MTA Bus Posted February 24, 2015 Share #1 Posted February 24, 2015 http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Cortlandt-Subway-Station-Destroyed-September-11-Reopening-2018-293737311.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted February 24, 2015 Share #2 Posted February 24, 2015 This along with World Trade Three resuming construction to its full height makes me happy. 3WTC should be complete in 2017. The only tower we are waiting on now is Two. If they can lease enough of that space by the end of 2016, then the WTC would be completely re-developed by 2020-21. Just in time for the 19 or 20th anniversary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted February 24, 2015 Share #3 Posted February 24, 2015 This along with World Trade Three resuming construction to its full height makes me happy. 3WTC should be complete in 2017. The only tower we are waiting on now is Two. If they can lease enough of that space by the end of 2016, then the WTC would be completely re-developed by 2020-21. Just in time for the 19 or 20th anniversary. And in any event, something that has taken WAY too long to be completed. The only thing I wished they had considered doing differently would have been to have rebuilt the original "not quite twin" towers from 1908 that were I believe 30 and 50 Church Street as part of the rebuilt complex, even if they had to be bult a bit north of their orginal locations to avoid hitting the footprint of 1 or 2 WTC. Those buildings could have been built to perhaps double or triple the height of the old buildings, but it would have been symbolic of the pre-WTC era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted February 24, 2015 Share #4 Posted February 24, 2015 And in any event, something that has taken WAY too long to be completed. The only thing I wished they had considered doing differently would have been to have rebuilt the original "not quite twin" towers from 1908 that were I believe 30 and 50 Church Street as part of the rebuilt complex, even if they had to be bult a bit north of their orginal locations to avoid hitting the footprint of 1 or 2 WTC. Those buildings could have been built to perhaps double or triple the height of the old buildings, but it would have been symbolic of the pre-WTC era. No. No. No. And did you even read the article? Legalities are why it took so long. Now that the MTA are at the controls, progress will be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QM1to6Ave Posted February 24, 2015 Share #5 Posted February 24, 2015 Leave it to the Port Authority to make the MTA look like an efficient organization LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted February 25, 2015 Share #6 Posted February 25, 2015 No. No. No. And did you even read the article? Legalities are why it took so long. Now that the MTA are at the controls, progress will be made. I had read the article previously. Too many squabbles all over the place. The other part about rebuilding 30 and 50 Church Street (the old "not quite twin" towers that were there through 1967-'71 while most of the WTC was being built) to perhaps 2-3 times the original height of those buildings was partially a throwback and partially if possible to cut up the "superblock" back to the way it was pre-WTC, which is what a lot of people did want if possible and had been talked about as I remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted February 25, 2015 Share #7 Posted February 25, 2015 No, a lot of people wanted a memorial to commemorate the lives lost and to rebuild. The superblock will be reduced to 8 acres as that is where the 9/11 memorial is, but Greenwich Street will once again pass through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted February 25, 2015 Share #8 Posted February 25, 2015 No, a lot of people wanted a memorial to commemorate the lives lost and to rebuild. The superblock will be reduced to 8 acres as that is where the 9/11 memorial is, but Greenwich Street will once again pass through. Ah yes. I remember how some of the families (and as I remember Giuliani) wanted the entire area to be a park and that was one of the reasons it has taken 13+ years (and counting) to get it back to this point, Cutting the superblock will help a lot (and be fair to those who do think that should be a memorial), but some did as I remember want the whole area reopened back to the way it was pre-WTC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted February 27, 2015 Share #9 Posted February 27, 2015 And some wanted it to stay an empty hole and others wanted this and still others wanted that.... If people had input, this would be a case of "a camel is a horse designed by committee" and we would have built nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted February 27, 2015 Share #10 Posted February 27, 2015 And some wanted it to stay an empty hole and others wanted this and still others wanted that.... If people had input, this would be a case of "a camel is a horse designed by committee" and we would have built nothing. We got the Freedom Tower designed by committee, and instead of a fragile shard of glass reminiscent of the Statue of Liberty with an off-center spire, we got some sort of weird blue thumbtack. We would've built something, it would've just been very ugly (as demonstrated by the WTC Hub as well) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted February 27, 2015 Share #11 Posted February 27, 2015 Weird blue thumbtack? Have you no eyes? To be able to design a building so aesthetically simple and at the same time very recognizable is amazing and I think this was the best design. That especially shows at sunrise and sunset. The way the colors bounce off of it, it screams "I have returned". It, along with the other new towers, are a meccha meccha magnifique addition to the skyline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted February 27, 2015 Share #12 Posted February 27, 2015 One World Trade was redesigned to address security concerns that the original plan didn't. It was ordered to be changed by the NYPD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted February 27, 2015 Share #13 Posted February 27, 2015 Weird blue thumbtack? Have you no eyes? To be able to design a building so aesthetically simple and at the same time very recognizable is amazing and I think this was the best design. That especially shows at sunrise and sunset. The way the colors bounce off of it, it screams "I have returned". It, along with the other new towers, are a meccha meccha magnifique addition to the skyline. It has the context suitability of a thumbtack, as opposed to the original Daniel Libeskind plan, which was actually very thoughtful and innovative, particularly with the shards of light idea. Then the design got more and more whittled away in the name of counterterrorism. The entire first 60 or so feet of the thing is a giant concrete box with no windows, the spire was not supposed to be exposed but this was done to save $20M, and so on and so forth. Quite frankly, it's very dull and uninspiring, and apparently it also has a rat problem now. One World Trade was redesigned to address security concerns that the original plan didn't. It was ordered to be changed by the NYPD. Right, because when we have security agencies dictate architecture, the end result is always so pleasant. The entire reason the plan was changed was because "tall buildling" = "future terrorism target", but you don't see One Vanderbilt or Hudson Yards getting bombproof soulless cubes for bases or getting NYPD interference, despite the fact that there are several buildings being built now that are just as tall or taller than the Freedom Tower. (If you don't count the spire, the Freedom Tower is actually not that impressive at all.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted February 28, 2015 Share #14 Posted February 28, 2015 And that security issue. Remember that kid that climbed to the top of the tower? Believe it or not, he's actually in a film program at the non-profit I work for and I have to say, I can now say I know why he did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted February 28, 2015 Share #15 Posted February 28, 2015 Just because the original design was "innovative" does not automatically mean it was better than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted February 28, 2015 Share #16 Posted February 28, 2015 Just because the original design was "innovative" does not automatically mean it was better than anything else. Which would be a great counterpoint, if that was what I was arguing. I, personally, find it ugly on the basis of the unnecessary garishness of the security features, the terrible execution of it all, and its utter lack of any respect of the surrounding context, and I have a right to hold this opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted March 1, 2015 Share #17 Posted March 1, 2015 Judging it by a base that only those who walk up to it is going to see versus the parts you will see from across the city just isn't fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted March 1, 2015 Share #18 Posted March 1, 2015 Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the entire premise of modernism is that function prevails over form, then critiquing how it actually functions and interacts with the surrounding neighborhood and the people who have to use it is perfectly "fair", whatever the hell that means when it comes to opinions. Let's take Boston City Hall. Boston City Hall is probably the most recognizable, successful Brutalist project around. It also managed to create an entire dead zone around it. Modern urban planning recognizes that the streetscape is just as important to a city, if not more, than the overall skyline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted March 1, 2015 Share #19 Posted March 1, 2015 But it interacts perfectly fine with the neighborhood. I mean, it says "renewal, rebirth, and reclaimed" and while the base is nothing but a square fortress, the steel casing around it as well as the lights glowing within at night are actually nice and does not overpower the overall environment. You don't really notice the base unless you have some serious grudge against it. I'll admit that I questioned whether or not it would fit in when the building was still under construction wit all the concrete. Walking past it without barriers that worry is gone. You'd be more taken by the overall environment to care about the base. By the way, of all the things you could use as an example, you use Boston City Hall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted March 1, 2015 Share #20 Posted March 1, 2015 I mean, if you want another example of Modernism failing to see the big picture and the context, the former WTC is also a good place to start. Destroyed a functioning neighborhood, created a hermetically sealed office complex that diminished the quality of the neighborhoods around it, and created a plaza that was so windy it became unusable at times and people had to use ropes to walk about the plaza. It was also impossible to fully rent out without heavy Port Authority subsidies. But I guess the old and the new have a lot in common then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted March 3, 2015 Share #21 Posted March 3, 2015 I mean, if you want another example of Modernism failing to see the big picture and the context, the former WTC is also a good place to start. Destroyed a functioning neighborhood, created a hermetically sealed office complex that diminished the quality of the neighborhoods around it, and created a plaza that was so windy it became unusable at times and people had to use ropes to walk about the plaza. It was also impossible to fully rent out without heavy Port Authority subsidies. But I guess the old and the new have a lot in common then. That is true, but you have to remember that the prevailing attitude in 1963 (when this was first proposed) was that "Wall Street was dying" and was considered to be a ghost town after 3:00 PM (the trading day at the markets then was 10:00 AM-3:00 PM) even as new buildings were going up. The WTC was considered needed at that time to prevent an exodus from Wall Street to midtown in particular. That is mainly what led to the WTC being built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted March 3, 2015 Share #22 Posted March 3, 2015 It was a ghost town after the trading day cause everyone went home. No one lived around there at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javier Posted March 3, 2015 Share #23 Posted March 3, 2015 Wait, if the Contract was awarded on December 8, then why were there workers working at Cortlandt Street and supplies and everything before that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted March 4, 2015 Share #24 Posted March 4, 2015 I mean, if you want another example of Modernism failing to see the big picture and the context, the former WTC is also a good place to start. Destroyed a functioning neighborhood, created a hermetically sealed office complex that diminished the quality of the neighborhoods around it, and created a plaza that was so windy it became unusable at times and people had to use ropes to walk about the plaza. It was also impossible to fully rent out without heavy Port Authority subsidies. But I guess the old and the new have a lot in common then. But the new WTC actually solves the wind problem by the plaza not being surrounded by buildings with minimal entrances. Also, it's a skyscraper. You really think they would fill up quickly? That's a lot of space and money always factors in. Lastly, the new WTC cut down the acreage of the superblock since the small streets have been reconnected with Greenwich Street. It's a beautiful area that provides, by technicality, another park to the area. Also, by hermetically sealed office space, are you referring to the thin windows? Because if so, the reason for that goes to Minorou Yamasaki's fear of heights. The windows being of shoulder to shoulder width creating a feeling of safety at such large heights. The new towers providing a sense of openness. I'm beginning to think this is coming from personal biases, not actual public opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsbridgeviewer382 Posted March 4, 2015 Share #25 Posted March 4, 2015 Wait, if the Contract was awarded on December 8, then why were there workers working at Cortlandt Street and supplies and everything before that? They were cleaning up the whole site from the ground up, removing everything else that was left of the station and the towers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.