digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

The Freedom Tower's neighbors unveiled

nytimes.com — The designs and specifications for the other WTC site towers have been unveiled, and the buildings are larger than expected. Tower 2 will be as tall as the Empire State Building. Each tower was designed by a different architect.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • rysar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Good that they're finally moving forward again, bad that there's really no collaboration between the architects.
    • epilonious, on 10/12/2007, -7/+55Every single artists rendering and architectural mockup I have see for what is to form in ground zero has essentially been the epitome of "damning with faint praise."

      "Hey, New York, two parts of your iconic skyline have just been leveled... what are you going to do now?"

      "Build the same towers one floor higher? Thereby indicating a large middle finger to those-who-would-threaten-America and maintaining the look of New-York and the business-as-usual attitude which shows America will not be swayed by dramatic attacks from pipsqueak assailants?"

      "No! You're gonna take 6 years to vasillate against staggering beurocracy before you can even start construction on a cacophany of functionless aesthetic architectural abortus. Thereby indicating that not only terrorist attacks are effective against America for Winning Attention... but also provide years of constant reminders that for all America's acheivements... there is still a bunch of ridiculous incompetance and squabbling."
    • MarkCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -6/+53Build the towers back. I don't want to see futuristic ***** buildings, it doesn't place right in NYC's skyline. Build the towers, exactly as they were before, as a big "***** you' to whoever brought them down.
    • ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34With just a little better fire retardant please.
    • mpancha, on 10/12/2007, -24/+10if it were any other country the buildings would have been back up...
      Louisianna wouldn't be underwater still..
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13It is indeed very dis-joint looking.

      10-1 says they're all completed before Boston's Big-Dig is done.
    • ryllharu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I honestly don't care what they look like, I thought the image actually looked better than I thought it would. It doesn't matter as long as they are built quickly to get the bureaucrats' fingers out of it.

      I beg though. Please, PLEASE do not name it 'Freedom Tower.' That's like painting a bulls eye on the thing, instead building a giant, symbolic middle finger.
    • V1ncent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's a freaking shame that none of the building are as high as the originals, I feel that's just plain wrong. And I agree that the shells on the outside should look as close to the originals to return the NY skyline back to its former glory. And to tell the terrorists up yours.
    • sunchild, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13As a New Yorker who lives two blocks from the WTC site, I might have a bit more invested in this than some of you. In my opinion, the new buildings look terrific and are a welcome addition to the skyline. I'm not too fond of what I've seen of building #5, but it may change and improve before it gets built. I really like the one they've already finished (#7). Go New York!
    • bebop717, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Who would want to work in a building that looks and feels like the old towers?
      That would be kinda creepy to me.
    • epilonious, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@bebop717 "Who would want to work in a building that looks and feels like the old towers?
      That would be kinda creepy to me."

      Then don't work in them.

      Now let me ask YOU a question: Who would want to work in a building that had no functional storage space due to "artist vision" and lots of random haphazard "additions" made to make it "more secure"? Maybe a weekly "plane attack drill" will make leasers feel better.
    • maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4well.. they are by no means bad designs or anything. Sure, they look pretty nice.

      But nice enough to be the buildings that replace the twin towers? Where the most horrific event in the history of the United States took place? ***** no they arent. There needs to be something better than AVERAGE.
    • tainedhero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think its good that they are designed differently. It shows the individuality of the American people. Americans are very different from each other. In terms of Culture, Race, etc. And I feel that the building differences show that.
    • babakshirazi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3
      I think they should build two new twin towers at least twice as tall as anything else in the world.

      Those lame buildings are an indication of what has happened to America. Why do we now accept half-ass or second best as the best we can do?

      We haven't had the tallest building in years and we invented the modern skyscraper. Pathetic.
    • escheppa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Its easy to be a critic of these designs and the process as a whole, but keep in mind the forces at play here. The owners of the land, the families of the victims, the state of New York, the port authority and I am sure there are others. I do agree though the whole process could have been handled with a bit more grace and a lot less in-fighting. Those of you who say they don't fit the New York skyline and looks dis-jointed, keep in mind 4 world renowned architects have designed these buildings, hence why they look different. Besides I have a lot more respect in something they design than lamentations of some slack-jawed yokels on here. Since when did everyone become an Architecture critic?
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The original WTC was widely panned as bad architecture. Gigantic floors with no light getting into the middle areas. A dogmatically modern vertical warehouse for office workers.

      So, while the Big FU is an attractive idea, I'm glad it isn't actually being done.

      Worrying about airliner attacks is a waste of time. It is unlikely to happen again.
    • spurtle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So what exactly is wrong with getting sunlight in the middle areas?
  • joerod, on 10/12/2007, -5/+40with all due respect to the people who died during 9/11, i would like to see the old towers come back with some modern improvements.
    • BadassCheese, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23I would like to see the WTC rebuilt as they were, but white instead of darker colors. I think it's the best "***** you" we could give to terrorists.
    • helix400, on 10/12/2007, -8/+63"i would like to see the old towers come back with some modern improvements."

      Like this? http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~ina22/WTC-redesign.gif
    • dotcom101010, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9i two would like to see the old towers rebuilt and rise from the ashes.
    • shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10i agree....

      50% because i loved the old towers, and making them more modern would be fantastic
      50% because all the new designs don't fit in new york and with each other...
    • john570, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18Again with all due respect to the people who died in 911 I would NOT like to see those two huge rectangular boxes be rebuilt. They were just plain ugly.
    • goblindegook, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13"I would like to see the WTC rebuilt as they were, but white instead of darker colors."

      White could be a problem, as dust and air pollution would very quickly cover the whole thing with a dirty gray patina.
    • Jaxim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19During the time that these towers were built, people at the time thought they were ugly. I would have to agree. I think we need more buildings like the Chrysler building -- with eagle gargoyles screeching at the direction of the Middle East. I say we have the artists from Hollywood come up with some interesting and beautiful designs and then have an architect translate the designs into something possible. I'm tired of the minimalistic approach to building design.
    • MrBrightside, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4why? - so you can pretend it nevered happened! - I say build nothing there - well at least no buildings - just have a huge park - that would be a true tribute rather than a building that just says - "oh well, we have moved on now"
  • DarkEnder, on 10/12/2007, -5/+94I hate names like "Freedom Tower."
    • matts0344, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28As do I. Even the "New World Trade Center" would have sufficied. I hate BS names like that.
    • gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Yeah, it seems like they're trying too hard to prove that, yes, we do actually have freedom in "the land of the free".
    • cazabam, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28"Freedom Fries" are already subject of international ridicule. This will only make it worse.
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Yeah, but it's not really anymore corny than 'Statue of Liberty'. After a few years it'll just become normal to call it that.
    • theone3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35Subtlety has never been America's strongpoint.
    • mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Statue of Liberty was a gift from France. In 1886 US was not considered worldwide as evil as it is considered today.

      The difference between "Freedom tower" and "Statue of Liberty" is difference between world of year 1886 and 2006
    • nixr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I think "Liberty Tower" is a more suitable name. It ties in nicely with the Statue of Liberty and doesn't reek of the post-9/11 chest pounding that was rampant after the attacks.
    • konradk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28Call them French Towers, so they forgive for Freedom Fries. Lol.
      Go ahead, mod me down...
    • MrBrightside, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8yeah sounds so American - surprised they havent decided to just paint the whole thing in stars and stripes when its finished!
    • kalte, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Try taking photos of the buildings after they are built and see how much freedom you get.
    • rdotson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@matts0344
      "New World Trade Center"? That name would drive the New World Order conspiracists nuts, LOL!
    • sunchild, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@nixr

      The WTC borders Liberty Street and Liberty Plaza, too.
    • felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I refuse to call it that. I still say Candlestick Park, and I'm still going to say World Trade Center.

      Just an aside to the person who mentioned the stars and stripes - you're not too far off. They're going to be covering the multi-storey concrete base in "prismatic glass," which is basically going to look like a giant disco ball or something you'd hang from the rear view mirror of a pickup truck.
    • cdman98, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Ironically the people of the USA lost many freedoms due to 9-11.
  • doom.md, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I glad that they are making progress but is it just me or is the Freedom Tower one of the worst looking buildings ever designed.
    They had the opportunity to do something really special but they choose a monolithic obelisk of an office building.
    • bisecke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I agree. The only uglier buildings I can think of are the two towers of the original World Trade Center. Ugly then, ugly now. But at this point, if the people who are in charge can agree on something long enough to actually get something done, I'll support it just so I can stop seeing the developers arguments in the news all the time.
    • cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The thing about the original towers is that they were enourmous and very functional, as well as industrial in appearance. In my opinion, this is what NYC stands for, and the old towers fit right into that.

      New, better, and slightly more stylish towers could be put up in their places, but to change the design too much would be to take away the benefits of lower cost construction and functionality.

      I say rebuild them, use concrete reinforced steel like they do in cities near fault lines, and be done with it. No planes could take down those buildings if they were built with reinfoced concrete steel.
    • wingnut21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What's reinforced concrete steel, cbreaker? Oh, you mean reinfornced concrete.

      Also, the reason the WTC was a solid-core steel-framed building is that you cannot build that high with only reinforced concrete. And what's this about fault lines and why are you so adament about it?
  • EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I don't so much care what they look like. I want them built. They should be 1/2-way done by now. It's time.
    • felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What's so important about rebuilding them? No-one wants to rent space in a 100-storey building anymore, the cost of security is going to be astronomical, so what's the point? "Sending a message to the terrorists?" Trust me, I think they know where we stand already.
    • spurtle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dunno about that. Chicago's still building a bunch of tall buildings with the tallest building, the Fordham Spire, being 115 stories tall and all residential.
  • SlaunchaMan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Dugg down because of registration prompt. I hate having to log in to read news stories.
    • EchoAlpha, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5I don't have to log in to read the story.
    • misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10For me it's that the NY Times requires cookies to view anything. I'm not going to bother adding them to my allowed cookies list just to read this. I did bother to type a comment about it which is probably taking longer, but oh well...
    • DiggidtyDog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Agreed,register=no digg
  • ReVRiN, on 10/12/2007, -42/+11Since it was a controlled detonation... who are you saying '***** you' to?

    Watch this http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726
    • Ath3us, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15Whoops, tin foil hat time already is it?

      Read this

      http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com


      :] Loose change is so full of holes and states so much stuff with no reference... it's crap.
    • gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -14/+10What the ***** are you talking about? I can't believe people actually believe that *****.
    • datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -14/+13Sigh. Here we go again with the black helicopter tin foil hat brigade.
    • Pic0, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4oh dear...
    • apoorvs, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8It is a conspiracy: Farhenheit 9/11
    • BlueScreenOD, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11That *movie* is filled with so many glaring inaccuracies, how one could even begin to think it’s true is beyond me… maybe if they put all the inaccuracies in a movie with epic music and copyrighted stock footage so people didn’t have to read and research the facts, then people wouldn’t buy into crap like that.

      The fact that people such as yourself, are willing to state facts like 9/11 is a cover-up without doing the proper research is grossly negligent.
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7There's a lot of crap bouncing back and forth regarding the complicity of the Bush administration in 9/11.

      fact: Bin Laden was trained and supplied by CIA for decades before 9/11

      fact: There was evidence of some form of attack by hijacked planes, on American soil.

      fact: The men training to be pilots were known terrorists, and yet no-ne seemed to be able to put this together with the attack evidence.

      fact: 2 planes hit the towers, kiling hundreds.

      fact: The apparently fire-proof buildings collapsed.

      Outside this it's all conjecture and rumour. The buildings were not built with the idea of being rammed by ***** planes, for christ's sake. And why would they bother to blow them up?

      The only thing that gets me is that video of Bush reading to the kids. When that guy comes out and tells him, he just sits there like a ***** moron! And then when he's told about the second plane, still no emotion! What kind of ***** brainless monkeyman do you guys have for a president?!?!?!?!

      just for that one moment, he became a pile of steaming excrement in my eyes, and nothing he can ever do wil make up for that. EVER.
    • datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@ cartoonAI

      How can you claim that the CIA trained Bin Laden when it is so completely false. Just one example:

      http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html

      Yet another baseless folktale put forward by the "I get my news from blogs written by ritalin high teenagers living in their mother's basements"
    • Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16"The buildings were not built with the idea of being rammed by ***** planes, for christ's sake."

      Actually, they were. After the Empire State Building was hit by a plane in the 1940s (50s?) -- due to heavy fog -- most buildings in NY were built to withstand a hit by an airplane.

      The problem is that the towers were designed to be hit by the smaller planes that were circa the 1960's, not the larger jets with more fuel like in 2001.
    • feylanks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I heard this on the internet. IT MUST BE TRUE!!

      idiot.
    • nixr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@ReVRiN and all you other tin foil hat wearing *****.

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=*****+9%2F11&hl=en
    • efjenkins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Actually, the towers wer designed to be hit by a 727 (the largest plane at the time of their design) and remain standing for 10 minutes. When they were built, the steel was upgraded to withstand the heat of burning airplane fuel for at least 15 minutes. The fact that they remained standind for over an hour after being hit my MUCH larger planes than a 727, traveling much faster than a 727 is just amazing.

      The History channel has the architect on at the 1st anniversary of the attack and he said that he was absolutely astounded that they didn't crumple at the time of the strike because they were NEVER designed to take that kind of punishment.

      NOTHING if fireproof. With enough energy, EVERYTHING will burn. Ever hear of the sun?
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@datastorageguy

      Your example is only one opinion, and only states he never worked for the CIA. I never stated he did.

      He WAS (as was the mujahideen) trained by the ISI (Pakistani version of the CIA), who where being supplied and advised by the CIA (under Reagan's administration), with the express goal of removing the russians from Afghanistan. Once the Russians left Afghanistan, the support suddenly ended, and the Mujahideen (and Bin Laden) were ignored, and became what they are today. I never remotely stated he worked directly for the CIA, but he was supplied with guns and training during this period. Is this so hard to understand? Just like Saddam was supported when his goal suited the American administration.

      Don't assume everyone who has a different viewpoint from you is a crackpot. Research ALL the facts from different viewpoints and then come to a LOGICAL conclusion, not just believe the crap you are spoonfed

      This is not from silly schoolboy bloggers. It's historical fact, not just posted on the internet by crackpots. I will supply better links when I have more time.

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
      http://www.saag.org/papers3/paper287.html
      http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/misc/janes011001_1_n.shtml
      http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/Anatomy.asp
      http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FD01Ag02.html
      http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/qdimu.html
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1266317,00.html
    • CosmicJustice, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1You're an idiot, plain and simple. Now please shut the hell up.
    • SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Now, I am not about to support the whole "Controlled Demolition" ***** but to think that the Government wouldn't consider prompting an attack on the US is just... well... ignorant... Ever hear of False Flag? Operation Northwood? These operations have been submitted to and apporoved by the government in the past (particularly during the 60s Cuba crisis).

      The simple fact is we have a simpleton in office right now who can be easily swayed by big business, and what bigger business is there than the Industrial Military complex? This all couldn't have lined up better in his eyes. 1) Revenge 2) Completing his dad's job 3) Get some oil 4) Grow defense companies and their waning budgets since the scale backs under Clinton.

      Now, by no means am I saying this is or isn't what happened, however I don't buy everything the government says.... It our right to question, and not to mention "he who implicitly trusts his government deserves the government they get."

      SB
    • Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4You are retarded. Neither of those plans were accepted by the government. They were plans written up by whackos which were denied. Idiot.
    • SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Actually, while it was shot down by JFK (thank jeebus) it had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Cheifs of Staff.
    • babakshirazi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2
      It was Bush along w/ the Neocons, New World Order, Illuminati, Globalization and even Walmart that was responsible for 9/11.

      I always wondered how Bush could pull this off. I thought he was dumb?
  • STKD, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9Do some actual research ReVRiN you moron. You know, like the kind involving actual facts and statements, eyewitness accounts, or footage where hey, those TWO PLANES HIT THE BUILDINGS.
    Every single one of those stupid myths has been defeated over and over again. It happened. The group responsible said so themselves. All the evidence, the bombers themselves, the security tapes, the thousands who were there. Get. Over. It.
    • blizzwatch, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Agreed. I gave all the theories a chance, watched all the loose change clones, then rather then just assuming what I was being told was fact (which is kinda ironic eh?) I looked into these claims myself. looked into building dynamics and melting points, ect. In the end every stupid claim is either just purely crap or conjector. On 9/11 two planes hit the buildings and they fell because of it. Peroid.
    • gummih, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Research is good - I like research - we should all do some.
      Personal insults are not good though - I don't like insulting people - we should all do less of that.
      What research have you done STKD?
      Links would be appreciated.
    • steal_apps01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2So what? You guys think, that terrorists from Afaganistan hi-jacked those planes and flew them into the twin towers, pentagon and that field.

      We'll never know what really happened, only the US Governement knows what may have happened, and then there's Bush with his "War on terrorism" which should say War on Iraq's oil the US needs to be cheap.

      You american's are messed, thank God i'm Canadian (except for Stephen Harper, he sucks and he's a Bush lover, probably sucks his dick too.)
  • fustanella, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Lookin' good. A nice nod to the old WTC while making sure nobody forgets. The sheared building is stunning, in more ways than one.
    • wingnut21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Honestly, I was disappointed when I read that Foster designed that one. Definitely not one of his best towers. The conservative American developers probably had a lot to do with it.
  • iDVD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29Because registration is a bitch

    Designs Unveiled for Freedom Tower’s Neighbors
    *pic: http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/09/07/nyregion/07wtc.600.jpg

    The developer of the new World Trade Center unveiled the designs this morning for three skyscrapers at ground zero, which in their gargantuan scale would reshape the New York skyline.
    *pic: http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/09/07/nyregion/07wtc2.l.jpg
    Each building has a different renowned architect — Norman Foster and Richard Rogers, both of London, and Fumihiko Maki of Tokyo — and the result is entirely unlike the monolithic uniformity of the original trade center.

    The office towers, designated simply Towers 2, 3 and 4 for now, would occupy three sites between Church and Greenwich Streets, along the eastern edge of the trade center site. Together with the winged PATH terminal and transportation hub, they would form the face that the trade center presents to the rest of downtown, with the signature Freedom Tower behind them.

    The designs presented this morning by the developer, Larry A. Silverstein, together offered the most comprehensive picture to date of what the finished complex might — just might — look like six years from now.

    Lord Foster’s Tower 2, with a rooftop of four enormous diamonds steeply inclined toward the memorial below, would be as high as the Empire State Building. Tower 3 by Lord Rogers, framed boldly by an exoskeletal framework of diagonal beams, would reach a pinnacle of 1,255 feet at its corner antennas. Even the smallest and subtlest building among them, Mr. Maki’s Tower 4, would be taller than the Citigroup Center in midtown.

    If these buildings form any kind of ensemble with the Freedom Tower — Tower 1, by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill of New York — , it would probably be a jazz quartet.

    Apart from Tower 2, they are also a far cry from the quartz-like forms originally envisioned by Daniel Libeskind, the official master planner of the trade center site. Though they follow Mr. Libeskind’s dictum that the office towers step down in height progressively from the Freedom Tower, the intended spiraling effect may be lost on the casual viewer because the buildings do not appear at first glance to be parts of a unified whole. Instead, it may look like an instance of urban randomness.

    Under the terms of an April agreement with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is in place conceptually but has yet to be signed, Mr. Silverstein would construct and control all three buildings. He is also developing the Freedom Tower for the authority. Mr. Silverstein has surrendered his interest in the Tower 5 site, where the former Deutsche Bank building still stands awaiting demolition. Tower 5 has yet to be designed.

    No matter the polish and refinement of the models and renderings seen today, the designs will certainly be subject to change in coming months and years, like all of the other projects at ground zero.

    By virtue of its size and aesthetic bravura, Lord Foster’s Tower 2 at 200 Greenwich Street, between Vesey and Fulton Streets, may draw the most public attention. The 1,265-foot building is to have 78 floors, 62 for offices, four trading floors and the rest for retail and mechanical space. The uppermost of the rooftop diamonds will be a tripod shaped antenna whose pinnacle is 1,350 feet above street level, just 18 feet shy of the Freedom Tower’s parapet.

    Construction of Tower 2 will require the removal of the Vesey Street staircase, also known as the survivors’ stairway, which is the only aboveground remnant of the original trade center that is still in place. It served as an escape route for hundreds of people on 9/11.

    The main shaft of Tower 2 is to be divided by notches into quadrants, culminating in diamond forms that are meant to lead the eye down to the memorial plaza. The surface of these structures will be a porous screen on which snow and ice are not expected to accumulate; always a hazard on a steeply pitched roof.

    Lord Rogers’s Tower 3 at 175 Greenwich Street, between Dey and Cortlandt Streets, is a flat-topped building with asymmetrical shoulders and the diagonal beams of the exoskeletal framework seem to echo the rooftop of Tower 2. The building will rise 1,155 feet, reaching the higher pinnacle at the antennas. It will have five trading floors, three retail floors, nine mechanical floors and 54 floors of offices, for a total of 71 stories.

    Cortlandt Street will be kept open between Tower 3 and Tower 4. The Port Authority had originally proposed constructing a shopping arcade that would join the buildings’ bases, but city officials objected to the loss of an open corridor between the memorial and the rest of Lower Manhattan.

    Mr. Maki’s Tower 4 at 150 Greenwich Street, between Cortlandt and Liberty Streets, is the most understated of the lot, with a sheer curtain wall. The 61-story tower rises for most of its height as a parallelogram and then, nearly 700 feet in the sky, it becomes a trapezoid, reaching an overall height of 946 feet, with no antennas. The upper part of the facade inclines toward the towers to the north and is meant as a unifying gesture.

    Under the conceptual development agreement, most of this building is to be occupied by the Port Authority and New York City offices.
    • blizzwatch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I didn't have to go through registration, but a friend I pasted the link to did...weird.
    • gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I also didn't have to register...really odd. Perhaps NoScript has something to do with it?
    • paulmike3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.nytimes.com
    • ewooding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Thanks for the copy/paste!


      I look forward to these things obstructing my current view of jersey :)
    • xBDVx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks, I hate it when people post form NYT. You can read most of the most up to date stories, but once it's archived, one must register. I think most things get archived within 12-48 hours, making any link completely useless.
  • jbignell, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7I think they look great, nice to see them rebuilding NYC. New York is one of my favorite cities!
  • stevex0r, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2This is stupid. Ok lets build a bigger target and give it a name that will make people want to attack it even more. Just think about it, giant tower with the name freedom attached to it. Why wouldn't a terrorist organization target this. I understand that cities are concerned with how the skyline looks and all that other ***** blah blah blah. I think a better use would have been to make the site into a park.
    • krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -1/+9if you actively live in fear of the terrorists, then they won. you want to change your behaviour because of something they did. the terrorists just beat you.
    • gummih, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3As much as the US government wants you to believe it, terrorists are not fighting against freedom. They are in fact for freedom - the terrorists that attacked on 911 wanted freedom from US interventions in the middle east. If these terrorists want so bad to fight freedom then why haven't they attacked Switzerland or Iceland? They are not attacking freedom, they are attacking people to inflict fear and to force them to think twice about what their governments have been up to around the world and what consequences those actions have had on people living in those parts of the world.
  • manicdvln, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4They sure do stick out from the rest. I think it's ugly and the name is lame. Why couldn't they just rebuild WTCs again?
  • da233, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13

    Anyone remember those 2 blue spotlights they used as a memorial for the WTC?

    Wish they still had those, they looked so beautiful. They went SO incredible high into the sky, with such a nice dark-neonish blue color.
    • turbowombat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9They still have those lights -- they were turned on on sept.1st and I believe they are to stay on all month. I can see them out of my office window every evening.

    • MoeWasHere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The problem with those lights is that it was costing the city an INCREDIBLE amount in electric charges to keep them on all night.

      They were beutiful indeed. Everyone loved them.
    • acid_jazz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'd like to see a picture of that.
  • krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -9/+4is it me, or is it rather stupid to build shorter buildings than they previously had there. it's like saying to terrorists that we suck and they won. the old towers were both in the 1360s (in feet). only one will be in the 1360s now. and even then, at relatively close heights, these buildings all have 30-40 LESS floors. seriously what the *****? we should be building the LARGEST SKYSCRAPER MANKIND HAS EVER SEEN and it should grossly blow the old towers away, and even the taipei 101 (the largest skyscraper in the world). i'm saying like 2000 ft and at least 120 floors.

    the fact that we're building smaller skyscrapers just shows that the terrorists won.
    • mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I wanted to write the same, only with /sarcasm tag in the end.
    • rockefeller, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18I'm so sick of hearing this "if we don't do this, the terrorists win", as if it's some 3rd grade triple dog dare or something.

      I wish people would really grow up and stop talking about terrorism altogether. I think the simple fact that they are constantly in your brain means they have "won" already.

      I wish "terrorism" would stop being the main news story everyday. "Terrorism" has been around long before 9/11 and we didn't hear about it everyday before 9/11. I wish the CIA, FBI, or whoever would just do their job and take care of it and leave it out of the daily headlines. I wish people would stop trying to use it as a means to promote their political agenda.

      End of Rant
    • bbear, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2And at the top of that giant building they could attach a giant target board to aid terrorists in flying directly into it. Sounds like you don't live in NYC. No one would work in that Stupid Tower. They can't even find occupants for 7 World Trade Center and it's only 52 floors.
    • shaggtastic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Nonsense. I don't think what you suggest is even geologically feasible on that site, for starters.
    • gummih, on 10/12/2007, -1/+62000ft? You would have to do a lot better than that - probably closer to 3000
      The Dubai tower is currently being constructed and is to be completed in 2008 at close to 2600ft! Other projects are under way to compete for tallest building.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Dubai
    • xBDVx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@rockefeller. Here's my little rant:
      Actually, I did read about terrorism every day before 9/11. It was happening all around the world, but specifically in Israel. The thing is, Americans didn't give a ***** about it until 9/11 happened. We really didn't even care when our embassies in Africa were bombed nearly simultaneously or when the USS Cole was attacked. More than anything else, it was a wake up call for most people. These wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were just knee-jerk/reactionary events. I'd give it a few years before we become complacent again. Whether it's with the republicans who become arrogant with their foolproof "security measures" and contingency plans or democrats that take the PATRIOT act out back to be shot. Either way, the terrorists continue to outflank us most because we underestimate them. We underestimated them before 9/11, and we underestimate them now (remember when Cheney said that the Iraqi insurgency was in it's "last throes?").

      End of Rant (aka put that in your pipe and smoke it).
    • babakshirazi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0
      I'm sick of hearing that too because the terrorists HAVE already won. Why?

      They have the balls to suicide bomb and kill us, but we are 1) concerned w/ terrorists treatment and their "rights" 2) we won't racial profile to stop them 3) we won't even search bags on the subway 4) we think intercepting phone calls is a bad thing 5) half the people just don't understand we're at war w/ Islam and that terrorism is just their means.

      The terrorists have already won because the west lacks the balls to win and it's as simple as that. Europe will be the first to fall and this time, the US will not be rescuing your ass.
    • CircleFusion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is a severe lack of clarity among Americans with this "war". It is a mixed message that is pushed by certain media and our government. We are not at war with "Islam". We are at war with CERTAIN muslim people who aim to attack America. This does not equal all of Islam. Most muslim people desire peace, just like (supposedly) we all do.

      Just like that old guy on the 700 club does not represent all Christians when he does his stupid rants, the muslim terrorist groups do not represent all of Islam.
  • tallmatthew, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1You couldn't pay me enough to work in any of those buildings. Every terrorist in the world is going to be trying to knock them down.

    Besides, they should call them the Osama Bin Towers.
  • stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Oh, it's only been five years. Good idea to get started now. These buildings should be mostly done by now.
  • caddar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I would have liked to have seen a wide array of smaller towers in memory of 9/11... with these new ones i hate to say it but they just scream target
  • kd1s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I actually like Lord Foster's design. There's something very pleasing about it. The two other buildings are just boring boxes.
    • Nightspark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed, Tower 2 looks really great. Tower 3 looks sort of weird, and Tower 4 is alright but kind of boring. Not sure what I think of Tower 1, which probably means it isn't bold enough and could use improvement.
  • cybe, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3>"Sigh. Here we go again with the black helicopter tin foil hat brigade."

    Sigh. Here we go again with the Strawman attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman .

    You might as well have used "Elvis lives-brigade" or "Bush is a lizard-brigade"
  • cashcash, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6Buried, how about linking to a story that does not require registration to view it.
  • webmacster87, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Honestly, why build another tall tower? The plain fact that the towers were so tall was what allowed them to be a target last time. This really makes no sense.
    • john570, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Well it's called a city. Square footage is at a premium in large cities like New York. This is why buildings are built tall there.
    • turbowombat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Yes, but there's still no economic imperative to go that tall in Downtwon NYC. The original towers depressed the surrounding commercial real estate for nearly 10 years after its construction -- there simply isn't the need, even in Manhattan, for that much contiguous real estate to come onto the market.
    • JTMON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Dude, are you stupid? How tall is the pentagon? Oh, there goes your target theory.
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@ JTMON

      The Pentagon!? Are you serious??? It's more of a bulls-eye than the towers were.
    • ElectricGrandpa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4skyshock you totally missed the point: that the pentagon isn't tall.
  • usp8riot, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Call me a wuss but going up in the new towers isn't something I'd want to do after seeing the horrific images on TV. The images would keep playing in my head. Not to mention, I hate heights.
  • NoSalt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Have you seen the buildings??? They are TOTALLY ugly!!!

    I agree with all those who say that they would like to see the old buildings back with improvements. Many people don't know this, but The Donald (i.e., Trump) hired his own architect to come up with plans for the site and he, basically, redesigned the old buildings but better. They even had much improved safety features. Plus, they were a little taller.

    With absolutely NO respect to the families of the victims ... they should have ABSOLUTELY NO say so in the redesign of the buildings or of what to do with the land. You didn't see them asking my vote for the design of the Vietnam War Memorial did you even though I was affected?!?!?!?
  • moracity, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3No digg for NYTimes registration requirement!
  • BufordT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Atleast the name World Trade Center allowed for multiple buildings, what are we going to call the new complex? Freedom Tower(s)
  • Gavin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Looks very good but there too shiny for New York all the other buildings look like crap next to them.
  • pipp, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1New York Time = no digg
  • mr.hostility, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Freedom...LOL
  • JTMON, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Could we please have some anti aircraft defenses on the tops of the buildings?
  • phuchead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2about god damn time! i was very pissed off to hear that NOTHING had been done on the Penn & Teller's: *****! on Showtime. i was just figuring that they were working away, but to realize that they were just sitting there, with their thumbs up there asses and not doing ANYTHING was just appalling, and a disgrace of the people that gave their lives on that day. it is good to see that they are finally making, well at least it looks something like, head way. but you know it has only been what o ***** that's right FIVE ***** YEARS!!!!!! and they have not even broken ground.
    -phuc
    • digga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Those lives were taken, not given.
    • felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1digga -

      Your reply was word for word what I would have said. People need to learn the difference between "heroes" and "victims."
      I'm not diminishing the loss and suffering of the victims in any way, but when you start throwing around terms like "heroes of 9/11" to mean the victims in the buildings, or "gave their lives," it cheapens the very concious and literally heroic sacrifice of the people who died trying to save them.
  • brianbennett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5What an embarrassment. Uninspired buildings with paranoia in mind and corny names.
  • aschwartz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Amazing. The building when completed, will give a bit of closure we really never got. I live in Jersey, and have been to Ground zero several times, and it always gives me a chill. With new buildings there, whatever the hell they are called, we will be able to get on with our lives once and for all. RIght now, all we have are idiots calling conspiracy and that the govt did something.
    • rockefeller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I never understood that word...."closure"

      I hear people use it when they talk about breaking up with a boyfriend/girlfriend. "I need closure." How much more "closure" do you need after I tell you I don't want to be with you anymore?

      The buildings were obliterated and people died. They no longer exist. How much more "closure" do you need?

      It's just another word people started using and others started repeated. Also just like when you dump a chick and she says "I feel so used."

      Sorry for off topic a litte.
    • CircleFusion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Closure has to do with emotional recovery.

      It's kinda simple, really.
  • Stonekeeper, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1bush did it. If you don't believe me, you've never really looked for answers.
  • addisonj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Bah! i know that there will be lots of memorials and the whats not... but geez, lets see here, thousands die and what do we do? hand it off to developers to commercialize so we can have a starbucks and some super high priced offices right across the street for a memorial for the largest attack on american soil ever.

    • rockefeller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1But we HAVE to rebuild or the terrorist WIN!!! My balls are bigger than terrorists balls!!!! Come on, you don't want to be like the pussy Europeans!!!!! What should we do, ask the terrorists if their feelings are hurt?

      /stares at flag and pounds chest with closed fist while screaming bald eagle flies overhead
  • madmac66, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Keep taking the blue pill folks....

    ""That *movie* is filled with so many glaring inaccuracies, how one could even begin to think it’s true is beyond me… maybe if they put all the inaccuracies in a movie with epic music and copyrighted stock footage so people didn’t have to read and research the facts, then people wouldn’t buy into crap like that.

    The fact that people such as yourself, are willing to state facts like 9/11 is a cover-up without doing the proper research is grossly negligent.""

    ""Whoops, tin foil hat time already is it?

    Read this

    http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com


    :] Loose change is so full of holes and states so much stuff with no reference... it's crap.""

    the movie is no more full of holes than the story presented by govt, news and screwwloosechange. Facts do not add up. Thats why it is easy to believe. Govt has lied so many times about this, how canwe believe anything they tell us. FACT: WTC were the only steel framed buildings in history to be destroyed by fire. In about 1 hour. And dont tell me it was because of jet fuel. The burning temp of jet fuel is simply not high enough to melt that amount of steel. Just one fact out of the whole movie that has been grossly and negligently brushed over as "tin-hat" conspiracy. In fact it is you folks who are too easy to believe because the alternative is too terrible to comprehend.
    • SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Once again... controlled demolitions and all that other stuff is complete crap. What needs to be looked into is the issue of False Flag operations and Operation Northwood.
    • tobsterius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You seem to be totally ignoring the fact that it wasn't just Jet fuel that was burning. These were functioning offices filled with desks, chairs, filing cabinets *FULL* of paper, wall coverings, carpets, hardwood tables...
    • kalessin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yeah, thats right. gotta watch out for tha paper stuff. left unchecked, it can bring down entire skyscrapers. the engineers in the 70's totally overlooked the harms that wood products can do to concrete.

      what about lint, and pens? i bet those eggheads didnt think of that either. thats an instant recipie for world wars if left in the wrong, unfire-proof hands.
  • jmchez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The fact remains that the most iconic designs were those of the Think team, the twin lattice towers. However Pataki forced the committee to pick Liebeskind's design because the 9/11 families whines about how the lattice towers reminded them too much of the original buildings.

    Incredibly Libeskind's original design is nowhere to be found and the Freedom Tower looks like one of the original rejected designs. That makes his selection a fraud; what's getting built is not what supposedly won.

    At least Calatrava's transportation Hub will stand out.
  • Wildthing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1They should have had five buildings in the shape of a fist with the middle building the tallest
  • Araxen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1They should have just rebuilt the towers. All this special bs and the fighting that has come along with it is just what the terrorists want.
    • felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm pretty sure that at no time in the planning of the 9/11 attacks did Bin Laden or Khalid Shaikh Mohammed say anything like
      "and then, when it's time to rebuild, they'll all get in a big bureaucratic scuffle and argue a lot, they'll cycle through various architects, public opinion will be divided, and we will have finally WON! Mwahahahahaha!"


  • Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Marked as lame for linking to a registration page.
  • OswaldKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"As a New Yorker who lives two blocks from the WTC site, I might have a bit more invested in this than some of you. In my opinion, the new buildings look terrific and are a welcome addition to the skyline. I'm not too fond of what I've seen of building #5, but it may change and improve before it gets built. I really like the one they've already finished (#7). Go New York!"

    I second that emotion!!!
    • ewooding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@OswaldKenobi

      I totally agree. I work at OLP and the buildings are gonna look fantastic, although... my building will look like a retarded step child next to them...
  • VanillaSlice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't like how all the buildings are relatively the same height, it makes the freedom tower just look like another building. The original architect, Minoru Yamasaki designed the World trade center complex so that the twin towers would take the spotlight and the other buildings would be smaller low-rises as to compliment the two towers. Infact he was even asked why he built two giant towers instead of just multiple low-rises, he response was that it would look like a slum, in which this design looks like. The empire state building, and the Chrysler building are all surrounded by smaller buildings which compliment the building and make it look more spectacular, when I see this design the word "Crowded Skyline" comes to mind.
  • Flyngwalrus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1These must never be built. That is some pugly ass *****.
  • SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You people are all bitching about how they look terrible and the should just rebuild the old ones. When they built the old ones people bitched about how ugly they looked. Now you love them. New buildings never look like the old ones they replace. The only problem I see with this project is the name. It is ignorant and offensive to call a new building the Freedom Tower when the phone calls of every American are being illegally monitored by our own government. Rebuild our freedom before you rebuild our freedom tower.
  • Guitarzan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2More stunning pics: http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=392193

    another link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/nyregion/08towerscnd.html?ex=1157774400&en=0d01191a7a0df71d&ei=5087%0A

    too bad mine only got 4 diggs.. well ***** happens.
  • rjghwruigvyoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is actually a pretty nice design but I wonder what they will do to defend it. You know the terrorists will try to attack it. Will it have some missile defense system / anti-air unit? Or will it have fighter jets flying around it 24/7. I'm worried about the terrorists attacking it again. They could even attack while they're constructing it. That would be a nightmare.

    Please, if you or if you know anyone that knows anyone that knows anyone that can make sure it stays safe, tell them.
  • gimmefuel2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I think that its great that they are going to rebuild the towers but to everyone complaining about the design..... These are only renderings!! I think people should focus on the fact that we are rebuilding and less on what it looks like. Who cares...???

    I am most proud of the fact that we are rebuilding. I think that trying to copy what has already been done seems to be a real waste and only serves to show how small minded we can be. The new look serves to show that we as a country have the ability to adapt, change, and grow stronger which the new designs clearly impress upon any on-looker. It certainly has impressed upon everyone who took time to write a post to this story.
  • imnotjason, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I liked the original WTC towers, but a few other posters have already mentioned that they were not exactly everyone's favorite buildings in New York. Both architecture critics and everyday people thought they didn't compare to the Empire State Building or the Chrysler building. I'm not sure about the new tower designs, but I think they are promising. I like the idea of having some contrast in style between the different buildings, but it's almost like there's not enough contrast here.
  • Cleanlyness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Has no one commented that they are going to tear down the "mircale" in Stairway B for one of the smaller towers corner. It's even listed on a historic site.
    • felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Details? I have no idea what you're referring to.
  • alphaone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They look modern, but at the same time they kinda remind me of Sim City.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.