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

31–40 of 50 posts

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

#31

Post by 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...

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

#32

Post by 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.

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

#33

Post by logn »

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…

I learned when buying a condo that mixed commercial/residential buildings are hard to get loans for because Fannie/Freddie won't buy them from banks. NYC is probably its own beast, but in the rest of the US it's a problem.

People claim it's due to historical racism as Blacks tended to be the ones living above commercial spaces.

In my own city, historical mixed-use buildings were run as apartments by slumlords until vouchers allowed low-income people to move out. Then they were vacant, bought up, and redeveloped.

And the banks funding the redevelopment loaned to home buyers (in an attempt to make their original investment pay off) and the subprime lending spree also helped many people get financing. After the credit crash, most of the new developments were as apartments.

Anyhow, were this not a historical district, any new development would have probably followed single-use zoning.

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

#34

Post by Theodores »

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…

I like your 'the syringe' name! Can we make that a meme so that is what people call it?

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

#35

Post by murbard2 »

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've been in NYC for about 10 years and I've lived in the financial district for about 7: I hear both pretty regularly.

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

#36

Post by dankohn1 »

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.

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

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

#37

Post by 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.

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

#38

Post by 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...

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

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

#39

Post by philwelch »

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…

> 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.

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

#40

Post by philwelch »

Theodores wrote: post #32

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…

It's also worth pointing out that Parisians hated the Eiffel Tower when it was first built.
Post reply on HN