote: post #4
StefanKarpinski wrote: post #3

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…

"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 mostly call it The World Trade Center, but sometimes I use Freedom Tower in a sort of pejorative way.

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

#23

Post by krschultz »

g_mifo wrote: post #21
krschultz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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...

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

#24

Post by 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).

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

#25

Post by benihana »

justincormack wrote: post #15

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.

The first time I saw it, it was rising up into the clouds and I was reminded of the first time you see The Citadel in Half-Life 2. http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/13/12001/citadel3.jpg

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

#26

Post by fragsworth »

seanemmer wrote: post #24

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 requi…

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.

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

#27

Post by Cowboy_X »

flint wrote: post #19

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.

It is a miserable neighborhood to work in.

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

#28

Post by Pxtl »

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.

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

#29

Post by ghaff »

lpsz wrote: post #20
wlesieutre wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In all fairness, large parts of Manhattan do thrive as mixed use to greater or lesser degrees. The financial district is something of an exception.

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

#30

Post by vidarh »

justincormack wrote: post #15

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).

Post reply on HN